Obama to nominate Cordray to Consumer Protection Post.

[BrainGlutton]

@puddleglum

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]

@BrainGlutton

Is any reason given?

Any given publicly are likely insincere, shall we say, DC being what it is.

@gonzomax

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]

@BrainGlutton

Cite?

Never mind, found it: :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]

@BrainGlutton

Never mind, found it: :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]

@Bricker

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]

@smiling_bandit

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]

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:

So Megan McArdle wrote a long post 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]

@waterj2

And I don’t know how you’d describe McArdle’s politics . . .

Like this.

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]

I wanna see Warren running the Fed. I likes her.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bryan_Ekers

I wanna see Warren running the Fed. I likes her.

Or in the U.S. 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]

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.