Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama gets Nader-backed Consumer Financial Protection Agency in new reform bill.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 04:58 PM
Original message
Obama gets Nader-backed Consumer Financial Protection Agency in new reform bill.
Edited on Mon Jun-28-10 05:00 PM by Radical Activist
Earlier today I opened an email from Organizing America asking me to support passage of the latest Wall Street reform bill. One of the bullet points mentioned a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

I decided to google it and found that Nader has been a long-time advocate of the idea. He wrote a letter urging Chris Dodd to maintain his support earlier this year.

Consumers need an independent agency that will serve their interests without being captured by the financial wheelers and dealers who put gouging for short-term profit before the legitimate interests of consumers. These wheelers and dealers have been expert in capturing the so-called bank regulators in Washington DC. You have previously pointed out their "abysmal failure."

http://current.com/news/92035575_ralph-naders-letter-to-senator-dodd-fight-for-a-consumer-financial-protection-agency.htm

I also found a more recent article about the current proposal.
The controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the centerpiece of the financial overhaul legislation that President Obama called for last year.

...The Obama administration and key congressional Democrats proposed the new consumer protection agency to address the failure of federal banking regulators to stop consumer abuses, particularly predatory subprime mortgage lending, a leading cause of the financial crisis.

The new agency would take away most consumer protection power from banking regulators, including the Federal Reserve's authority to write rules governing mortgages and other loans.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the regulators for years have neglected consumer protection, leaving it to Congress to try to catch up with such abusive financial practices as excessive credit card fees.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/23/business/la-fi-financial-reform-20100623

File this one under "Obama is a corporatist DLCer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. I read here that Nader is a Republican plant
So doesn't this look bad for Obama? Capitulating to a Republican plant out to destroy the Democratic party for an ego boost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Is that what you think?
If that's what you believe then I'll expect you to defend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I don't believe anything
Just something Ive seen posted here many, many times. What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. My opinions about Nader are more complex
than just dismissing him as a Republican plant.

I'm sure the people who criticize Obama daily for not being progressive enough will join Organizing for America in supporting passage of a strong Wall Street Reform bill, and then congratulate Obama for helping to make it happen. Right? Since I'm told that criticisms are about nothing but the issues, and not about attacking Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I'm assuming this is snark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks for sharing this important information
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GlennWRECK Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks mang!
Couldn't go on in life without cha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Shouldn't there be black oil floating on that water under the beckidiot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. So, is it OK to like Nader, now? Damn, it's hard to keep up! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Oh, yeah, he got let out from underneath the bus,
long enough to get a high five for Obama. Later when he's not needed he'll be shoved back under.

I'm not congratulating Obama until it passes and I see the fine print. Fool me once.........

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Lol! It's gotten so fucking crowded, I can't tell when 1 or 2 leave
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. We really need some sort of trans-dimensional undercarriage at this point.
I mean, the bus is really big, but there are more of us under it than on it anymore.
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joe black Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. Yup.
By the time the administration is done with it you won't even recognize it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. delete wrong place
Edited on Mon Jun-28-10 05:36 PM by laughingliberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. About a half a million rocket scientists voted for Nader against Obama
I think every one of them posts here.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
26. Some of his ideas are great. Some of his actions are ... questionable.
Logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. Wait. I thought this new bureau was IN the Federal Reserve?
Is it or isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. One of the articles discusses that point.
Barney Frank is the person quoted at the end.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/23/business/la-fi-financial-reform-20100623/2

Republicans were concerned about creating a separate new agency, and Democrats agreed to create a bureau in the Fed with the same basic powers as proposed by the Obama administration and approved by the House. The Fed would have no control over the agency or its budget.

House conference committee members agreed to place the new agency at the Fed, which Frank said would mean little more than that its mail would be delivered there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. So they rent space in the building? That's it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. You need a staffer or a lobbyist or a lawyer who is very conversant
on that point to get a real feel for what it means to stick this under the Federal Reserve.

I don't think that the LA Times has those people and I don't think that the administration necessarily wants to go into it.

My gut feeling is that putting this thing under the Fed will not turn out well, but, I'm not in the know here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. Proximity issue.
Then there's the question of whether it will mean more regular interaction with Federal Reserve staffers and others who are too sympathetic to financial interests. That could have a subtle influence over time.

But, it sounds like there's good news in it being an independent agency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. Nader's response to this: "Weak regulations, not a shift in power"
Edited on Mon Jun-28-10 08:31 PM by Catherina

June 14 2010

...

JAY: So, as we speak, the House is speaking to the Senate, negotiating the final finance reform bill. Some people have said there's no way it's going to touch real structural blackmail. What's your take on that?

