Just more obstruction from the GOP.

I hope they expect the same treatment the next time a Republican President is elected.

Skibum, I support Obama and I am top 2%.

Halnmar,

The President does not get to pass laws. Only Congress can pass laws. All laws passed by Congress are Constitutional until someone sues for damages. Then the Supreme Court gets involved to opine exactly what is in fact Constitutional. What you think is or is not Constitutional is not relevant unless you are willing to challenge it in court. Don't blame me. That is how the Founding Fathers decided how the issue of constitutionality would be handled.

This organization is tasked with protecting consumers from abuses by financial organizations. What, exactly, do you think they are going to do that needs to be prevented by additional oversight? If the man is continuously testifying before the Banking Committee and submits semi-annual reports to Congress, it doesn't look like he is Likely to get away with anything.

What's so bad about having a national agency with teeth to protect consumers?

The vast majority of Americans support us having such an agency.

Only a few wealthy Republicans don't.

Who are among the same people who brought us the Great Recession, lest we forget!

Remember how the CFPB law got passed in the first place?

It got passed because the Republicans didn't have enough votes to block it in the Senate.

Because 60% of Americans were so tired of Republican lies that year!

So what the Republicans are trying to do now is to override the will of 60% of Americans.

Isn't our form of democracy wonderful when a minority has this much power?

cont. from #1.7

.

We do have dictators in the US; dictators are those who have argued that the market is perfect and there should be no regulation. Obviously the market is not perfect, only the rich donors to the GOP want less regulation, so that they can gamble away depositors' money, make obscene profits, and them share that wealth with Republican accomplices inside the government.

Because when these rich donors (CEOs and banksters) are enabled to gamble, they will cause recessions which mostly hurt the 99%. The rich always have enough in life even in recessions, they actually can buy forclosed homes at lower prices and then sell them at normal prices, to become even richer. But how about job losses during recession? The poor and the middle class don't cause recessions, but they suffer more from them.

How can some still seriously argue that the market is perfect? These people are free-market dictators. I am not saying the market is a dictator, I am saying dictators are those who argue that the market is perfect.

And Filibuster in 3, 2, 1.....

skibum609

No its called Republicans protecting America from the scum Obama. Every other agency has oversight, but not this one? Screw that and Obama as well. He's nothing but a cheat, supported by morons on the dole.

BS. You want to screw something? Screw the Republicans who have been trying to block every attempt to rein in Wall Street and hold Banks accountable. They only want to control funding so they can kill the funding.

If you all read the article the Republicans don't have a problem with who is heading this agency. And the lawsuit involving the appointments is about how Obama didn't have the power to make the appointments he did. They also have a problem with how this agency not having oversight. No oversight will lead to whatever party is in charge of the agency exploiting it. I didn't read anything about how they opposed this agency.

This President could nominate the POPE, or Mother T, and the rethugs would oppose them. All the lower court judges that are being held up is also pathetic. They are thwarting the will of the people who voted the rethug philosophy out. This rethug madness started with the impeachment of President Clinton. But the REAL criminals bushcheney will not be touched.

If trade associations and corporate lobbyists worked as hard at ensuring the companies they represented treated their customers fairly, there would be no need for regulations. But instead corporations act as if all their money guarantees they can behave in any way they want...and the public seems to let them do this. For some reason being a for-profit entity gives you the right to behave as criminally as you can get away with.

We need something like the CFPB to protect us consumers from these sharks. I am with the next person in believing all institutions paid by public funds should be held accountable to that public, but in this case with Republicans protecting corporations in their criminality, the CFPB needs to protected from their influence.

Ol_Doc, let me get this straight, you are willing to give a unelected Bureau basically unlimited power, to help rein in Wall Street?

They only want to control funding so they can kill the funding? So the Repubs will forever hold the house? I think not, the house wants to control the funding as a means of checks and balances.

More filibustering, more "No we won't - so you can't!" from the Republicans. Another reason to say "buh-bye" to Mitch the Turtle McConnell and his mercenary band shell bent on obstruction. They want to force decision by committee - otherwise decisions might be made and actions taken to help the Average Joe (a Republican nightmare!).

Ol Doc

"BS. You want to screw something? Screw the Republicans who have been trying to block every attempt to rein in Wall Street and hold Banks accountable. They only want to control funding so they can kill the funding."

What Congress have you been watching? Every time anyone tries to corner the big banks there's been a Democrat holding an exit door open. Democrats are winning because they have the most money. Where do you think that money comes from? You really need to think before you speak.

I can't believe you morons on here, there are alot of these RICH you cry constantly about who are democrats knuckleheads. You don't see them saying they're going to spread the wealth,wow, you idiots. this is a common sense issue dummies,a government entity with NO OVERSIGHT? no wonder we're f@#ked up as a country.

Hahahaha, even Obamas own poeple dont believe in Dodd-Frank, why are you all? Stop following blindly.

Not even the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, believes that the Dodd-Frank

Act ended “too big to fail.” When asked about the multiple rescues of Citigroup and whether

the Dodd-Frank Act ended “too big to fail” by the Special Inspector General for the Troubled

Asset Relief Program, the Secretary Geithner said out loud what everyone already knows to be

the truth: “In the future we may have to do exceptional things again if we face a shock that

large.” But the Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to save government officials from doing “exceptional

things”;

Lets see, the republicans were all for the worthless 78 billion dollar a year Department of Homeland Defense that is nothing more than an agency that lines the pockets of their contributors and who are opposed to a department that will protect the American consumer. The real enemy of the people are all located within the tea publican party, a bunch of back stabbing nimcompoops who have sold the American public out year after year until it is all to evident that they are nothing more than criminals in $5,000 suits, their approval rating shows this, maybe someday those in the gerrymandered districts will wake up and we'll be done with them.

It’s not Cordray they have a problem with – it’s the agency’s autonomy.

Obviously there is fear that these Republicans will have no control over the CFPB, these Republicans have worried that their rich donors will be hurt by its independence.

It shows why CFPB is a great idea and will impose limits on corporate greed and Wall Street power. But, of course, no tyrants want to see their power under a system of checks and balances.

CFPB will do just that.

President Obama originally wanted Elizabeth Warren, the mother of CFPB. But I am glad that she is in the senate, can always protect this agency from there. Cordray is a former Ohio attorney general and has a sterling reputation in fighting corporate greed.

Cordray, good luck.

Go read for yourselves, everything they told you about Dodd-Frank is a Lie. They bank on you following blindly. Dodd-Frank enforces never ending Tax payer bailouts.

financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tbtf_dodd_frank.pdf

Google Dodd-Frank to big to fail, there are countless articles on the lies.

Ol Doc

What are you talking about, Eric holder made the statement that he will not hold big banks accountable becuase he is affraid to prosecute them.

Holder is not a Republican.

Seems like quite a run around. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded by the Federal Reserve thus in the books we are printing money to operate this agency, rather than adding to our annual deficit since it is not funded by the Treasury Department like all the other agencies. And it also would not be in the President's Budget, thus making the expansion of government look smaller than otherwise would be the case. Quite an accounting trick if you ask me. We will pay for the agency via inflation rather than debt. The precedent is set now, why not move all the agencies to be funded by the Federal Reserve and thus remove congresses power of the purse and decrease our deficit. It's easy to see why congress would hate this.

did you really think republicans wanted to protect consumers? They would do away with anything that helps "we the people". I think republicans just hate America for it's freedom.

Typical NBC article. Leads off with "The Republicans lost the struggle over the Dodd-Frank law to impose new rules on the financial sector."

Way to make it sound like Dodd-Frank was the best law ever, and it would bring these evil financial guys into check. And the no-good GOP opposed such an amazing bill for no good reason other than they want the financial sector to continue down its path of evilness.

However, while this might make for good tv in front of it's liberal sheep audience, nothing could be further from the truth. As Herman Cain correctly put it, the biggest issue with Dodd-Frank is Dodd and Frank.

