PBO- "I'd like to introduce you to my new Consumer Watchdog. I call him Sparky."

That's just what we need, more bureucracy! We obviously don't have enough government or government employees, so let's build an entire new agency to work outside of the existing agencies. It's kind of like saying that we need an entirely different armed citizen's military outside of the National Guard and the US Military Services(remember that this was talked about by PBO) because we need the military to deal with foreign agression and the National Guard to be the second line in overseas offensives. Just keep building new systems, not reorganize existing ones, whom they report to, whom the coordinate with, etc. Nooooo, that's not reasonable.

Remember that the BATFE, FBI, the CIA, and the military can't actually speak with each other and trade information? It's much better that they remain unaware of each other's work and actually replicate the same work with their own staff.

There are a few rules in government: 1. Create new departments. 2. Increase taxes to cover the costs of new departments. 3. Realize that departments aren't really working out- doing anything of value or staying on budget. 4. Refuse to disband any departments because they already exist and firing government employees might upset someone and we'll loose votes.

Wow are we acting stupid. The answer- Smaller, better coordinated government..... not more and more government.

For the last four years the Republicans have been nothing short of out and out obstructionists. The President should just go ahead and appoint his original choice, Elizabeth Warren.

It is obvious that the Republicans simply do not want Obama to accomplish anything that would be supported by the majority of Americans. Of course Americans want protections as consumers. Americans deserve protections from many underhanded and perverse practices in which many financial organizations partake. It is about time that the Dodd/Frank legislation start to take effect. The United States will only be strengthened by this move.

Spender, in reply to your comments:

The postal service doesn't use tax dollars to pay for it's service. Unfortunately, it's much more the fault of congress for mickey mousing around with postal pensions and how they are accounted for and with how congress doesn't let them behave and perform like a business as they dictate how post offices are located, managed and the hours they keep. I would put the blame much more on congress for failing to allow the postal service to success in a highly competitive environment.

As for costing the tax payer more, were you aware that various financial entities have the ability to shop around for who will regulate them? Many of these financial companies will intentionally pick the regulator with the least amount of potential to actually regulate. Does this seem right? I would prefer a regulator who will regulate appropriately and not one who is incapable of regulating.

Simply put, congress enacted legislation and now had the legal obligation of vetting and approving of the president's nominated person to manage the agency brought into being by that legislation. What congress (aka the Republican's) was to rewrite the legislation. If they don't like the agency, it's too bad. They can try to enact legislation to change it but that is a very different process than vetting and approving someone to head the agency.

Are the Republican's obstructionist? Is it cold out in New England today?

Once again, MSNBC's reporting on this story is lacking to put it mildly.
If you read the AP story, you will get a much better idea of why this isn't just a partisan issue and the maneuver by President Obama is both unprecedented and possibly illegal.

I don't have an issue with the new agency as something had to be done to protect consumers in the wake of 2008. What I take issue with is the way that President Obama has circumvented the balance of powers.

For those complaining that Republicans are obstructionists for blocking this appointment - the very tactic was created by Democrats when GW Bush was in power. Where they obstructionists for doing it? No. They disagreed with giving an agency too much power, much like Senate Republicans and some Democrats are worried about now.

And circumventing the rule of law and the intent of the founding fathers for political and monetary gain is just peachy!

SPO this is about an appointment to an office already inacted into law by Congress, and not spending. History will not be kind to the spin doctors of the TeaPub party.

JoeNY what exactly do you have against protecting folks from predatory lending, no value-added bank fees, and cedit card interest rate hikes?

Michael + numbers Elizabeth is just a little busy right now unseating Senator Brown of Mass., so the original appointment is out of the question, but you already knew that right?

As for all the rest, we must be careful as we paint the government with broad strokes of disdain. It is what it is, and it is our responsibility to assist our nation's recovery NOT ensure its demise. We all know Congress is broken. We are beginning to surmise we cannot fix the root problems by electing new people (who are simply gambling with the lives of Americans), and we must collectively provide this or any administration the support needed to ensure the US has a vibrant economy for decades to come.

Some of you are eager to cut off both your arms and your nose to spite Obama, knowing full well as the administration goes so does the country. Whilre TeaPubs have been somewhat effective at ensuring this administration does not realize a sucessful agenda, they have also single-handedly brought about the demise of the Republican party. This will be more evident as we approach the summer of 2012.

IF NOT OBAMA IN 2012 WHO?

Every time one of the right wing talking heads says something about what Obama has accomplished in his term I want to toss my cookies. How can they even question his term while stabbing him in the back at every turn. This bunch of lackeys for the rich have no shame and are the reson both for the fall of this country and the stagnation that is still hanging around all for political purposes. Every recession we have ever have has been solved by the private sector after the government has done what they have had to do except thi one. Obama skillfully got the country stabilized up to the point where the private sector should have kicked in and started to hire people but they were making money off of other peoples plight and so they signaled their lackeys to fight the admiistration at every turn and delay anything they did not like. Welcome to the new America.

