Skip to main content

Cartoon by Jen Sorensen - Fat Cat
Led by Obama recess appointee Richard Cordray, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, it has the authority to regulate the shady tactics used by lenders to collect debts directly owed to them by consumers.

The problem is that the existing law on debt collection, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (first passed in 1977 and since amended) has a loophole big enough to drive a Mitt Romney campaign bus through. Unless the CFPB takes this action, if a consumer owes a debt directly to a lender (as opposed to simply owing money to a company for a purchase), the law's protections do not apply and the lender can, for example, harangue a borrower with phone call after phone call. The CFPB is planning to take a number of other steps as well to curb abuses relating to this kind of debt collection.

As Cordray explained in a statement: “It doesn’t matter who is collecting the debt — unfair, deceptive or abusive practices are illegal." He further added: "While many debt collectors play by the rules and treat customers fairly and respectfully, others try to get ahead by flouting the rules....Our job is to root out bad actors and protect consumers against unfair, deceptive or abusive practices and other legal violations."
I respectfully submit this as another of the quite numerous progressive accomplishments (h/t joelgp) this administration has had.

Even when we focus solely on economic matters, the reality is that the Republican opposition has stood opposed to Obama across the board. He hasn't even always had unanimous support from Democrats who, in the Senate, could and did thwart his policies even when there was, in theory, a filibuster-proof majority. The recess appointment of Richard Cordray and the strong, repeated backing provided to him and to the CFPB represent some of the many fundamentally important progressive steps this President has taken on behalf of consumers, i.e., regular Americans, against the interests of large corporations and Wall Street.

Please follow me beyond the fold.

Yes, I wish he had been able to achieve even more in progressive terms on the economic front. But this post is a counter to the claim that Obama and/or Democrats in general are just as corporatist as the Republicans, that the only difference is that they claim to "feel our pain" while they "cut our throats" (that's essentially the title of a Wednesday afternoon post on this site, which I will not link to. You can see examples (among many in other posts) of similar sentiments in the comment section of my post on the Voting Rights Act and the two parties—just search for the word "corporatist").

Democrats are not perfect, nor is Barack Obama. They take too much money in donations from big business and from Wall Street. But Democrats in general, and Barack Obama specifically, are far, far better for the 99 percent than is the Ayn Rand-loving, wealth-worshipping Republican Party to which they stand opposed. So, criticize the White House and whichever Democrats need criticizing. Call on them to do more to help workers, the middle-class, and the economically vulnerable. Praise Elizabeth Warren—and she has been a terrific senator so far. Pull Democrats to the left, as that would benefit the country and their electoral prospects.

But when you cross the line and say that there is no difference, other than rhetoric, between the two parties on the economy, that one is just as corporatist as the other, then you've left the world of constructive criticism—not to mention accuracy.

P.S.—Please check out my new book Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, published by Potomac Books, where I discuss Barack Obama's ideas on racial, ethnic, and national identity in detail, and contrast his inclusive vision to language coming from Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh and (some) others on the right. You can read a review by Daily Kos's own Greg Dworkin here.


Originally posted to Ian Reifowitz on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:38 PM PDT.

Also republished by Jews For President Obama.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I see almost every day where (27+ / 0-)

    with the help of the president/Obama Administration, lots has been accomplished and bad policies have been overturned.

    People tend to want to concentrate on the negative only. It's what sells on the internet, Fox, CNN and the likes of Limbaugh for certain.

    There are big differences between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - let alone big differences between Barack Obama and GWB.

    I will definitely check out your book.

    Thank you!

    •  "People tend to want to concentrate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, Roger Fox, Jazzenterprises

      on the negative"

      You mean like murdering women and children with extra-judicial drones? I stopped my support, full stop, at that point. If you do not, does this make you complicit to the murder of innocents, or just blase about lives with whom you have no stake or connection? That's a serious question, not hyperbole. Ask yourself out loud and in the mirror, "Am I okay with murdering blowing to smitereens innocent women and children without due process?" Imagine the face of a Yemini mother or Pakistani child as you do.

      I am really sorry, but I just cannot get beyond that and it terrifies me that so many good people are so willing to just say, "Whatever, he's our guy." It is an impeachable offense of the serious sort and the intellectually honest, decent people of the world should demand it. None are credible who do not.

      May the Conservative Supremes share Paula Deen's heart-stopping culinary tastes as much as they share her cultural ones.

      by pajoly on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:05:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But "murdering" women and children (17+ / 0-)

        by regular old aerial bombardment wouldn't have been a deal breaker, I take it?

        Cuz that is a practice I think every president with the capability to do so has employed, from time to time. How can you even support any candidate for president that isn't Dennis Kucinich?

        You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

        by tomjones on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:13:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm fine with it. (7+ / 0-)

        It is sad, but the policy of using highly accurate drones to eliminate terrorist threats is by far the least bad alternative Obama has. It is his job to protect us. And as a good person, he does all he can to avoid collateral damage. He has said that it weighs on him when innocents are accidentally killed. But the policy is the correct one.

        •  "Drone strikes more deadly than manned aircraft" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          triv33
          A study conducted by a US military adviser has found that drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.

          The new study, referred to in an official US military journal, contradicts claims by US officials that the robotic planes are more precise than their manned counterparts.

          It appears to undermine the claim made by President Obama in a May speech that "conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage".

          Drone strikes in Afghanistan, the study found, according to its unclassified executive summary, were "an order of magnitude more likely to result in civilian casualties per engagement."