To many, Dodd-Frank was a disaster for many reasons... but NBC will of course never report that side of the story. That's why it's clear that NBC is no longer a news organization, but rather a gathering site for the leftist sheep of America whose sole mission is to be in the tank for Obama.

Then again, I suppose that explains why NBC came in last during February Sweeps. And why NBC came in last when people were polled to name the most trusted news source in America. Oops - tied for last - with THE COMEDY CHANNEL!!!

What's so bad about having a national agency with teeth to protect consumers?

Having an agency that's toothless.

My experience with them was similar to filing a complaint with the BBB. They forward your complaint to the offending company (in my case, it was a credit reporting agency), then forward back the company's response. That's it. They're done.

We're wasting our tax dollars on an agency with no power.

Yes Pigotry, good idea - let's fight corporate greed head-on. Let's take on those greedy corporations and their executives so that they decide to leave the US and set up shop in a more friendly country. Then we can all be unemployed and cry about how those evil corporations left us stranded, without realizing that it was all our own doing in the first place that drove them out.

I can not believe there are people on here who support the idea of a federal agency with no oversight and the power to basically set their own budget. What part of constitutional checks and balances don't you understand. I bet if there were a Republican in the White House you would have a different view on the idea of federal agency with no oversight. Just because the agency has to submit semi-annual reports to Congress does not mean that Congress has any control over what they do. No agency should be in a position where it has a blank check budget and can draw funds directly from the federal reserve without any oversight. The idea is absolutely absurd. The power of the purse belongs to Congress per our Constitution. Anything that goes around this is patently unconstitutional and should be stopped. I do not car what party you belong to, the problem with the way this agency is currently allowed to operate should be crystal clear.

Right now the law allows CFPB to draw its funds directly from the Federal Reserve.

That's how the CFPB gets its much-needed independence. In 1999, the GOP repealed Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that protected the market stability for more than 60 years.

The CFPB is a result of the madness of the recession caused by Republican deregulation.

Dodd-Frank can work if the GOP is not going to gut it along the way. How to enforce Dodd-Frank and its regulatory regime is very complicated. Those corporate lackeys in Congress will use every trick of trade in their arsenal to neutralize regulation.

Tom - Plymouth-3672298

Ol_Doc, let me get this straight, you are willing to give a unelected Bureau basically unlimited power, to help rein in Wall Street?

Let me get this straight. You're concerned that an unelected Bureau might abuse Wall Street? And do you have a problem with a President that would give an unelected agency the power to arrest American Citizens, sent them to Uzbekistan to have the skin boiled off of them (extraordinary rendition) with no concern for the right of habeas corpus? Why are TeaPublicans more concerned with protecting the wealth of the rich than protecting the rights of the middle-class?

So you're saying any agency that is deemed to protect the people should be given unlimited power? Or should we pull in the reins on those that don't?

Just what we need, another layer of bureaucracy.....with no checks and balances. Typical of the would-be emperor

Ol Doc: We're not concerned with protecting the rights of the rich; we're concerned with protecting the rights of everyone....to include the rich....or do you favor discriminating against anyone more successful than you are?

Ol_Doc, I'll let you in on a little secret. History shows that when the wealthy succeed, the middle class (which largely depends on the wealthy) also succeeds. You can't position the two against each other, which is exactly what Obama is trying to do. It simply doesn't work.

The Republicans seem to think that the "Financial Industry" (with trillions already stolen from American consumers) will be willing to buy their next election for them, even if most American voters now realize they have been taken by these scumbags. We'll see. Vote rigging will take place. Florida will be so obviously corrupt that (as Dave Barry says) Florida should sell it's electoral votes to somebody else. The Republicans wheeled out that helpless, laughable Paul Ryan once again to propose destroying Medicare and Social Security ("too much spending"). Will they ever learn? Apparently not. Fortunately, we still have a semblance of a democracy and votes are still (more or less) counted. Put the Financial Industry trillions in the public treasury where it belongs, solve the debt, and get over it.

No problem. Banks and Wall Street are your friend. they would NEVER do anything to hurt the average citizen. We must have steps put in place that can force them into doing the GOP bidding.

Ol Doc # 1.40, asks

Why are TeaPublicans more concerned with protecting the wealth of the rich than protecting the rights of the middle-class?

In general, Republicans side with property rights while Democrats side with personal rights. The Democrats take the approach that a just society is one in which the opportunity to achieve material wealth is protected while the Republicans take the approach that the ownership of material wealth itself is to be protected.

Republicans are more concerned about the end result while Democrats are concerned about the process.

Naturally, Republicans argue that Democrats are rigging the process by imposing arbitrary restraints on everybody that are created by fallible and corruptable human beings, and Democrats argue that Republicans have no moral compass in their strive to achieve power.

Now here is what I wonder about. Although religion is frequently viewed as a civilizing influence, why does the US political party that pursues might-is-right also promote Christianity (that teaches the golden rule) as the State Religion, while the political party that pursues working-together is generally much less religiously inclined?

These Obama worshipers seem to forget that he had a big hand in forcing banks to loan money to people who could not repay it or even make the interest payment let alone a dent in the principal.. They call them bad loans and that is what crushed Fannie and Freddie and thus the economy.. It is called living within your means, people fall for the 30% credit card trap because they can't..

More of the sky is falling crap from the Republicans. When are you going to wake up and look at what people think of you now? Republicans and their tired mantra.....save the wealthy, save the corps, save the banks. You really are paranoid losers and the people who believe your bull are even scarier because they have to be dumber than a box of rocks...we all know what the congressional republican crook agenda is, but the rest of you who fall for their line must really be idiots.

For the libs who back the most uneducated potus of ALL TIME!! One unconstitutional act after another....WAKE UP!!

"Cordray’s status seemed on shaky ground after a ruling last month from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which held that Obama had acted unconstitutionally by giving a recess appointment to three members of the National Labor Relations Board on Jan. 4, 2012.

The court held that the Senate was not in recess on that day so Obama could not make any recess appointments. (In the NLRB case, the Obama administration said Tuesday it will file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the appeals court decision.)

Obama gave Corday his recess appointment on the same day he made the now-invalid NLRB recess appointments.

So -- the GOP is against something. That's news???

And what is wrong making them accountable to the Taxpayer? No government agency should be given a blank check, everytime they ask for it. That is why we have a nearly 17 Trillion dollar National debt. Of course liberials think (ha, ha, I made a funny, since liberal don't think) that the rich will pay for everything.

No over site or advocacy for the consumer? It's no wonder the organized crime family/GOP is blocking the nomination. As long as there is no head there is no over site. These criminals will protect their skim operations and corrupt business models for all it's worth. This country will never be fixed as long as the vulture capitalists continue to pull the strings.

Republican party of "No", Blocking, Filibusters & Obstruction is the biggest threat to America, stopping our beloved Dem's from Cleaning up GWB's Mess !!!

GreenTimer, your question is easily answered. The "political party that pursues might-is-right" as you call it promotes the moral obligation and personal obligation to commit acts of charity. That, however, is a far cry from believing that the government's role is to (poorly) manage the redistribution of wealth.

For example, Mitt Romney does MUCH more for charity (investing not just his money, but his time and effort) than Obama ever did and ever will. Republicans care, and republicans act - they just don't want the gov't to act for them. Democrats believe that it's the government's role to act on their behalf.

Ok T-man, so you propose we gut the wealthy, shut down the corporations or drive them overseas, and take over the banks? Who then do you suggest should drive our economy... the gov't? From where will the gov't get the money to do so? Tax people who no longer have jobs because the of employment have been killed off? People like you need to get a grip on reality. You demonize the successful without realizing that everybody else's success depends on them (I'm not one of them, by the way, but I'm also not a liberal sheep who knows nothing but liberal talking points that have been driven into my brain while under hypnosis).

Charlie - Obama wants to chip away further at our American fiber... that's news???

