Do You Support Elizabeth Warren's Nomination to head of the Consumer Finance Protection Board?

[SnyderShrugged]

question....what would this group be specifically doing that isnt the intended role of any other department or agency of a similar vein?

[Predicto]

Of course they could just give her a title and a desk at the FDIC but that would not achieve the goal of political visibility now would it.

The problem, of course, is that the FDIC has two entirely different functions, and is set up only to do one of them, so it doesn't do the other very well.

There is a reason that we don't just give the head of the EPA a title and a desk in the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 12:15 PM ----------

question....what would this group be specifically doing that isnt the intended role of any other department or agency of a similar vein?

It is a spinoff of the FDIC. Because the FDIC should be concentrating on bank safety and soundness, and nothing else, and has never paid much attention to consumer protection even though it had the power to do so.

And the industry isn't up in arms because a new agency is being created. They are up in arms because someone is actually going to focus on lending practices for the first time.

[SnyderShrugged]

[/color]

It is a spinoff of the FDIC. Because the FDIC should be concentrating on bank safety and soundness, and nothing else, and has never paid much attention to consumer protection even though it had the power to do so.

And the industry isn't up in arms because a new agency is being created. They are up in arms because someone is actually going to focus on lending practices for the first time.

I am just curious and wanted to understand the intent. I'll have to read up on the idea and on her (not too familiar)

[zoony]

well I'm laughing at ALL of you! mwahahahaha

[Predicto]

well I'm laughing at ALL of you! mwahahahaha

You must be a mortgage lender.

[egtuna]

I could not support Ms. Warren more. She and Brookesly Braun should run for Pres/VP (only slightly kidding).

Ms. Warren is not on the payroll of Wall Street or Financial Services lobbyists, so she will do her best to enact real change to protect the average consumer. Anyone who has seen her speak or read her work knows that she is earnest and not a political mouthpiece for special interests. You may disagree with her philosophically, and that's cool, but she is a brilliant and courageous person who I trust to do the best for the average consumer.

[Popeman38]

I could not support Ms. Warren more. She and Brookesly Braun should run for Pres/VP (only slightly kidding).

Ms. Warren is not on the payroll of Wall Street or Financial Services lobbyists, so she will do her best to enact real change to protect the average consumer. Anyone who has seen her speak or read her work knows that she is earnest and not a political mouthpiece for special interests. You may disagree with her philosophically, and that's cool, but she is a brilliant and courageous person who I trust to do the best for the average consumer.

I will ask one last time: WHY DOES SHE GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CONSUMER? Shouldn't the *gasp* CONSUMER get to decide what is best for them?

[zoony]

I will ask one last time: WHY DOES SHE GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CONSUMER? Shouldn't the *gasp* CONSUMER get to decide what is best for them?

Interesting, so your position is that the consumer will always act in their own best interest, as well as in the best interest of the capital development of the nation.

Just fyi, you couldn't have a more failed position. Unless you think Santa Claus should decide the affair.

[Predicto]

I will ask one last time: WHY DOES SHE GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CONSUMER? Shouldn't the *gasp* CONSUMER get to decide what is best for them?

How do you feel about fraud? Shouldn't the victim of the fraud get to decide whether or not to fall for the fraud?

The whole point of the agency is to make sure that ordinary consumers can understand what they are getting into, so that they can make informed choices.

[SnyderShrugged]

Without knowing much about her, the posts that indicate that she would not be compromised by corporate interests is appealing to me. Not sure on the actual agency, but her as an individual seems on the right track.

[egtuna]

It's not so much that she's deciding "what's best for the consumer", it's that she's attempting to limit the ways banks can gouge customers with so-called hidden fees, rate-hikes, "unfair penalties", etc. Sure, it's easy to say, "If you read everything, then you wouldn't have a problem." However, most credit card contracts have a "terms subject to change..." clause, and that is just one way they get shady on people.

Warren is acting against the ostensible policy shift of commercial and investment banks that went from "servicing the customer" to "gouging the customer". And for that, she should be applauded and supported.

[Fergasun]

It's sad that no one has mentioned she lead the group that watch-dog'd the bank bailouts of 2008. She was always fair and even handed. I thought the performance of the Republican who chose to argue with her over scheduling was rather pathetic. I actually think she wasn't as forceful as she could have been; but believe this was so because she didn't want to deep-six her "political" career. Incidentally I think she needs to run against Scott Brown for Senator as well.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Incidentally I think she needs to run against Scott Brown for Senator as well.

I hope not.

IMO, she can do more good in her current position.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I will ask one last time: WHY DOES SHE GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CONSUMER? Shouldn't the *gasp* CONSUMER get to decide what is best for them?

Sure....now tell me the last time the consumer got to decide anything. Come on man, consumers are continually manipulated by the corporations stop pretending that the corporations are benevolent toward the customers...or heck that the corporations are even looking for an even deal...that in itself would be an accomplishment.

Oh and just for the sake of clarity...this is the first time you've ask this particular question in this thread, what you have done is ask a few questions that keep getting smacked down ruthlessly so then you ask a different question and pretend it's the same question.

[twist]

I'm an Anti-Czar with their Soviet Union references.. but its getting harder and harder to disagree with this statement.

