President Obama defies Republican obstruction, uses recess appointment to name consumer watchdog

Haven't seen any of that here, except what (little) you brought.

And Presidents, for decades, have been using recess appointments to put people into jobs, regardless of what political party they are from.

@Spike,

That won't stop Republicans faux outrage...

President George W. Bush appointed two judges during Senate recesses, William Pryor and Charles Pickering, to U.S. courts of appeals after their nominations were filibustered by Senate Democrats. Judge Pickering, whom Bush appointed to the Fifth Circuit, withdrew his name from consideration for renomination and retired when his recess appointment expired. Judge Pryor was subsequently confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh Circuit. In two terms, Bush made 171 recess appointments.

On August 1, 2005, Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton, to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations.^[5] Bolton had also been the subject of a Senate filibuster. The filibuster concerned documents that the White House refused to release, which Democrats suggested may contain proof of Bolton's abusive treatment and coercion of staff members or of his improper use of National Security Agency communications intercepts regarding U.S. citizens. Having failed to win Senate confirmation, he resigned his office in December 2006 concurrently with the adjournment of the 109th Congress.^[6]

On April 4, 2007, during the Easter recess of Congress, Bush announced three recess appointments. The first was Sam Fox to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Belgium.^[7] Fox's appointment had been thwarted in Congress because he had donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign, a group whose advertisements many Democrats blamed for John Kerry's loss.^[8] The second appointment announced that day was Susan Dudley to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget.

The third recess appointment on April 4 was Andrew G. Biggs to serve as Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.^[9] Biggs was investigated by Senate Democrats in 2005, while serving as Assistant Commissioner for the Social Security Administration, concerning whether he violated a federal ban on congressional lobbying by federal employees when he edited the prepared testimony for a lobbyist appearing before a Democratic Policy Committee Social Security hearing as alleged by John Stanton in Congress Daily.^[10]

I've seen nothing on this article, which is what we are discussing, flounder. Do you not see that? Flounder? Are you there? You want to broadcast your outrage, go write an article instead of trying to derail this into your own needs. Flounder? Are you hearing me?

BTW, go read the CoH, stop insulting people. You can earn a suspension or banning for doing that.

And yet, Bobby, scanning this article and the comments, I see nothing from the alleged right wing apologists on this article. Stay with me here. We are on this article, we are not discussing what someone else did. I see pretty much total support on these comments, with the exception of a couple people trying to derail the conversation to suit their ego needs.

It's that feigned outrage again.

After three years of pointless obstruction, the GOP have no complaint coming. I see in other reports they will argue it's legality. The president is a constitutional scholar. I'd say he knows what he's doing.

The right will complain he's doing it for his campaign. No. He's doing it for the American people. What exactly have the GOP done, AT ALL? ..................*crickets*.......................

All this obstruction to keep his administration from being able to do for the American people. THINK about that one people. "Administration." Where has GOP "free-market" principle taken us? Deregulation? No oversight? Seems we need a little "administration" about now. Just don't ask the GOP what they think. They have proven themselves to be the last ones to ask, about anything.

#2.6:After three years of pointless obstruction, the GOP have no complaint coming. I see in other reports they will argue it's legality. The president is a constitutional scholar. I'd say he knows what he's doing.

The repugs are about nothing that will help the American people, period! This has been proven for over 30 years; I am now 65+! So I know and have known for a long time.

There might have been some rare, faint instances of attempts at being fair and allowing for equality of efforts, but that was short-lived and dashed quickly- with no residual remaining.

But this group that came after ronnie raygun is the absolute pits when it comes to helping the working and middle glass people accomplish anything.

It is a shame that some still believe that the repugs are willing to help assist American citizens. Why is there still such a case of denial when it comes to these criminals?

What else will it take to convince peoplethat the repugs, by and large, intend no good and that the repugs should not be re-elected to office if the people wish to do something positive for themselves. I suppose that people who continue to vote for these repugs have not suffered enough yet, or is the Stockholm Syndrome alive, well and flourishing here in the United States.

I would rather believe this (the Stockholm Syndrome) than to believe that most Americans are pure racists/small-minded individuals who only see black and white- no grey or beige!

I sincerely hope the first case is true- albeit a pity and a shame.