So who is going to protect the consumers from this agency?

More regulations and more oversight.

Regulations and oversight bring increased costs which result in higher prices.

Higher prices and increased costs of doing business are passed onto the consumer, who always picks up the tab.

We have to protect the consumer alright, more from the government than from the entities who depend on the consumer.

I look forward to seeing who else the President puts into place during this recess. It is amazing how obstructionist the GOP has become.

I wish President Obama would reconsider and nominate Kentucky's AG Jack Conway who is a great

attorney general. And if you want a job done, get somebody from Kentucky. Jack Conway is the better

man. He has my vote of confidence!!!

mike12345-3943221

Good move, republicans will not work with Obama anyway so it was the only way to get the job done.

Incorrect. Obama backing down was a better move. So much for Obama bypassing Congress. I guess he figured out that bypassing Congress wouldn't help him get re-elected. He is right.

Dog, et al., not sure if the Dems actually created this tactic but they did use it a bit.

From a senate report on recess appointments:

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

It would seem to me that Obama has been quite restrained in using the recess appointment tool. Also, given that the Republicans have been obstructionist on a number of appointments since Obama took office (aka, 3 years of obstructionist crap), I think that Obama has excersized considerable restraint in using the recess appointment, as he has been in much of his dealings with congress. I hope this maneuver is just the start of him growing a pair and shoving them in the Tea Baggers' collective faces.

I hope and pray for the day where a centrist position becomes the norm in congress and not what we have today.

In this political environment, forget restraint...

triple dog... Congressional reps (regardless of party) can't enact a recess appointment. LEARN your govt/civics. ONLY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (aka president) can appoint people. Yet another example of how the right wing propaganda machine can take advantage of your lack of knowledge. W used recess appointments to to place political cronies into important positions (federal judges, ambassadors, UN rep, etc.). How is your sense of hypocrisy?

AMF

Thank you Mr President Obama .. its about time someone protects the average American from corporate greed and dishonesty

"Liberal" media bias.

1 The Constitution authorizes the President to make recess appointments.

2. When a Republican President makes recess appointments, there is little to no comment about his doing so.

3. When a Democratic President, who also had the temerity to get elected While Being Black, exercises the same authority, he is being "defiant".

“President Obama's philosophy is clear: government knows best, and the bigger, the better,” Shelby said in a statement. “ In light of his record, it's not surprising that he end ran the elected representatives of the American people to avoid accountability to them.”

Hmmm, maybe senator Shelby should be running for President. He certainly has Obama figured out.

Ron in Seattle-2190928-2190938

For ITDDY recess appointments are not unconstitutional or illegal. Please get the facts before inserting foot in mouth. McConnel's bag of tricks to prevent Obama from doing what his predecessors have done hundreds of times will not work and here's why:

First of all I said possibly illegal, as per the AP. Recess appointments are not illegal. Appointments when Congress is technically still in session is illegal. Please read the AP report that spells this out if you don’t believe me.

Sick of the Right's Crap

Dog, et al., not sure if the Dems actually created this tactic but they did use it a bit.

If you read the AP story that I reference in my post, you will know that this is a fact. It's pretty easy to confirm if you really want to.

MossDog, President Obama sent a Drug Carz to Kentucky to visit with AG Jack Conway and it got

results. Phyllis

Repubs and Teapubs don't get your undies in a knot yet! And, be careful what you wish for!

When the Democratic Party machine gets clicking on all cylinders, they wil use every damned contrived trick that the right wing has used on them and then some on the road to retaining the White House.

And, I for one wish them all the luck!

Careful what you wish for Republicans - Karma is a b*tch!

ED... Three senators present a quorom does not make, therefore for all intents and purposes the senate was not in session.

Keep up the ignorance, hatred and idiocy you right-wing nuts. And for you dems out there... Obama is not as good a president as you would like. His signing of the NDAA (basically ditching posse commitatis and the 4th amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS) is a DISGRACE, especially for someone who taught constitutional law. Too bad for "We the people" because Romney (flipper and liar) will be the GOP candidate and Obama will have to be re-elected. Time for a RATIONAL third party people.

AMF

notliborcon

Congressional reps (regardless of party) can't enact a recess appointment. LEARN your govt/civics. ONLY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (aka president) can appoint people. Yet another example of how the right wing propaganda machine can take advantage of your lack of knowledge.

notliborcon, what are you talking about? I never said Congress can enact a recess appointment. What I alluded to that was POSSIBLY illegal is President Obama’s appointment when Congress is technically still in session. That it is illegal. The argument whether Congress is or is not in recess is debatable. My personal opinion is that they are not in session. The AP story does a good job of explaining this.
I’m an independent, not a right-winger, but thanks for jumping to that conclusion based on one opinion.