It doesn't matter anymore what Obama wants everything he does is shrouded in secrecy and has an underlying theme of marxism and functioning as if a Tyrant were overseeing it. There is absolutely no transparency in this administration and what little you perceive there to be is typically just an outright lie which you weak minded libs seem to suck up hook line and sinker.... just keep blaming Bush, before you know it nobody will even remember who he is but you idiots will still be clinging to it.

This just in...something most of us already knew!! What a lying moron, like the low 50% population of his voters! You libs got railroaded!! Suckas!!

Where the Sun Don’t Shine

President Obama promised transparency and open government. He failed miserably. So why do Washington watchdog groups look the other way?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/barack_obama_promised_transparency_the_white_house_is_as_opaque_secretive.html

Realist17

Ol_Doc, I'll let you in on a little secret. History shows that when the wealthy succeed, the middle class (which largely depends on the wealthy) also succeeds. You can't position the two against each other, which is exactly what Obama is trying to do. It simply doesn't work.

But you don't have a problem with ever increasing income inequity? If that's not positioning the two against each other...what is it? Here's the real secret. History shows that when the middle-class is economically strong, the economy is strong and the wealthy succeed. It's the "demand" side of supply and demand. Without a strong middle-class, there is no US economy...something Wall Street and the wealthy simply haven't figured out yet.

John-3421009 Comment collapsed by the community

Idiot liberals,

This agency has NO oversight. Now, with yoru King Obama in charge, you may like that. But you will squeal like stuck pigs when a Republican is President and the agency still has no oversight.

I don't really think we'll worry about that just now...at the rate you GOP'ers are going, you won't be back in the WhiteHouse in my lifetime....

spider-737231

Ol Doc: We're not concerned with protecting the rights of the rich; we're concerned with protecting the rights of everyone....to include the rich....or do you favor discriminating against anyone more successful than you are?

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd have been a wagon. No one believe what you're saying. And each year that goes by, fewer and fewer believe it. You have proven time and time again where your loyalties lie.

Everyone, please remember these obstructionist Republicans come 2014...and vote them ALL out...It really is time for change in Congress!

chrisk196

John-3421009 Comment collapsed by the community

Idiot liberals,

This agency has NO oversight. Now, with yoru King Obama in charge, you may like that. But you will squeal like stuck pigs when a Republican is President and the agency still has no oversight.

What makes you think there will ever be another Republican president? Demographics are not on your side. You continue to shrink your own base with purges. Your party reminds me of the dragon chasing and eating it's own tail despite it's self.

Remember the Whigs!

Ol_Doc: But you don't have a problem with ever increasing income inequity? If that's not positioning the two against each other...what is it? Here's the real secret. History shows that when the middle-class is economically strong, the economy is strong and the wealthy succeed. It's the "demand" side of supply and demand. Without a strong middle-class, there is no US economy...something Wall Street and the wealthy simply haven't figured out yet.

Response: Yes, of course I have a problem with increasing income inequity, but sharing in that problem cannot drive our decisions when the decisions create even worse problems. By giving handouts with money we don't have, we drive up our debt and print our own money which will drive inflation (the reason the stock market has gone up recently). But when the inflation chickens come home to roost, we're done. We can't create utopia by punishing success, but rather by encouraging others to have the drive to be successful. That won't happen by taking from the successful and giving perpetual handouts to able-bodied people. Besides, you could tax the successul people at 100% and it won't raise up the poor - it will just bring down the rich. But the rich will have long since left our country by the time something that drastic were to occur.

But driving the successful overseas isn't the answer, unless your solution is for everybody to be poor. Like it or not, the successful corporations employ a lot of people in this country. History has shown that the middle class was strong when many of the corporations now operating overseas were operating in America.

Our economy started on a barter system, where BOTH parties had both supply AND demand. You need both for a business transaction to occur. Money is just a denomination that represents what you supply to the economy, and it gives you the power to demand. The Dems want to simply annoint people with demand without driving them to create any supply. It's a recipe for disaster. Yes, those people truly in need should receive help. Our current administration, however, has created a nation of takers.

Realist17

Demand drives Supply

Supply does not drive Demand

Employment and increased wages are the answer, not austerity.

Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration - Abraham Lincoln

Spencer-399802

Actually, they're keeping the government from plunging a knife into our backs. They need to keep doing everything they can to keep this organization down until there are some kind of checks and balances in place.

Because, of course, protecting corporations from the Consumer Protection Bureau is more important that protecting actual PEOPLE, right?

Only in the GOP could you argue that that failure to provide an agency director is "protection".

From the Economic Policy Institute:

• Productivity has increased almost 23 percent since 2000, but the hourly wage of the median worker rose 0.5 percent. Median hourly compensation, which consists of all wages and benefits, increased 0.4 percent.

• Going back to 1973, the trend is more pronounced, with productivity rising 80 percent as median hourly compensation grew by about 11 percent.

• If you worked for the lowest wages in 2011, you earned less than the workers in the same percentile in 1979.

• From 1979 to 2011, median wages increased 6 percent. All the growth happened during the 1990s expansion. During the same period, those with high earnings (in the 95th percentile), saw their wages rise 37 percent. Wages of the top 1 percent increased 131 percent.

• People who became unemployed between 2007 and 2009 but found new, full-time jobs took an average wage cut of 10.5 percent.

• In 2011, wages for males with college degrees were 5 percent greater than in 1979. For men with only high-school degrees, entry-level wages were 25 percent lower than in 1979.

• College-educated women saw gains of 15 percent over the same period for their first job, but the wage was still 9 percent below what a college-educated man made in 1979. Women with only high-school education worked for wages 10 percent below the poverty threshold and 14 percent worse than the wages of women with comparable education in 1979.

• In 1979, more than 63 percent of high-school graduates landed entry-level jobs with employer-provided insurance. In 2010, the number had dropped to 22.8 percent.

Tell us one more time who the GOP is "protecting"? American corporations are pocketing record profits - at the expense of WORKING people.

Eric - I want some ACCOUNTABILITY for my tax dollars. The is a Cabinet Level Department and it should work like any other Cabinet Level Dept. I realize you may not pay any taxes, probably just barely finished High School but I am tired of O'Bama's Brown Shirts calling anyone who disagrees with the Socialist Dictator O'Bama an "Obstructionist". I realize O'Bama has destroyed the U.S. Economy to the point on total collapse, but he has made the U.S.A. a welfare country with more than 50% dependent on monthly welfare checks and food stamps. If I owned a Business in the U.S.A. I would terminate all my employee and send them to O'Bama. I would move my business to Mexico or Canada (like the Big 3 U.S. Automakers) and tell the Union thugs to hit the road. O'Bama and the Democrats are the real "Obstructionist" their strategy of Divide and Conquer is starting another American Revolution that will remove them from office.

Most people don't know that the top 1% pay over 80% of ALL TAXES.

CFPB now enjoys “complete autonomy; the Federal Reserve has no ability to influence their decision making, no oversight capacity, nothing. - Sen. Crapo

Sounds exactly like the Federal Reserve, except instead of being made up of only banks and former bank executives, this agency is actually designed to help protect the consumers. Why exactly would Republicans want to dismantle it again? Do they think the FTC and SEC did a good job prior to the financial markets imploding in 2008? They just want to create more bureaucracy to prevent it from actually being affected. Now is a perfect example of watching all of that lobbying money go to work!

Joe,

That's true, I am apart of that top 1%. What most trying to defend us don't realize is that we would rather have a stronger middle class capable of affording a little bit of the tab. Otherwise, we will pay more in lost asset value in the future, on top of our current tax liability. However, the reality is that I can move my money offshore through redirecting payments and profits from my company branches overseas into offshore tax havens. I doubt anyone that depends on a paycheck each month has the same flexibility.

The is a Cabinet Level Department and it should work like any other Cabinet Level Dept.

So if it should work like every other cabinet level department, shouldn't there be someone heading that department so you can have someone to hold accountable? Is preventing a cabinet nomination for 2 years really what you consider being responsible or accountable, or does that sound like political obstruction?