What rewards do the followers of the GOP/TP believe they are going to get with cheering on their debacles? I don't think they give toasters away any longer.

#2.9:What rewards do the followers of the GOP/TP believe they are going to get with cheering on their debacles? I don't think they give toasters away any longer.

This is the part that is mind-boggling! What else could it be, besides racism or the Stockholm Syndrome, that could make people behave this way?

I am still waiting for a plausible answer to this paradox.

I don't think there is one, MaryEllen.

Yours is about what I believe, myself. The "symptoms" are uncanny. $arah Palin's followers all have it. Ron Paul's do too.

It's like a virus spread within the party, and the epidemic has reached full saturation. What I'm wondering is, what percentage will have succumbed (become permanently extreme) and those who have developed the antibodies (left the party)?

buh buh buh another troll bites the dust, and another one down and another one down.

@Spike #2.5,

Here you go - Republican Faux Outrage...

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/202305-gop-leaders-blast-recess-appoint-as-unprecedented-power-grab

Blind loyalty is tricky. I began subtly talking to some that are truly right wing to the point of being only one wing and have noticed they are coming around a bit. They were so against anything "Obama" that they could not think straight. Any attempt for fair and balanced was bunk to them. Lately however times they are a changing as they are actually thinking and processing. Huge leap!

Not enough.

One look at this present GOP primary field, and it's supporters are evidence it needs to go much farther still, or risk becoming so small, they are no longer able to govern.

55.1 - Why don't you research how the Dems used this tactic on Bush for, I believe, a whole year. Why don't you research how Obama, Biden, and others screamed about using recess appointments and how Obama said that basically it was wrong for Bush to use it to put Bolton in place when the man couldn't pass approval by the Senate. Gee, that is exactly what happened here. Someone who couldn't get Congressional approval gets put in via recess appointment. And, they are based on ideology, something else Obama decried in using recess appointments. He is such a hypocrite and his allies all find a reason to excuse him.

Wake up - he is not for the common man or even the middle-class. If he is so concerned about jobs and our economy, why not let the pipeline go through? Oh, I am sure you will say there is no proof it will create the jobs the company says it will, but you probably are quick to believe Nancy Pelosi when she says unemployment creates jobs, even though there is no empirical evidence that boosts the economy more than a project that anyone can see will create thousands of jobs to build and run once its built.

A part of me wants this man to get back in power and totally destroy this country so all of you who have followed the Messiah blindly will have to tuck your tail between your legs while the Repubs get back in power for decades to clean up the mess that obama and his band of merry social engineering far-left/liberals/socialists (whatever name you want to use) created.

2.14 - Tell me, what did you tell them that made them come around dramatically? It's true that the Dems in power know how to say things that make them look favorable, but if you actually stop and think about what they say and bother to read and research you find that their statements are premised on incorrect facts. You see, in this age of Obama, any of these far-left liberals can say anything and its fact, because the press doesn't really care to investigate or call them out when they say something wrong. I almost gag everytime I hear Debbie "mushmouth" Wasserman-Shultz open her mouth. She smiles and makes statements which I know are not true, but because she says them and she's a Dem, well, they just have to be true. Ugggggg.

The president acts like a center-right republican, and all the right does is whine. He institutes policies the GOP CREATED, yet, it's all a "liberal-socialist conspiracy."

The "far-left liberals" are a minority. Stop painting the entire party with that crap. Extremism has hobbled the GOP. The American people, despite what you may think, is still center-moderate, right where the president is. trying to validate the extreme as center is what's destroying this country.

Stop it. I used to be a republican. No longer. No longer precisely because of the wild, extreme positions they have no problem taking. If you think coddling the wealthy at the expense of everyone else is an American ideal, you better acquaint yourself with the Constitution. It's obvious you don't know what it says. The extremists are fond of flailing it about, but aren't the least bit worried about stepping all over it, when it's convenient for their rhetoric. Or policies.

If you think destroying this economy to prove GOP policy is all that's good for this country, I suggest going to one that is third-world, for the best example of what the GOP want to make this country. We're headed there, with every bit of obstruction the GOP puts up. They are not governing, if that escaped your attention. Naming someone to the CFPB is in YOUR best interest. The president doesn't need it, WE do. We do, precisely because of those who have all they need, yet have no compunction about taking from us what they want, with no protections in place. Yet all the extremists can do is whine. How in any way does that make sense?