W used recess appointments to to place political cronies into important positions (federal judges, ambassadors, UN rep, etc.). How is your sense of hypocrisy?

I’m aware that Bush made appointments, I’m also aware that the Democrat-controlled Senate, led by Harry Reid, created the tactic to hold pro-forma meetings to stop any appointments while Congress was in recess because it would technically keep them in session. After that tactic was created, GW Bush had 0 appointments.
If Republicans had called Democrats obstructionists in 2007-2009, I would have called them hypocrites as well.

Personally, I didn’t think Democrats were obstructionists at the time because I agreed with many of their points. I also don’t think Republicans are obstructionists now because I partially agree with their argument.

Its amazing to me how a democrat who supports his or her democratic president, is somehow on the wrong side of things. The new agancy was set up over 6 months ago yet somehow this is not a long enough period of time to decide on a leader of the newly formed and nessasarry agency??? why is it that an entire group of our elected officials ,(republicans in this case), can refuse to pass any legislation and refuse to contribute in some positive way to getting this done. Now I see comments questioning the legality of the appointment. Congress has a legal responsibility to legislate!!!!!???? to come up with laws and amendments to laws that will help the american people as a whole. Oh except now that Obama is president??? It is clear that you guys are these extream fringe types, who dont take a moment to think about the un founded comments you make. There has been an out right refusal to do anything by the republicans. And its hurting the brand in a terrible way. There is no decision the Persident could make that would satisfy you. Thank God your strenght only exsist in blogs and right wing media. There is no chance that the garbage you speak translates at all with the majority of amoricans who actulally care about the our country!!!!! Come Nov 2012 you will see how insignificant your crazy hateful ways are. Grow the heck up people.

Just sour grapes from the right. Frankly, I'm sick of their crap. More power to Obama. I hope he keeps it up because it's the only way we're going to get out of this mess the Republicans got us in.

Has anyone given any thought to the "legal" issues signing the appropriations bill with the NDAA attached has presented to the Justice Department? Yes, the president could have vetoed the bill, but with the Senate vote, the veto would have been over-ridden any way. By signing the appropriations measure, the administration can now move to begin court challenges to get the NDAA declared unconstitutional and still keep the appropriations going.

MTpolitico,

RE: your post #1.34

Yes indeed Senator Richard Shelby, the senior senator of ALABAMA! I am sure he would be everything you would want in a U.S. President, after all he's from Alabama, the state with high poverty, low education levels and of course complete racial equality, right? I'm sure if he can do this for Alabama, after serving in Washington D.C. since 1978. That's 34 years and look what he has done for his state. They have a GREAT football team at U of A! Next?

Obama and his hijinks! It doesn't matter if other presidents did the same thing. It doesn't make it right to continue the practice. Where is the "Hope and Change" you campaigned on?

Mr. Obama, You aren't any different than the other presidents we've had, oh wait, you do know how to campaign well and still not focus on the problems at hand.

Leiya123,

RE: your post #1.44

How juvenile and naive are you going to get? It IS difficult to bring about meaningful change when everything is done to obstruct by the REPUBLICANS.

WOOOHOOO!!!!!

Another "watchdog". Or is Cordray another Czar? All this is is more government incompetence. Another layer of autocratic bureaucracy to oversee the overseer's.

Let's see. How are bank's controlled? By regulators of course. Regulators from where, you may ask? Well there are a few.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC):

It oversees national banks. It ensures soundness of the national banking system, creates competition between banks, ensures fair and equal access to financial services to all Americans, enforces anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism finance laws and is the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting acts of misconduct committed by institution-affiliated parties of national banks, including officers, directors, employees, agents and independent contractors. This includes appraisers, attorneys and accountants.

By monitoring capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, information technology, consumer compliance, and community reinvestment, the OCC is able to determine whether or not the bank is operating safely and soundly, and meeting all regulatory requirements.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB):

It oversees state-chartered banks (banks that receive authorization to conduct business from the state instead of the federal government) that are members of the Federal Reserve System. Membership in the Federal Reserve System is required for national banks, but it is optional for state-chartered banks. The FRB also regulates bank holding companies.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC):

This agency oversees state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System.

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS):

This oversees federal savings and loans and federal savings banks.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA):

This administration oversees federally-chartered credit unions.

While different banks are regulated by different federal agencies, each state has just one banking agency that oversees most state-chartered banks and other financial institutions conducting business in the state. A state’s banking agency will work with the appropriate federal agency to regulate a bank. For example, a bank that is state-chartered in Michigan and not a member of the Federal Reserve System is regulated by both the Michigan Department of Banking and the FDIC. These banking regulators ensure strong supervision of the banking industry.

