Opinion Leopards Are Eating My Face Thread/Feast Of The Leopards


The U.S. Senate has voted to overturn a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ruling aimed at limiting excessive overdraft fees, a decision banks are hailing as a rollback of undue restrictions but consumer advocates see as potentially worsening the financial strains facing American families.

The Senate voted 52-48 to repeal the $5 cap on overdraft fees, with all Democrats opposing the measure and all Republicans, besides Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, supporting it.

Why It Matters

The decision to reverse the rule highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between consumer protection and banking industry regulation, and how Republicans' current control of Congress will shape the direction of consumer-related policy until at least 2026.

What To Know

The CFPB's rule sought to prevent banks from charging repeated fees when a customer's account is overdrawn multiple times in a short period.

The CFPB's rule, finalized in December and intended to take effect in late 2025, would have barred banks and credit unions from charging multiple fees on the same overdraft incident. It also prohibited those with assets exceeding $10 billion from charging overdraft fees greater than $5, compared to the typical $35 charge per transaction, unless they could demonstrate that higher fees are needed to offset the costs of processing customer overdrafts.

The resolution, sponsored by South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, was brought under the Congressional Review Act—a law permitting lawmakers to nullify federal regulations adopted under 60 days ago with a simple majority vote.

The American Bankers Association (ABA), which was pursuing legal action against the CFPB over the rule, considered it overly restrictive and an unnecessary disruption to traditional banking services. The ABA has applauded the Senate's disapproval, viewing it as a win for maintaining customer choice and banking flexibility.

However, consumer advocacy groups, such as the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), condemned the Senate's decision, claiming it prioritizes bank profits over supporting low-income American families. They argue that excessive overdraft fees trap consumers in cycles of debt, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities.

What People Are Saying

Rob Nichols, president and CEO of the American Bankers Association, in response to the vote, said: "We applaud today's Senate passage of the Congressional Review Act resolution nullifying the CFPB's unlawful overdraft rule and thank Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott for his leadership on this important issue.

"Without access to overdraft protection, many Americans would be driven to less regulated and higher risk non-bank lenders to cover unexpected or emergency expenses. If implemented, the CFPB's eleventh-hour rule imposing government price controls would force many banks to limit or eliminate overdraft protection as we know it. In adopting the rule, the Bureau ignored the majority of Americans who have consistently said they value the service and think it's reasonable for banks to charge a fee for overdrafts."

Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, in a statement released on Thursday: "Senate Republicans just voted to block real relief for families hit with high prices to pad the profits of big banks like Chase and Wells Fargo and overdraft abusers like Navy Federal Credit Union, which take billions in junk fees from families and servicemembers just trying to make ends meet."

"The CFPB's overdraft fee rule would put $5 billion back into the pockets of everyday people at a time when relief is desperately needed," Saunders added. "Congress should be laser-focused on addressing high costs and inflation, not increasing profit margins at big banks on the backs of hard-working families."


---

Thoughts?

Every Republican Senator voted for this, every Democrat voted against it.

I can't buy for a second that banks need to charge $30 just to facilitate an overdraft, that's clearly bullshit.

Looks like a bad time to putting the boot to the working man, but the banks obviously demanded - and most likely purchased - this veto.
 
Agreed.

Republicans need to get that fat $$$cock$$$ out of their mouths.
 
I read a lot of history, and I was unfamiliar with this. I didn’t even hear about the Tulsa Race Massacre until we were nearing the 100 year anniversary and it began to generate some coverage.

I was thinking about this again this morning, the economic decimation that happens under capitalism. I posted that video of Joe and Nic exploring rural towns that hardly function, another guilty pleasure of mine is urban exploration. Urbex Hill is one of the more popular channels, he just posted this video from East Cleveland and holy sh*t:



And, of course, despite the fact that Ohio is often in the iron grip of conservative leadership, if Cleveland has a Democrat Mayor, or the demographic of the area will always be blamed. When all I can think is if capitalism is so great how can areas of a large City even end up looking like this?

I also like ones of abandoned malls. Malls seemed like the height of consumerism and now they're like megalithic graveyards of consumerism, many of them still with stuff on the shelves that was never sold.
 
That you can find an anecdote to try and prove any point? Okay?
Do you have any idea how often I've said, "Anecdotes aren't worth a fuck," on this forum?

200w.gif

Edit: no need to assume that's a negative thing if you're consistent.
 


It's like taking aiming at a target downrange and shooting yourself in the d1ck.
 
Back
Top