PDA

View Full Version : Obama to nominate Cordray to Consumer Protection Post.


gonzomax
07-17-2011, 02:38 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/17/richard-cordray-to-lead-consumer-bureau-instead-of-elizabeth-warren-report/
The Consumer Protection Bureau which Elizabeth Warren has put together, will be headed by Richard Cordray is the Repubs agree to it.
This is gutless. Warren has been a consumer advocate for a long time. She warned of the financial crisis before it happened. She pushed consumer protection against the huge Republican headwind . Now Obama does not have the sack to nominate her.
If he did nominate her and the Repubs voted her down, it would put on record {again) who the Repubs work for and whose interests they serve. This is a mistake.

Captain Amazing
07-17-2011, 02:54 PM
Warren can't be nominated, Cordray might be able to, although like your article says, the Republicans are threatening to block anybody unless the powers of the Consumer Protection Bureau are reduced. If Cordray can get nominated and Warren can't, then it's better to have a director than no director. And it's not like Cordray will do a bad job. He's got the experience.

gonzomax
07-17-2011, 03:14 PM
Yes she can. But the Repubs would not allow her to go through. I would put her up and let them reject her. There must still be someone in America who does not know how little the Repubs care about the consumers. Make them go on record. Then tell the voters who voted against her.

Captain Amazing
07-17-2011, 03:33 PM
It won't work, because it's not like anybody who's not a political junkie has heard of Elizabeth Warren. If we do your plan, the President will put her up, the Republicans will reject her, and most people will say, "Who the hell is Elizabeth Warren and why should we care?"

TheMightyAtlas
07-17-2011, 03:37 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/17/richard-cordray-to-lead-consumer-bureau-instead-of-elizabeth-warren-report/
The Consumer Protection Bureau which Elizabeth Warren has put together, will be headed by Richard Cordray is the Repubs agree to it.
This is gutless. Warren has been a consumer advocate for a long time. She warned of the financial crisis before it happened. She pushed consumer protection against the huge Republican headwind . Now Obama does not have the sack to nominate her.
If he did nominate her and the Repubs voted her down, it would put on record {again) who the Repubs work for and whose interests they serve. This is a mistake.

Who the hell is Elizabeth Warren and why should we care?

John Mace
07-17-2011, 03:41 PM
...most people will say, "Who the hell is Elizabeth Warren and why should we care?"
Wow. You nailed it!!

ElvisL1ves
07-17-2011, 04:25 PM
Um, guys? Warren was nominated. She's had confirmation hearings, even. Multiple ones. But the GOP is stalling her as a way to avoid letting the agency be effective at all. They couldn't win that vote, so this is just another type of filibuster.

As to why anyone should care, shame on anyone who asks that. :dubious:

That said, nothing is forever or even for very long in DC. While Warren deserved to run the agency she set up, she did in fact set it up. Cordray figures to do the job pretty well too, so I'm not worried about that. And it's a stepping stone for future office, too - Warren is being recruited to run for Senate from MA, and may well do so now. Cordray has made no secret of his desire to be governor of Ohio, either, and this will look pretty good if he does it well.

TheMightyAtlas
07-17-2011, 04:36 PM
Um, guys? Warren was nominated. She's had confirmation hearings, even. Multiple ones. But the GOP is stalling her as a way to avoid letting the agency be effective at all. They couldn't win that vote, so this is just another type of filibuster.

As to why anyone should care, shame on anyone who asks that. :dubious:

Okay, I see my point was too subtle for some of you. Yes, Elizabeth Warren should be confirmed. Yes, we need a lot stronger regulation of financial "services". But the population doesn't care. The issues are too complex, and the people are too easily persuaded by oversimplified slogans like "government over-regulation is choking off innovation and job creation". In 2008-2009 I had hope that people were paying attention to the heist. But once Obama was in office, the shallow thinking opposition was too easily energized.

gonzomax
07-17-2011, 06:19 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11nocera.html

Banks have foreclosed on homes through "robo signing". They have destroyed people financial lives . They have shown themselves to be greedy and dishonest. Warren was the designer of a consumer protection bureau . That has made her a hated figure by the righties and the financial thieves who own us. Their lap dogs in the republican party apparently were not around when the bankers destroyed the economy. They think any consumer protection laws will take away the power and control the rich have earned with their political contributions.
Most of what she is offering is simplifying contracts so the people signing them know what they are signing. The contracts are designed to obfuscate and keep the buyer from understanding what they sign. It is deliberate.