So, we have a massive bureaucracy already in place at the Federal and State levels. These entities all have the capacity to address consumer problems, however, in most cases the response takes months and is so disjointed about who is responsible solutions are rarely found. Regulators should work to address long check holds, high overdraft fees, and misleading credit-card practices. And they should support, not fight, stronger state laws that protect consumers. Improvement of the current systems and regulation reform is the solution, NOT creating another Bureau that will just create more confusion and inefficiency.

This non-recess appointment is not only unconstitutional it will be just as ineffective as the mountain of regulators we already have. Perhaps if in 1998 Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Levitt had listened to Brooksley Born the housing meltdown could have been avoided. Perhaps if in 2004 the criminals Frank, Waters, Meeks, Clay and others were less concerned about protecting the embezzler Franklin Raines and his cohorts and listened to the Republicans and OFHEO the collapse of Fannie and Freddie could have been avoided or at least minimized.

The GAO recently exposed the consequences of our massive overlapping government morass of Agencies, Departments, Offices and incompetent programs. The cost of this redundancy being over $200 BILLION Dollars a year. So, now our Incompetent In Chief takes a photo-op in Ohio to announce his illegal and unconstitutional appointment of his lackey Richard Cordroy. Another step in this criminal president’s goal of upsetting the Balance of Power our Constitution demands on the 3 branches of our government.

The elections in November MUST be a referendum on this alleged “Constitutional Scholar” who repeatedly allows the usurpation of its Supreme Laws. You can’t get any more rejection by a president of the fact that our Constitution IS a Charter of Negative Liberties than this.

ABO (Anybody But Obama) 2012

In 6 months, we won't even recognize the US.

I no longer feel free here.

Regulations already effect our lives to the point that speaking out against them can result in being labeled a terrorist by those in power.

That could lead to permanent detention these days without trial. So much for due process.

The Obama administration is fighting hard to require me to buy health insurance. I have health insurance, but this is the excuse they are using to "regulate" commerce using the commerce clause of the Constitution. So in future, they will be able to decide for me what I need to buy and take that worry away from me. Whew...

Yeah, feeling as free today as you once did?

I didn't think so.

Sorry folks, most of you have missed this important point.....he is buying Ohio votes by nominating Cordray. Personally, as an Ohioan, I don't have a problem with Cordray, but I have a BIG BIG problem with the President creating yet ANOTHER agency we don't need. Notice he came to Ohio to make the announcement, he could have done this from Washington. It's all about buying votes. You folks do know we already have a consumer protection agency? We don't need 2 of them.

You need to get this straight Mr President, Ohio is sick of you and how you've turned your back on the wishes of the American people. Ohio has suffered under your Presidency and we really want someone else to step up to the plate.

scrambolo

Very weak retort. Show some substance for a change and not hyperbole. I'll bandy words with you if only you'll abide by the COH. Your opinion, thats right, your OPINION, -I will evaluate and decide if its just party bias or if you've made objective arguments supporting your position.

Regards!

I applaud this effort by the Obama Administration. It's laughable to say that the Legislative Branch is acting in the interest of the American People. So, bypassing them is the right thing to do. And, it's constitutionally valid.

At the end of the day, Obama's success in advocating the consumer base in the U.S. isn't dependent on how he works and plays well with congress. The electorate will never say, I'm not voting for him because he hurt congress' feelings. He needs to lead based on the interests of this society. Championing the interests of the middle class are clearly in the interests of the society.

Good for President Obama! If this lame Senate strategy worked they would refuse to confirm the head of EPA, OSHA or any other agency that they "don't believe in." These hostage tactics the Republicans continue to employ have no place in our government.

"Before leaving for its holiday break, the Senate imposed a schedule of "pro forma" legislative sessions designed to block the move. "

I wonder if this is a good case for the Supreme Court to hear, since there was technically not a 'recess', and this was the same tactic that was used by the Democrats in Congress to keep Bush from making 'recess' appointments.

In any event, it will also set a precedent for a Republican President to do whatever he wishes in the future as well.

ROY

When have the Democrats EVER engaged in such disingenuous and hostile politics?

I think the chemtrails are actually having an effect on the minds of the people of this country. If the comments I have seen on all these boards this morning are any indication, the people of America are completely losing their collective minds. I don't see any way that humanity is sustainable when people treat each other the way I see happening here.

It appears some believe that less regulation brings protection to consumers. The evidence of the economic meltdown, largely due to lack of oversight of banking procedures, means nothing to some who posted comments on this blog in support of banking lobbyists. They want the American consumer to turn the other cheek or pick up that bar of soap position. The president did the right thing on behalf of consumers because the repubs are more interested in preventing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from being effective by not having the leadership it needed. As a consumer I applaud President Obama for taking this action. It's far overdue, folks need to have confidence in their purchasing power without hidden risks from predatory financial institutions.

