WalMart CEO: Inflation Coming This Summer
Amazing what a weak dollar, money printing, out-of-control spending policy will get you. Will Obama blame this one on Bush too?
Site for Free Markets and Free People
Warren, 61, is an earnest Harvard Law School professor brought up in Oklahoma, while Dimon, 55, is a consummate New York City insider and one of Wall Street's richest CEOs.
He was once a close adviser to President Barack Obama on financial regulation policy, but has become a vocal critic of the administration's efforts, especially since passage in 2010 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms.
She is helping the administration set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a watchdog called for by Dodd-Frank to shield consumers from abusive practices in the mortgage and credit card businesses.
So Warren, the Marxist Obama-ite is the "earnest" Midwesterner protecting the common folk while Dimon is the rich, evil CEO. Unfortunately, anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows how destructive Elizabeth Warren will be to the U.S. economy if she ever gets to run Obama's Financial Destruction board.
It remains a remarkable fact that America obliges most citizens over the age of 65 to take that rickety government health plan known as Medicare. Judging by today's growing number of health-savings options (HSAs, medical FSAs), some Americans would prefer to maintain private coverage upon retirement, rather than be compelled into second-rate Medicare. Yet the idea of patient choice offends many in government, and in 1993 the Clinton Administration promulgated so-called POMS rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A (which covers hospital and outpatient services) must forfeit their Social Security benefits.
Yet in a stunning reversal, Judge Collyer last week revisited her decision and dismissed the case. In direct contravention to her prior ruling, the judge said the Medicare statute does—with a little creative reading—contain a requirement that Social Security recipients take government health care. The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are "entitled" to Social Security are "entitled" to Medicare. Therefore, argues the judge, "The only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare Part A at age 65 is to forego the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security Retirement benefits."
This is convoluted enough, but Judge Collyer's truly novel finding comes with her implicit argument that to be "entitled" to a government benefit is to be obligated to accept it. This is a startling break with existing legal understandings and raises profound questions as to whether Americans have a duty to accept other "entitlements," say, food stamps or public housing. Or, as the plaintiffs attorney, Kent Masterson Brown, warns: "Anyone concerned with what will happen when the bureaucrats start writing the thousands of pages of rules that will govern" ObamaCare need only look at this ruling. "Nothing will be optional."
So you can't get Social Security without Medicare. Or perhaps, you won't be entitled to IRS deductions if you don't sign up for Obamacare. This is absurdity at its highest level.
In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."
...The federal government first issued energy standards for washers in the early 1990s. When the Department of Energy ratcheted them up a decade later, it was the beginning of the end for top-loaders. Their costlier and harder-to-use rivals—front-loading washing machines—were poised to dominate.
Front-loaders meet federal standards more easily than top-loaders. Because they don't fully immerse their laundry loads, they use less hot water and therefore less energy. But, as Americans are increasingly learning, front-loaders are expensive, often have mold problems, and don't let you toss in a wayward sock after they've started.
When the Department of Energy began raising the standard, it promised that "consumers will have the same range of clothes washers as they have today," and cleaning ability wouldn't be changed. That's not how it turned out.
In 2007, after the more stringent rules had kicked in, Consumer Reports noted that some top-loaders were leaving its test swatches "nearly as dirty as they were before washing." "For the first time in years," CR said, "we can't call any washer a Best Buy." Contrast that with the magazine's 1996 report that, "given warm enough water and a good detergent, any washing machine will get clothes clean." Those were the good old days.
...Now Congress is at it once again. On March 10, the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on a bill to make efficiency standards even more stringent.
And people say that slashing government spending which would reduce these types of nonsensical ideas would actually be missed by taxpayers??
Warren argued that the bureau does have checks and balances because its decisions, in certain circumstances, can be rejected by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a newly formed umbrella group composed of bank and securities regulators.
The Dodd-Frank Act gives the council authority to void consumer agency rules by a 2/3 vote if its rule puts at risk “safety and soundness of the banking system or the stability of the financial system.” Most regulatory observers argue that it is very unlikely the council would ever use this authority because of the high threshold for action, however.
Warren added that the agency has other checks and balances, including requirements to submit annual reports to Congress and have its director testify twice annually. The Government Accountability Office also conducts an annual audit of the consumer bureau’s expenditures and must submit a report to Congress, she added.
So there. It must submit an annual report. Yippeeee.
“Today, few of us seriously believe that we have the marketplace that American families deserve — or one that always works effectively and efficiently for financial institutions large and small,” Warren said.
Perhaps she means free mortgages for all? Make no mistake. She would absolutely have no problem harming the profitability of every bank in the country so she can dictate the rate on every last loan in what she views as "fairness."
"We have government price controls [in banking] for the first time," Stumpf said. "As I talk to senators, I ask them, 'What is the next product you want to manage and control?' ... Should we regulate the cost of computers?"
..."If you set someone up on Hennepin and 7th, and had them put up a sign and say, 'Tell me what caused the downturn of 2008,' they'd be standing there for five more winters before someone said, 'It's those darned debit fees,'" Stump said Tuesday. "But they would say within three seconds that housing has something to do with it. Dodd-Frank has a big section in there about debit fees and not a word about housing. So politics is alive and well in Washington."