Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

[shiny!]

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-1...onsumer-agency

I expected this. The bureau is going to be like our votes, i.e. if it really had the power to change things they would never allow it to happen. Maybe it's for the best. She'll be more free to speak out now.

[santafe2]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

I expected this. The bureau is going to be like our votes, i.e. if it really had the power to change things they would never allow it to happen. Maybe it's for the best. She'll be more free to speak out now.

With Republicans holding a majority in the house it's unlikely she can be confirmed as director. She is still the architect of the agency and will speak openly when legislation is presented to undo her work.

[don]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-1...onsumer-agency

I expected this. The bureau is going to be like our votes, i.e. if it really had the power to change things they would never allow it to happen. Maybe it's for the best. She'll be more free to speak out now.

Unfortunately it will only be to the choir, as we all nod our heads in agreement . . . and nothing changes. Score another for the Prezident. (It may be premature to start a betting pool, since he might be 're-elected', on will his post-prezidencial rewards exceed those of Clinton, Bush and Blair?)

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

With Republicans holding a majority in the house it's unlikely she can be confirmed as director. She is still the architect of the agency and will speak openly when legislation is presented to undo her work.

Puh-lease, the meme that it is just the evil Republicans holding things up is so very quaint and wrong.

Obama has never come straight out and said Warren should be the head of Consumer Protection. It is damning with faint praise, and completely consistent with all his other (in)actions on everything except that which helps his campaign donors - principally the TBTFs and i-banks, collectively known as the banksters.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Former attorney general Richard Cordray has been chosen to head the agency. He is a good choice and is said to have been recommended by Warren.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index....general_r.html

The Senate Republicans will most likely try to block his nomination like they've blocked so many others. This may give Obama an opportunity to come back with Warren, or someone else like her, later.

[aaron]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

I thought the idea was Warren would run the agency until a suitable nominee was approved. With the current state of things, somebody might NEVER be approved. Obama just needs to continually nominate people that would do a good job (go after banksters). They will never be supported by CONgress. Warren continues on as the de facto director.

[santafe2]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Puh-lease, the meme that it is just the evil Republicans holding things up is so very quaint and wrong.

Obama has never come straight out and said Warren should be the head of Consumer Protection. It is damning with faint praise, and completely consistent with all his other (in)actions on everything except that which helps his campaign donors - principally the TBTFs and i-banks, collectively known as the banksters.

You bore me. I always feel less smart when you respond than I did before I read your response. "Evil"...really? I say she's unlikely to be confirmed and you take away that I'm damning Republicans as "Evil". The utter stupidity of your agenda creeps me out. Please aim your life at something of value and try to earn some friendship. If iTulipers don't respond to you, you don't exist. You have no values. As you know, I disrespect you and to some extent, iTulip for letting you post without a leash. Try to stay on topic.

[BigBagel]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Most folks here realize that America is a one party state with the extravagance of having two "parties".

[shiny!]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Most folks here realize that America is a one party state with the extravagance of having two "parties".

Republocrats.

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

You bore me. I always feel less smart when you respond than I did before I read your response. "Evil"...really? I say she's unlikely to be confirmed and you take away that I'm damning Republicans as "Evil". The utter stupidity of your agenda creeps me out. Please aim your life at something of value and try to earn some friendship. If iTulipers don't respond to you, you don't exist. You have no values. As you know, I disrespect you and to some extent, iTulip for letting you post without a leash. Try to stay on topic.

What a load of hogwash.

On the one hand, you whine and say that the Republicans matter - so poor Obama must pick someone more 'confirmable'.

Yet Obama has managed to pass a health care bill which was in every way opposed by the Republicans.

Has managed to get Supreme Court justices confirmed.

Has managed to get a bank bailout and a stimulus passed.

Yet somehow getting the popular and largely politics neutral Elizabeth Warren confirmed as the head of the CPFA - something which Obama could crucify opponents for blocking a la "So you don't care about the American people" - is the fault of the other side of the Kabuki.

As for your opinions of me - frankly I could care less.

You've shown over and over again your ideological blinders and intellectual vacuousness.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

This is not meant necessarily to disagree with your underlying doubt about Obama's real commitment to bank reform, but didn't all those other things happen before Republicans took control of the House? Isn't it probably that as a result of that rather significant event, Obama now views Warren's confirmation as impossible rather than a problem for his campaign contributors? Of course, that still doesn't mean he isn't secretly pleased to see Republicans block her nomination, but by providing Obama with cover I'm afraid the Republicans really do own this one.