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

          "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." President Barack Obama

          by quagmiremonkey on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:16:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heh. That is quite obviously (5+ / 0-)

            because with guided drones, the targets get hit much more often. When you use regular (dumb) bombs, a good portion of the time the ordnance lands in the middle of nowhere and no one is killed (not innocents and not the intended targets). The right study would have been to look at how many innocents are killed per bad guy killed; because with the dumb ordnance, a lot more bombs have to be dropped than with the precision guided drones.

            •  You are misreading or have not read article (0+ / 0-)
              Larry Lewis, a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses, a research group with close ties to the US military, studied air strikes in Afghanistan from mid-2010 to mid-2011, using classified military data on the strikes and the civilian casualties they caused. Lewis told the Guardian he found that the missile strikes conducted by remotely piloted aircraft, commonly known as drones, were 10 times more deadly to Afghan civilians than those performed by fighter jets…

              "The fact that I had been looking at air operations in Afghanistan for a number of years led me to suspect that what I found was in fact the case," Lewis said…

              Holewinski said the disparity reflected greater training by fighter pilots in avoiding civilian casualties.

              "These findings show us that it's not about the technology, it's about how the technology is used," said Holewinski. "Drones aren't magically better at avoiding civilians than fighter jets. When pilots flying jets were given clear directives and training on civilian protection, they were able to lower civilian casualty rates."

              Yet the demand for additional drone strikes by commanders in the war zone creates pressure to reduce training, Holewinski and Lewis note.

              "Adding or improving training on civilian casualty prevention is a resource decision in direct tension with the increasing demand for more UAS [unmanned aerial systems] and more operations, since additional training on civilian protection means time must be taken from somewhere else including the mission itself," Lewis and Holewinski write in their Prism article.

              "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." President Barack Obama

              by quagmiremonkey on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:36:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This neglects as well the dangers (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ian Reifowitz, Larsstephens

                to human pilots. Why would you want your son or daughter to fly dangerous bombing missions when an unmanned drone controlled by somebody far away (and safe) can do the job? It is not just about the lives of civilians. Our military lives count as well.

                •  They do. They don't however count for more (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  quagmiremonkey

                  than the lives of Afghan kids...

                  at least not to some of us.

                  Our military lives count as well.

                  When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                  by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:45:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you think they count for less? (0+ / 0-)

                    Parents and their kids who live in these places should actively avoid walking around people who are known terrorists for this very reason. Sometimes they are in the wrong place at the wrong time though. It is unavoidable.

                    •  They count the same. Did you really just argue (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Roger Fox

                      though that Afghan parents with the poor judgement to let their children freely stroll around their own village are at fault when their kids are blown to bits?

                      I thought that way of thinking went out with

                      women who wear short skirts are asking to be raped.

                      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                      by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:58:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Where does it say that? (0+ / 0-)
          It is his job to protect us.
          Ooh, let us all huddle under the embrace of his mighty arms!

          Could you point to the place in the U.S. Constitution where it says that the president's job is to protect us?  Perhaps you could extrapolate that from multiple powers, but that assertion is IMO an abdication of personal responsibility, and a convenient excuse for the ever more oppressive police state structures now in place.

          I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

          by tle on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:45:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whatever, we can determine that in the next (7+ / 0-)

            primaries.  You pick a candidate that runs on "I will not consider it one of my responsibilities as president to protect the American people from attack", and we'll see how your candidate does.   Maybe your candidate will win.  Though I'm thinking not.

            But understand this:
            Al Queda declared war on the US.  They declared jihad.
            And in the prosecution of that war, they attacked a US Navy ship, a US Army base, destroyed two embassies, attacked the Pentagon, tried to attack Capitol Hill, destroyed the WTC, and killed thousands of Americans, and non-Americans on US soil.

            Since when is it not the responsibility of the commander in chief to defend the US from attack by an armed force that is waging war against the US?

          •  FDR should I guess have said (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian Reifowitz, Larsstephens

            "hey it's not my problem" when the Japanese attacked. Your point here is idiotic. Note that I am not saying that you yourself are an idiot. You may be very intelligent. But your point is idiotic.

            •  That's because you missed it. (0+ / 0-)

              Where I think "U.S."' other people think "us"; that suggests to me that they're looking for a father figure to protect them as individuals.  That opens them up to the surrender of personal autonomy.  The failure to distinguish between the security of a nation (an integral responsibility of the president), vs personal safety, facilitates the continued expansion of the increasingly invasive police state (i.e., "It's for your own good").

              I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

              by tle on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:01:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I want to vomit reading this (0+ / 0-)

          You even use the words to inoculate yourself:

          "terrorist threats" - prove it
          "collateral damage" - dead people that are not your family ?
          he's a "good persoon" - terrific! Then let's grant him complete God-like authority! We don't need a Constitution, the president is a "good person."

          P.S. -- There's nothing accidental about firing a hellfire missile on purpose to a grid coordinate you designate.

          May the Conservative Supremes share Paula Deen's heart-stopping culinary tastes as much as they share her cultural ones.

          by pajoly on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:15:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How (9+ / 0-)

        many innocent women and children were killed in the fire-bombings of Dresden?
        Hundreds of thousands,in several days.

        How many drone attacks in the last 7 months?

        Less than 15.

        You would have hated FDR for internment of American-Japanese,also.

        Those drones have killed many murderers who have killed far more of those innocent women and children than our drones ever could.

