There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    oh wait...never mind...

    WASHINGTON -- Bucking his party's leadership, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) Wednesday expressed his support for President Obama's decision to name Richard Cordray head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a recess appointment that evaded a Republican blockade of the nomination.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    Nowhere near the support he would have shown for Obama had he recess appointed Elizabeth Warren.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    Brown also appeared to blame the 'broken' politics in congress for the whole incident.

    Kudos to the junior sen for acknowledging what so many in his party want to ignore.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]Brown also appeared to blame the 'broken' politics in congress for the whole incident. Kudos to the junior sen for acknowledging what so many in his party want to ignore.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    They join the 50+ D's in the Senate who want to ignore it also. It was bad when R's did it and good when D's do it. (or visa versa).

    They both need to go!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : They join the 50+ D's in the Senate who want to ignore it also. It was bad when R's did it and good when D's do it. (or visa versa). They both need to go!
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    Yes, but I think it's also a matter of degree.

    Six months to debate a routine appointment seems long enough. 

    Count me, for one, as one of those who is frustrated at how long things take to actually get done on the Hill. 

    The least they could do is allow it to be put up for a vote.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : Yes, but I think it's also a matter of degree. Six months to debate a routine appointment seems long enough.  Count me, for one, as one of those who is frustrated at how long things take to actually get done on the Hill.  The least they could do is allow it to be put up for a vote.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    First, the debate has been around the authority of the agency, which the Dems have said basically "take it or leave it". Second, they did vote in December to bring his nomination and it didn't get the 60 votes required. It was "defeated" 53-45.

    Finally, the original Dodd-Frank bill which created this was opposed by Republicans who requested changes but were told "take it or leave it" which they did. It passed 59-39 along party lines. Why were the Dems not willing to debate it when it was being voted on/written/passed? Because they didn't need Republican support to pass it. So you got a bill and agency they didn't want/like. So they have done everything to stop it.

    The issues today were not created by the Republicans. They are the same BS each party has done over the last 100 years. The issue is they are getting faster and looser with the rules to get around each other. Until citizens of BOTH sides say enough is enough we are doomed!
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]Hmmmmm, sounds like someone is up for re-election.
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Right because this is the first time he's gone against his party....sigh
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : First, the debate has been around the authority of the agency, which the Dems have said basically "take it or leave it". Second, they did vote in December to bring his nomination and it didn't get the 60 votes required. It was "defeated" 53-45. Finally, the original Dodd-Frank bill which created this was opposed by Republicans who requested changes but were told "take it or leave it" which they did. It passed 59-39 along party lines. Why were the Dems not willing to debate it when it was being voted on/written/passed? Because they didn't need Republican support to pass it. So you got a bill and agency they didn't want/like. So they have done everything to stop it. The issues today were not created by the Republicans. They are the same BS each party has done over the last 100 years. The issue is they are getting faster and looser with the rules to get around each other. Until citizens of BOTH sides say enough is enough we are doomed!
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    But what is the logic behind their opposition in the first place?  Nobody here has been able to enunciate the repubs' position for why more oversight of the consumer finance industry isn't necessary after the events of 2007 and after.

    OK, so they don't want the agency.  It passed anyway.  Denying it a director at this point seems kind of petty, doesn't it?

    Again, I know the dems do the same thing almost as much, but knowing that doesn't give the gop the high ground by any means. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : But what is the logic behind their opposition in the first place?  Nobody here has been able to enunciate the repubs' position for why more oversight of the consumer finance industry isn't necessary after the events of 2007 and after. OK, so they don't want the agency.  It passed anyway.  Denying it a director at this point seems kind of petty, doesn't it? Again, I know the dems do the same thing almost as much, but knowing that doesn't give the gop the high ground by any means. 
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    They are OK with the agency and agreed it was needed. Their issues were that this is an agency with a Czar. They can make ANY changes they want (he wants) and they don't answer to anyone. There is no oversight. A person who has never appeared on a ballot will decide what rates you pay, what fees you can be charged etc. They can strike down any and all financial deals on a whim. He will reside at the Fed though will not report to it and the budget is auto approved. I don't care which party is "in charge" this scares the hell out of me.

    I think it is petty but I think the way the Dems handled their 2 years of total control and rammed things through was petty as well. The first thing I learned upon becoming the VP of IT is that with great power comes great responsibility. Part of that is not throwing your weight around even though you can. That is why I really think we need to get rid of ALL in DC and start over. We need people who care more about the country than their own wealth and position. We have very few in DC right now. Elected or other.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : They are OK with the agency and agreed it was needed. Their issues were that this is an agency with a Czar. They can make ANY changes they want (he wants) and they don't answer to anyone. There is no oversight. A person who has never appeared on a ballot will decide what rates you pay, what fees you can be charged etc. They can strike down any and all financial deals on a whim. He will reside at the Fed though will not report to it and the budget is auto approved. I don't care which party is "in charge" this scares the hell out of me. I think it is petty but I think the way the Dems handled their 2 years of total control and rammed things through was petty as well. The first thing I learned upon becoming the VP of IT is that with great power comes great responsibility. Part of that is not throwing your weight around even though you can. That is why I really think we need to get rid of ALL in DC and start over. We need people who care more about the country than their own wealth and position. We have very few in DC right now. Elected or other.
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    No, clearly they were not OK with the agency, its need, and its mission.  They said so themselves.  Else, they wouldn't have been so obstinate toward allowing the appointment of its director.

    If they were smart, they would have let it go and then made their own changes once they got into power....which they claim to want to do anyway. 