The there was a bill which had at its heart creating the CFPB. That bill was approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law.

How is there a Constitutional problem?

The Secretary of Defense is ONE PERSON. The Secretary of State is ONE PERSON.

Just because the Republican party wants to be able to prevent this agency from doing its job by cutting off funding, before it even begins operation, does not mean that how it was created and its operation is UnConstitutional.

The reality is, the Senate has to get rid of the unlimited, just mention the word, filibuster and require each time that someone wants to filibuster they have to speak.

The battle over the LAW creating this agency was fought and lost.

MOVE ON!!!!

B B B But if the agency created to represent consumers isn't regulated by a rag-tag-sold-out board of "directors" (non-consumers), how will the lobbyists effectively ruin their work?...

If the person appointed by the President is actually in charge, ... We may actually see progress for the benefit of REAL Americans... Screw the 'Merkins, that's the way they like it.

Typical republican monkey-sh*t... And typical non-stop consumers of it on here trying to strengthen their case for being lifelong subjugants. Ignorant low info riff-raff.

So... rather than introduce a bill that would help correct the agency so that it would fall under more congressional supervision.... they fillibuster again.

"We don't have any problem with you... but we will not vote for you."

Does the GOP realize it is a laughing stock? The sad thing is, I agree with them. The oversight committee needs to be handled like all other government groups, with congress in charge. The power of that organization should not stem from one sole man, nor should it have free money. But to block a nomination that everyone likes? Idiocy at its finest. Didn't Rand Paul just do the same stupid stunt? "I will fillibuster your nomination over totally different disagreements that you have no control over!!!!!!!!!"

One day they might remember how to govern. They DO control the house... they COULD pass a bill... but it looks like this may have to be another recess nomination to step around their stupidity.

If the Republican party is "agin" it, then it's the right this to do.

Regulatory agencies fall under the Administrative branch (i.e. the President), not Congress.

It's no different than the FDA or EPA or CDC. They're not under Congress - but the GOP wants this agency to be.

I agree - let's treat them like all other federal agencies - and keep the separation of powers like the Constitution says.

Once again the GOPers are thwarting the will of the people. By a huge majority, consumers are in favor of this agency just the way it is. Why do the GOPers continue to try to commit suicide and then wonder why they die at the polls?

If Space Aliens came down and poisoned half our rivers, wiped out 1 in 10 of our wild species, dismantled entire mountains, laced agricultural lands with genetic poisons, put cancerous materials into our children's toys, torched and hacked 99% of our original forests, and radically changed our atmosphere.

Would we get the supreme court to declare them persons and give them all our money?

Or would we mobilize to stop them!!!

"Constitutional illegality" & "Lack of oversight" ??? Since when republicans started caring about these things? They seemed to be doing just fine with ....

A) No bid contracts to haliburton

B) Guantanamo prisons & water boarding & no right to habeas corpus.

C) Lack of oversight on financial sector especially hedge funds.

If the man is continuously testifying before the Banking Committee and submits semi-annual reports to Congress, it doesn't look like he is Likely to get away with anything.

There are laws requiring obama to produce annual reports to congress, i.e. budget, but he hasn't for four years. So what is he not trying to get away with?

Once again the GOPers are thwarting the will of the people.

The people didn't select him. The GOP is just making sure the former constitutional law professor/community organizer follows the law. The courts have ruled his actions illegal so there are those in congress that want the appointment blocked.

By a huge majority, consumers are in favor of this agency just the way it is.

Let's see the voting results. I'd settle even for poll results from a reputable source. The f'ing consumers have no idea how it is organized let alone approve of it by a huge majority.

chick binder...respectfully I differ with you on the BBB point. BBB is not the gold standard for consumer issues as they report only on what is reported to them. They do not check or verify consumer complaints they only report based on how many complaints are made to them. So the door is wide open for manipulation should someone choose to do so.

dirp#1.71...spot on. Apparently, those above who insist that POTUS broke the law have failed to do their homework. President Obama made those appointments based on past precedent upheld by the courts. Those above who argue POTUS supporters are ill informed should heed their own adjectives. For the record the following links examine the appointments and precedents supporting them. The first link's summation of the Congressional Research Services position finds the appointments are valid. Those who don't know what the Congressional Research Service is it is the arm or lawyers for congress.

The president is said to now be looking to file for a judgement from the U.S. Surpreme Court. The USSC decision has the potential to impact recent and past appointees of prior presidents. Consider the regulations and rules passed by previous appointees may also be subject to revocation. All for the sake of politics.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2012/jan/17/nations-top-consumer-cop-handcuffed/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/obama-defeat-on-nlrb-picks-a-rare-loss-on-recess-power.html

Ol_Doc, whether you choose to believe in Kenzian economics of Supply Side economics is up for debate. I believe that supply drives an economy. Both parties need supply in order to create demand for the supply. Demand does not exist if there's nothing there to demand. We could debate that forever...

... So that aside, no matter what you believe in philosophically, our country can't keep throwing money it doesn't have at people to create demand when doing so drives our country into bankruptcy. And that's the bottom line. So no matter how we "feel" about income inequality, we have to "think" about the consequences of what we're doing when we punish those who are successful.

Encourage people create their own supply (i.e., get a job) and they will then have the currency with which to wield demand. You don't encourage people to get a job when they can get more on gov't assistance than they can in the free market. Our country is turning upside down, and it's driving us to financial insolvency.

Realist, you seem to be a ignorant about a number of things, but I'll just mention the one in the last sentence of the next to last paragraph.

If you believe income inequality is not something to be thought about, you should go to a medium and try to speak with Marie Antoinette, or the Tsar. For a contrary view, see if you can schedule a visit with los Zetas, to discuss the absolutely wonderful usefulness of income inequality.

And yes, my good pimplebrain, it could happen here. You're not a realist, you're lost in lala land.

Edit: Part Duh: I see you're quite a bit worse than a resident of lala land. Nobody is punishing the successful. You are lying.

"To simply blame the recession on Republicans is a lie. The catalyst that brought about the recession was President Clinton and Democrats through Freddie mac and Fannie mae, forcing banks to give home loans to people who could not afford it."

To Michelle and the rest of the parrots repeating this pack of lies, even though it was soundly debunked 5 years ago, I'll offer you this:

Realist17, thank you for your response. The GOP emphasizes personal responsibility for the middle class wage earner, but has less concern for the personal responsibility of the wealthy. This is demonstrated by conditions which are so common that they are taken to be gospel truths.

Just a couple cases:

The taxes on the earnings of actual labor range up to 35% and over, while taxes on the money earned from money (dividends) was just raised from 15% to 20%. The personal responsibility to earn money from honest labor is devalued against making money from money.

Sales taxes are charged on all manner of daily purchases which all families make, but no sales tax is charged against for stock purchases made by those who have excess money.

If the Republican party has demonstrated a complete inablility to promote "charity". In the last 30 years the income and the wealth of the wealthiest 10% have continued to rise while the income and the wealth of the rest of the population has stagnated.

The GOP promotes the acquisition of wealth. Although Mitt Romney is a generous person of great wealth, far exceeding the wealth of Obama, the Republican party promotes the maintenance of family wealth while doing nothing to promote acts of charity. Elimination of the estate taxes is the mantra of the GOP. They even go so far as to imbue the dead with the rights of property ownership by calling the estate tax a death tax.

How is personal responsibility promoted by the creation of a ficticious entity called an "estate" that allows a living person to speak from the dead on the matter of the distribution of their personal wealth. Personal responsibility would require the distribution of that wealth while still in sound mind, while anything kept until death would simply revert to the public domain - kind of like nature: from dust to dust.

Only a couple simple examples of how Republicans value property over responsibility.

No, the Republicans promote the protection of accumulated wealth, and have little to say about personal responsibility in its accumulation or its distrubution.

www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Ol doc, your replies to other posters are all on the mark - about the economic consequenses of the diverging wealth and income inequality, of demand vs supply, and of strong middle class,

Realist17, right now in America the supply is overwhelming. American business is sitting on a supply of trillions of dollars in cash but cannot invest it in production because they see no return on it. There can be no return because there is not sufficient demand. And demand, by the way, is generated by wages - more wages generates more demand.