It doesn't.

Denigrating this president is like denigrating the country. Some countries laugh at us, precisely for that reason. Some countries are afraid, because their economies are tied to ours, and they have a vested interest in seeing us prosperous. Yet others are gloating, because if we fail it makes it just that much easier to just call in all debt, and OWN us.

So President Obama does something the right doesn't like? Too bad. It's something that has been done in the past, by other presidents, yet all of a sudden, it's "unconstitutional?" Get real.

If the right took as much time and effort working FOR this country, instead of BS politics, we might be in a better position today.

But that doesn't leave them with much to whine about now, does it?

BDL 'while the Repubs get back in power for decades to clean up the mess that obama and his band of merry social engineering far-left/liberals/socialists (whatever name you want to use) created. How long will that take? Remember at the 16 month mark the right were already saying Obama owned all these problems and he could no longer blame Bush. Also remember the 8% unemployment goal Obama set and so far failed to achieve..what will the repub unemployment number be? and how long until were allowed to call the new repub prez a failure if that # is not met? What will be the repub's metric's for success and when should they be met to consider the repub's a success? Put up or shut up.

And the Republicans are outraged? Tough--they are always outraged.

Outraged in the morning, outraged in the afternoon, outraged in the evening-outraged that they are outraged.

I'm outraged that they don't grow up and start working for all the people in this country and not just those that support their narrow minded, hateful agenda.

Obama/Biden 2012 for sure now.

Gotta love what the right wing considers "order" and a "clean up." This country blew apart financially and economically in the last year of the previous Republican stooge who had power. Now things are moving along, albeit sluggishly (where is that no. 1 priority jobs bill, Republicans? It's been over a year and you've done bupkis) and they talk about getting back into power and "cleaning up the mess." What is it that's so attractive about failure and misery to right wingers that they have that as a mission to inflict their dystopian plans on the rest of us?

LOL!

Outraged in the morning, outraged in the afternoon, outraged in the evening

Thanks Ted! I really got a chuckle out of that. It's soooooo true, isn't it?

Why try to do anything good when you can just be outraged?

#2.19:Stop it. I used to be a republican. No longer. No longer precisely because of the wild, extreme positions they have no problem taking. If you think coddling the wealthy at the expense of everyone else is an American ideal, you better acquaint yourself with the Constitution. It's obvious you don't know what it says. The extremists are fond of flailing it about, but aren't the least bit worried about stepping all over it, when it's convenient for their rhetoric. Or policies.

Glad to have you as a fellow Democrat! I am truly glad that "you saw the light" or whatever caused the enlightenment, whenever it did to enable you to make the switch.

Good switch.

Mary Ellen -

I would rather believe this (the Stockholm Syndrome) than to believe that most Americans are pure racists/small-minded individuals who only see black and white- no grey or beige!

Why is it that the Demorats insist on believing that Repubs oppose Obama's race, rather than his politics? Since Libs simply cannot understand what Repubs could possibly have against Obama, other than race, of course!, I am going to attempt to simplify it for you. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

1. Obama states, "lobbyists would not run White House."

Within two weeks he had appointed 17 lobbists to high government positions.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/03/the-list-of-lobbyists-in-the-obama-administration/

2. Obama promises to end bipartisanship.

Then tells Repubs that they are "in control" and will do as they please regarding health care.

3. Gets an AG fired for investigating his basketball buddy.

4. Calls a Cambridge cop stupid.

5. Provides funding for Solyndra - and one of his biggest campaign contributors.

6. Rewarded 27 campaign bundlers with political appointments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8578546/Barack-Obama-campaign-donors-rewarded-with-government-jobs.html

7. Obama promises transparency.

But refuses to provide personal documents and uses backdoor politics to ram his health care overhaul down the throats of Americans who oppose the reform.

I could provide you with dozens of reasons why Conservatives do not like this president - and not one of them would be based on race.

I realize, however, that it would be a waste of time to do so. Demorats are blind to the faults of their Chosen One....

DeeDee, I don't know were you are getting some of your information about the president but, I can tell you some things about what you posted on here in post 86.25.