    And maybe you don't know this, but the personal finance industry (mortgage brokers, payday lenders, etc.) has lobbied heavily and expensively to prevent this agency's creation.  Whose interests are they working for, exactly...theirs or the country's...??
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : But what is the logic behind their opposition in the first place?  Nobody here has been able to enunciate the repubs' position for why more oversight of the consumer finance industry isn't necessary after the events of 2007 and after. OK, so they don't want the agency.  It passed anyway.  Denying it a director at this point seems kind of petty, doesn't it? Again, I know the dems do the same thing almost as much, but knowing that doesn't give the gop the high ground by any means. 
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    From today's Globe... This is fall out from the Dodd-Frank consumer protection bill...

    The biggest banks have lost billions of dollars in revenue from new rules reducing the amount they can collect in debit card fees and limiting overdraft charges.

    http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/01/09/fees_surge_as_banks_hunt_for_revenue/?p1=News_links
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : No, clearly they were not OK with the agency, its need, and its mission.  They said so themselves.  Else, they wouldn't have been so obstinate toward allowing the appointment of its director. If they were smart, they would have let it go and then made their own changes once they got into power....which they claim to want to do anyway.  And maybe you don't know this, but the personal finance industry (mortgage brokers, payday lenders, etc.) has lobbied heavily and expensively to prevent this agency's creation.  Whose interests are they working for, exactly...theirs or the country's...??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    Show me one that said they are against the agency setup. They are against the WAY it was setup.

    They can't touch it after unless they remove it totally which is why they are fighting now. Once this happens the agency is under no control except this director.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : From today's Globe... This is fall out from the Dodd-Frank consumer protection bill... The biggest banks have lost billions of dollars in revenue from new rules reducing the amount they can collect in debit card fees and limiting overdraft charges. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/01/09/fees_surge_as_banks_hunt_for_revenue/?p1=News_links
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    Pity those poor, poor banks....
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : Show me one that said they are against the agency setup. They are against the WAY it was setup. They can't touch it after unless they remove it totally which is why they are fighting now. Once this happens the agency is under no control except this director.
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    "I have met Mr. Cordray, and my decision to oppose his confirmation by the Senate has nothing to do with his qualifications. Rather, I feel it is my duty to oppose his confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of CFPB itself. "  - Sen. Mike Lee - (R) Utah

    Congress passed the law which created the agency.  Only Congress can eliminate it.  The filibuster was purely intended to stall the agency's ability to function.  Weak.

    (Incidentally, Lee also believes that federal child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution.  Subtlety doesn't seem to be his strong suit.) 
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : Pity those poor, poor banks....
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    LOL, I am sure they are heartened. The issue isn't the legislation per se. It is that it wasn't fully read, understood and vetted before it was passed. These are the unintended consequences of poor legislation. Which BTW -  did little to protect the consumer.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : "I have met Mr. Cordray, and my decision to oppose his confirmation by the Senate has nothing to do with his qualifications. Rather, I feel it is my duty to oppose his confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of CFPB itself . "  - Sen. Mike Lee - (R) Utah Congress passed the law which created the agency.  Only Congress can eliminate it.  The filibuster was purely intended to stall the agency's ability to function.  Weak. (Incidentally, Lee also believes that federal child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution.  Subtlety doesn't seem to be his strong suit.) 
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    You left out the rest which goes to my points. Look at his last sentence (Bold and underlined)

    In the wake of the financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank financial industry reform which has done very little to address the core reasons the financial collapse occurred. However, using the guise of “consumer protection”, Dodd-Frank did create an unaccountable new government bureaucracy that will invariably intrude into the lives of nearly every American with a checking account or a credit card.   

    The financial crisis was not caused by a lack of consumer protection watchdogs.  The federal government has dozens of agencies and thousands of employees, not to mention 535 members of Congress, who supposedly perform oversight functions intended to promote competition and protect consumers. Yet, most of the questionable loans that were granted while the housing bubble was inflating were supported, required, or even created by the government itself.

    The crisis was the predictable result of dangerously easy credit facilitated by the Federal Reserve and years of government policy promoting home-ownership-for-all at any cost.

    The CFPB will change absolutely none of that. Instead, it is in the process of assuming power over all sorts of consumer financial products, including checking accounts, credit cards, and student loans. New system-wide regulations will actually have the effect of disproportionately harming small community banks and their customers through higher costs.

    Even more worrisome, the new agency is designed to have the authority to affect practically everyone while having accountability to practically no one, and this authority is vested in a single acting director.

    The CFPB has access to annual funding of roughly half a billion dollars that is provided by the Federal Reserve, rather than Congress. According to the Congressional Research Service, “These funds are not reviewable by either the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations,” making the CFPB entirely outside the realm of traditional appropriations controls… 

    Confirming any director for this bureau would be tantamount to agreeing that we need a uniquely powerful super-agency that is not even designed to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. Until the CFPB is reformed, I will not support it in any way.


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...

    In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: There goes Scott Brown again in lockstep with his party... : LOL, I am sure they are heartened. The issue isn't the legislation per se. It is that it wasn't fully read, understood and vetted before it was passed. These are the unintended consequences of poor legislation. Which BTW -  did little to protect the consumer.
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    Your (and Lee's) arguments are predicated on half-truths about the cause and effects of the financial crisis.

    Dodd-Frank was fairly wide reform and covered many areas of finance.  The CFPB is only one of those reforms which WILL be mandated to protect consumers from shady practices.  It just got started...thanks to Obama's recess appointment OVER the rank objections of gopers like Sen. Lee. 

    I agree that we have yet to see how well these reforms work, but not even giving them a chance to do so is unacceptable.  Consumer credit and finance are far too big (and influential via DC lobbies) to be allowed to police themselves.

    To me, opposing this kind of regulation is akin to supporting usury.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share