        I know...just let them kill them because you have no stake or connection to them.

    •  So true, to the point (0+ / 0-)

      where I sometimes wonder if the whole NSA thing was cooked up by the Koch Brothers to distract progressives from the whole picture of what's going on.

      Luckily, no one out here in the real world gives a rat's ass about that. We have REAL problems, and we know exactly where they are coming from.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:37:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just wow (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TracieLynn

        "I sometimes wonder if the whole NSA thing was cooked up by the Koch Brothers to distract progressives from the whole picture of what's going on."

        That's about as willfully delusional as it gets.

        Also, you write: "Luckily, no one out here in the real world gives a rat's ass about that." If by the "real world" you are referring to those for whom defending the reputation and policies of Barack Obama are their sole reason for living, then that's probably true. But if by "real world," you are referring to the real world, then you are wrong. Not that--see above--you are much interested in the facts when they get in the way of partisan cheerleading.

        American voters say 55 - 34 percent that Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, rather than a traitor, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

        In a massive shift in attitudes, voters say 45 - 40 percent the government's anti-terrorism efforts go too far restricting civil liberties, a reversal from a January 14, 2010, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University when voters said 63 - 25 percent that such activities didn't go far enough to adequately protect the country.

        Almost every party, gender, income, education, age and income group regards Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than a traitor. The lone exception is black voters, with 43 percent calling him a traitor and 42 percent calling him a whistle-blower.

  •  I'm checking with Markos to see if I can (7+ / 0-)

    recommend the first three paragraphs of this diary, but not the rest.  

    I'll get back to you.

    He who would trade liberty for security deserves great customer service.

    by Publius2008 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:54:48 PM PDT

    •  Yep. When Obama and Co. take on the banksters, (9+ / 0-)

      mortgage lenders, and Wall St. "too big to fail" firms who have raped and plundered the working and middle class, then we'll talk. Until then, this is like handing out band-aids without stopping the assault from culprits wielding machetes and chain saws. Better than nothing, as the diarist points out, but appallingly still in the corporatist bleeding red category on the political balance sheet.

      "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by Kombema on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:03:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which part did you specifically object to? (5+ / 0-)
      the claim that Obama and/or Democrats in general are just as corporatist as the Republicans, that the only difference is that they claim to "feel our pain" while they "cut our throats"?
      Do you contend that Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same corporatist coin? If so, not sure why you would be wasting time on a site advocating for Dems.
      But Democrats in general, and Barack Obama specifically, are far, far better for the 99% than is the Ayn Rand-loving, wealth-worshipping Republican Party to which they stand opposed.
      Do you contend that Democrats and Obama specifically are not better than Republicans? If so, not sure why you would be wasting time on a site advocating for Dems.
      So, criticize the White House and whichever Democrats need criticizing. Call on them to do more to help workers, the middle-class, and the economically vulnerable. Praise Elizabeth Warren -- and she has been a terrific Senator so far. Pull Democrats to the left, as that would benefit the country and their electoral prospects.
      I'm pretty sure you wouldn't contend that we ought not to criticize Obama and Democrats. If so, not sure why you would be wasting time on a site advocating for Dems.
      But when you cross the line and say that there is no difference, other than rhetoric, between the two parties on the economy, that one is just as corporatist as the other, then you've left the world of constructive criticism -- not to mention accuracy.
      Maybe you feel that there aren't a lot of critics that say this, "that there is no difference between the two parties on the economy," but assuming it is a theme amongst some on this site and elsewhere in the progressive blogosphere - do you contend that there is no difference?

      If so, not sure why you would be wasting time on a site advocating for Dems.

      You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

      by tomjones on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:19:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice to see you again, tomjones. (3+ / 0-)

        It has been a while.  

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:52:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your last sentence is spoken (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoMoreLies

        like a true Authoritarian:  your way or the person doesn't belong here.  This kind of crap does NOT help matters here, and it's really not up to you to decide who fits here and who doesn't.  How childish of you.  Slapping people up verbally repeatedly and ad nauseum does NOT make them want to behave the way you want them to.    So, if you're going to continue the verbal beatings until morale improves, you're going to do nothing but piss people off.  And that's just stupid.

        "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

        by 3goldens on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:58:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just answer the freaking questions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          She's. Your bluster and fake outrage isn't doing you any favors.

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:55:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  when you get bored of accusing people (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Simpson, Ian Reifowitz

          of being Authoritarians what are you going to accuse people of? Punching bunnies?

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:56:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Explain how saying that a position is not accurate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          --and the word I used was "accuracy" -- says that people who espouse it  don't belong. By the way, some of the comments above do explicitly say that, calling those they disagree with Republicans or conservatives or whatever. They also call Obama a conservative as well, so that defines him outside this movement as well.

          If calling something inaccurate is offensive, your meter is set far too low. Note, that doesn't mean you don't belong here.  

          •  I have no idea why you directed this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian Reifowitz

            comment to me.  My comment that you responded to was to tomjones and was solely about HIS statements NOT yours in HIS comment.  Try not to trip when you step down off that high horse.

            "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

            by 3goldens on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:22:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry -- I got confused following the thread. (0+ / 0-)

              That's my fault. Your comment looked to me like a new comment, i.e., a response to my diary, and it's last sentence. I didn't realize you were commenting on tomjones.

              Still, you could have avoided the personal insults. It was an honest mistake. Next time maybe try to handle it in a less personal way.