2. Obama didn't start the partisan rankor in the government, he did try to work with the Republicans on different things from the beginning. It was Senator Mitch McConnell (R) who stated right after the inaugeration that, "We must do everything we can to make sure this president is a one term president.". Obama until recently has compromised on everything, yes, everything including the healthcare bill to get the Republicans to work with him, the favorite phrase of the Republicans has been, "Filibuster everything from the White House and say no to whatever the president wants.".

3. I can't find anything on this if you could provide proof, ie, evidence of this so that I can make an intellengent comment on it I would appreciate it.

4.The fact is President Obama did not call the Cambridge cop stupid, he said what the Cambridge police department did was stupid. The man in question was an old professor of Obama's during his time at Harvard and the professor was entering HIS OWN HOUSE and the police were called on a possible burglary at the mans house and while in the mans house they arrested him for breaking and entering his own home.

Do you remember the Beer Summit at the White House? The Beer Summit was with the Cambridge cop.

5. Solyndra was first promoted by the Bush Administration.

6. I would need a reference for this as well.

7. President Obama provided two (2) birth certificates one short form and one long form, what else do you want, a sworn affidavit from the attending physician? Or maybe you would like to be transported back into the past to see his birth personally? Why should President Obama provide you with his college transcripts? Bush didn't have to supply his.

Please provide us with more "evidence" I'm sure we could use the laugh.

gmross -

Obama didn't start the partisan rankor in the government, he did try to work with the Republicans on different things from the beginning.

Um, no he didn't. Right from the start he let the Repubs know that the DemoRats held control of all three government bodies and that they were in charge. And the McConnell comment you quoted was from October 2010, not right after the inauguration, when he was asked about retaking the white house. His statement was actually:

McConnell said Republicans need to treat the midterm elections as "the first step in retaking the government."

It was in that context that McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That comes from PolitFact, which I understand to be the gospel according to the DemoRats.

With regard to IG Walpin, here's two versions for you - the Huff and Puff sugar coated one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/gerald-walpin-obama-remov_n_214715.html

And a more hard hitting Washington Examiner piece

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2009/06/gerald-walpin-speaks-inside-story-americorps-firing

Considering that the news was filled with Obama, Gates, Officer Crowley and the "Beer Summitt" for weeks, you'd have to have been living under a rock to miss it. Obama basically accused the cop of racist profiling, and acting "stupidly" even though two other officers, one Hispanic and one African American, both stated that Gates acted belligerantly and instigated the arrest.

Oh, and by the way, Obama still has not, to this day, apologized for his actions.

Solyndra was initially considered by the Bush administration and was slow tracked due to doubts. In fact, it was taken off the table by the previous administration as not being ready for the big time. Obama gets elected and just days after his inauguration he appoints Chu as Energy Secretary and a couple of weeks after that, Solyndra is on the fast track for government funding.

(You really might want to perform your own research and get better information than that provided by Media Matters and Snoops.)

On number 6 I provided you with the first link. Don't be so damned lazy, do the research!

And on number 7 I'm not even going to get into that discussion. I would love, however, to see his college transcripts as there are a number of questions that have not been answered regarding his past. Considering the number of inconsistencies in his "biography" (ie when his parents met, whether he was a professor or a part time lecturer, etc) I'd like a bit more clarification.

Thanks for that redsfan :) ...the contentiousness on the vine is pervasive and any comment can be made without all that name calling. The "hate" is palpable. It is possible for all of us to respond without making it seems as though our "@!$%# don't stink" and the "other guy" is just full of it or lazy.

DeeDee-911031 Are you complaining that President Obama could lose 500 million dollars?? Did you vote for bush twice??

bush caused the loss of AT LEAST 50 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!Global Financial Assets Lost $50 Trillion Last Year, ADB Sayshttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZ1kcJ7y3LDMMost notably, MGI finds that:Falling equities accounted for virtually all of the drop in global financial assets. The world's equities lost almost half their value in 2008, declining by
$28 trillion. Markets have regained some ground in recent months, replacing $4.6 trillion in value between December 2008 and the end of July 2009. Global
residential real estate values fell by $3.4 trillion in 2008 and nearly $2 trillion more in the first quarter of 2009. Combining these figures, we see that
declines in equity and real estate wiped out $28.8 trillion of global wealth in 2008 and the first half of 2009.http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Global_capital_markets_entering_a_new_era

DeeDee, I'll put it to you another way. Please provide something that hasn't come from a conservative paper or link that proves your point. The Telegraph is a conservative paper albeit from England, but, in my opinion that means they use the same tactics that the Murdochs use in their rags.