ElvisL1ves
07-17-2011, 06:40 PM
Okay, I see my point was too subtle for some of you.Is that the problem, or did you just fail to make it coherently? :dubious:

But the population doesn't care. The issues are too complexThe population doesn't care about something that doesn't get reported, no. But the issues are pretty damn simple. Unfortunately the ignorance/apathy problem is not limited to non-Dopers, as we see in this thread.

Captain Amazing
07-17-2011, 07:49 PM
The population doesn't care about something that doesn't get reported, no. But the issues are pretty damn simple. Unfortunately the ignorance/apathy problem is not limited to non-Dopers, as we see in this thread.

I just think that it's better to have Cordray take the position and do something rather than have Warren not be allowed to take the position and not do anything. And I think that's the right position to take even if you think that Warren is better for the job than Cordray. The choice isn't between Warren and Cordray. It's between getting a director or not.

waterj2
07-17-2011, 09:12 PM
Well, let's get moving on the Elizabeth Warren for Senate campaign. Everybody take a good look at the Moakley campaign, and keep it in mind as an example of what not to do this time.

BrainGlutton
07-17-2011, 10:45 PM
Um, guys? Warren was nominated. She's had confirmation hearings, even. Multiple ones. But the GOP is stalling her as a way to avoid letting the agency be effective at all. They couldn't win that vote, so this is just another type of filibuster.

Is any reason given? I've heard Warren referred to as a "controversial" choice, but nothing of the nature of the controversy.

gonzomax
07-17-2011, 10:46 PM
I just think that it's better to have Cordray take the position and do something rather than have Warren not be allowed to take the position and not do anything. And I think that's the right position to take even if you think that Warren is better for the job than Cordray. The choice isn't between Warren and Cordray. It's between getting a director or not.

I want a vote in public so the Repubs can reject her and let the voters see it. Then put in Cordray. Except he is not guaranteed . The Repubs want the agency deeply slashed before it starts up. They actually want it gone. They have no interest in helping the people.

gonzomax
07-18-2011, 12:57 PM
The Repubs are against Cordray too. They want to have the agency weakened a lot before it starts. They are complaining of excessive banking regulation before the agency opens its doors. They also want a board with 4 or more people appointed to the top spots. I wonder if they think they can get control of it that way? We have always known they have no interest in consumer protection. How clear does it have to be that the Repubs work for the rich and corporations. They act against the people every day.

Dick Dastardly
07-18-2011, 01:03 PM
So he enrages his base by dumping Warren then nominates somebody the GOP won't accept either. What a dick. At the same time, in the long run, this is a good thing if it helps cost him the election. We're only going to get the GOP eventually and their policies will make things even worse than Obama's have, so we might as well get them sooner rather than later rather than wait another four years before we find out they don't work.

Jonathan Chance
07-18-2011, 02:09 PM
The Repubs are against Cordray too.

Damn straight they're against Cordray. But it won't just be because of the job.

I know him personally, though not well. Last year we campaigned together several times in Southeast Ohio and he is one sharp bastard. He'll BE Governor of Ohio and then who knows how far he can go. It's in their best interest to short circuit that as early as possible.

Bricker
07-18-2011, 02:37 PM
If he did nominate her and the Repubs voted her down, it would put on record {again) who the Repubs work for and whose interests they serve.

So does Obama's refusal to nominate her put on record who he works for and whose interests he serves?

puddleglum
07-18-2011, 02:48 PM
Is any reason given? I've heard Warren referred to as a "controversial" choice, but nothing of the nature of the controversy.

Warren is controversial because she is a dishonest hack. For example she wrote a paper on medical bankruptcies that was much cited in the run up to Obamacare. However, she neglected to mention that during the time she studied bankruptcies suddenly fell 66% due to bankruptcy reform. So she authors a study about how the increasing cost of health care is causing a massive increase in the number of medical bankruptcies even though the amount of medical bankruptcies drops by 220,000 per year.
She massages the definitions of her variables to get the conclusions she wants instead of honestly seekly answers. For example, one of her studies says 70% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, however of the people she studied only one third cite medical bills as being an important reason. However since 33% wasn't a big enough number for her, she massaged the definition til she got 50% and when that was not big enough to get the attention she wanted she massaged it again to get 70%. She is a disgrace to all honest scienceticians.

howye
07-18-2011, 02:54 PM
Damn straight they're against Cordray. But it won't just be because of the job.

I know him personally, though not well. Last year we campaigned together several times in Southeast Ohio and he is one sharp bastard. He'll BE Governor of Ohio and then who knows how far he can go. It's in their best interest to short circuit that as early as possible.

From your lips ....