Business is in business to create wealth by adding value to resources (turning wood into lumber, lumber into houses, oil into plastic, plastic into cell phones and toy cars, etc, etc). If there is no demand to purchase the products, then no wealth is generated.

Business does not create jobs. Labor (jobs) is an expense that business attempts to reduce by increasing productivity - that is, by getting more production with the same or less labor. The successful business controls costs like transportation, taxes, inventory, labor and raw materials, keeping those costs as low as possible.

Producing a million widgets when only a thousand will be bought drives an economy down. Producing a million widgets when just one than a million would be purchased (demanded) drives an economy forward.

Even the IPad would be an Edsel, if there were insufficient purchasing power to come up with the price. DVD recorders with hard disk drives (which I think are great) were in supply for about 2 or 3 years, but the demand was not sufficient, and they've disappeared from the market.

This clearly illustrates exactly who the Republicans are working for.

They defend corporate greed, at the expence of the people.

Realist17 (irony),

Supply side, or trickle down economics are a wealth redistribution system for moving more money to the rich. It does not promote a healthy economy, 50 years of statistics have shown what a scam it is.

The Republican party, or the Corporation-Lovers party, is no longer relevant. They have agreed to help illegal immigrants, and are starting to agree with gun control bills. The only thing they stand for is fighting for millionaires and billion dollar corporations.

If you are not a millionaire or a billion dollar corporation, why not vote Democrat? You get the same results with less hassle.

Wow....so little intelligence regarding an agency set up to make dictatorial, unconstitutional laws on the American people with no over-sight by the 3 branches of govt.

When you take out the party tied to it, it doesn't sound like such a good idea.

But, the liberals are in support of it and ignoring the constitution.

This only goes to prove that the "Idiocracy" has been acheived with more and more people believing that govt will protect you from those greedy rich people. The govt will turn on you. When the Republican dictator comes in, liberals will be whining that it needs over-sight and then they can thank Obama for the train wreck he established.....but somehow it will be George Bush's fault.

GOP = General Obstruction Party

i am a liberal. I agree there needs to be oversite, but the Federal reserve should NOT be it. They are the top PRIVATE banks which caused these issue to begin with and are the reason this was created. giving them oversite would be like giving the wolf oversite of the henhouse.

Realist17

Ol_Doc, whether you choose to believe in Kenzian economics of Supply Side economics is up for debate. I believe that supply drives an economy. Both parties need supply in order to create demand for the supply. Demand does not exist if there's nothing there to demand. We could debate that forever..

You do not create demand with supply. Unless you are talking about withholding supply to drive up demand. That is not economic development, it's unsustainable profiteering.

So, by your reasoning, if company A produces an extreme amount of product A...the American people will be clambering to buy it, right? Have you considered that it's quite the opposite. When the American people express dissatisfaction that there is not enough product A, either the manufacturer produces more to meet demand or another company begins manufacturing product A. All of which stimulates the economy. I really do not understand Supply side at all beyond holding production down to drive up prices benefiting corporate owner and stockholders...but that is an artificial economy and can not stand forever.

@JoeB

Most people don't know that the top 1% pay over 80% of ALL TAXES.

That's not even remotely true, it's not even in the ballpark. It's the biggest whopper I've seen in weeks.

The top 1% pay roughly 37% of all INCOME taxes. Income taxes only account for 46% of federal receipts.

The rest of federal receipts come from Social Security FICA (35%), corporate taxes (10%, one of the lowest shares in 80 years, although the recession has a lot to do with that), and "other" sources (9%).

Middle class folks pay the bulk of FICA taxes since it's capped at roughly $107k/year.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Ol_Doc, whether you choose to believe in Kenzian economics of Supply Side economics is up for debate. I believe that supply drives an economy. Both parties need supply in order to create demand for the supply. Demand does not exist if there's nothing there to demand. We could debate that forever...

well, you COULD debate that forever, but you'd be wrong forever.

Demand comes first, supply comes second. This is, for all intents and purposes, inarguable.

If you don't believe me, go start a company selling smart phones in the Congo (with a per capita GDP of $348) where no such demands for smart phones exist (because there is no middle class with disposable income) and get back to us on how many millions you make regardless of how easy it is to restock your supply of Iphones...

Yes, they want the corporations to rule. I'm really tired of their fascist BS.

You mean the czars Barry appoints in record numbers?

?

There is only one solution, and it's on schedule for our next election. We need to give the Democrats a bulletproof majority in both houses.

You mean the czars Barry appoints in record numbers?

You mean just like the insane number of czars that good ol' Dubya appointed? Where was all the conservative resistance to those? Where was the conservative opposition then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

tjohn- by your own logic, since you object to President Bush's czars, where is your outrage over President Obama's? Are you not the same hypocrite you condemn?

Insane? Bush 33 in 8 years and Obama 38 in 4? I notice on the same list that many of Bush's czars were confirmed by the Senate. Not so much Obama's

Did you read the list you linked to?

By absent political pressure are you referring that the party who nominates the director will have absolute control, with no one to answer to? Politics are involved due to who appoints the director. Are you all dense?

I have to ask,how is obamas pick for our FDA sit with you guys? You do realize that he was an executive from Monsanto,right? how is this person going to help us and not just approve items his former(i use that term lightly,because he will more then likely go back to them) employer wants approved? Another case of the elitist helping the RICH, now a democrat like obama wouldn't do such a thing right? dummies.

I think it would be best for the country if the Democrats became the minority party in the Senate. Then all they have to do is use the filibuster and other obstructionist tactics that Repubs have used for over four years. I mean, it's getting embarrassing to see the US government in the hands of nutballs who decided long ago that hey, no matter if the Dems are in the presidency or a slight majority in the Senate, we control the House from where important legislation begins. And who cares if the American people get pissed, who cares if they scream that we didn't win the election...they may get mad at us for awhile but you know Americans, they havent a clue of whats going on. We just have to snow them until we get a candidate who can win the White House. Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, you are watching one party in this great nation start the melt down and dysfunction of the greatest country on earth....In a few years its not going to be a pretty sight...it wont take that many years for the middle class to be wiped out and we become another Latin American country where its either Rich or Poor.

you guys should be a liitle nicer to republicans, first they lose an election, then they lose a seconed election, then the dow goes up double, the trade deficit goes down 20%, unemployment goes down to 7.7 and falling. these republicans are having a really bad day, year and even 5 years lol show a little compassion for those in pain please.

No one should be 'nice' to either party, they should both be held accountable. That's the problem, people are too loyal to 'their' party.

In the context of U.S. federal governance, there's no such thing as a "czar." You have directors of agencies, positions that are totally different from a 'czar.' 'Czar' has been an inappropriate title propounded frequently since the G.W. Bush /Cheney years, that has later become a politically derogatory label implying tyrannical powers, as predominantly maintained by the right-wing, and by commentators on Fox News and their echoing media bloggers.

Try looking up the real definition of 'czar' some time:

czar

/zär/

Noun

1. An emperor of Russia before 1917: "Czar Nicholas II".
2. A South Slav ruler in former times, esp. one reigning over Serbia in the 14th century.

Synonyms

tzar - tsar

Aside from defining this abused pronoun, I must say that the GOP Tea Party wants, "check and balances," ...but to benefit whom? And who in Congress makes that determination where, when and how those checks and balances are implemented and maintained?

For example, the SEC that overlooks Wall Street activities are unofficially run by their politically conservative, fiduciary interests, and more so since the Bush Era. And the Federal Reserve isn't under their direct control so that's why recently, the radical right -- no matter what revisionist historical or economic excuses they give -- want it gone. And the Supreme Court, instead of staffing the high bench with neutral judges, more than anything the left and centrists have ever done, the right-wing overwhelmingly wants the SC to be absolutely politically and religiously biased only to selfishly promote their own agenda since the Reagan Years.