Reality can be reported by anyone, it's not a conspiracy.......Geez...

As far as Murdoch is concerned, News Corp just set a 52 week high and the stock outperformed Disney, Time Warner, and Viacom, for the last 6 months, and 12 months.

So consider your opinion on rags as uninformed and unrelated to reality.

It's true, reality can be reported by anyone, but, fact is only reported by those that believe it should be known, Murdoch and his kind don't put much stock in fact, they just like the kind of story that sells papers.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2011-07-11-Rupert-Murdoch-News-Corp-phone-hacking_n.htm

If they have to lie, cheat, bribe, or steal to "create" a story they do it.

As far as Murdoch is concerned, News Corp just set a 52 week high and the stock outperformed Disney, Time Warner, and Viacom, for the last 6 months, and 12 months.

easily show's the only thing many conservatives care about.. good stock price, validity of product??? not so important... good job boys...

2.2 - Read this article and see the same outrage at what Bush did - sound familiar?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06fri2.html

Also, Congress was not in recess; the House did not approve the Senate going into recess, which it must do. At some point - hopefully

2.6 - He is not a constitutional scholar and was not a professor. I believe he was only an "instructor." If you want a constitutional scholar, listen to or read Mark Levin.

Republicans get checks from the 1% and still do nothing to help the Middle Class. What's their excuse?

Republicans get checks from the 1% and still do nothing to help the Middle Class. What's their excuse?

Hell, they even hand them out right there in congress...

The aging middle class needs to be able to cash checks from their life-long investment in the 1%.

well I'm the aging middle class-let me know where I can get my check from the 1%

#6.4:well I'm the aging middle class-let me know where I can get my check from the 1%

And I'm with Ted. So let me know as well!

No portfolio Ted? Planning on dependence?

Do you really think the agency and all it's employees have been sitting around doing nothing until a political appointee is put in place to be the boss? Really? Government doesn't function that way.

I understand this recess appointment is more to have the agency up and running at full capacity, instead of limping along without a leader.

I understand this recess appointment will have Senate republicans bouncing off the walls... that is a very good thing.

Anything else you wish teach me? :)

Spike -

Actually, having personally worked for a government agency, I can tell you that they pretty much sit around doing nothing even when there IS someone in charge :0

And according to the CFPB, they have already been hard at work!

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/the-bureau/

Although, as a government entity, I am sure that their definition of "hard at work" doesn't quite measure up to most private employees definition of hard at work.

And they will do so with unlimited power due to no oversight committee. Great! Now they can tell us what to buy, and how much we can purchase. Isn't that lovely?

DeeDee- I suggest you research what it actually does and stop with the "fear tactics".

where he'll work on behalf of millions of families across the nation to ensure they’re not being taken advantage of by debt collectors and credit reporting agencies.

So scary, isn't it?

Rachel,

Yes, dear, I can read, though the Daily Kos is not my cup of tea - very liberal, very biased.

I am aware that the author of the piece (or the yellow journalist, if you want to be accurate) sugar coats the situation.

To put it in plain and simple terms - conservatives did not object the appointment, they objected to the fact that the bureau will be acting without oversight. What are their limitations and who makes sure they color inside the lines?

Let's do some for-instances.

Let's say, for instance, that the current director of the CFPB is a Democrat appointed by a Democratic president. There's this certain big bank that backs the other party. The CFPB decides that they don't like the way this certain bank does business. Does the CFPB regulate the bank? Do they impose fines and restrictions? Do they have the power to remove federal funding and or insurance from the bank?

Let's say, for instance, that they can impose fines and restrictions, and take away the federal insurance. So they impose substantial fines, they impose restrictions that decrease the profit margin to almost nothing, then they remove the federal insurance, which puts the consumer at risk when doing business with this particular bank.

There is every possibility that this bank could go under. Thus ensuring that I, as a consumer, can no longer bank at the bank I want to do business with.