Cordray for Guv '14

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 05:07 PM
Warren is controversial because she is a dishonest hack. For example she wrote a paper on medical bankruptcies that was much cited in the run up to Obamacare. However, she neglected to mention that during the time she studied bankruptcies suddenly fell 66% due to bankruptcy reform. So she authors a study about how the increasing cost of health care is causing a massive increase in the number of medical bankruptcies even though the amount of medical bankruptcies drops by 220,000 per year.
She massages the definitions of her variables to get the conclusions she wants instead of honestly seekly answers. For example, one of her studies says 70% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, however of the people she studied only one third cite medical bills as being an important reason. However since 33% wasn't a big enough number for her, she massaged the definition til she got 50% and when that was not big enough to get the attention she wanted she massaged it again to get 70%. She is a disgrace to all honest scienceticians.

Cite?

ElvisL1ves
07-18-2011, 05:43 PM
Is any reason given? Any given publicly are likely insincere, shall we say, DC being what it is.

They want to have the agency weakened a lot before it starts. They are complaining of excessive banking regulation before the agency opens its doors. They also want a board with 4 or more people appointed to the top spots. I wonder if they think they can get control of it that way?They also want the agency's budget to be under Congressional control.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 06:08 PM
Cite?

Never mind, found it: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Popular_works) :rolleyes:

In addition to writing more than 100 scholarly articles and six academic books, Warren has written several best-selling books, including All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan (ISBN 978-0-7432-6988-9), coauthored with her daughter, Amelia Tyagi.

Warren is also the co-author (with Tyagi) of The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke (Basic, 2003) (ISBN 978-0-465-09090-7). Warren and Tyagi point out that a fully employed worker today earns less inflation-adjusted income than a fully employed worker did 30 years ago. To increase their income, families have sent a second parent into the workforce. Although families spend less today on clothing, appliances, and other consumption, the costs of core expenses like mortgages, health care, transportation, child care, and taxes have increased dramatically. The result is that, even with two income earners, families no longer save and have incurred greater and greater debt.

In an article in the New York Times, Jeff Madrick said of Warren's book:
“ The upshot is that two-income families often have even less income left over today than did an equivalent single-income family 30 years ago, even when they make almost twice as much. And they go deeper in debt. The authors find that it is not the free-spending young or the incapacitated elderly who are declaring bankruptcy so much as families with children. ... their main thesis is undeniable. Typical families often cannot afford the high-quality education, health care and neighborhoods required to be middle class today. More clearly than anyone else, I think, Ms. Warren and Ms. Tyagi have shown how little attention the nation and our government have paid to the way Americans really live.[16] ”

In an article in Time magazine by Maryanna Murray Buechner, "Parent Trap" (subtitled "Want to go bust? Have a kid. Educate same. Why the middle class never had it so bad"), Buechner said of Warren's book:
“ For families looking for ways to cope, Warren and Tyagi mainly offer palliatives: Buy a cheaper house. Squirrel away a six-month cash cushion. Yeah, right. But they also know that there are no easy solutions. Readers who are already committed to a house and parenthood will find little to mitigate the deflating sense that they have nowhere to go but down.[17] ”

In 2005, Dr. David Himmelstein and Warren published a study on bankruptcy and medical bills,[18] which claimed that half of all families filing for bankruptcy did so in the aftermath of a serious medical problem. The finding was particularly noteworthy because 75% of those who fit that description had medical insurance.[19] This study was widely cited in academic studies and policy debates, though some have questioned the study's methods and offered alternative interpretations of the data.[20] In one critical article funded by an insurance industry group, the authors simply multiplied two numbers found in the Himmelstein and Warren manuscript, and reported that only 17% of bankruptcies resulted from medical bills. [21] In a rejoinder, Himmelstein and Warren explained the critics' multiple errors. [22]

smiling bandit
07-18-2011, 08:40 PM
Never mind, found it: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Popular_works) :rolleyes:

As is usual of you, Brainglutton, once you find anything which tends to confirm your preconception, you immediately ignore anything else. I can confirm that the "insurance industry" is not the onyl group who looks very, very dubiously as Elizabeth Warren's record. She's done good work in the past, but her ethics and honesty have been called into question several times. She's come within an inch of wholly falsifying her findings, and I suggest you go talk to Megan McArdle (who is hardly a right-winger) if you doubt. She's written multiple, detailed articles concerning Elizabeth Warren's proclivities.

gonzomax
07-18-2011, 08:51 PM
So does Obama's refusal to nominate her put on record who he works for and whose interests he serves?