House Republicans To Eradicate Czars – But Not When They Were In Office

http://freakoutnation.com/2011/02/26/house-republicans-to-eradicate-czars-but-not-when-they-were-in-office/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/topics/supreme-court-nomination

The dow is up because of the deflated dollar. If the Fed didn't print all the stimulas money we would probably still be at 7 thousand. but prices on food have tripled, and gas has doubled, so why shoudn't the dow have doubled? Wages the number of people with jobs are the only things that has not gone up.

The Republicans LOST the elections. BUT, they haven't changed. It is OUR way or it is NO WAY. Get over yourselves boys and girls. Maybe the 50% that sat on their tails in 2012 will go to polls and vote all the deadwood Tea/Publicans OUT!!!!!

tjohn- by your own logic, since you object to President Bush's czars, where is your outrage over President Obama's? Are you not the same hypocrite you condemn?

I'm not hypocritical. Are you? Because I object to something doesn't translate to outrage. I merely pointed out that the number of "czars" is similar to Bush's. But, I'd still like to know why the conservatives fault Obama for something one of their own did 10 years before. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then. So, I ask again, where was the conservative resistance/opposition then?

Insane? Bush 33 in 8 years and Obama 38 in 4? I notice on the same list that many of Bush's czars were confirmed by the Senate. Not so much Obama's

Actually if you had read the list correctly you would see that Obama has 5 more "not confirmed" appointees (at 33) than Bush's 28. Bush had more appointees at 49 to Obama's 43. So, what is the acceptable threshold for something like this? Is it right to apply the term "czar" or make unconfirmed appointments for some positions than it is others? Where is it spelled out? Is acceptable for 10, 20? Or is unacceptable starting with the first? Is it more or less acceptable whether a Republican or Democrat does it? Again, I have to ask, where was the opposition by the conservatives when Obama's predecessor made his appointments?

Did you read the list you linked to?

Yes, I did. May I suggest you go back and look at it again. Then, perhaps, you would be kind enough to answer my question. If Obama's appointments have been unacceptable to the conservatives why weren't the appointments made by Bush?

Also, stop acting like a conservative while attempting to dictate/distort/twist my viewpoints/logic/questioning or perceiving "outrage" where there is none.

halnmar-2891734
You mean the czars Barry appoints in record numbers?

I doubt it. He probably means the mega-rich corporations, and their lobbyists who have most republicans in congress in their pocket.

Those republicans. Once again they are taking the side of Goliath. Do you think they will ever take the side of the ordinary American?

They will keep abusing the filibuster, just watch. But things work both ways. Eventually you reap what you sow.

Interesting headline on the home page- "GOP turns both barrels on consumer group." I guess I'm in the minority, but I still yearn for a world where we don't reference or make light of shooting another person or group. It may seem harmless, but it's subversive to enlightenment and intelligent debate.

My senator, supposedly liberal Ben Cardin, voted to let the Republicans filibuster anything, anytime. So he and all Democratic senators who refused to change the filibuster rules, must share the blame for continued inaction.

They did it for the eight years Clinton was in office, why should they stop now? They are traitors of the American people. The only thing they care about is regaining power and the oath they made to Grover Norquist, they tossed out their oath to the American people a second after they were elected.

I work hard for what I have and feel everyone should! I don't mind helping those down on their luck or those that help themselves. It's those that work the system that really piss me off. Why couldn't we do community service for the people that need the help? I know a lot of people that would welcome this idea. Then maybe the deadbeats will rethink their plan. I know I would rather work for what I get. Pride and satisfaction, the American way!?!

CindyC5: because the GOP will block any effort for the government to pay anyone for anything. Many would willing work for the help they receive, but Congress will not let government pay for that work.

I wish someone would do a study on the percentage of people Republicans THINK are gaming the system and how may people actually are. Whenever I talk to Republicans they are always whining about the number of deadbeats who take advantage of the Social Safety Net, yet when I look around at the people who are actually using it, I see very few people who are not in real need.

Ya four years and Mitt will try again and the stupid teawackers will try and vote him in.....Hmmm maybe they can get Trump for as his running mate, or maybe: Nine: Nine : Nine will work....

I agree Heartlight3. From all that I read about the deadbeats,(the working poor) some work more than one job because one does not give then the income they need. Even working two jobs many still need help. There will always be those few that take advantage of the system, but the "deadbeats" as many want to call them are not that at all. If we as citizens can pick up the tab for Walmart, who refuses to pay their employees a decent wage and offer them medical insurance, then I don't see why we can't offer some assistance to the poor struggling guy. And yes all of us who pay insurance premiums pay the cost for those who don't have insurance.

By obstruction you mean just letting Obama do whatever the hell he wants? If they are going to confirm an nomination, or created a new agency, they need to have their questions about the nominee answered. And if Obama starts a new agency it needs oversight. I would expect the same out of Democrats if the Republicans were in control. It's called doing your homework, and setting a foundation for your new agency.

Agree! We could actually say at one point in time that most people who were unemployed, on food stamps or getting Medicaid were lazy and irresponsible. But thanks to the continuing trickle of jobs overseas (and flood during the recession), that is not the case any longer. The continued belief that the rich should keep all they earned is hard to accept when they earned it by throwing the American worker under the bus.

My thought was we had a presidental election along with electing members of Congress. I did not know it was an election for Dictator. So even though the house (the peoples representives) and the senate (the states reprsentives) had elections they don't matter? Only Obama gets to choose? I would suggest that you read up on the Constitution, before it disapears and we loose all our rights, before you get your wish about electing a dictator.

300Michael

My thought was we had a presidental election along with electing members of Congress. I did not know it was an election for Dictator. So even though the house (the peoples representives) and the senate (the states reprsentives) had elections they don't matter? Only Obama gets to choose?

Have you actually read the Constitution? The President is the head of the Executive Branch. The CFPB is a Bureau within the Executive Branch...so the President names the head of the Bureau and the Senate exercises their "advise and consent" responsibilities by either approving or rejecting that nomination. The House has no role.

I would suggest that you read up on the Constitution, before it disapears and we loose all our rights, before you get your wish about electing a dictator.

Do you have a big red nose to go with you comment?

@Cynthia: You have gotten confused. For a dose of the proud working of the system, I suggest you research George Steinbrenner, mega-capitalist, and his history of stealing the people's land and money. You might even check on the frauds he ran on the national taxpayers with his shipyard.

Please, Cynthia, you owe yourself a little knowledge of how "working the system" really works.

His appoitnment will be held up as well. No dictators in America, even if they are black and don't play well with others.

Don't you ever get tired of parroting Limbaugh?

No government enity should be immune from Congressional oversite. The Government has been writing too many blank checks already. This agency has done noting to protect us, Years ago I was paying 10% on my cards now it is 25-30%. And that is with a good credit rating. Tell them to stop "helping Me", I can't afford it.

While The President is incharge of the Excutive Branch, the Congress is in charge of the purse strings, (money) so normally they can cut funding to agencies to prevent mischief.

hey skibumkin your an idiot and you prove it everytime you post. you say Obama is a dictator and than you say there is no dictators in america. can you tell us what a dictator is? the only oversight the GOPTP wants is the abillity to defund and shrink the CFPB so its just like everything else they oversee it will have a tittle and no funds or manpower to protect the consumer. but you idiots on the right live in a bubble and are so blinded by racism hatred and abortion that you can`t ( or refuse ) to see or hear anything but the rightwing BS propaganda and think everyone on the left is a freeloader or the antichrist and are here to take your guns and your freedoms. and think that you are above the rest of us and that it only one way your way or the hwy. or that we have 2 versions of the constitution ours and the one you make up to suit your agenda

300Michael....

No government enity should be immune from Congressional oversite.

Right, so every single entity of the government should be directly overseen by Congress? Would you also be one of those people that believes government is run inefficiently? If so, Congress is proving that they are incapable of doing anything these days, so how exactly would you propose a group that shows up for work 1/4 of the year would manage every single government entity?

