Obama Appoints Head of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

[quote name='detectiveconan16']http://news.yahoo.com/obama-bypasses-senate-installs-consumer-chief-183629338.html

It just makes me angry that the GOP who promised us to make Obama a one term president somehow let this happen slip through the cracks. And now they're going to waste loads of taxpayer money to determine if this consumer agency designed to help taxpayers is illegal. :roll:[/QUOTE]

I didn't read anywhere in that article that they are going to spend money determining if the consumer agency is illegal.
 
No, it's going to stop allowing banks to pick and choose which agency they will be regulated by (by changing their charter) and avoid the conflict of interest of those agencies being funded by those banks thereby giving the agency an incentive to relax their regulations to attract more banks to them.


Obama has already passed on numerous candidates who were much more qualified because of concern they would be polarizing to Republicans. The Republicans have been blocking naming a head of the agency for the simple fact that they're trying to back-door repeal the laws setting up the CFPB, not because the candidates weren't qualified.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Obama has already passed on numerous candidates who were much more qualified because of concern they would be polarizing to Republicans. The Republicans have been blocking naming a head of the agency for the simple fact that they're trying to back-door repeal the laws setting up the CFPB, not because the candidates weren't qualified.[/QUOTE]
:clap:

The Republicans are trying to strip an agency's power that they themselves (not the party, but these actual human beings) voted to give power to.

To the inevitable QQ nubs: Obama could have rammed hundreds through and gone full bore political monster move. Teddy pushed through 160 nominees in one day. Obama didn't. He chose to appoint these four precisely because their federal agency cannot operate with these people working. The CFPB cannot work without someone leading it. Period. The Supreme Court has ruled that two people (the amount currently on the NLRB board) is not enough to have a quorum, ergo they cannot conduct business at all. So he appointed one. Etc etc.

At this point in his presidency, Clinton had crammed through 150+ appointees. Bush had crammed 175+ appointees.

This brings Obama's total up to 19.

Complainers need to buy a fucking clue.
 
Bush had to do this during his Presidency.

Don't really see the problem here, unless I'm missing something.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Bush had to do this during his Presidency.

Don't really see the problem here, unless I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
Obama is a MUSLIM USURPER111!!!ONE Just kidding...he's the anti-christ.

On the serious: Obama is a president that follows more procedural rules and etiquette than any other president for probably at least 50 years and he gets the most shit. At least Clinton lied under oath and deserved some ire.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Obama is a MUSLIM USURPER111!!!ONE Just kidding...he's the anti-christ.

On the serious: Obama is a president that follows more procedural rules and etiquette than any other president for probably at least 50 years and he gets the most shit. At least Clinton lied under oath and deserved some ire.[/QUOTE]

He gets a lot of breaks, too.

And if Obama was the anti-Christ, he would've solved the world's economic problems by now, made peace between Israel and Palestine, been reveled as a world hero, and been made Ruler of the World. At least that's my understanding of who that person is supposed to be.
 
Have to get shit done. Can't leave positions open while trying to change the system.

The president should have power to do appointments as they see fit IMO. The congressional check was never meant to be more than a balance to make sure unqualified people weren't being appointed as political favors. Not to make it so nothing can get done when congress is controlled by one party and the white house by another.
 
The reason they have the Senate approve things is for background checks, mostly. It happened with a couple of people for tax evasion (I believe) at the start of Obama's term, and those people retracted their bids. I forget who they were though.

Appointments have gotten really political since Bush won the Presidency, mainly with Judges (since they basically have no checks against them). So many Judges were held up for Bush.
 
Good. Cordray was a good AG in Ohio until he got ousted because he was a Democrat in 2010. I think he's a good choice and he is likely to get shit done.
 
The reason it's getting so many headlines?

The Senate was not in 'recess'. Although their definition of 'recess' was pretty loose, and it's something Senate Dems did when Bush was in office. Basically some guy would come in to the Senate every 3 days and bang a gavel and that would be their 'business'.

He's definitely challenging the whole idea of what the Senate is doing by saying it's in 'recess', and it's unprecedented from what I can tell (maybe TR, possibly). It'd be interesting if it got to court, though most people think the courts will say it's a dispute between two branches of gov't about procedure that the courts can't decide.

Although filibustering the nominee to head an agency just because you think the agency shouldn't exist at all is unprecedented too.
 
Yeah, this never happened under bush so as long as the pro-forma sessions were ongoing. Ask Harry Reid. Obama pretty much said "fuck-it". That's fine. Just don't bitch when a republican pulls the same during the next presidency. Sorry to interrupt the left wing circle jerk going on in here, carry on.
 
...aaaaand the very same Republicans who are decrying the disregard for pro forma sessions today were planning on circumventing them when Harry Reid held them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...aaaaand the very same Republicans who are decrying the disregard for pro forma sessions today were planning on circumventing them when Harry Reid held them.[/QUOTE]

And this is one of the problems with the two-party system. Both sides pull shit and when they do, it is often excused because the other party did it at some previous date.