              •  And you should take your own advice. (0+ / 0-)

                For someone who's going to be a Front Pager here, your inability to be objective is quite obvious.  You might try to handle things in a less personal way.

                "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

                by 3goldens on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 03:53:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  And let me just add that (0+ / 0-)

                you recommended comments by tomjones towards me and then accuse me of handling things too personally.  Did you also write that to tomjones?  NO, I'll bet you did not.  So, you need to set a personal example by NOT aiding and abetting the pie fights here---that is IF you expect to have any credibility.  See how that works?!

                "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

                by 3goldens on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 04:04:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sure they will be fined.... (7+ / 0-)

    10% of what they have made following such practices.

    Seriously, don't go for the Orwellian double speak because most often companies make a killing breaking the law, because the fines are a relative slap on the hand.

    Maybe I am jaded, but I am jaded because one only has to know history to often know the future.

    The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function [Albert A. Bartlett]

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:04:05 PM PDT

  •  Ian, how will the CFPB (11+ / 0-)

    enforce those rules? With fines, I suspect - and historically, in the USA, fines levied on financial institutions for dodging the law are a small percentage of the profits made by doing so....a slap on the wrist, if that much.

    To my (perhaps overly-cynical and world-weary) eyes, this looks like yet another example of the Obama Administration talking up a storm.....then doing not much at all.

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:21:02 PM PDT

    •  We'll see. I'm more optimistic than you are. (4+ / 0-)

      But yes, the proof will be in the pudding later on.

    •  Would you give a prison sentence based on %? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      "Hey, you're prison sentence is longer because you are younger".

      That makes no sense.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:26:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where in the hell did you get that?! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        triv33, Methinks They Lie

        You make up words the person never said and then accuse them of saying what YOU accused them of saying?!  Try to learn how to argue without behaving like this.

        "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

        by 3goldens on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:00:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Straw man argument. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        triv33, grollen, nchristine, TracieLynn

        The original point is relevant: if the punishment is a monetary fine, and the fine is less than the profit derived from the criminal act, then it is a simple business decision to ignore the law and accept the fine.

        No one is talking about prison time based on age, except you.

        Aussie2 is simply being realistic in making an assumption that any enforcement mechanism by the CFPB will be based on fines, and historically such fines have not been a real deterrent.

        •  Goldman was fined $550 million by Obama. (4+ / 0-)

          That is not straw at all.  It was a big part of their earnings.

          It is the largest fine ever for a Wall Street firm.

          Yet no one proved a thing against them.

          Also, there have been many billions of dollars in civil awards against the big banks.  Geithner took billions from the big banks in fines and interest.   How much?  At least $30 billion.

          I know this shit better than anyone here.

          "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

          by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:24:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. At $63,000 per minute in revenue, that fine (4+ / 0-)

            will take Goldman about six days to pay off.

            (That figure is based revenues from the last quarter of 2012.)

            Yeah, I'm pretty sure that will act as a huge deterrent in the future.

            You might also want to look up the definition of "straw man argument." You don't seem to understand what it is.

            You might also want to recognize that you are proving Aussie2's point: when a firm is willing to accept such a "large" fine, without anyone proving guilt, it is because they recognize such a fine as a win in their playbook.

          •  "I know this shit better than anyone here." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox

            Well I guess we can all go home now. It has been declared therefore it must be!

            •  Try me. Geithner hit the banks hard and I have (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ian Reifowitz, Larsstephens

              the figures.  I don't believe Firebagger myth either.  

              (NOT calling you one - not calling anyone here one!  But they are here.)

              "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

              by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:05:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You know what? I'll give it to ya. You know the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nchristine

                numbers better than I do. But here's the deal, they are fines.

                NO ONE, not one of the white-gloved billionaire banksters have gone to jail. NONE.

                I remember back during the S&L scandal (yeah I'm dating myself) bankers went to jail over that.

                What has happened since then? Complete. Regulatory. Capture is the term.

                These sociopathic cokeheads get to raid pension funds, crash the world largest economy, and force untold numbers of older workers to cancel their retirement, and all that happens is that their billionaire banks are fined millions while they get to stay on and TAKE FRIGGIN' BONUSES for doing it. I don't give a rat's ass about fines. And neither do the bankers. They blow that off as easily as an 8 ball of coke on a Friday night.

                •  OK, let us step back. Wall St banks didn't fuck (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens

                  up the economy like the S&L's mildly did back in the 80s.

                  It was the RETAIL banks issuing all those bad mortgages!

                  Who are they?

                  Countrywide, WaMu, IndyMac, Golden West/Wachovia, and hundreds of others that were on MAIN Street.

                  This is counter intuitive - but the Wall Street banks were STUPID enough to buy that bad paper!!!!!!

                  That is why Lehman and Bear and Merrill Lynch went bankrupt.

                  "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

                  by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:30:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But Goldman didn't. Nor BofA..... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Roger Fox, TracieLynn

                    And we're going to differ on this:

                    This is counter intuitive - but the Wall Street banks were STUPID enough to buy that bad paper!!!!!!
                    I wouldn't say they were "stupid enough", I would say they were greedy enough. They knew this was shit. They knew it and they sold it up the chain because there was enough foreign cash out there to buy it, they had the ratings agencies bought and sold KNOWINGLY rating these shit investments as AAA and then, and here's the kicker, people like Goldman Sachs purchased insurance betting that these MBS' would fail (because they knew they would because they knew they were shit).