Years ago I was paying 10% on my cards now it is 25-30%. And that is with a good credit rating.

I doubt it....what is your credit score? Apparently you were one of those irresponsible folks spending more than you made on things you couldn't afford. Last I checked, credit card companies and credit rating agencies couldn't penalize you for paying your bills on time.

No government enity should be immune from Congressional oversite

I wonder what Social Security would be like of Congress hadn't been the Oversight on that... maybe instead of dipping their hands into the till it would have a nice bankroll these days.

If that is your opinion, then you can surely thank the Republican party for it. We are just sorry that you and those like you refuse to see the party behavior for what it is.

Alaska every other agency has oversight, so its Obama cheating and the Republicans stopping him. Thankfully.

Because heaven forbid that there be an agency looking out for the average consumer...

The agency in some respects does have oversight, they do submit reports to Congress twice yearly. I see this as a way for the GOP to gain control over the agency and thus begin dismantling it by continual decrease in their annual budget. Republicans don't like this agency because it uncovers improprieties that they would rather not let the light in on.

ALASKA justifies cheating as "good" because itsda Democrat doing it. If Bush did this Progressives would be calling him a Fascist. Thats what Obama is: A fascist.

All Bush did was lie to the American people, get 10's of thousands of American killed just to line his pockets with 100's of millions of dollars. What do you call that skibum?

Oh and almost forgot, destroy the economy.

Obstructionism? Frankly, I'd like to see more obstructionism like this in Washington! It's about time the three branches of our government stopped tip-toeing around each other and actually opposed unconstitutional action by the other branches for once!

This is an extremely dangerous precedent, an administrative agency/body with lots of Congress-given authority but no fiscal accountability to Congress and no real oversight by Congress. The leaders are appointed by POTUS and it's paid for through an agency accountable to POTUS. This fight needs to continue until it is structurally, once again, accountable to Congress. The administrative agencies and the lack of Congressional oversight they receive is distressing as it is when Congress has a few means for controlling them independent of a presidential veto; how much more of a threat is it if agencies like this become established and later become the norm as soon as any POTUS can find a sympathetic Congress? These agencies don't go away.

The administrative agencies and the lack of Congressional oversight they receive is distressing as it is when Congress has a few means for controlling them independent of a presidential veto; how much more of a threat is it if agencies like this become established and later become the norm as soon as any POTUS can find a sympathetic Congress? These agencies don't go away.

Kind of like the CIA, you mean?

If that's what's going on with the CIA, it needs to be reined in too. But I'm just about sure its purse-strings are still held by Congress.

KCBones

Such a cynical group of libs.

Such a sinister group of repubes. But really, thats ok...the more your party speaks, the less chance they have to succeed. Keep on talkin...

skibum, today you call Obama a fascist, without knowing what that is. Tomorrow, you'll be calling him a communist without knowing what that is. And maybe a Muslim in between. Dude, you're so stupid it's a wonder you were able to figure out a keyboard.

True. This is why Ryan and the GOP want to convert Medicare to a voucher system. Each year, the vouchers will pay less, until finally, medicare is effectively killed though non funding, even though the legislation will still exist.

After all, for a true right wing Republican, Medicare is unacceptable, and should be abolished.

Rural, you are correct.

Ski, the purpose of this agency is different from the others in that it protects consumers. In order for it to function, and to protect those it is supposed to protect, it has to remain independent from the political process. Of any party.

Are you, as a consumer, so casual with your rights? And can you at least engage in civil discourse?

There are plenty of other agencies that are supposed to be similarly "independent", and it's good enough for them that they still have to have appropriations from Congress, isn't it?

I'm getting the strong feeling that Ski-Bum is a troll.

skiscum609 has idea of how to be civil or debate an issue. All he/she/it can due is abuse others.

Rural, you are clueless. Why do you want an agency that has unlimitted funds and out of the reach of your elected officials?

This entire Dodd frank bill creates and protects too big to fail, try looking into it.

Because that agency needs some time to find its feet and deliver what it promised...protection for consumers. Something that elected officials called "Republicans" and their big corporate donors would do anything to destroy. Unless you don't care to be protected?? Maybe you think YOU wouldn't be one of those people that the Credit Bureaus mess up your report? And good luck to you trying to fix it even if you are totally innocent. Your Republican friends are on their side.

funny how you dems are always crying about corporations or corporate donors when the democrats are supported by these evil corporate donors too. What is going on in your heads? these evil corporations you ALL cry about constantly are not only owned by republicans you know,how about the 50,000 dollar "loan" GE gave to the DNC for a convention, that they are refusing to pay back? Don't worry I'm sure the dems have a plan to "help" GE, even though they are shipping MORE jobs OVERSEAS. but damn them republicans, right knuckleheads.

You make some good points, Rural. I don't trust the Repubs or the Demos, which is why I voted for a third party. I am a firm believer in accountability, but making the agency subject to annual renewals will put it in the hands of whoever has majority. So it makes full circle around to being a partisan entity who is only, in practice, accountable to the party that holds the majority. That does not sound like full accountability to me. To REALLY fix the situation this nation is in, we need laws like the Glass - Steagall Act, which the Frank - Dodd Act rescinded. At this point in time, I do not trust either party, or any business I observe that contradicts the ethics I require to be comfortable with that company. It is one thing if I decide to gamble some of my own personal money on a high risk investment, quite another if the retirement system that holds my retirement decides to gamble with mine and thousands of other retiree's retirement. As far as banks are concerned, there is a good web site--Weiss Research, that has rated the strength of banks and credit unions. And they do not ascribe to the "too big to fail" myth. The power that we the people do have is in how we choose to spend and save our money.

Rural Washington State Perspective. I have a question for you. Have you read through any of the information that is available about this agency? The CFPB's regulator standards are neither defined nor fixed, which makes them arbitrary. Trying to comply with a moving target on a regulation is next to impossible. For instance,

The bureau’s authority to craft rules and enforce against “abusive” practices is particularly vague:

Verbatim:

The Bureau shall have no authority… to declare an act or practice abusive in connection with the provision of a consumer financialproduct or service, unless the act or practice

--takes unreasonable advantage of 1--a lack of understanind on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs or conditions of the product or service, 2--the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service, or 3--The reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer:

Regarding just this section, you must ask just how the CFPB is to determine the consumer 'ability' or the correct amount of 'consumer understanding' for a population of 300 million Americans using thousands of different financial products or services. These concerns are not relieved when you hear the testimony of the bureau director who told lawmakers that "the term abusive in the statute is … a little bit of a puzzle because it is a new term.... We have been looking at it, trying to understand it, and we have determined that is going to have to be a fact and circumstances issue; it is not something we are likely to be able to define in the abstract. Probably not useful to try to define a term like that in the abstract; we are going to have to see what kind of situations may arise"

All of this means the bureau intends to regulate virtually the entire financial sector without defined and fixed standards. How would it work if traffic laws were not defined and fixed. You would never know if you were breaking a rule. THAT IS THE POINT. This agency can make up the rules as it goes along. Ever even played a game with someone who made up the rules as the game progressed? How are people supposed to manage a bank like that?

Frank Dodd did not even begin to solve the biggest issue...the 'too big to fail' issue. So more bureaucracy, more tax dollars spent for nothing.

Think about it an read up.

If Obama had created an agency that followed the rules of every other agency there would be no issue, but Obama cannot help cheating and lying, as with most Progressives.

Since the GOP doesn't believe in or want effective government, I can see why they want the CFPB to be as toothless and useless as the SEC.

I didn't read that the GOP doesn't want this agency. They just want the oversight. No oversight gives absolute control to the party that nominates the director. That just means whoever the President nominates, which don't try to tell me there is no politics involved in that decision, will run the show. That person can push the President's agenda with no one to answer to. This is just common sense.

Jason-1425018 - I didn't read that the GOP doesn't want this agency.

