Monday, October 4, 2010

Obama the Godfather......HE'll protect you...to hell with the rules

Elizabeth Warren is the new head of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency..."Assistant to the President and special advisor to Timothy Geithner"..She hasn't a TITLE of "Secretary" or anything because that would need Senate approval... So, Mr. Obama circumvented that quite handily!

HERE is the article that I reprint here: WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Friday named consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren as an adviser to help set up a new consumer financial protection agency.
He said that he and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner agreed that Warren should set up the agency and that Warren will influence future decisions about it.
You see, I read that the title of this 'agency' is not in capital letters because that would make it a REAL agency and then she'd need Senate approval............nice, eh? WHAT A GUY this Obama is!
And Warren is sure one powerful woman now, huh?
I listened to Obama's introduction of her and the plans for this agency and I (quite literally) felt SICK, really sick.
"Every Americ
an has to get a fair shake," says Mr. Obama. There is NOTHING said about how many Americans got shakes that weren't fair to us or them when they got home loans they DID NOT MERIT which were propagated by Chris Dodd, one of the big backers of this agency. It seems that those loans are what Ms Warren, Obama's college friend, will be 'protecting.' These are the same people finding themselves out of a home now because the leftwing bleeding hearts sold them a bill of goods..and a  house.  .BUT, Obama's on the way to putting them back in their homes because THEY DESERVE THEM.............maybe they didn't earn them but they are IN them and that's good enough for him. 
"Unscrupulous mortgage lenders!", he calls most in that industry.  It's not ANY HOMEOWNER's FAULT, it's the LENDERS' FAULTS!?? REALLY? WOW. Does Obama REALLY think you can't know what your budget is and that you don't know how high a mortgage payment you can afford, so he has to save you? What is he, your GODFATHER? This is unbelievable.Elizabeth Warren, 'consumer advocate' will save you.  God help America.

z

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

That poor pitiful black woman who got up & fussed at him because she was tired of defending him & his policies STILL will vote for him again! Well, I hope she enjoys her hot dogs & beans. Better lay in a good supply of Beano for the after effects, as she's going to need it. After all, he's her godfather-----isn't he?

Silvrlady

tha malcontent said...

If you're looking for an argument on this post, you're going to have to pick another subject!
Well said, Z!
Obama can't take disagreement because he's so sure he knows better than us. This is scary.

Anonymous said...

Hasn't Elizabeth Warren been an advocate for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency for some time? So now President Obama makes her appointment official. I don't strenuously disagree with what she says about some of the shenanigans pulled by banks in their consumer financial markets. I do think the problem is much broader and deeper than just financial protection of the consumer, though.

I note the term "big banks" is used whenever an advocate for expanding government regulation to "protect the consumer" is used, since most people hate big institutions ... except government, I guess.

Here is a good video of Elizabeth Warren asserting the need for such an agency for which she has been appointed to head. Is there anything specific in it that that is outright wrong or misleading?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYd08e5Cjvs

Waylon

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

And, ladies and gentlemen:

HERE WE GO, ALL OVER AGAIN.

Yes, we ARE that stupid and, further, this is clear proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

They did NOT "get it." They are NOT listening. They can figure NOTHING from history -- even history that is less than a year old.

BZ

Always On Watch said...

It's not ANY HOMEOWNER's FAULT, it's the LENDERS' FAULTS!??

Read the damn papers before signing them - that's what I told one of my conservative friends who wanted the government to bail out her mortgage. Sadly, she did end up losing her home; she was that over her head in second and third mortgages.

Z said...

Waylon, in AMerica we don't appoint people to positions with this much power without senate oversight. So, our president makes this a position he can appoint and goes behind their backs.
I listened to her entire video and, as usual, who can argue with the lefty 'feel better' stuff?
Yes, we're better off with children's car seats.......yes, we're better that our food is clean and nobody's making medicine in their bathtub....
Does that mean we can get someone in a new position who hasn't been vetted but by a liberal like her who believes like she does that huge government is the only answer?

And the BIG BAD BANKS are the culprit as she says at the end. So much Harvard lib in her speech it bugged me.

It all sounds so good but do you think she'd consider Frank and Dodd wrong for a SECOND for getting homeloans so easily attainable by those who can't afford them? You think she'd criticize her own?

Yes, we do need to have contract text MUCH MUCH more understandable...apparently the goal is "five minutes", as she said? But, there are people who might want to know the more tiny print details and "Hey, Libs, some Americans can read for 14 minutes!"