I would support a third party that calls them both on their nonsense.
 
The Republicans aren't even pretending they have a problem with a particular appointee.

They don't want this agency to exist, we are now at the "2nd time as farce" on the theory of nullification.
 
[quote name='Spokker']And this is one of the problems with the two-party system. Both sides pull shit and when they do, it is often excused because the other party did it at some previous date.

I would support a third party that calls them both on their nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Another problem is that people want to create false equivalency where there is none because it's easy and convenient to do so.

Blocking candidates procedurally is less of a problem (but still a problem) if the goal is to get a competent candidate appointed to office.

Blocking candidates procedurally is a significant problem if the goal is to prevent any candidate from ever being appointed to the office.
 
I disagreed with the Goodwin Liu vote filibuster. I thought it was bullshit, but I understood that at least theoretically Republicans had reservations about Liu's not being 100% to the letter forthright with his essays and speeches. Sure, the director of the Goldwater Institute, Ken Starr (yea, that Ken Starr), and one of Bush's White House lawyers supported him, but ok. There was a reason that wasn't just RAWWWR ABORTION RAWWR. So I disagreed, but I understood there was a reason.

Richard Cordray was a moderate choice because Republicans were shitting the bed over the thought of Elizabeth Warren getting the job. Remember those days haters? Of course you don't.

Let's just focus on him. Can anyone give me a single reason why he should not have been nominated? Just one cogent argument against him.

And somehow equating that 19 appointments is the same as 175 is fucking ridiculous. But both sides do it! Right?
the percentage of Obama’s judicial nominees confirmed — 58 percent — in the first two years of his presidency is the lowest ratio of any president in American history.
Click to expand...
In history, jerks. Ever.
Currently, the federal judiciary has 98 vacancies among its 858 appellate and district court positions. These openings constitute eleven percent of federal judgeships nationwide.
Click to expand...
So yea.

We get it. Both sides do it and it sucks. But let's actually think about each instance instead of waving our hands and pretending it's all the same. The Dems big fights during Bush was over:

John Bolton, a person who believed the job he was being nominated for shouldn't exist (and "forgot" to mention he had been involved in a federal investigation),
Miguel Estrada, a person who lied during testimony to the Senate and got caught doing it,
Michael Wallace, one of the ultra rare "not qualified"s from the ABA,
William J. Haynes, who was blocked by *drum roll* Lindsey Graham, and
Terrence Boyle*, who got caught up in a Clinton vs. Jesse Helms fight that extended into Bush's term. Something about not having a single black jurist ever on the 4th Circuit. You can probably guess how Jesse Helms felt. The Dems wanted to punish him for being a racist old bastard.

I guess we could bring up Miers except she never actually got a vote because Repubs never brought it to one by their own choice.

*Boyle. Yea. Exactly 1 that sucks.
 
There are many people who are suggesting that the Customer Financial Protection Bureau is the “Big Brother” that nobody really wants. The government has used payday cash advances as an excuse to start this agency, those people say. Sadly, payday cash advances are really an excellent source for individuals when they have an emergency. Go to Payday Loan to get more information.
 
[quote name='maryanne']There are many people who are suggesting that the Customer Financial Protection Bureau is the “Big Brother” that nobody really wants. The government has used payday cash advances as an excuse to start this agency, those people say. Sadly, payday cash advances are really an excellent source for individuals when they have an emergency. Go to Payday Loan to get more information.[/QUOTE]

Maryanne or should I say Kateallen

http://prospect.org/article/no-more-mr-nice-obama

Take your form letter bullshit somewhere else we're all full up on spam here.
 
[quote name='maryanne']There are many people who are suggesting that the Customer Financial Protection Bureau is the “Big Brother” that nobody really wants. The government has used payday cash advances as an excuse to start this agency, those people say. Sadly, payday cash advances are really an excellent source for individuals when they have an emergency. Go to Payday Loan to get more information.[/QUOTE]

The problem with payday loans isn't that they exist but rather they were charging such a high interest rate that people who took one out were never able to get out from underneath them. They'd essentially become indefinitely indebted to these payday loan companies as they have to continue taking out loans each week to pay off the previous loan.

Its the same problem as credit cards setting their minimum payments so low that it would take 30 years to pay it off, they want you to keep paying them for a small loan for life because the longer you can float the interest on a loan, the longer you're getting free money from a borrower. It's predatory lending that preys on people who don't know any better and businesses have gotten away with it for far too long under the guise of villifying regulation.
 
[quote name='camoor']Maryanne or should I say Kateallen

http://prospect.org/article/no-more-mr-nice-obama

Take your form letter bullshit somewhere else we're all full up on spam here.[/QUOTE]

These appointments are one of the best things Obama has done. I'm glad to see him finally showing some teeth to the Republicans and he's increasingly earning my respect (and likely my first Democratic presidential vote).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top