                    When Greenspan was asked to explain the CDS system and he replied he didn't understand it the curtain was lifted back briefly on this house of cards. "Retail" vs. Wall Street means nothing in the Glass Steagalless era. The financial sector has had its chance to run itself without meaningful regulation. Look what happened. Wall Street has proven itself incapable of checking itself. It's not in their DNA.

                    So we must do it for them. And fines WON'T DO IT. Jail time (and REAL jail time, not some country club white collar "jail") might, and I mean might, get the message across.

                    Though with these psychos I doubt anything can convince them to behave ethically and morally. Their track record speaks for itself.

                •  Investors lost 1 billion get paid back 250 million (0+ / 0-)

                  http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/...

                   The deal lost investors $1 billion but produced $1 billion in profits for Goldman's collaborator, Oregon-based Paulson & Company, a hedge fund betting the housing bubble would collapse.

                  .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:02:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  He doesn't know the numbers nearly as well (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TracieLynn

                  as he thinks he does. $550m is about 18 days' profit (not revenue) for Goldman Sachs, as of 2012. As "deterrents" go, that's about as piss-poor as they come.

                  And his assertion that Wall Street banks didn't f**k up the economy (below) is pure, unadulterated historical revisionism.

                  "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

                  by Australian2 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:23:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  $550 million is about 1/15 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TracieLynn

            of Goldman Sachs' 2012 profits.....three and one-half weeks' profits, give or take. And that's assuming that they don't go the whole hog and just call it an expense, cutting their tax burden to partially offset it.

            Yeah, that'll be a real good deterrent for melting down the economy, Mr. "I know this shit". Judging by your posts, what you know about finance and Wall Street would fit on a thimble.....with room to spare.

            Also, mind telling me where this line came from?

            "Hey, you're prison sentence is longer because you are younger".

            That makes no sense.

            It's a complete non sequitur from my original post.

            "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

            by Australian2 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:20:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Whoa. I think you replied to the wrong comment? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Also, the Obama FDIC is doubling the big bank (17+ / 0-)

    capital requirements over the minimum the rest of the world uses (Basel II).

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:22:30 PM PDT

  •  looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I'd say (4+ / 0-)

    it's a mixed bag, as far as the corporatist talk, since the administration is negotiating it:

    Financial regulations: As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned at a Senate Banking Committee hearing in May, "There are growing murmurs about Wall Street's efforts to use the Trans-Pacific Partnership…as [a] vehicle…to water down the Dodd-Frank Act. In other words, trying to do quietly through trade agreements what they can't get done in public view with the lights on and people watching." The financial industry has indeed been pressing the USTR to use the deal to roll back financial reform. The Coalition of Service Industries, a trade association whose members include Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and American International Group, recently wrote a letter to the USTR urging TPP negotiators to soften rules on US financial firms operating abroad. A spokeswoman for the USTR says that as of yet, the TPP does not address these regulations.
    more at the site
    http://www.motherjones.com/...

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:37:37 PM PDT

  •  No doubt, bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon (5+ / 0-)

    would also have been far better than doing nothing at all.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:51:52 PM PDT

  •  I'm going to keep this short, simple solution..... (6+ / 0-)

    ... Trust me, I've been in the trenches as a lawyer in these matters.

    1) All that is required is make sure the FDCPA allows for PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, and make it include the ORIGINAL CREDITOR, not just the fly by night scum they hire to harass.

    2) Alter the FCRA to include a clear PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION for all violations. This will end all the bullshit shenanigans revolving around credit reporting and reporting-extortion.

    3) Raise the penalty to $10,000 PER VIOLATION. Meaning every single violation act is a $10,000 claim.

    These measures would make sure that citizens and/or their private lawyers can drag the offenders into court and make them pay. THIS is how you put an end t all the abusive practices, short sweet and simple.

    Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit OR works for "them".

    •  Winner! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      exNYinTX, MBNYC, The Jester

      This is exactly what needs to happen. There needs to be a disruption of the present business model and a private right of action would help that along nicely.

      I'd also make it 20k/violation so there would be something more left over for the client.

      The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

      by sebastianguy99 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:07:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One small problem ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian Reifowitz, The Jester

      $10,000 takes the action out of small claims court in most jurisdictions. The costs of filing and prosecuting the case increases dramatically. This may be offset to a point by attorneys more willing to take on a $10,000 case than were willing to take on a $1,000 case.

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:35:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really an issue. Multiple violations already.. (0+ / 0-)

        ... take this out of small claims on the counter suit even at $1K per.

        The real result is that lawyers can afford to take the cases on pro bono or contingency, so that the very people who are having financial troubles and are being victimized by these tactics, can obtain representation affordably.

        The abuses will come to an end rapidly once the consumer has real teeth to bite back with.

        You know it's out of hand when Hedge Funds are setting up Junk Debt collection firms to harass and abuse people. The law as it stands makes it all too easy to extort helpless people, making a de-facto debtors prison of their lives.

        It isn't a welfare effort for lawyers, as I said, the volume of acts will drop dramatically once the blow back of consumers defending themselves sets in.

        •  Hmmmm .... (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sure it's nice to have full attorney employment in the US, but little people like me have used the $1,000 FDCPA fines to stop predatory collectors in small claims court. I was successful against a couple of the most egregious debt collectors in the country.

