GOP blocks nomination to head new Consumer Financial Agency

[senseamp]

It is the Senate obeying it's rules.

The agency exists.
The Republicans feel it needs to be tweaked.
The President feels otherwise.

the Republicans have found a way to force their concerns to be heard.
Obama can appoint when the Senate is not in session if he chooses.

But the Dems wailed when Bush did it.^_^
So which is it to be; follow a precedent to do an end around Congress or negotiate with the Republicans on the issues,

OK, so you want your country governed by filibusters and recess appointments? Fine. Obama should do an end around the GOP minority that is blocking Congress from doing its job.

 

[Jaskalas]

At this point I'm all in favor of permanent gridlock in Washington. Helps drive up the pressure on you to find your solutions elsewhere. It is a core benefit to my ideals if centralized planning fails and the States have to pick up the slack.

There will of course be casualties among legitimate functions of the federal government, but so be it. This is war.

 

[wayliff]

Tea Party Patriots

What makes non tea partiers less patriot than tea partiers?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I want to hear your answer....Please wow me with a nonpartisan analogy.

You asked a question; I quoted your question and provided the answer stated in the article.

There is nothing wrong with the appointee per the Republicans
The appointment is being held up to get the attention of the President to address certain issues.

Such is allowed by the Senate rules.

Maybe you need to frame your question in the OP a little better.

 

[EagleKeeper]

OK, so you want your country governed by filibusters and recess appointments? Fine. Obama should do an end around the GOP minority that is blocking Congress from doing its job.

That is his prerogative.

It is interesting that the Dems screamed bloody murder when Bush did it.

So, are the Dems going to be shown to be hypocritical by doing what they complained about; or take the high road and work with the Republicans to address their concerns.

Comments within the article indicate that the hypocritical path will be taken.

 

[senseamp]

That is his prerogative.

It is interesting that the Dems screamed bloody murder when Bush did it.

So, are the Dems going to be shown to be hypocritical by doing what they complained about; or take the high road and work with the Republicans to address their concerns.

Comments within the article indicate that the hypocritical path will be taken.

Republican concern is that they don't have enough influence with the agency to peddle. I sure hope Obama does not take that "high road."

 

[EagleKeeper]

Republican concern is that they don't have enough influence with the agency to peddle. I sure hope Obama does not take that "high road."

It is not the Republicans but Congress will have little/no oversight.

Way to many agencies are being setup to do what their political masters desire within the executive branch when they should be responsible to the people (Legislative branch).

 

[Ausm]

OK, so you want your country governed by filibusters and recess appointments? Fine. Obama should do an end around the GOP minority that is blocking Congress from doing its job.

I hope President Obama does a recess appointment just to piss off those obstructing bastages in Congress.

 

[sm625]

They shouldn't even have created this stupid agency. God these people are so criminally incompetent. They pass this behemoth piece of legislation that was supposed to prevent another 2008 and what do we have 2 years later? MF Global goes down and over a billion dollars is stolen just like that. Thousands of people, including Gerald Celente (Mr paper gold LOL) were robbed. The damage to confidence could be catastrophic. They literally did not fix anything. All the off balance sheet games are still going on. And no one frickin cares. But it matters who heads this stupid do-nothing government make-work agency? It's just unbelievable....

 

[Ausm]

It is not the Republicans but Congress will have little/no oversight.

Way to many agencies are being setup to do what their political masters desire within the executive branch when they should be responsible to the people (Legislative branch).

Who or what is going to protect the best interests of consumers without this Agency?

 

[senseamp]

It is not the Republicans but Congress will have little/no oversight.

Way to many agencies are being setup to do what their political masters desire within the executive branch when they should be responsible to the people (Legislative branch).

Little or no oversight, means little or no influence to peddle to the financial industry. If you think legislative branch is more responsible to the people than to lobbyists whose money pays to brainwash those people, you have an excellent sense of humor, sir

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

They shouldn't even have created this stupid agency. God these people are so criminally incompetent. They pass this behemoth piece of legislation that was supposed to prevent another 2008 and what do we have 2 years later? MF Global goes down and over a billion dollars is stolen just like that. Thousands of people, including Gerald Celente (Mr paper gold LOL) were robbed. The damage to confidence could be catastrophic. They literally did not fix anything. All the off balance sheet games are still going on. And no one frickin cares. But it matters who heads this stupid do-nothing government make-work agency? It's just unbelievable....

You're citing the very reasons we need this agency up and running properly for why we don't need it at all?

 

[Patranus]

Don't know why "progressives" would be against having a panel of people in charge of the agency instead of one dictator......I mean manager.

I also don't know why "progressives" would be against having the agency fall under congresses ability to fund government programs. Seems like that one is pretty clear cut in the Constitution.