In response to those posts inquiring about my feelings of freedom or big government, I feel more secure with this action by President Obama than being taken advantage of by financial institutions that seem to be too big to fail. I consider this a mild bailout for the middle class by providing protection from financing practices that seem more like "Loan-Sharking" than enhancement of purchasing power by transparent lending practices.

It appears some believe that less regulation brings protection to consumers. The evidence of the economic meltdown, largely due to lack of oversight of banking procedures, means nothing to some who posted comments on this blog in support of banking lobbyists.

There are already NUMEROUS agencies that regulate every aspect of the financial system.

This new agency will have broad powers to regulate individual financial transactions and that is a new monster altogether.

That anyone could believe that having an agency able to look at each of our financial transactions is a good thing is beyond me.

This is not about reigning in the bankers, who the Democrats hate with a passion, but about monitoring individuals and the way we move our own money around. It was the Obama administration that has gone completely bat @!$%# over people having money in foreign bank accounts.

With this agency, they will be able to monitor where you put your money, how much you have, and where you spend it.

If you spend it somewhere they don't like, they will have the power to send IRS agents in and arrest you. If they deem that your purchase benefited a "terrorist" group (anyone can be labeled a terrorist these days) then you can be detained forever without trial.

Due process was signed away last week, with reservations Obama said. LOL

GOOD. Thank you President Obama. Keep going. Use your power. The house and senate are worthless to the American People. Everytime they trot out the door on their many taxpayer paid vacations, get the pens out and start signing.......Americans are with you.

ROY WILSON-336103

We all know how low the Liberals will stoop to advance their socialist agenda's.

Remember in 2009 when Edward Kennedy manipulated the poor fool Governor Deval Patrick and Massachusett's state legislature to alter the method that his successor could be chosen?

In 2004 Democrats pushed through the measure that took away the governor's power to appoint an interim senator. The law called for a special election to be held when a Senate vacancy arises, a process that would take months. Kennedy urged the Legislature to act to allow Patrick, a fellow Democrat, to appoint an interim replacement until such an election could be held.

The hypocrisy of Liberals is no surprise. The scary part is how far they are taking their criminal abuse of our Constitution and laws.

In response to those posts inquiring about my feelings of freedom or big government, I feel more secure with this action by President Obama than being taken advantage of by financial institutions that seem to be too big to fail. I consider this a mild bailout for the middle class by providing protection from financing practices that seem more like "Loan-Sharking" than enhancement of purchasing power by transparent lending practices.

Do you think they will close Amscot down?

Please...this is not about protection, it is about control.

I would expect to see more of this type of action by Obama. Especially if he thinks he is going to lose the next election. If the Democrats think they are going to lose they will try to cram as much of this garbage through as they can before they leave office.

Every year, more laws.

40,000 new ones in the US this year.

More regulators, regulations, and agencies with agendas.

Federal Gov't spending DOUBLED since 2001.

More people than ever are on the dole.

And yet, more people are in poverty.

The Gov't is dependent on China for money.

And with all the regulations, businesses can't compete and find better conditions overseas.

Meanwhile, our lives are not a bit better for all the massive Gov't that will consume our future.

We tried the liberal/progressive/socialist/democrat playbook - and just like in Europe - it failed.

Next November we have a chance to make some real changes.

No more doubling down on bad bets! This is all the Democrats ever do. If some Gov't program isn't working, they say : "We need more of it to make it work." A few years of that later and you are Greece.

It's time for a change.

Recess oppointments by Bush: 69

Recess oppointments by Obama: 28

Fact is, the Seante has totally abused the fillabuster. When Obama wins re-election, I hope democrats remove it from law once and for all.

Eventually, given time to ripen, the question of when the Senate is and is not in session will likely come to the SCOTUS. My guess is that this stratagem of pro forma keeping it in session, invented BTW by Harry Reid, will be upheld as a prerogative of the Senate to define it's own rules.

But Obama has a more immediate legal problem. The Dodd-Frank Act is very clear that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is “confirmed by the Senate”. A recess appointment is not a Senate confirmation. Now don’t ask me why Dodd and Frank included such unusual language, they could have just given the Bureau the new authorities, but they didn’t.

This issue will surely and promptly end up in the Courts and it is, as they say, a no-brainer. In fact, it may very well allow the SCOTUS to escape the Constitutional question (at least in this case) and, as we know, the SCOTUS does not reach Constitutional questions if it can at all avoid them.

Oh heck guys, I don't agree with the Obama policies, but really. All Presidents have made recess appointments throughout history.