          A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

          by edg on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:44:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Can they take aim at shady banks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    I love OCD, Ian Reifowitz

    that require you to provide a copy of a cancelled check that they know they already cashed before they'll issue a refund owed you?
      Any bank in this day and age that doesn't know whether a check has cleared more than two weeks after it cleared is #*^(&%! and just playing games.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:01:22 PM PDT

  •  I forgave him for not grilling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz

    Wall Street because he probably had no idea what was going on in 2009, like most people.  This is good news.

    "Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal."

    by sujigu on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:37:46 PM PDT

  •  This is what counts as a win these days? (0+ / 0-)

    Lenders can't pester people who (do) owe them money?

    Wake me up when the President decides to grow a pair and go after the fraudsters who bankrupted the country.

  •  Minor Accomplishment If Achieved (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NBBooks, Ian Reifowitz

    The vast majority of large lenders have charge-off policies of 30 to 90 days on debt collection. After that, they sell the collection rights to 3rd parties who are already liable under FDCPA.

    A far more critical matter in debt collection is that most consumer debt has been re-policied to require binding arbitration. This means that legal rights under FDCPA are vanishing. Including the original creditor in the mix merely ensures they will use arbitration against the debtor.

    A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

    by edg on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:39:58 PM PDT

  •  I thought (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz

    Obama was a coporatist, fascist, hippie punching no good communist, secret muslim that was out to take our guns and spy on everyone?

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am

    by duhban on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:43:40 PM PDT

  •  The CFPB is great! Diarist's defense of banking... (5+ / 0-)

    ...policy in this administration, and the administration's handling of Wall Street-related issues, in general, is a pathetic piece of propagandist drivel, which bears abso-f*cking-lutely no basis to facts in the real world.

    Repeat: The administration's policies with respect to Wall Street and the Too-Big-To-Fail Banks have been a f*cking sick joke! For a front-page diarist to be defending those policies is a lose-lose proposition, both for the diarist and this entire community.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:44:13 PM PDT

  •  This is Elizabeth Warren's victory, and Obama's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    accumbens, NBBooks, CitizenOfEarth

    concession.   This is a rerun of the Jennifer Granholm and GM/Chrysler loans.    Obama had to be pushed into helping the automotive companies and the 99%'s jobs.     Giving Obama credit for this is like giving Rick Snyder credit for the jobs that came back to Michigan on his watch.  

    This is nice.   It will make sure that the next time they steal our money and put us into bankruptcy, they'll be polite.    When Obama kicks GS ought of the Treasury and makes the bankers pay, then come talk to me about how "progressive?" Obama is.    When the heat is on, he's good at throwing meat to the base, but I still don't see any bankers in jail.  

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren/Spitzer 2016

    by dkmich on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:02:00 PM PDT

    •  Pure C/T slop - you and Alex Jones (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian Reifowitz, Larsstephens

      should buck together.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lol, anything to deny the president credit. (6+ / 0-)

      Now it matters how he decided to help the auto industry instead of the fact that they did it.  It's like the rightwingers who try to demean LBJ's Civil Rights Act by calling him a racist.

      Am I really to believe that the guy who signed the CFPB (and the rest of FinReg) into law and appointed its head had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it?

      Bqhatevwr.  Say he didn't go far enough, I don't care.  But this habit of making sure the president is the enemy on practically every single issue is flat out ridiculous.

      •  He gets credit for telling the ladies yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox

        after they beat him into it.   They are good ideas and the right thing to do; and they shouldn't have had to browbeat him to get him to say yes.  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren/Spitzer 2016

        by dkmich on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:30:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The policy was started in 2012, now expanded. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkmich

      CFPB

      New Federal Rules for Debt Collectors
      By EDWARD WYATT
      Published: October 24, 2012

      WASHINGTON — Debt collection agencies, whose sometimes aggressive tactics have earned them scrutiny from consumer protection groups and state regulators, will come under federal supervision for the first time beginning Jan. 2, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau begins oversight.

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      broader crackdown on debt-collection practices the agency has pursued since last year.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/...

      Additionally:
      Isaac Boltansky, an analyst with Compass Point Research & Trading LLC in Washington, said the regulatory pressure could push banks to rely more heavily on third-party collectors.

      “This new regulatory framework may result in some of the nation’s larger third-party debt collectors capturing market share as creditors choose to curtail their in-house collections operations due to both heightened headline risk and increased compliance cost,” Boltansky wrote in a research note.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:36:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How MUCH different than Rethuglicans? (3+ / 0-)

    The diarist obviously does not have a grasp of the economic realities being experienced by the 99 percent.

    Is there any evidence in the data portrayed by the above two graphs that the Obama administration's policies have reversed the ongoing impoverishment of average Americans? Where's the "Obama blip" so to speak?

    It is a cruel subterfuge to make the  Obama administration look good by using a hypothetical Rethuglican regime as the standard of measure. A more true measure is to look at Franklin Roosevelt's administration, which so hurt the one percent that some of them concocted a plot for a military coup; or John Kennedy, who in April 1962 went toe to toe against U.S. Steel chairman Roger Blough over steel price increases. These mote true measures the diarist seems to be woefully ignorant of. Or if he is not ignorant of them, he should explain why he refuses to use them.  

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:09:25 PM PDT

    •  Something can still be good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian Reifowitz

      even compared to the best possible examples.

      Can we not celebrate good things anymore?  Or do we have to pout that the good thing we received isn't the best thing ever?