NADER: It's a weak bill in both houses, in the Senate and House. It's premised on weak regulation across the board, rather than shift the power. The only way, really, to get this to work is to bring investors and shareholders into a more powerful role, since they do own the companies but they don't control the companies and they don't control the bosses and they don't control executive compensation. They're just told, if you don't like a company, you know, Citigroup, Bank of America, sell your stock. So unless consumers, investors, shareholders have a way to organize—and this is the proposal that Senator Schumer has put forth. We gave him this proposal in 1985 in the savings and loan scandal, in the House, when he was in the House. It didn't get through. Now he's reintroduced it in the Senate. And it basically sets up a financial consumer association which would have millions of dues-paying consumer members, credit card, mortgage users, etc., and it would be outside the government, lobbying against the huge lobbying force of Wall Street and the banks, which will descend on whatever law is passed in the agencies. Just for example, thin regulation, the consumer agency, which is the best part of the bill, is strapped in a lot of ways. Elizabeth Warren, who should be new director, said if it's weakened anymore, forget it, it's a waste of time, because it's going to be in the Federal Reserve, for example, and it's going to be vetoed by a group of regulators if they protect credit card holders too much, for example.


JAY: The House bill had it as an independent agency, but apparently more limited in its power. So maybe they'll come out with the best of both. Or are they going to come up with the weaker of both?

NADER: It looks like the Senate is going to have the odds on it. They're going to defer more to the Senate. But that remains to be seen. Barney Frank favors an independent, but, as you say, it's weaker in some ways. But on the rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and so on, ridiculous. It's laughable. On too-big-to-fail we got bigger banks controlling half of the deposits in this country—five giant banks. They're already too big to fail. Nothing in this bill is going to break them up, or tax them to keep them down, or require spinoffs.

...

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5267&updaterx=2010-06-14+12%3A43%3A15

Video of interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LnQY9CbL-4



Here's more. This is where it gets really good.




No Time For Consumer Power
by Ralph Nader

In the end, late on Thursday’s Senate passage of the financial regulation bill, the Senate had no time for independent, non-government consumer power. In the end, after listening to swarms of corporate bank, brokerage, hedge fund, private equity, and insurance lobbyists, the Senate had no time for Senator Chuck Schumer’s amendment to create a non-profit Financial Consumers Association (FCA, SA 3772).

In the end, this massive 1500 page bill shifted very little power directly to shareholders and consumers of financial services (meaning just about everyone) either to better use the courts and to organize nationwide to counteract the lobbying muscle of the financial goliaths ready to turn the new regulators into procrastinatory putty.

The FCA proposal (see csrl.org), which Senator Schumer had backed in 1985 when he was dealing with the savings and loan scandal, did not receive the time of day. It would have required the companies to place an invitation to their customers in their mailing and electronic communications (bank statements, bills etc.) inviting consumers to voluntarily join and pay dues to build a powerful consumer lobby to countervail what Thomas Jefferson once called the “monied interests.”

After all, the criminal, reckless, self-enriching collapse of the economy by the Wall Streeters—the millions of lost jobs, the trillions of dollars in lost pensions and savings—Main Streeters deserved some reciprocal gesture for all the Americans who were forced, as taxpayers, savers and workers to bailout the crooks and ultimately pay the costs of this financial disaster.

In the end, the Senate, like the House of Representatives, told their consumers—their voters—to get lost. There was no room for a Financial Consumers Association in the 1500 pages.

The FCA is crucial to assure that many of the other parts of this bill are enforced. For very little in this legislation includes outright prohibitions. Rather the Senate, like the House, delegates the authority, within a broad range of discretion, to a variety of existing agencies, and a new consumer financial protection agency nesting allegedly independently inside the big bankers’ Federal Reserve.

There are so many complex reviews and procedural obstacles for these agencies that the corporate lawyers will collect enough fees to spoil their great-grandchildren. “Paralysis by analysis” is what consumer groups call such legislation. I call them no-law laws—mired in pits of quicksand that mock everything but eternity.

...

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2187-No-Time-For-Consumer-Power.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Thanks for posting that. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. You're welcome. It's always a pleasure n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. "Consumer Advocates Jubilant as House, Senate Reach Agreement on Financial Reform"
Actually, your posted response is dated. The legislative process moves quickly. Some of the things Nader argued for in that interview are in the current bill.

The above headline is the more up to date reaction of a group Nader launched.

U.S. PIRG Consumer Program Director Ed Mierzwinski said that Congress had "rejected the self-serving efforts of some two thousand Wall Street lobbyists who spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 18 months to weaken reforms targeting the practices that sparked the financial mess they caused for consumers and taxpayers.


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/06/consumers_reform2.html#ixzz0sFh15VNt

On a side note, I agree with Nader that giving stockholder more power is important. One poster here kept linking to an article in which Obama advocates for the same thing. It was his proof that Obama only serves corporate interests. Funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
20. Under the auspices of the Federal Reserve! LOL
while exempting some of the worst offenders from regulation

Yep- you can file that under corporatist alright. The Fed's mission is to protect banks, not consumers ans that's been more than amply demonstrated in the years prior to the financial crisis.

Kind of like putting environmental protections under the auspices of the MMS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC