GOP blocks nomination to head new Consumer Financial Agency

[Craig234]

The right opposes this because it helps the people, which their agenda for the 0.01% doesn't like - and then they make up the best sounding reasons they can for voting no.

 

[glenn1]

Can any rightist out here explain why this guy wasn't good enough to run the new agency to protect consumers?[/url]

He probably is good enough but that's not really the issue, anymore than qualifications were reason for Obama to vote against John Roberts or Samuel Alito for the SCOTUS. You're just mad that Republicans took the game Democrats started with Bork and are now better players at it than you.

 

[woolfe9999]

Individuals, again, are better at financially protecting themselves than the government is.

What multi-trillion dollar megacorporation holds a single candle to the overarching power of the state to compel us, by force, and by using our own tax money, to do as it deems appropriate?

Really? What did "individuals" do to prevent the tanking of the economy in 2008 caused by Wall Street chicanery? We know the government did essentially nothing because the banking sector had been de-regulated. WE were the victims of that. According to your logic, we should have been able to protect ourselves.

 

[fskimospy]

He probably is good enough but that's not really the issue, anymore than qualifications were reason for Obama to vote against John Roberts or Samuel Alito for the SCOTUS. You're just mad that Republicans took the game Democrats started with Bork and are now better players at it than you.

You think partisan opposition to presidential appointments started with Robert Bork? That's awfully naive. Interestingly enough, Robert Bork received an up or down vote in the Senate that he lost 58-42. This nominee had a 53-45 vote in favor of him, which of course means that in the Senate these days he 'lost' by getting only a majority of the votes. On a similar note to this, did anyone notice how even the Republican senators who pledged only to filibuster judicial nominees in 'extraordinary circumstances' a few years back during that 'nuclear option' crisis now routinely filibuster Obama's judicial nominees? (and most of his other appointments)

I think the filibuster has historically had a decent place in the function of the Senate, but this has gotten completely out of hand. Does anyone really think that the current way the Senate operates is in line with the way it was designed?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Remarkable that you'd offer such when we're in the midst of the greatest financial calamity since the great depression, brought to us by self regulated banking.

If we didn't need govt "protecting us from ourselves" then that obviously wouldn't have happened, but it did.

Your deeply held ideological beliefs are nonsense in the light of reality.

 

[monovillage]

"Does anyone really think that the current way the Senate operates is in line with the way it was designed?"

Of course it's not, we saw the way it operated with the Health Care Bill.

 

[ericlp]

Well, what it looks like to me is...

The Dems are doing their own shit anyway without the consent of the "R's" so..... The R's are mad... and doing everything they can to get some attention. Boner has his panties all tied up and he looks like he's gonna cry some more ... So they do stupid stuff even if it makes their own party look like a bunch of assholes ... Oh well, looks like Obama isn't going to play their game.

Kinda good in away. Bush would freak out if this happened to him and cry like a baby.

I find it kinda funny that they are shooting themselves in the foot for being slow and retarded maybe we might get a 3'rd party candidate out of the deal? We can only hope!

 

[cubby1223]

Remarkable that you'd offer such when we're in the midst of the greatest financial calamity since the great depression, brought to us by self regulated banking.

If we didn't need govt "protecting us from ourselves" then that obviously wouldn't have happened, but it did.

Your deeply held ideological beliefs are nonsense in the light of reality.

And you're forgetting that government and politicians played a large role in this mess too. Do you believe government can and will "protect us from ourselves"?

Let's see here - we'll go by the ideology of your beloved left. Government is controlled by Wall Street and banks and corporations to serve their bidding at the expense of the people. Obviously. The solution is to place blind trust in those who are controlled by Wall Street and banks and corporations and who sell out the American people time after time after time, with the task of protecting the people against Wall Street and banks and such.

So, genius, how specifically do you see this agency playing out? I mean, you have to be specific. You have to know more details than "my party supports it."



Let me put it another way - how much faith will you have in this agency when Republicans gain full control of congress plus the White House? Will this agency be a good thing or a bad thing when it is controlled by Republican policies and ideology? You fully support this agency, you must also fully support the consequences of the agency in future years.

 

[Ausm]

Issues were listed in the article along with the administrations anticipated response

Nice dodge...What's the REAL issues is what I am getting after.

 

[Jhhnn]

And you're forgetting that government and politicians played a large role in this mess too. Do you believe government can and will "protect us from ourselves"?

Let's see here - we'll go by the ideology of your beloved left. Government is controlled by Wall Street and banks and corporations to serve their bidding at the expense of the people. Obviously. The solution is to place blind trust in those who are controlled by Wall Street and banks and corporations and who sell out the American people time after time after time, with the task of protecting the people against Wall Street and banks and such.

So, genius, how specifically do you see this agency playing out? I mean, you have to be specific. You have to know more details than "my party supports it."



Let me put it another way - how much faith will you have in this agency when Republicans gain full control of congress plus the White House? Will this agency be a good thing or a bad thing when it is controlled by Republican policies and ideology? You fully support this agency, you must also fully support the consequences of the agency in future years.

New Deal structure largely prevented political manipulations of finance by either party being in power, just as constitutional structure prevents abuses in other realms of our lives.

The consumer protection agency is an attempt to impose such a structure on the financial industry, to prevent the conflicts of interest that make up any systemic financial scam. It's not really well named, because it attempts to protect the whole economy more than individual consumers.

What did we really gain from the financial innovations of self regulated banking in the ownership society, anyway? From 30 years of Reaganomics?

What we really gained was much greater concentration of wealth, income & power into the hands of the few at the expense of everybody else through the substitution of credit for wages among the vast majority of the population, and the substitution of borrowing for revenue by govt.

The other thing we gained was a top heavy & very fragile financial system that only creates wealth for the few by extracting it as interest & economic rent from the rest of us. It's fragile because it depends entirely on the ability of the scammed to keep paying the scammers, and on govt bailouts of the institutional means of the scammers, the banks.

It's the way that Repub leaders made it & want to keep it, despite any sort of misdirectional simulated rationality they can create to convince us otherwise. They believe in unregulated capitalism, yet the boom/bust nature of unregulated capitalism is highly destructive of the middle class. They don't care, because that's not who they truly represent, at all. They represent the rich, for whom both the boom and bust sides of it are just opportunities for profit & further consolidation of power.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Nice dodge...What's the REAL issues is what I am getting after.

The issues listed in the article are REAL; enough that the administration is concerned about them to have a response in the article.

Now if you want to toss away the article; the REAL issue is that Obama is attempting to bypass agreements/understanding and the Republicans are going to hold his feet to the fire.

That REALity is what is REALly bothers you. Accountability. You complained about it under Bush but are willing to ignore it under Obama.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

From the article their "real" issues largely appear to be legislative ones, not ones Obama has the responsibility or even authority to address.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Someone has to have the responsibility to address.

If the agency does not come under Congressional oversight, then it must be under the Executive branch - Obama.

And the Republicans and the Obama spokesman in the article indicate that it is Congressional oversight that they are trying to obtain and Obama is pushing back against it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If congress doesn't like the way congress set up the agency, it's up to congress to change that, not the president, through legislation.

 

[Ausm]

The issues listed in the article are REAL; enough that the administration is concerned about them to have a response in the article.

Now if you want to toss away the article; the REAL issue is that Obama is attempting to bypass agreements/understanding and the Republicans are going to hold his feet to the fire.

That REALity is what is REALly bothers you. Accountability. You complained about it under Bush but are willing to ignore it under Obama.

Their reasons are horseshit and you know it....

President Obama puts the ball back in the GOP's court...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-urges-republicans-approve-consumer-chief-113328326.html

 

[Ausm]

If congress doesn't like the way congress set up the agency, it's up to congress to change that, not the president, through legislation.

Exactly, this Agency was set up and passed by Legislation from Congress that overcame an initial Republican Filibuster. Now the Republicans don't like it again and are pissed off that President Obama signed the Consumer Protection into Law so they want to block the initialization of a Legal Agency.

 

[monovillage]

When the Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2012 and expand that control in 2014 i'm sure the Democrats will return the favor.

 

[Ausm]

When the Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2012 and expand that control in 2014 i'm sure the Democrats will return the favor.

They will have to work overtime to beat the Republicans record for the abuse of the Filibuster that's for sure.

 

[fskimospy]

"Does anyone really think that the current way the Senate operates is in line with the way it was designed?"

Of course it's not, we saw the way it operated with the Health Care Bill.

Please explain how you think the passage of the ACA was not in line with how the Senate was supposed to operate. Be specific.

 

[fskimospy]

When the Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2012 and expand that control in 2014 i'm sure the Democrats will return the favor.

That doesn't make it any better. You do realize that the Senate has never operated in this manner, that the level of filibustering going on here is unprecedented in all of US history, right? And it's not like it's barely taking the record, it's leaps and bounds above historical norms.

 

[monovillage]

That doesn't make it any better. You do realize that the Senate has never operated in this manner, that the level of filibustering going on here is unprecedented in all of US history, right? And it's not like it's barely taking the record, it's leaps and bounds above historical norms.

OOOOHHHH the "level" of filibustering, that's different!

The fact that it's being used more often shouldn't be a surprise, it's effective politics. Your anger isn't that it's being used, your anger is that it's being used by the opposing side.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Their reasons are horseshit and you know it....

President Obama puts the ball back in the GOP's court...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-urges-republicans-approve-consumer-chief-113328326.html

How is the ball is their court.😕

They have already stated that they will block the appointment until Obama talks about the stated concerns.

Obama choices:

• comes to the table
• no appointment to cripple the agency
• attempt a recess appointment IF Congress shuts down.

We will see what he does - in other words. Who will blink first

 

[EagleKeeper]

Filibuster use from liberal POV:
Democrats - Good when against the Republicans
Republicans- Bad when against the Democrats

 

[fskimospy]

OOOOHHHH the "level" of filibustering, that's different!

The fact that it's being used more often shouldn't be a surprise, it's effective politics. Your anger isn't that it's being used, your anger is that it's being used by the opposing side.

It most certainly is different. You know that things can be different in both what they are and the frequency that they occur, right? As for my motivations, that's the most tired and boring argument on this entire board. I swear that all some people on here do is endlessly search for partisanship in other posters, as if you win if you find it or something.

Whether or not you think it should be a surprise or not, the simple fact remains that it wasn't used like this in the past, and it is damaging to our system of government. Do you know just how many judgeships are unfilled right now? How many Senate confirmed posts are unfilled? These are all supposedly vital positions that are being held up by the minority in a way that is unprecedented.

Do you think that such behavior will be a good thing for the country when a conservative becomes president?

 

[fskimospy]

Filibuster use from liberal POV:
Democrats - Good when against the Republicans
Republicans- Bad when against the Democrats

This board would be a lot better off if the right wing posters on here stopped trying to imagine what liberals believe. You're terrible at it, and maybe all the noise you make about how liberals think is what prevents you from understanding what liberals actually think.

If you even care about knowing, that is. The way the filibuster is currently being used is indefensible from a good governance standpoint and you know it.