This is probably an extreme for instance, and far fetched, but this is only one of the many instances that could come to pass if this bureau is not properly regulated.

To grant any organization (especially one associated with money!) almost unlimited power without a system of checks and balances is beyond stupid and venturing into the realm of insanity.

DeeDee- yes dear?

Start off with condescension and continue with hypotheticals....Fear Mongering!

It is associated with taking care of the AMERICAN people, not the banks, debt collectors or even the Pay Day loan sharks.

I didn't ask you to read the Daily Kos, what I originally posted was from TheWhiteHouse.com

Rachel,

To consider the possibilities rather than trusting that someone with a "vested interest" is telling the truth is not fear mongering - it's called being smart.

Do you just trust that the used car salesman is selling you a great car?

Do you just trust that the appliance salesman is selling you the best appliance at the lowest price?

Do you sign contracts without reading the fine print?

Do you just trust that the politician is speaking nothing but the truth?

If so, you are one incredibly naive individual!

And, you seem to be one presumptuous individual!

Where did I say I trust blindly? No where, this was a law pass by the MAJORITY of Congress. Both houses, both parties...until the Corporate masters of some balked at one portion...the one that would stop their usury and put controls on them.

Now, the reason that the Senate blocked any nomination is because that portion of Congress that owes their well-being to their masters and not their constituents want to get rid of that one portion, but, they don't have the votes.

Games do not in any way help the citizens of this country...and by citizens...I mean PEOPLE, not corporations!

To grant any organization (especially one associated with money!) almost unlimited power without a system of checks and balances is beyond stupid and venturing into the realm of insanity.

you mean like the federal reserve....

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/ here's the website for thr CFPB

Rachel -

And I thought it presumptuous of you to call me a fear monger, so I guess that makes us even.

Agent 57 -

Exactly like the federal reserve! And the CFPB. And the Department of the Treasury.

Thanks for the link, but I've already checked it out. The two that concern me are in bold. And I don't find any information as to their limitations.

• Conduct rule-making, supervision, and enforcement for Federal consumer financial protection laws



• Restrict unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices
• Take consumer complaints
• Promote financial education
• Research consumer behavior
• Monitor financial markets for new risks to consumers
• Enforce laws that outlaw discrimination and other unfair treatment in consumer finance

I said:

Fear Mongering!

Please tell me where I called you a fear monger. I said your comments, not you.

Exactly like the federal reserve!

they are the banks and should be watched... and audited... you probably won't find many liberals or libertarians that won't agree

And the CFPB. And the Department of the Treasury.

I've been in the credit and collections industry for 20 years.... these industries need to be monitored for fraud, deception, bad practices. as well payday loans companies... tragic what some of these folks get away with..

the biggest thing the CPFB will do is ensure the rules currently in place are being followed, then reduce those not necessary and implelemt stratgic changes that will work to inhibit additional fraud, deception and outright trickery by the financial industries...

And what are your problems with those two bolded ones?...

Seems to all go toward enforcement of existing "LAWS" to me...so do you really have a problem with the LAWS?...You do realize that those LAWS had to be enacted by Congress right?...

• Conduct rule-making, supervision, and enforcement for Federal consumer financial protection laws
• Restrict unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices
• Enforce laws that outlaw discrimination and other unfair treatment in consumer finance

so basically you don't want them to be anything but a complaint center... so I take it you're a banker or own a payday loan company... lol... or are you really eric cantor in disguise... he promised a group of speculators he would fight any regulations to monitor their tactics

Totally agree that the industry needs to be monitored. That and those with complaints will have a place to go to so they can file the complaint. It might cut out the run around a bit.

Rachel -

If my words are "fear mongering" then does it not naturally follow that since I wrote them, I am a fear monger?

Agent 57 -

I agree. Banks. Credit. Collections. Any monetary institution or agency should certainly be monitored. The conservatives agree, and many have been very vocal in their belief that the Fed should be audited.

GA Guy & A57 -

No, I am not in banking or lending. The bolded areas present the most probable avenue for unethical behavior, given the apparent lack of oversight.

Call me what you will, I don't want anyone taking my decision-making ability out of my own hands. Especially when it comes to my finances.

I personally did not "Call" you anything...

What decisions are being taken out of your hands?... whether or not to deal with a predatory company?...