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

This is not meant necessarily to disagree with your underlying doubt about Obama's real commitment to bank reform, but didn't all those other things happen before Republicans took control of the House? Isn't it probably that as a result of that rather significant event, Obama now views Warren's confirmation as impossible rather than a problem for his campaign contributors? Of course, that still doesn't mean he isn't secretly pleased to see Republicans block her nomination, but by providing Obama with cover I'm afraid the Republicans really do own this one.

First, note that the CFPB was actually formed and Warren proposed for its head in September 2010. 2 months before the elections which switched the Republicans into House majority. This was also after months of clear foot dragging in even getting the CFPB formed.

Second: Politically attacking Elizabeth Warren would be suicide were she given any amount of cover. She has never been partisan in any way except in terms of reining in financial abuses - something which is hugely resonant with most every American at this point.

It is no different than Obama's health care bill: most of the 'popular' sections of it - like not allowing insurers to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions - could easily have passed and with a huge majority, because fighting against a bill offering that would be political suicide (as opposed to offering a bill including that but also making sure 'no health insurance company left behind').

Can you see how anyone who voted against 'no denial of existing coverage' would get skewered by attack ads repeating this forever? Ditto someone voting against 'the champion of consumer financial rights'.

My point is very simple: Warren is a sure fire way for Obama to take a stand and make a point about his willingness to represent the American people as a whole.

Instead his unwillingness to support her makes a different point about his being a finger puppet for the banksters, or more likely the point about his continuing to be a finger puppet for the banksters.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

I think your argument about his bankster support is fine without needing the healthcare example. I don't see how prohibiting the denial of coverage to those with pre-existing conditions could ever pass as a stand-alone bill. As soon as I can get coverage whenever I get sick, there's no reason for me to get coverage when I'm well. Your "popular bill" would destroy the insurance concept overnight and, last time I checked, the insurance companies are the ones who bankrolled the fight against Obamacare. Now you're suggesting they would have done nothing to prevent the destruction of their business model?

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

As soon as I can get coverage whenever I get sick, there's no reason for me to get coverage when I'm well. Your "popular bill" would destroy the insurance concept overnight and, last time I checked, the insurance companies are the ones who bankrolled the fight against Obamacare.

1) Your error is in assuming that outlawing denial of coverage goes along with not being able to charge more.

Absent national health care, it is understandable why any given insurance company would want to charge more for a potential new customer with a pre-existing condition who seeks a new health insurance policy; actuarily speaking there is a cost for said condition which is already present.

The problem is in reality insurance companies were denying insurance for those with pre-existing conditions irrespective of the actuarial costs; it was a preventative measure. I call this the 'Geico' solution: those who don't use insurance, or don't use it much, are far more profitable than those who do.

2) Your second error is in assuming that anything beyond politics. I'm not saying a bill specifically covering denial of health insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions is the end-all, be-all to reforming health care, because it isn't.

I'm saying such a bill would be political suicide to oppose. The party affiliation is irrelevant in such a case.

I'm furthermore saying that a competent politician would use success in passing a series of such bills to create popular credibility, which can then potentially be used to try and pass the difficult parts.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

1) Your error is in assuming that outlawing denial of coverage goes along with not being able to charge more.

Now I'm really confused. Outlawing a pre-existing condition clause but not doing anything else to reduce rates would only increase insurance rates for everybody. That's just a plain actuarial truth. Yet you claim that it would be "political suicide" to oppose a bill that would dramatically increase insurance costs?

WTF? Where have you been for the past couple of years? Have you not been hearing people scream that insurance costs are unaffordable, that businesses are cancelling policies because they are unaffordable, and that healthcare costs have reached 5% of GDP --- twice the level of almost all other developed countries? Yeah, sure, Congress would love to vote for a bill that only increased premiums for the benefit of the minority of Americans who are presently uninsured.

I'm not fan of Obama's approach to making basic healthcare affordable (I favor the European solution of single payer for basic care and private insurance for all the extras) but the reason for the private mandate was to offset the extra cost of eliminating denial of coverage. One cannot be done without the other. That is why your argument of piecemeal reform is disingenuous. You're smart enough to know that we cannot just outlaw denial of coverage and that no such law would ever pass --- and leave out which party would oppose it.