Ummmmm......the GOP has completely opposed the CFPB from day one. They even filibustered Obama's original choice of Liz Warren to head the CFPB.

What's going on right now is just the latest attack on it.

They just want the oversight. No oversight gives absolute control to the party that nominates the director.

Nonsense. Congress has oversight, but they just can't play politics with the policies of the CFPB.

Yo, private. How many wall streeters to you think collected unemployment when the massive layoffs went down? They were probably all libs & dems, right?

Must have struck a nerve, I guess that's to be expected from the average joe blow these days.

Looks like American Soldier didn't have a point to make, so he resorted to insults... the GOP way!

After the GOP effectively neutered Dodd-Frank (OK a lot of bought and paid for DEMs helped), now they want to neuter what is left of consumer protection. If only we could get the money out of Government (beginning with the banks)! Just how much more do they have to make for the officers, while holding the publics feet to the fire. "Greedy Ba$tard$"

Actually, if you did only minor research (I know that's a bad word these days), you would find that the Republican administrations have grown the government more than the Democrats consistently over the past 50 years. I'm not a Dem or a Pube, but if you want to make lists of stupid comments, they should at least be accurate. Remember when Bush I said, "Read my lips." He found out how stupid that was. And, just to finish the point, employment was higher under Clinton than it ever was under Bush II. Get your story straight, and allow yourself the dignity of reading (preferably) and/or watching something other than Faux News for all of your info. Really, an education does wonders.

American Soldier: Do you actually think only Democrats, or Progressives, are collecting unemployment? Do you think that our massive layoffs could have been prevented by responsible regulations that were overturned?

Food stamps, unemployment is VERY popular in Southern or Red States. How do you explain that??

Maybe sheep like you should take the bag off your own heads. Continue to drink the koolaid and believe the American dream is all yours until your job gets shipped overseas and you have to spend 3 months training a replacement over the phone who barely speaks English.

Clinton signed the law ending Glass-Steagall. Stupidity seems to be endemic among Progressives.

It was pushed by the gop. Clinton has since stated he regrets signing it. He figured out how much damge it did. Have you?

Newt Gingrich is going down as the MOST divisive influence in the United States, EVER. He will be blamed for the end to the Republican party.

Skibum...

The bill was crafted by the Grand O'le Plutocrats Phill Gramm (R-Texass), Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and Tom Bliley (R-Va) and the legislative branch writes the laws. Clinton could have vetoed it but it would have been over-ridden in Congress. I agree that he should have regardless of whether the veto would have stuck or not. This was the final act on a LONG line of acts by primarily wall street owned GOPers so don't act as if it was Clinton's fault or try to shirk the GOP blame for the MAIN cause of the financial crisis.

I personally know a couple of those "wall streeters" as you call them notliborcon,and they happen to both be democrats.

notliborcon...

Both parties were clearly at fault, don't go trying to point the finger at the 'MAIN' culprit.

The 'MAIN' culprit is all of us. We feed Wallstreet with our tax sheltered retirement accounts and gov't pension plans. Do you really think either party is going to really go after Wallstreet. I'm not talking just for political points. They're both in bed with Wallstreet, and we all feed it.

DTRX... what is your point? Blue dog democraps are on the wall street payroll as well.

Jason... I agree that both parties are culpable but the end of Glass Steagal (banking act of 1933) was due to three aforementioned GOP-ers.

The MAIN culprit was NOT all of us... The bank's were able to use our pensions and Retirement Accounts to buy/create the BS CDO's which they then sold to other banks all the while knowing that the CDOs were going to fail due to the risky loans within them. Clearly it is more complicated then this but the banks were making money hand over fist by giving ANYONE with a pulse a loan then bundling said risky loans with low risk loans (~10:1 ratio) within CDOs. The ratings agencies then rated the CDO as AAA eventhough they knew it wasn't. These "AAA" rated CDOs were then bought up by pension plans and other banks who eventually got stuck with them. Meanwhile companies like Goldman Sachs were placing "bets" that the CDO they just sold would fail and thus making even MORE money off of them.

Yes, both political parties are in bed with Wall street but it is a FACT that in the last presidential election they more heavily contributed to Mittens Robme then Obama.

You may be right, that is as long as there are more takers than givers. That was demonstrated in the presidential election. I guess we know where folks like you stand.

AS, old saw already shot full of holes. But please hang on to that nonsense. It keeps you predictible.

How long do you think that poor excuse will work for the GOP? I suggest you wake up.

American soldier: When you can explain the use of government services in all of the Southern states at remarkable levels compared to the Blue states, you might have some fodder for debate.

Until then, you are a GOP apologist using misinformation as if factual, once again.

Danny, the voters are blind and the GOP is blind. Obama can pull anything over the dems eyes, just say he is working for the middle class and the 1% is evil and say the GOP is evil, and the GOP can pull anything over the repubs eyes and say Obama, the dems, and 'freeloaders' are evil. The GOP has also lost touch with the undecideds, and voters riding the line. The core has become to extreme. I think the dems have also become too extreme at the core, which is why neither party can work with each other. The problem is all the dems want whatever Obama wants to just sail through, and the repubs want to block everything. In this case though it appears the repubs just want oversight and accountability, as all gov't agencies have. Giving no oversight gives them too much power and no accountability. In this case I side with the repubs, and since Obama shouldn't have made the appointments he did when he made them. This is about following the rules and setting a foundation for the new agency. I read nothing about the repubs trying to block this agency.

You are correct mtonepa, i was wondering where that unpaid "loan" that GE gave the dems was going to show up. The obama supporters here will never acknowledge the FACT that their reps are as BAD as the repubs they complain about daily,with their "evil rich" bull. Face the facts people,there are VERY FEW in office who care even slightly for us peasants,the sooner you realize that and actually RESEARCH who you're voting for the quicker we can come back as a STABLE COUNTRY.

Exactly. Just another "let's protect the ones we already protect with more bureaucracy. Yeah that's the ticket. This agency will be worthless and in the background only and not held accountable for anything but will remain on the payroll that we pay. Let's see how many are "employed" in the agency now and check back in January of '14. Probably close to double as the "need" will be justified, at least on paper and behind closed doors.

Besides, this all may be a moot point when the final gavel comes down and says the whole agency as well as the illegally appointed "director" are null and void.

And how did the left refer to Bush? On balance I agree with you but play it both ways, just not when your guy holds the office. We should all respect the office no matter who occupys it at the moment. The extremes of both parties currently rule and the people be dammed! Politicans of both parties are hypocritical whoring scum. They treat voters like we're stupid but then all to often we prove them correct. President Bush and President Obama combine to be 2 of the worst Presidents in American history andwhat we have in congress are the Keystone cops on the right and Larry, Moe & Curley on the left.

Because, cphilano #23, the writer, like the Republicans in general, are still having temper tantrums that they lost the last two presidential elections, and are very poor losers. They're just babies and don't like that they've soiled their diapers.

They're protecting the middle class by making the agency be accountable to you the taxpayer. Hard to understand?

Where do you get your (mis)information? LOL

tamug93 I agree EVERYONE democrat and republican alike should have to pay their taxes, however you insult many readers who would agree with you by using silly names. I don't know you, I don't know what you believe, I have no reason to call you any name, are you three? Would you want to be called a repulic unt? I highly doubt it.

For everyone: Show some respect people, the person you called stupid, or libtard here could be your neighbor, boss, grandmother, friend. Would you call them a libtard moron to their face? Would you punch them, would you beat them up? All because they don't always agree with you.

tamug93

@nsmith - he calls them libtards because he's a dumbass rightwad puddle of puke and can't come up with more creative insults.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

"Libtards" ? Where did you hear that, Rush or Fox. Having a discussion with you is pointless.

When you see crap like 'Libtards" just ignore the post. Do you really want to be arguing with a 3rd grader or someone operating at that IQ level?

It's private and we don't have to pay for their every whim and fancy in most cases.

Actually, we've been paying for their whims for years now.