Hello:

Really. She runs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Go to the website. I don't see anything threatening over there... She just wants to stop consumers from getting ripped off. What's wrong with that?

As an example, you know that long printout you get with your credit card bill? The one written in teeny tiny letters on both sides. Yeah, THAT one. They do that, of course, so you WON'T read it. They don't want you to know what they're doing.

All Elizabeth Warren wants, is the bank to send you stuff that you can actually READ.. That way they can't CHEAT you. What's wrong with that? It IS your contract with the bank, after all. When they send those things, they're CHANGING your contract. Wouldn't you like to know HOW? What is the bank hiding? Why are the Republicans protecting them? Don't right wingers have credit cards? Don't THEY want to know what those little pieces of paper say? I guess they TRUST the banks... I don't know why.

Do you?

excon

She will be another unaccountable czar . In this case she will have tremendous power a huge budget that Congress will have no oversight over.

My question is why would you support such executive over-reach and unaccountablity ?

The President knows she would not make it out of the Senate confirmation process . Sen. Stuart Smalley suggested to the President that he use a recess appt. over the Holiday weekend to install her. The Republicans countered by keeping the Senate in session. The fact that Harry Reid willingly participated in this means he may not be solidly in Warren's camp. BTW.. the President hasn't even nominated her officially. His plans all along has been to install her in the position without hearings.

The real problem isn't with Warren as much as the broad powers and autonomy she will have under the provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill related to her agency. Consumer protection should be a commission much like the FTC or SEC ,with a bipartisan board ;and full Congressional oversight .
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...20Senators.pdf
Already a czar ,she is the chief architect of the agency and is defining it's broad powers all under the radar. She will likely get appointed by recess to run this unaccountable agency she is setting up.
You don't see this a problem ?
So far Obama, disregarding the normal confirmation process ,would go against the principles of transparency that the bureau allegedly stands for. In fact it's laughable that a bureau head charged with making sure procedures are followed will be installed ignoring and bypassing all normal procedures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You don't see this a problem ?

---

Hello again, tom:

No, and I don't, and I don't know why you do.. This is just another federal POLICE agency. You ordinarily LOVE them.. But, not these guys because THESE cops are going to police the banks.

Now, if they were going to police abortionists, or pot smokers, or underground gay marriage, THAT would be cool with you.. I understand.

excon

In principle I have nothing wrong with a Federal Agency dedicated to consumer protection either .

Tell me the police agency that doesn't have their director confirmed by the Senate ? Hate to tell you ,this is how the system works . The Republicans are not happy with the current unchecked and unaccountable powers of this "police agency" as you call it. I don't know why you would be either . No unelected bureaucrat should have so much power without Congressional oversight and budgetary approval .
The Republicans will block any nominee until changes are made to make the agency accountable. Best it get done before any attempt is made to install her outside of the confirmation process .

BTW ;this doesn't signal a "hate " of Warren at all.

I do have questions about her ability to take on the job. All I know for sure is that she has no business experience at all and is another ivory tower buddy of Obama . That may or may not be a good thing. I'd like to find that out in the public hearings on her confirmation. I guess it's too much to expect an agency created for the purpose of transparency to not be created under the radar ,at the whim of it's future director . I guess it's too much from the most transparent administration ever to have the director of that agency fall under the normal and constitutional confirmation process .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I do have questions about her ability to take on the job.

---

Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
She has done more in her life than you will ever do. All related to the position in question.

Here's the rest of my comment... All I know for sure is that she has no business experience at all and is another ivory tower buddy of Obama . That may or may not be a good thing. I'd like to find that out in the public hearings on her confirmation. .
Thanks for confirming that she has no business experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

thanks for confirming that she has no business experience.

---

I guess when you have no argument you just make stuff up eh? Hey can we talk about Bush's business experience? That would be fun and right up your alley!

Besides a personal attack on me do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?. No.. see you

Bye! When you say lies about my posts you get what's coming to you.