What's up with the CFPB?

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2017, 04:25 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Understood and respect that. But.. I think their mission should be what the mission statement of what the agency is for. I work in a corporate environment and my company’s mission statement supersedes my personal beliefs. It is apolitical. Basically inarguable. I have a hard time believing that a 593 to 1 is in congruence with a mission statement that...impartiality isn’t happening. And it doesn’t help when somebody says I’m going to sue to protect this instead of trying to bargain some.

These are individuals, though. Their beliefs can be whatever, the job they do is not something that this can cross over into. The bureaucracy is (read: should be, which is how professional bureaucrats take it) non-partisan. Our job is to implement policies put in place by policymakers (elected officials). Our goals are to implement these policies in an effective, efficient, and equitable manner.That's what we do on the job. Now, how we donate and vote will give away how our feelings on the policies themselves, but our implementation of them is not partisan in this way and so the integrity of the mission of the agency is in tact in this regard.

[treee]

(11-29-2017, 05:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: These are individuals, though. Their beliefs can be whatever, the job they do is not something that this can cross over into. The bureaucracy is (read: should be, which is how professional bureaucrats take it) non-partisan. Our job is to implement policies put in place by policymakers (elected officials). Our goals are to implement these policies in an effective, efficient, and equitable manner.That's what we do on the job. Now, how we donate and vote will give away how our feelings on the policies themselves, but our implementation of them is not partisan in this way and so the integrity of the mission of the agency is in tact in this regard.

Yea, I almost laughed when I saw that a whopping $100,000 dollars over the course of two presidents had been donated. That is nothing, as far as political financials goes.

[Benton]

(11-29-2017, 04:25 PM)Goalpost Wrote:

(11-29-2017, 12:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. Contrary to the belief some people hold, most people that work in government do so because they believe in the mission.
[/quote

Understood and respect that.  But.. I think their mission should be what the mission statement of what the agency is for.  I work in a corporate environment and my company’s mission statement supersedes my personal beliefs.  It is apolitical.  Basically inarguable.  I have a hard time believing that a 593 to 1 is in congruence with a mission statement that...impartiality isn’t happening.  And it doesn’t help when somebody says I’m going to sue to protect this instead of trying to bargain some.

Wouldn't the nature of the position (government work in an agency advocating for consumers in their dealings with banks/lenders) likely attract more left leaning folks (who tend to believe more in government, less business/market deregulation) than right leaning (who tend to believe in less government, more business controling its own markets)?
I would imagine most of the folks working in social services would be left leaning, or folks working in the military would tend to be more right leaning.
The nature of the agency tends to attract people of a like mind. I don't think that makes them unable to be impartial, maybe even more suited to do the tasks of the agency. Just my anecdotal experience, but I'd guess an easy 3 out of 4 people in state and federal Ag lean more to the right. Which makes sense as you would expect Ag related folks to tell Ag industries how to operate (as opposed to the more typically left approach of bringing in a broader and probably unrelated spectrum of staff who may have good intentions but not much Ag experience).  If that number (75%) held true, I don't think it would be a good idea to bust up the Ag Dept. just because it didn't have a more left leaning voice.