      •  Sure, celebrate good things. But (0+ / 0-)

        explain what you see good in the economic reality protrayed in the graphs showing almost all the benefits of this economic "recovery" are going to corporations and the one percent, not the average American.

        A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

        by NBBooks on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:46:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And the progressive solution to that is what? (5+ / 0-)

      Obama has already proposed raising minimum wage, which would cause a bubble-up effect in increasing all wages.  What more do you want?  Raise corporate taxes?  I'm down with that, but what else?

      I'm not upset that corporations are making high profit, and there's no president that would hold it as his responsibility to keep corporate profits down.  Having that as a goal makes zero sense.

      •  What is profit? (2+ / 0-)

        Or more exactly, what is profit supposed to be in an advanced economy?

        If a company is making a profit by adding value to the creation, production, and distribution of goods and services, then this is the way capitalism is supposed to work.

        But what if a company is making "profits" by extracting economic rent, not by adding value? That is NOT the way capitalism is supposed to work.

        In fact, the economy of the United States, as originally devised Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton during the first two administrations of George Washington, was aimed explicitly at addressing this issue. Hamilton wrote a stunningly short and concise test for this issue in The Federalist #15: "Is private credit the friend and patron of industry?"

        The U.S. economy, as it developed historically, was marked by increasing capital intensity of industry and agriculture. Capital intensity = capitalism, right? In other words, the development of scientific knowledge, put into economic use as technological progress, led to increasing use of machinery to do the work previously done by animal and human muscle. The increasing use of machinery required increased capital expenditures, hence, increasing capital intensity.

        That is the way the U.S. economy developed - until about the late 1960s, when "financial engineering" first made itself felt in the conglomeration wave of the 1960s and 1970s "go-go years." Since that time, the U.S. economy has been marked by a decrease in the rate of  capital intensity, and the rise of financialization - speculation, usury and arbitrage. And exploitation of cheap labor.

        In fact, in the past decade, various statistical measures of capital intensity indicate that the U.S. economy is becoming less capital intensive. This goes directly to the heart of what the United is, and is supposed to be, as a republican form of self-government. As I wrote inNeo-liberalism, De-capitalization/De-industrialization, and the Res Publica in June 2012:

        I have, for nearly a year now, been urging people to read two books that explicate these concepts: The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, by Bernard Bailyn, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1967, and The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, by Gordon S. Wood, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1969.

        As Wood explains:

        The sacrifice of individual interests to the greater good of the whole formed the essence of republicanism and comprehended for Americans the idealistic goal of their Revolution. From this goal flowed all of the Americans’ exhortatory literature and all that made their ideology truly revolutionary….

        From the logic of belief that “all government… is or ought to be, calculated for the general good and safety of the community,” …followed the Americans’ unhesitating adoption of republicanism in 1776. The peculiar excellence of republican government was that it was “wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted.” By definition it had no other end than the welfare of the people: res publica, the public affairs, or the public good. “The word republic, said Thomas Paine, “means the public good, or the good of the whole, in contradistinction to the despotic form, which makes the good of the sovereign, or of one man, the only object of government.”

        ….In a republic “each individual gives up all private interest that is not consistent with the general good, the interest of the whole body.” For the republican patriots of 1776 the commonweal was all encompassing—a transcendent object with a unique moral worth that made partial considerations fade into insignificance. “Let regard be had only to the good of the whole” was the constant exhortation by publicists and clergy. Ideally, republicanism obliterated the individual. “A Citizen,” said Sam Adams, “owes everything to the Commonwealth.” “Every man in a republic,” declared Benjamin Rush, “is public property. His time, his talents—his youth—his manhood—his old age—nay more, life, all belong to his country.” “No man is a true republican,” wrote a Pennsylvanian in 1776, “that will not give up his single voice to that of the public.” (pp. 53-61)

        Neo-liberalism in economic policies can never be anything else but an abdication – repudiation, really – of this Revolutionary concept of republicanism.

        Under a thorough understanding of the political economy of a republic, it becomes clear that the "profits" a company makes can be either good, or bad. For example, when a company, such as Bain Capital, buys a company, then abrogates that purchased company's union contracts and pension obligations, and shows a "profit" on paper, that is bad.

        And, in fact, the extraction of economic rent is what the U.S. economy is now all about (and has been for quite a while). A few years ago, the McKinsey consulting company put out a report by the director of the consulting group's New York office. Titled "The New Metrics of Corporate Performance: Profit Per Employee," the report argues that the best performing firms in our increasingly financialized era are those companies that have learned to squeeze ever-larger profits out of each employee — and not by the more traditional "return on investment" metric.
        The McKinsey report looked at the world's 30 largest companies between 1995 and 2005, and found that their return on human capital more than doubled, from an average of $35,000 profit per employee to $83,000, leading to this rather frank and nauseating conclusion:

        "If a company's capital intensity doesn't increase, profit per employee is a pretty good proxy for the return on intangibles. The hallmark of financial performance in today's digital age is an expanded ability to earn 'rents' from intangibles. Profit per employee is one measure of those rents. If a company boosts its profit per employee without increasing its capital intensity, management will increase its rents."
        Source.

        So companies being profitable is not necessarily a good thing. Is the "profit" being made actually adding value to the economy? These are the basic economic concepts we need to learn if we are to accurately gauge the economic performance of our economy, and our President.

        A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

        by NBBooks on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:38:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whethr corporate profit is a "good thing" or not, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ian Reifowitz

          it's not goal of government to keep profits down.