Zero logic. He did not nominate her because the Repubs will do everything on earth to keep her from the position. He was considering a recess appointment but the Repubs said they would keep a person there for the entire time off just to prevent it.
Cordray is supposed to be a pretty tough guy against you greedy types. The hope is he is more palatable than Warren and could squeak in. But that is not likely since the bankers are against any person who slows down their theft.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 09:05 PM
As is usual of you, Brainglutton, once you find anything which tends to confirm your preconception, you immediately ignore anything else. I can confirm that the "insurance industry" is not the onyl group who looks very, very dubiously as Elizabeth Warren's record. She's done good work in the past, but her ethics and honesty have been called into question several times. She's come within an inch of wholly falsifying her findings, and I suggest you go talk to Megan McArdle (who is hardly a right-winger) if you doubt. She's written multiple, detailed articles concerning Elizabeth Warren's proclivities.

Cite? Link?

waterj2
07-18-2011, 09:42 PM
Well, since the anti-Warren posters have again failed to cite the articles they refer to, I'll just cite their debunking, courtesy of Mike Konzkal (http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/megan-mcardles-hack-post-on-elizabeth-warrens-scholarship/):So Megan McArdle wrote a long post (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/) attacking Elizabeth Warren as a scholar. What’s surprising is how little “there-there” there is to her critique. I would love to see nomination hearings based around how expansive of a definition to use for medical bankruptcies and watching Warren rip the face off of Senators when it comes to empirical methods. I doubt it is going to come to this, but I’ll go ahead and respond.And I don't know how you'd describe McArdle's politics, but as far as I've seen (which is usually in links to people debunking her claims) she tows the Republican line on health care faithfully.

BrainGlutton
07-18-2011, 09:54 PM
And I don't know how you'd describe McArdle's politics . . .

Like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_McArdle#Journalistic_career)

McArdle began blogging in November 2001; her blog was originally called "Live From The WTC", because she was working at the time for a construction firm doing cleanup at the World Trade Center site following the September 11 attacks. She wrote under the pen name "Jane Galt". The name was a play on "John Galt", the name of a central character in Ayn Rand's Objectivist novel Atlas Shrugged; though her political perspective could best be described not as Objectivist but as moderate libertarian or classical liberal. In November 2002 she renamed the site "Asymmetrical Information", a reference to the economics term of the same name. That blog had two other occasional contributors, Zimran Ahmed (writing under the pen name "Winterspeak") and the pseudonymous "Mindles H. Dreck".

Bryan Ekers
07-18-2011, 10:22 PM
I wanna see Warren running the Fed. I likes her.

BrainGlutton
07-19-2011, 01:08 AM
I wanna see Warren running the Fed. I likes her.

Or in the U.S. Senate. (http://www.thenation.com/blog/162089/elizabeth-warren-us-senate)

The best place for Warren would be the US Senate, and it happens that a seat is available—representing the state where she has lived for much of her adult life: Massachusetts.

Republican Senator Scott Brown, a Wall Street favorite, will be seeking a full six-year term in 2012. Democrats have several credible contenders—and potential contenders—for the seat. Indeed, Congressman Mike Capuano has such an impressive record that progressive Democrats could have a tough time choosing between the congressman and Warren.

But if the point is policy, as opposed to politics, then getting Warren into the Senate—with the platform to lead the fight not just for consumer protection but economic fairness—ought to be a serious consideration.

I first met Warren more than a decade ago with our mutual friend Paul Wellstone, who was then a second-term senator from Minnesota. The senator used to joke that he could use ten more progressives in the Senate—“or one Elizabeth Warren.”

Wellstone’s point was clear enough. Warren has remarkable skills when it comes to communicating in an authoritative way about the need to crack down on reverse-mortgage hucksters and credit-card swindlers. She knows how to mix economic, political and moral arguments into statements that can define the debate.

Four years in the Senate could well make Elizabeth Warren a serious contender for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination—and rightly so. As a senator, she would serve in the independent progressive Wellstone-Feingold style. And that’s almost certainly what Democrats—and Americans—will be looking for after the eight years of Obama or four years of Rombachperrycain.

But even if Warren never goes presidential, she (and those who have been enthusiastic about her potential as a national leader) should consider the Senate. Her election to the chamber would be in the tradition of former Alaska Senator Ernest Gruening, former Oregon Senator Wayne Morse and former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, scholars and presidential appointees whose presence elevated the stature of the Senate and the general quality of the debate in Washington.

It would also be in the tradition of Wellstone, who recognized long ago that Elizabeth Warren would make a exceptional senator.

gonzomax
07-19-2011, 09:14 AM
She is honest and tells the truth to power. That is not how you get ahead in America. The bankers are doing everything they can to derail her. I imagine a political run by her would show how dirty and ugly they can get when you threaten their power.