Then again, I don't understand a lot of foolish things that "progressives" do these days.

 

[senseamp]

Don't know why "progressives" would be against having a panel of people in charge of the agency instead of one dictator......I mean manager.

I also don't know why "progressives" would be against having the agency fall under congresses ability to fund government programs. Seems like that one is pretty clear cut in the Constitution.

Then again, I don't understand a lot of foolish things that "progressives" do these days.

If you don't like the law, win elections and change it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Who or what is going to protect the best interests of consumers without this Agency?

The problem is not the agency being there.

From the article, it is some of the way the agency was setup.

I suspect that there were concerns in the way it was setup and a deal was struck that congress will fix it later (most deals work this way - get the fluff first and then deal with the meat/potatoes).

Now comes to the addressing the issues and they are not being addressed. So the only emergency brake available is utilized by the Republicans.

 

[Atreus21]

Who or what is going to protect the best interests of consumers without this Agency?

How about themfreakingselves?! Do they regard consumers as a bunch of kinder-gardeners?

Actually, I don't know I asked that because it's obvious they do, of course. Any person who has any notion of adult-thinking within them ought to have disdain for the entire idea. We don't need government protecting us from ourselves.

 

[monovillage]

I hope President Obama does a recess appointment just to piss off those obstructing bastages in Congress.

Recess appointments aren't going to happen, some of the honorable and dedicated members of the Tea Party have been making sure it doesn't happen.

 

[Patranus]

If you don't like the law, win elections and change it.

Huh?

That is what they are doing.

 

[woolfe9999]

How about themfreakingselves?! Do they regard consumers as a bunch of kinder-gardeners?

Actually, I don't know I asked that because it's obvious they do, of course. Any person who has any notion of adult-thinking within them ought to have disdain for the entire idea. We don't need government protecting us from ourselves.

Yeah sure, consumers are able to protect themselves in every case from the complex financial machinations of banks. But what the hey, those lacking the sophistication to protect themselves should go the way of the do-do bird anyway, right?

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah sure, consumers are able to protect themselves in every case from the complex financial machinations of banks. But what the hey, those lacking the sophistication to protect themselves should go the way of the do-do bird anyway, right?

Far more harm has been done by do-gooder regulatory agencies just like this than ever by the consequences of someone's voluntary economic choice.

I object to the entire notion that I and others like me are not competent enough to handle myself against the evil banks. What banks do with the money I've voluntarily given to them is their business. If I don't like what they're doing, I'll give to a bank with whom I'm better aligned. That's a far more effective mechanism for protecting consumers, at a much cheaper cost to society, and it hits the banks where it hurts them most: their wallet.

If this agency is going to give me advice, fine. If they're going to do things like making ATM fees illegal, they're stretching too far. If I don't like the fee, I won't use the ATM.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I hope President Obama does a recess appointment just to piss off those obstructing bastages in Congress.

As long as Congress has members in session, it can not be classified as in recess.

Some of the Republicans in the House and maybe a few also in the Senate may come up with a way to derail the ability of Obama to install a recess appointment just to piss off Obama and have him clear up the issues as promised.

Would not put it past them.

 

[Ausm]

How about themfreakingselves?! Do they regard consumers as a bunch of kinder-gardeners?

Actually, I don't know I asked that because it's obvious they do, of course. Any person who has any notion of adult-thinking within them ought to have disdain for the entire idea. We don't need government protecting us from ourselves.

Not every one can possible be as smart and informed as you are...

 

[Ausm]

As long as Congress has members in session, it can not be classified as in recess.

Some of the Republicans in the House and maybe a few also in the Senate may come up with a way to derail the ability of Obama to install a recess appointment just to piss off Obama and have him clear up the issues as promised.

Would not put it past them.

What are the issues distressing the Republicans? I read several different versions of this which makes me believe there is no real problem besides playing Politics.

 

[Atreus21]

Not every one can possible be as smart and informed as you are...

No one, not anybody on earth, is better than I am at handling what is in my self-interest. I will protect myself and what I care about far more doggedly and effectively than any bureaucracy.

The same applies to you and everyone else.

 

[Ausm]

]Far more harm has been done by do-gooder regulatory agencies just like this than ever by the consequences of someone's voluntary economic choice.[/B]

I object to the entire notion that I and others like me are not competent enough to handle myself against the evil banks. What banks do with the money I've voluntarily given to them is their business. If I don't like what they're doing, I'll give to a bank with whom I'm better aligned. That's a far more effective mechanism for protecting consumers, at a much cheaper cost to society, and it hits the banks where it hurts them most: their wallet.

If this agency is going to give me advice, fine. If they're going to do things like making ATM fees illegal, they're stretching too far. If I don't like the fee, I won't use the ATM.

Please by all means start listing them off....