          Now, there may be other goals of government that keep corporate profit down as a side effect.  For example, environmental regulations achieve certain government goals, such as having clean water and air, and those regulations might lessen the profit of some corporations, but that is only a side effect rather being the goal of the government.  

          Another example is what I referred to, the proposed increase in minimum wage.  Doing that generally causes a ripple effect causing all wages to increase, and has the theoretical potential to lower corporate profit.  But the latter effect is merely a side effect, not the primary goal.

          OSHA regs are another example.  Mandating safe work environment is a goal of government but the resulting regulations might lessen corporate profit as a side effect, but that effect is not the primary goal.

          And it's also true that if corporate profits are too low, then everyone suffers.  We don't live in a communist state where every "business" is a non-profit organization.  If corporations don't make enough profit, then they decrease the work force.

          IMO, complaining that corporations are making too big a profit is a meaningless complaint if there is no context provided.  If one has real concerns about issues that he things are demonstrated in part by high corporate profits, then he should make direct complaints about those concerns rather than complain about corporate profits themselves.

  •  Obama FDIC cracks down on Big US Banks (8+ / 0-)
    The biggest U.S. banks will face stricter capital standards than those required under international benchmarks, under a proposed rule cleared by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Tuesday.

    The FDIC approved a proposal to raise the leverage ratio requirements on eight of the largest U.S. banks to 5% and 6% for an institution’s insured depository subsidiaries. This is more stringent than the existing 3% leverage ratio requirement from the Basel III standard in 2010.

    http://www.forbes.com/...

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:12:14 PM PDT

  •  As is typical of Obama (if in fact he can take the (0+ / 0-)

    credit - see dkmich's comment above), it's crumbs to the masses and the big money still gets the cake and the box it came in.  No doubt this will help many people, just like some of the ACA does, but the big prizes remain with the big banks and big corporations.  So hurray for the little guy - he gets a chicken in the pot while the fat cats get the oysters, caviar, filet mignon and the vintage wine to go with it all.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:16:29 PM PDT

  •  LA Times yesterday Kamala Harris vs debt collector (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz

    Yay!

    she's doing a good job there calling out their creepy bullshit.

    How many people just pay these small nonsense claims just to shut them up?

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:21:05 PM PDT

  •  I smell hot air (0+ / 0-)

    and yes, this hot air smells...

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:23:45 PM PDT

  •  The understatement of the century (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox
    Democrats are not perfect, nor is Barack Obama.
  •  Mr. Reifowitz, I respectfully disagree...again... (3+ / 0-)

    There are several things I admire about you:

    1.) You are an excellent writer who states your position very well.

    2.) You do not hide your bias with the advertisement for your book's title stating your fondness for this president.

    3.) It is obvious that you believe what you say and you have faith in this administration.  You don't try to deceive anyone with your argument.  You state your case in a fair manner without gotcha type misleading facts and quotes out of context and such.

    4.) It is apparent you are a good man fighting for good causes that I would like to think I stand for as well.

    However, I do not share your faith on this administration.  Where you make excellent points about how they have been restrained by an awful, vindictive, lying group of republicans unlike any ever seen before on Capital Hill, I do not buy it.

    I look at what they could have done and didn't.  It screams to me of betrayal.

    Explain to me just these three things and I will back off my protests about the President.

    1.)  Why has President Obama gone after whistle blowers so hard?  He has prosecuted whistleblowers to historic degrees and at historic rates, practically ignoring the crimes exposed by them.  Why does he do this when he promised the greatest transparency of any administration?  This is not the doing of the republicans.

    2.) Why has the president allowed the kid glove handling of the banks when they have been found guilty of fraud and money laundering and financial aiding of terrorists?  Why is it that criminals in white collar crimes under this administration's justice department are having dinner with the president (Jamie Dimon) instead of serving time in jail.  The Attorney General admitting that they cannot even prosecute these banks if they wanted to.

    3.)  Why is this President negotiating the TPP trade agreement in secrecy?  We know that NAFTA hurts American manufacturing jobs and it hurts the Mexican employees as well. We know that every trade agreement we have thus far heavily favors the corporations instead of the workers in any of the participating countries.  We know that this trade agreement is speculated to be much, much worse and yet we are only left with speculation and rumors because this administration has done everything in secrecy.  Don't say that it is because the other countries are demanding it.  We are the USA.  Our consumers are the most coveted in the world.  We hold the greater leverage position to set the demands so if we wanted it out in the open, we could have it out in the open.  

    It is great that this administration is trying to keep people, already so far in debt that they are getting harassed by bill collectors, from getting abusive phone calls.  Great.  I want to know what he is doing about getting people who are that far in debt out of debt.  

    The three things I mentioned above are completely within President Obama's control to address.  He cannot blame Republicans for any of it.  I could add guantanamo detainees, marijauna scedule, the missed opportunity over the fourth of July to recess appoint all of the judges that needed appointed, and so on, but I do not want to muddy the water.  Address the three I listed and I will do my best to try to back off and regain my support of him.  You see, I do not want to dislike the man but he keeps doing things that I cannot just over look.  Things such as the budget and the jobs bill that require consensus and help from congress, okay.  These three items he can do all by himself and he chooses not to.

    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:21:39 PM PDT

  •  I don't see why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz, GoGoGoEverton

    it is so difficult for people to distinguish between individual policies of the President they don't like and painting his entire Presidency as negative.

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:36:37 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site