No, I am not in banking or lending.

The bolded areas present the most probable avenue for unethical behavior, given the apparent lack of oversight. Call me what you will, I don't want anyone taking my decision-making ability out of my own hands. Especially when it comes to my finances.

the bolded areas are of the biggest concern to the CFPB as well, oversight will be increased in those areas and they will be held more closely accountable to the regulations already on the books... as those are the areas most often using deceitful and deceptive tactics, out right lies and abuses against consumers... the goal is to make the process far more transparent, lessens the paperwork and make the paper easier to understand, thus decisions should be easier and less risky...

And I am not saying that the concept behind the CFPB isn't a good one. I am just saying that it also needs an oversight committee to keep it in check and make sure it isn't partisan and it doesn't overstep it's boundaries.

How is protecting Americans from thieves and bankers overstepping or partisan?

Yellow Dog -

Read the whole thread. I think you missed the gist of the conversation.

I see no need for an oversight committee and I am asking you, Dee Dee how can protecting Americans from thieves and bankers, be partisan?

I am just saying that it also needs an oversight committee to keep it in check and make sure it isn't partisan

and republicans are pushing for a committee for just that reason... so it has to report to a partisan committee... and can be controlled by congress... kinda like the republicans on the energy committee which refused to allow exec's from the BP oil disaster to be subpoenaed for questioning...

11.8 - You are right. And it is exactly those types of laws that led us to the housing crisis, with the rules requiring lending to people who maybe couldn't afford the house just to ensure there was no "discrimination"; getting away from looking at qualifications and instead trying to engage in social engineering to effectuate goals of "fairness." Is the same going to happen in other areas? Banks will be forced to give credit cards or make car loans to people who really can't afford them just because they fall in a certain minority designation?

The liberals don't stop to think that someday a conservative president may get in office and suddenly start doing things without their approval either but then it won't be OK.

11.18 and 11.20- Because it essentially violates separation of powers. It allows a single individual to make law without any way to stop him. If he wants to decide that interest rates can only be X%, then there is now way to stop him. If he wants to tell banks and other businesses what they can charge, he can. It's not just to protect you - it's to CONTROL businesses, and that's the problem. Control is control, and it's no better when the govt. has the power to control.

At least with the free market they will change when the consumer speaks up. Look at what happened when a bank recently (I forget which one) was going to suddenly start charging for a service and everyone was mad about it; they reversed their decision when the consumer spoke up and let it be known they would pull their accounts. With the govt., they say "too bad. this is what we are doing and we don't care you don't like it."

Why are so many people all for the govt. controlling everything?

And Boehner, Cantor and McConnell can spit shine those flashy new balls on a daily basis.

Some Republican Senators have blocked appointments for months or even more than a year for reasons totally unrelated to the appointments being held up. An examples would be hoding up appointments to the federal bench to protest the moritorium on drillling in the Gulf after the BP spill.

#18 - Oh, please. These liberals know how to say all the right things to paint a pretty face on their social-engineering ideals to control every aspect of business and our lives so they can turn us into a country where everything is "fair" and it doesn't really pay to try to excel. Don't you realize that any controls are going to affect the middle-class as consumers of the banks, through fees, tougher standards for loans, etc.?

Not exactly the most efficient use of our tax dollars.

Angry,

Not exactly the most efficient use of our tax dollars.

Holding people accountable for their statements is fundamental in any intelligent discussion.

Pat -

Holding people accountable for their statements is fundamental in any intelligent discussion

Really? Then why don't the DemoRats hold Obama responsible for his statements? Like bipartisanship? Like transparency? Like no lobbists? Like Cambridge cops acting stupidly?

Methinks you might not really want "people" to be held accountable - just the "people" who don't agree with your politics!!!

Methinks you might not really want "people" to be held accountable - just the "people" who don't agree with your politics!!!

That's probably true on both sides.

Maggie -

Probably.

But hypocrisy annoys the hell outta me! :)

I think it annoys everyone... and I don't believe one side can say, "but you do it more". Just sayin'. :)

Dubbya did the exact same thing 61 times while he was in office. Every time Obama sneezes the right calls a foul...same as we did when Bush was in office. Same deal, different name.