I do agree that Congress does need to change the procedure so that NO president can do this. But intill they do, he will happen.

Anyone but Obama 2012.

Just how did Tyler get to be a moderator? Moderators are supposed to be impartial.

Teatard is ok. Republitard is ok. But Libtard is not.

Comments by liberals that don't violate the COH are restored. But comments by conservatives that don't violate the COH are left collapsed.

We all have our own opinions, but when the staff of the site so blatantly supports one point of view over the other it's just disgusting.

I just cannot get over how many F*ing Stupid People there are in this country.

First, the PRESIDENT did not create this new agency--CONGRESS did.

Second, the time to debate what the agency looked like and how it was to be run was BEFORE the law creating it was passed. For a minority of members of Congress to NOW say they want changes is not democracy; the law passed in its current form by a MAJORITY and was signed into law by the President. Its OVER!

Third, the agency was created because of abuses that have existed for years, DESPITE the current bureaucracy. The agency was deemed by Congress to be needed, so it was created. Bitching about too much government regulation at this point is sour grapes.

Fourth, since the majority in Congress created the agency, then it should come into existence and begin functioning. Any attempts by a minority to thwart the will of the majority by withholding votes on the person who will head the agency and its funding is undemocratic.

Finally, why is it that for EVERY ISSUE conservatives have to turn it into a Hate Obama diatribe? Hey, you don't like him, fine; vote for someone else in November (although with the lineup on the other side I would think twice about whom I would vote for if I were a Republican). But until the President's out, HE'S IN. So stop whining!

Rick, do you think the Reps will file suit??? They have used the same trick so they may not be so eager to make the change... Justice is always in the eye of whomever is in power.

Toe jam???? Just because he is President doesn't mean he has to agree to tricks created by his party just like a Rep Pres may not... it is a trick just as the Pro Forma is and both should be blocked for good.

That being said, the Pres in power should be able to pick who he wants for a job and not have the minority party be able to run ram shod over it just because they didn't like the original bill. They are so afraid of ticking off their big donor bankers...

Bush used recess appointments but now that a Democrat is in office somehow it's circumventing the 'American People"

The same 'American People' that have been preyed upon by crooks who sucked them into bad mortgages...

Remember that Credit card companies for years have bemoaned the fact that the government should not protect the 'American People' from their own stupidity.

That was torn down by the Bush Congress and Senate with Check 21 and the laws regarding bankruptcy - this is just a 'wrong' being righted.

Great finally the President is doing what "WE THE PEOPLE" elected him to do, I was wondering when he was going to start exercising the power of the presidency to fix the mess that the Republican criminals made out of our country. Go on dear President, you won the elections by a land slide unlike Bush who was elected by committing electoral FRAUD!!! We the people put you in power, go ahead and do what you need to do to rescue our country from the disaster that GOP left us in.

OBAMA 2012-2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good work Obama, may as well not even bother to unpack your bags from your Christmas Holiday vacation. You are so going to lose in November.

Yeah, feeling as free today as you once did?

I didn't think so.

Tell me ONE thing you cannot do today that you could in 2008 (when the US became a "dictatorship" </sarcasm>).

Y'all need to stop listening to the fear mongers at Fox.

NNRRESQ...finally, someone with intelligence! Your explanation(s) are right on that anyone should be able to understand. Simply put, the bill passed and was signed into law. Selecting a director for the agency is the perogative of the President and should not be held up by the minority party over silly points. Thank you for explaining the process and the outcome and reasoning behind the holdup by minority grandstanders.

For those of you libs that love this move by PBO please remember to keep your mouth shut when the other team takes over the white house and it will happen maybe not this time or the next but at some point in the future the other team will take over and abuse the same powers are your team.

To JM, in less than a year I won't be only to go without health insurance with a penalty.

I find it funny that the Rep's think they are a Representative government. Not even close. They only care about the rich and big business. The Rep's don't give a dam about the working people of this country. We seen that more today then ever before. We have seen there true colors now. I say to all people of this nation, We have to stand together and take this country back. I think the only way is to put a national referendum, to force them to change laws like term limits for everyone. That is the biggest problem. Then we must stop the corruption from money, by public funding the elections. And stop allowing these people that have so much influence on Stocks and use that for there personal profits. Man we put people in jail for that, and they all do that, Rep's and Dem's. All these people come to Washington regular people and before long they are the 1%. Again anyone else that would do that would go to jail. We all need to be honest with ourselves, our government represents the highest bidder, Like the Koch brothers. I do understand the unions do the same things. I say stop it all. We are the voters, We should have the say. We have to form together with others that feel the way we feel, but no money. The koch's and others like them can make there case, but no money. No money from the unions. That will stop the corruption, I think. These people in congress have such a choke hold on the laws they pass to help them not us, that the only way to get these laws changed is to take action ourselves, Like they did in Ohio. And like they are about to do in WI, when they recall Mr. Walker and repeal some of the things the Koch Brothers paid Walker to do. That Walker was bought and paid for. He should be in jail.