The whole appointment was sneaky but DONE, she's a big gov't advocate and she hates the big banks probably with no thought to the libs who got us in that homes nightmare and, to top it off, she teaches law at Harvard.

If we hadn't had our rights chipped away every day for 20 months, maybe I"d not be so nervous about this woman; as I said, I agree with contract shortening, plainer language, etc., but the rest of what she's planning? Scary. And the senate doesn't know, either?

yikes

Ducky's here said...

You see, I read that the title of this 'agency' is not in capital letters because that would make it a REAL agency and then she'd need Senate approval............nice, eh?

-------------

Not real? The agency was established as part of the financial reform bill. It's quite real and Obama acted completely within the rules.

Right now you have a situation where Jim DeMint (R - Thinks he's Napoleon) has a hold on every piece of legislation in the Senate.
That's right, a single Senator from one of the biggest pest holes in the nation can force a filibuster on ALL legislation. Now, you clearly don't object to that, z, so I think we know what your colors are.

Add Chris Todd (D - Wall Street Pimp) to the mix and it would have been over. Wall Street doesn't want Warren, Dodd is retiring and wants a hack job on Wall Street so ... man shades of Jack Abramoff.

So Obama finally does something that he had to do to avoid losing the left completely.

As for your take on Senate oversight, thanks to the lack of vision of the founding hacks we have a body where one Senator from a small state can completely block the legislature.

If I were you, z, I'd take a look at what happened to the man in Tennessee who's house burned after the county went to a Libertarian system. FD just stood there and watched the guys house burn.
That's where we are going. The country is being destroyed and I thnk my lucky stars that I live in New England because I think we'll lose our sanity last.

Z said...

Ducky, not true. This appointment was made without senatorial oversight.

Please review how DeMint's calling all the shots in the Senate. Reid will be happy to hear about it.

I don't call our founders 'hacks' and no, New England went insane years ago; they've been liberals for years and tend to grow even more so even as they see it doesn't work anywhere in the world. Was it Einstein who said insanity is caused by doing the same thing again and not expecting the same consequence.

Stop the insults, you'll be deleted again. thank you.

Always On Watch said...

Duck said:

I thnk my lucky stars that I live in New England because I think we'll lose our sanity last.

Oh, really?

New England has its fair share of wackos too, historically and now.

Anonymous said...

Z, I've seen Elizabeth Warren in a few videos before this one. I haven't detected any partisan politics, as you have, even though she's been appointed by Obama. I do think the problem is much bigger than "consumer credit regulation", and I think the point she makes about pages of mumbo-jumbo financial legalese is valid. Would you have accepted as a valid argument her points in that interview if they were made by a "conservative" representative and not someone appointed by this administration?

Waylon

Ducky's here said...

Ducky, not true. This appointment was made without senatorial oversight.

---------------

At any time did I say she was?

Fact is that what Obama did was completely within the scope of his power. As with recess appointments which gave us the right wing love toy, John Bolton, it doesn't involve Senate approval and is completely legitimate.

Anonymous said...

Ducky, our founders weren't hacks. I resent your even uttering that slang when referring to such great men.

You, who would be lucky to shine their shoes. They risked their lives to form the foundation of this country.

You know, you're a long way from America in spirit and thought. You can remedy that by buying a one way ticket to Venezuela or North Korea!

You wouldn't be missed!!

Pris

Z said...

I wrote: "Ducky, not true. This appointment was made without senatorial oversight. "

You say now "At any time did I say she was? "

was WHAT?

I wish we had John Bolton back....it's only people like you who feel about this country like you do who're afraid to have someone at the UN who's knowledgeable and not kissing up to the UN/
Ducky, it's SO funny when you bestow your hate for people as if it's gospel...:-)

Pris, I might be blogging on first hand info from Venezuela..some business people from there stayed with Ms Z in Munich and they tell her horror stories about Caracas..in Venezuela, Chavez is giving guns to the poor so they can rob the rich.
YOu can't get milk in Caracas at all.
YOu can't walk around so you must get taxis.

In Guatemala, they're throwing hand grenades into buses, robbing those who perished and running...

we're next, I guess....
did you hear about the American shot in the head in Lake Fulton on the MX border? That creep of creeps, SHep Smith, was just on FOX suggesting that the wife killed her husband until his correspondent in TX added "there were witnesses..." I laughed my patoot off at Shep!