If that was not sarcastic:

The Czars were put to death by the Soviet Union, for future reference.

[Fergasun]

Elizabeth Warren isn't doing anything to decide what is best for the consumer. The CFPB role will be to make sure the consumer can ultimately make a decision based on sound judgement and understand the risks of what they are doing.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Elizabeth Warren isn't doing anything to decide what is best for the consumer. The CFPB role will be to make sure the consumer can ultimately make a decision based on sound judgement and understand the risks of what they are doing.

Well that's absurd, we can't very well be having agencies pulling the curtain back revealing the secrets of Oz now can we?!

[Prosperity]

[/color]What fire? Who decides what is "best" for consumers? This board will do less to protect consumers than consumers can do BY READING AND UNDERSTANDING what they are signing up for. We don't need the govt to tell us what is good for us. We need smaller govt, not bigger.

it would probably take me months to read all the text of all the contracts I agree to... this is true for most consumers, especially the ones that can't read as quickly as I can. Thus, it's not really fair to the consumer to expect them to read everything they sign up for. It's also unrealistic.

[Baculus]

Yes, I support her, and I will say this: the response from the pro-corporate, pro-Wall Street GOP -- their efforts to attack her and mis-characterize her department -- is very telling.

This video is an example of the Republican tactics:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/elizabeth-warren-liar-gop-facts-cfpb_n_866505.html

---------- Post added June-4th-2011 at 08:39 PM ----------

I will ask one last time: WHY DOES SHE GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CONSUMER? Shouldn't the *gasp* CONSUMER get to decide what is best for them?

As others have said, she doesn't "GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CONSUMER." Maybe you should look into this before yelling at everyone. :-)

In spite of what your right-wing sources may tell you, a regulatory apparatus doesn't not necessarily mean the Mommy-Daddy state is trying to main strict control on people. Even more ironically, you don't seem to realize that credit card companies are the entities who, in fact, "get to decide what is best for" consumers. Which, of course, is really what's best for the company itself and NOT the consumer.

[deejaydana]

In spite of what your right-wing sources may tell you, a regulatory apparatus doesn't not necessarily mean the Mommy-Daddy state is trying to main strict control on people. Even more ironically, you don't seem to realize that credit card companies are the entities who, in fact, "get to decide what is best for" consumers. Which, of course, is really what's best for the company itself and NOT the consumer.

Or you could just decide to live within your means (but that's not really the American way).

[Baculus]

Or you could just decide to live within your means (but that's not really the American way).

Have you ever had a credit company company that arbitrarily raised rates? No, I would guess not.

I had this credit card one time that I rarely used: I made some charges, and kept up with regular payments as a good customer. (I was younger, a student, and trying to build a credit history, and the credit limit was only a few hundred dollars.) I was maybe $40 or $50 under my limit, but I should have been fine. Well, this company, out of the blue, threw several service charges onto my account in one month, which pushed my balance over my limit. (Banks also use this same strategy to gouge as much as possible from the consumer . . .) That triggered more charges, which triggered more charges, which triggered more charges, and before I knew it, I owed hundreds of extra dollars above and beyond what I had spent. This had nothing at all to do with "living within my means." These were all hidden fees which I didn't know about, and which the company didn't well communicate to me, the customer. In fact, it's the EXACT sort of fees which Congress was investigating two years ago and the reason why Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are trying to bring more transparency to credit card companies.

This isn't Mickey Mouse stuff -- it adds up to hundreds of millions a year for average American citizens.

You don't even seem to care about the financial impact this has on your fellow Americans, which makes your signature a bit ironic. I don't know if you are just too pro-corporate to change your stance, or if you work for one of these companies, but it is obvious which side of the barricade you stand on, and it ain't the populist side of the people.

[deejaydana]

Have you ever had a credit company company that arbitrarily raised rates? No, I would guess not.

You don't even seem to care about the financial impact this has on your fellow Americans, which makes your signature a bit ironic. I don't know if you are just too pro-corporate to change your stance, or if you work for one of these companies, but it is obvious which side of the barricade you stand on, and it ain't the populist side of the people.

Well, don't you seem to know alot about me! And we've never met!

I'm not immune to what credit card companies do to consumers but I guess I just take the stance that, as a grown individual, you make your own choices and then live with them. While I do find it incredibly avaricious of credit card companies to set up shop on college campuses----a trap I did fall into in my 20's---I think there are limits of what the gov't should do as well. Perhaps I don't view the gov't as the saviour that should come to the rescue when people make bad choices.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Well, don't you seem to know alot about me! And we've never met!

I'm not immune to what credit card companies do to consumers but I guess I just take the stance that, as a grown individual, you make your own choices and then live with them. While I do find it incredibly avaricious of credit card companies to set up shop on college campuses----a trap I did fall into in my 20's---I think there are limits of what the gov't should do as well. Perhaps I don't view the gov't as the saviour that should come to the rescue when people make bad choices.

What bad choice did Baculus make?

[deejaydana]

What bad choice did Baculus make?

I meant people getting in over their heads with revolving debt. I wasn't making that statement directly towards him but more generally towards reckless debtors.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I meant people getting in over their heads with revolving debt. I wasn't making that statement directly towards him but more generally towards reckless debtors.

My bad.