The really great thing about this is, with the director in place, the only thing Congress can do about this agency would be to write a law which would overturn the agency. The agency is self funding, self operating, much like the Federal Reserve, the US Postal service (yaa, yaa, I know they are technically not part of the US Government) yet still, technically at least, subject to some government oversight.

What bothers Congress most is that an independent agency was created by Congress whose only ability to act is with the approval of the director.

The Republicans in Congress are like a newly married step-mother who discovers that the step son was given driving lessons, took the driving test, passed it, has a license, obtained insurance, bought a car, has it filled with gas and is ready to go out for a drive, but the "step-mom" wants to sit in the front seat and tell him how far he can drive and on what streets.

The law was written the way it was because law makers are well aware that they and their colleagues are all too often "influenced" by the money financial institutions wield. One need only look at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to realize the danger of regulated companies being regulated by Congress.

BREAKING NEWS!

Obama is set to abuse the recess appointment, again, by appointing Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations board.

In another obviously partisan attempt to garner votes, our alleged Constitutional "scholar" usurps the Constitution that he took an Oath to protect.

This is no longer incompetence, it's beginning to border on Despotism. The Fundamental Transformation this Panderer in Chief promised is being expose as an autocracy of ridiculous social, economic and Liberal justice.

November must be a referendum on this gross corruption by the highest office of our Republic.

ABO (Anybody But Obama) 2012

Scott fla. very good quote. (1.48)

Youz guys are still blaming each other while BOTH sides voted for and signed into law NDAA 2012.

A pox unto you all for ignoring the fact that they once again have stripped parts of the Bill of Rights away without even blinking. Where is your concern for constitutional sanctity regarding that??? SHAME.

Yay! Get 'er done. Gotta do it when the obstructionists are out of town. The repubs don't like it when they can't say NO...... The President has more than stars and stripes. He has balls.

Navy Patriot

The "balls" you talk about are nothing but marshmallows. Squeeze me and I deform to match which way the wind is blowing.

Why doesn't the article discuss the fact that most Presidents (republicans and democrats) have made appointments while congress was not in session???

The article should also equally state that both parties under a gentleman's agreement during Bush's term agreed to no longer do such because congress felt that it was losing constitutional authority, as the President could do whatever he wants without any controls. Obama has technically turned on his own party by this move.

Mike P101

That practice of recess appointments is just terrible. I agree with you. Our president disregards agreements, gentleman or otherwise, and justifies his actions with pointing fingers at past administrations behavior.

Where is the 'Change' that our leader has promised.

BTW, I would NEVER shake hands with the Leader of ours. OOP's, is he a Leader we can trust?

I don't really know what to think about this. On one hand, Obama technically circumvented the Senate in doing something, which he could have negotiated (maybe he had negotiated, maybe not; I don't know). On the other hand, the GOP kept the Senate in session to prevent this from happening and have abused the policies of the Senate. I am not sure if the agency should be open to other regulatory entities. I might have to go with the GOP on this one, but then again they aren't doing it fairly. I mean, the least they could do is filibuster it; then at least then it could be put to a vote. But by keeping Congress in session; then they are abusing the very document that they are bringing up time and again. If the Democrats did it then shame on them, but for God's sake this is crucial to our economic recovery. I am still gonna vote for Obama; (a) because I like how he helped this economy and (b) because he is godlike compared to these GOP clowns.

Obama/Biden 2012

Scrabolo -

How can you say the republicans were obstructing when democrats had 60 votes available in the senate for 13 months?

How can you say the republicans were obstructing when Obama touts getting the stimulus bill, the HCL, the GM & Chrysler bail out (even fired the GM Chairman). Really the only thing he didn't get was cap and trade.

Do you not have anything better to do than promote ridiculous trash?

Where you trained to say that?

I love how the Republicans say that it doesn't matter that Republican presidents have used this tactic and it doesn't matter that Bush used the tactic twice as much as Obama. They use the lame brain excuse that two wrongs dont make a right but you won't hear a peep from them when the next Republican president uses the same tactic. You also don't hear them saying anything about the Republicans threatening to change the rules of the Senate and use the "nuclear option" when they wanted their right wing extremist Supreme Court judges approved. I guess it is wrong only when they don't like it

I think I'd rather hold my nose to vote for Romney or Paul than use a gasmask to vote for Obama.

Isn't it amazing to read the crap Rethugs post about Obama abusing the system by recess appointments. Tells you how uneducated these Rethugs are and truly spew BS in that Bush did this 171 times. It's the same with the Czars that the Rethugs belch about -- Bush appointed Czars too but clearly the Rethugs would never admit that one of their own was a total idiot -- just like them!