Mustang said...

You’ll forgive my confusion, but I thought that with all the congressional regulation since 1933, Congress was the de facto Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Oh, but wait … didn’t the banking chair (B. Frank) assure us there was nothing wrong with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, or any financial industry concern BEFORE the housing meltdown? The first question should be, if we can’t trust Congress, what makes any “consumer” think they can trust this appointee, who isn’t responsible to anyone or anything? Our second question is this: doesn’t the Consumer Financial Protection Agency assume that Americans are incapable of making sound financial decisions for themselves? Discounting Ducky, does anyone besides me see a problem here?

Ducky's here said...

Well, it's like this Pris. They were very concerned about kings and the possible oppression but despite the warnings of ever major economist from Adam Smith on they were completely unaware (or more to the point didn't care) about economic oppression.

As a result we have the phenomenon of the right wing founding father fetish which I think is appropriate to lampoon. Thinking that they had sussed it all in 1780 is a little silly if for no other reason than they completely punted the slavery issue which is another indicator that "freedom" was a pretty limited idea for them and you'll have to move in pretty mysterious ways to convincingly demonstrate why we would want to go back to that era.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

The assumption from the founders was that slavery would simply fade away in a generation or two. Secondly if they didn't punt as you put it, we would not have a constitution at all, which meant no functional government.

But I guess it's easy to judge them in 2010 terms than late 1700s terms. Most intelligent people realize the founders were not perfect.

And then there was the cotton gin.

And don't forget the superpower of the time, England didn't totally outlaw slavery until 1833 and in India it lasted another 10 years. So in reality we were not that far behind the British.

BTW it was Eisenhower who made desegregation of the armed forces a reality and who had the 101st show up so the 'Little Rock 9' could break the color barrier. Oh, which party did Dr. King belong to?

Z said...

Mustang, of course you're right. Actually, you make such sense that Ducky wasn't even to pick out a red herring and attack that...or you!

Vegas Guy, well said.....context is everything. Leftwingers re: slavery think that America's the only country which had them, the last country to stop the practice, and that all slaves were treated pitifully.... actually, Vegas, I'd heard that we stopped slavery first but perhaps the Brits beat us to it.
Did you see there's a guy who's written a convincing book that colonialism was a good thing; with facts and figures? I think it might be Dinesh D'Souza...I want to look into it because I've heard so many speakers speak on that subject but, again, the left's hidden that secret.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

The Brits did end it first and then Wilberforce's ideas caught on here in the USA. I use his biography during black history month to yank students out of their comfort zones. I probably should have added that Wilberforce was a Christian as well as a member of Parliament.

Ducky's here said...

That's right , mustang, the credit card industry doesn't need regulation. Just check out today's anti-trust case regarding swipe fees.

You really are naive.

beamish said...

Thinking that they had sussed it all in 1780 is a little silly if for no other reason than they completely punted the slavery issue which is another indicator that "freedom" was a pretty limited idea for them and you'll have to move in pretty mysterious ways to convincingly demonstrate why we would want to go back to that era.

I didn't know charging a flat $10 ($762,000 in 2010 money) tariff tax on EACH slave imported coupled with banning slave importation and the interstate commerce thereof in 1801 codified in Article I, Section 9 was "punting" the slavery issue? Limiting the power a state could have in the House of Representatives - where tax legislation originates - by not letting it count its entire slave population towards the enumeration of rerpresentatives, was "punting" the slavery issue?

The deck was stacked against slave states from jump. It was exhorbitantly expensive, then illegal to import slaves. Slave states didn't have the power in Congress to stop tax and regulatory legislation on interstate slave trade. Slavery was illegal in federal territories until the Missouri Compromise of 1850. Even the mythical "slave breeding enterprise" would have been unprofitable (hence didn't really exist), not to mention the extra mouths to feed didn't really move the congressional enumeration.

No, Ducky, ending slavery was very much a goal of the Constitution's framers. They set it on a parliamentary course.

Constitution-hating anti-Federalist / Democrats like you fired on Fort Sumter, after all, forcing the issue into bloodshed.

All because the Constitution was set up to destroy their institution from jump.

My God man, where did you learn history? Did it involve cartoons?

beamish said...

the credit card industry doesn't need regulation. Just check out today's anti-trust case regarding swipe fees.

You really are naive.


I wonder what Vice President Senator Biden (D - Wilmington Cartel) has to say about all this...