Ever done before endured for nothing. The idea that complexity is free is a game changer. What we see members on this hundreds, if not for a complex, really formulated 50 pages of spreadsheets, ridiculous calculations, crazy like staff, all coming in, all for free. We offered nothing other than the opportunity to participate in free change. In complex issues and make your own mark said that because youre a legacy. And its crazy what is coming to rest. Im not kidding when i say literally thousands of really come like a different does come in different ideas than all of that will change the world of investing financing truly dollars. The whole concept of its all about the benjamins. The future of money is that we used a few of too complex. Nobody understands money in this country. Very few people understand what the Exchange Rate is. When it gets down to it now, that is the reason we focus on moving this to a Younger Generation because rather than waiting until you are 50, 60, 70, 40 and
Number of important Consumer Protections, from new mortgage protections to credit cards to payday lending. An independent source said the credit card bill of rights that was supported by the cfpb saves consumers 20 billion a year. That is a huge step forward for onsumers. And the bureau has been willing to make sensible changes when it needed to. Last year they adopted amendments to the card act that would allow stayathome spouses to take out credit cards in their own names. That was commonsense fix for an unintended problem for stayathome spouses that were credit worthy and they made the decision to make them able to get these credit cards. Thats a huge step forward, i worked with it on worked with mrs. Capito across the aisle. And they continue to develop safeguards in rapidly growing areas, such as prepaid cards and other areas. In short the cfpbs work has made the lives of American Consumers and our constituents better on a daytoday basis. This bill would understood mine these resu
Making changes sub rosa. If the court is going to make a change that actually changes the meaning of what was initially announced it should have an obligation to make that clear with some kind of supplement. [inaudible question] thank you, professor, for your presentation and your work. I was struck most of all for the freedom of speech in a deposition of the court in Citizens United. And i believe that the criticism about the individual judges raised a more profound question, and that is the as american democracy turning into a plutocracy, is the court a reflection of that kind of change . Well, some think it is a partial cause of that kind of change. Others think it is a reflection. I think it is more complicated ultimately than that. The reason that the court rules as it does in Citizens United is not a belief in that Corporate Power and wealth should dominate our society but a belief that government cannot be trusted to decide whose voices should carry weight. It is an antigovernme
That it intends to continue finetuning those regulations and working with the people affected by them until you become finally effective. And i should emphasize just after the administration took this action, president george w. Bush secretary concord the Obama Administration to delay the mandate was wise. That was based on his experience in phasing in the Medicare Part d. Prescription drug benefit. I have to say hyperventilating about an extraordinary and unprecedented constitutional these delays are is just that. Its contrary to the obvious historical fact. Nor is the delay of the employer mandate on the front of the constitution. The framers could have prescribed to m believe that the president execute so why do they have faithfully and take care and i would have to disagree with professor rosenkranz and turley about their explanation of this in the original meaning of the clause. They were taking pains to clarify the president s duty is to implement the law in good faith and to exe
The Current Court is moving rather frightening way to some people in the direction of reviewing laws that affect the economy in a serious way. For example, laws that were passed in vermont to make it harder for pharmaceutical companies to jack up charged by giving information about drugs to certain doctors so that there were prescribed more costly. The court struck that down on the basis of the First Amendment. After four joined the conservatives and match. Breyer went almost apoplectic. This is a return of what was called the locker area, the time from the 1890s in 1937 when the court was striking down economic legislation rather loosely. If you strike down an economic legislation simply because it deals with speech in one way or another, it deals with information information is at the heart of almost everything. And using the First Amendment that way could give the court the kind of power that i think is presuppose in your question. Some people think that is exactly what was right be