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.
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.
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.
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?”
Who the hell is Elizabeth Warren and why should we care?
Wow. You nailed it!!
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.
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.
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.
Is that the problem, or did you just fail to make it coherently? :dubious:
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.
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.
Is any reason given? I’ve heard Warren referred to as a “controversial” choice, but nothing of the nature of the controversy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So does Obama’s refusal to nominate her put on record who he works for and whose interests he serves?
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.
From your lips …
Cordray for Guv '14