During his first term, I was a registered Democrat, but not really political. During the 2008 election I was very ill and pretty much bedridden from August through September. I watched a lot of political debates. I performed a lot of internet research. During the course of those two months I realized that, like much of America, I was being manipulated by a liberal media that didn't really care about "truth" or "fiction" or "hypocrisy".

I hate liars almost as much as I hate hypocrisy.

I am no longer a Democrat.

Because as much as I hate liars and hypocrites - I hate being wrong even more!

I hate liars almost as much as I hate hypocrisy.

Pretty much all politicians fall into one or both of these categories...

Maggie -

Yes, they do.

But I was a gullible, uninformed Demo for many years.

Now I am informed Independant, and I think I will stick with the conservatives for a few years - just to keep things equal :)

Equal...well...equality...lemme see...yeah, conservatives are all about that eh?

Informed is sort of ... subjective as well. Human dynamics are about perceptions...as long as you are happy I suppose :)

Well, in my version of equality it isn't fair to take from someone who earns more to give to someone who already gets a free living from the government (aka the taxpayer).

The top 5% of wage earners in the US pays more in taxes than the bottom 95% combined - primarily because the bottom 25% pays absolutely nothing at all.

If they are living off of welfare, they pay nothing, and due to EIC they get back THOUSANDS.

If they work and are in a lower income bracket, they might pay in five, six or seven hundred a year, but then when they file their taxes, due to the EIC, they get back THOUSANDS!

Personally, I think fair is flat tax. Anyone earning under 25K per year pays nothing, anyone over 25K pays a flat rate, let's say 20%. No IRS. No EIC. No loopholes.

Fair and equal.

in my version

Doesn't make it right because it's your version....just makes it yours with your spin and talking points behind it. I don't really expect you to read beyond this but, it's not just for you.

In order to get welfare in the first place do you know what it takes? Have you ever been laid off or been really sick? Ever look into the desperate eyes of a mother who used to lead a "perfect fair life" with a hungry baby whose husband and child just died? What's fair or equal about that or any other human tragedy like sickness and life misfortune? Ever think there might be people out there that really need help, but are just though of as leaches getting a free living? I'm here to tell you no one on this planet gets a "free living". Cost is not just measured by money.

These are real humans with life stories and you don't know each and every story yet in your version you are clear to make assumptions of a group and lay them all out as just getting a free ride. In my version...we all need some help sometime...I'm not saying that no one is taking advantage...but your comment make it sound as if all those folks are creeps... and I don't care for that version...

19.6 - Um, but Bush didn't run the govt. and avoid Congressional approval through Czars (I read he has over 30 of them) and use of regulations. When the Congress wouldn't pass his cap-and-trade, what does he do? Use his green nut at the EPA to pass regulations that will effectuate the same purpose but without the need for Congressional approval. That whole process needs to change. He is the worst offender for doing this and trying to pass his policy through regulation, signing orders, czars, etc.

What Spin ? The Constitution stands as the law, no spin allowed.

Democrats are Hypocrites

In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama said: "This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress."

In Texas we refer to these type people as "lyin SOB's".

Let's extract part of the Obama SPIN Quote from above, it's worth repeating

I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.

Wouldn't it be great to know what he taught? Odd how we've not heard from one student.

I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.

Wouldn't it be great to know what he taught? Odd how we've not even heard from one student who can testify to Obama's "teachings".

It's time to move on to the birth certificate thing again.

His education was last months whine.

from SuperSaiyan's post 1.51:

Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution...

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session

Jay Tee

So the GOP uses a no recess trick to abrogate the constitutional rights of the President and he calls them out and its his problem?

Only for those afflicted with the Obama Derangement Syndrome in which all actions of the President are evil because the President did them.

This Syndrome is often seen in close proximity to racism and the cause and effect relationship remains somewhat clouded.

well said Pat.

Well Said Obama.....

This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years....

Hypocrite.

#23 - You don't realize that Obama gets a bunch of money from the banking industry, do you? Or that he got a bunch of money from Fannie/Freddie and gee, nothing has happened to them. In fact, they are making risky investments; just read an article within the past couple of weeks that tells me they are going to be heading for another fall soon - or should I say an even further fall. What about the unions who impose their will on Obama and have him in their pocket? That's ok?