Another donation on it's way to Obama for another great move!!

Oh well, so much for checks and balances as our founders put into the Constitution ! Just what we don't need another CZAR who is accountable to no one !!

There's a new President in the White House and he wants what he wants, when he wants it and how he wants it .... the Constitution can be damned for all he cares. it is all about Obama' ego and about his power !!! The RAW ABUSE OF POWER is at hand .... AGAIN !!!!

Obama will completely choke out the private sector while growing government at taxpayer expense. It is ALL about growing government and spending our country into oblivion.

winemaker-4308406

Oh heck guys, I don't agree with the Obama policies, but really. All Presidents have made recess appointments throughout history.

I do agree that Congress does need to change the procedure so that NO president can do this. But intill they do, he will happen.

Anyone but Obama 2012.

• #1.66 - Wed J 4, 2012 4:00 PM EST

Well, it seems I was incorrect in my post - Congress was not out in recess, but actually still in session! My bad, but they do so little, that it is difficult to know just when they are absent, even when they're there.

So, if the Congress is still in session, how then can Obama make the appointment he did? Even for this Constitutional scholor, he must know he errored. So then, what will the Democratic Senate do to correct this error by the President?

Oh boy, GE-OMSNBC is spinning like crazy today!

Hey, anyone know why the Republicans are trying to stop this "consumer watchdog" agency???

I know, all you Obamanites think it's because they're a bunch of meany heads who don't want to see the little guy protected from the banks.

THIS IS FALSE!

Put on your big brains people. I totally understand that you have been lied to, and that's why you feel that way, but wake up!

What is the republicans main objection to this agency? Funny the article doesn't say, lols.

Answer - That it is funded directly by The Federal Reserve. No Congressional budgetary approval.

You know, the Banksters you're supposed to be being protected from? They will be running the show.

Anyone who wants The Federal Reserve in charge of consumer protection is Looney Tunes!

This sentiment is odd to me. Bush led the US into two wars that we could ill afford and not a peep from the citizenry. Obama spends and its the end of civilization as we know it! Bush inherited an economy in great shape with surplus everywhere and a balanced budget; the country was moving forward and for the first time in half a century; we were in the black instead of huge deficits. Obama now has 22 straight months of job growth in the private sector and the GOP and its babies are still having a conniption and still won't trust him to lead! Very odd, indeed!

The so-called newly appointed, consumer watchdog; is there to protect the public from the very thing that caused such great harm to this nation, predatory lenders and the like, and the GOP's babies are convinced that this is a move in the wrong direction. REALLY? Gimme a break would you!?

NOTE: It should be easy for a blind man to see that Pres Obama is a gentler president. He doesn't want to run rough-shod over anyone in Congress nor any other level of gov't. Now, he is left with little choice since the GOP keeps trying to shut the entire gov't down and then blame it all on Washington politics. I've never known any president to work as hard trying to mend Washington in the name of bipartisanship and be so completely and utterly rejected. Now the GOP babies want to try to claim that Pres Obama is a bully! He is trying to be a dictator in a democracy; but if he doesn't do something, the GOP and her babies are going to try to sink this ship with us on it!

You all have seen this man work and you have heard him speak and while he is making every effort to compromise the GOP babies are acting spoiled once again, "There will be no compromise, ever!" They would love it if Pres Obama would just cuddle and coddle them in all things but there are times when Daddy Obama must say no! {He is such a mean man!} Lol.

I'm having trouble with this supposed "in session" senate. They open the day, 31 seconds they recess-- and they call it being in session? They didn't even have time to open the senate with prayer in that 31 seconds. When they have a NORMAL day, they open with prayer. So this couldn't be perceived a NORMAL workday.

I guess I don't understand how they can say they had a normal workday when it closed before it began. It just may be I don't understand either the House or the Senate. I wonder-- what's there to understand about them.

I see our friend MyGirl has decided, like always, to post something irrelevant.

The entire bone of contention behind this appointment was that all power of this new regulatory agency would fall into the hands of one man. One man who answers to Obama. Now, we already have a very powerful Attorney General who only answers to Obama, Obama tells him which laws he wants enforced and which laws he wants ignored and Holder says 'yessir' while completely ignoring the fact that as AG, his role is to be independent of the president.

This is a power that the president holds that has never been contested. However, you forget who exactly Obama answers to. Your statement would have merit if this country was an absolutist dictatorship, which it is not. As for the Attorney General thing, Obama has no control over what can be enforced, just what can be defended in a court. They are not the same thing.

Now Obama has appointed someone else, a very powerful position, and this person also answers only to Obama. What you have is a dictatorship, and the congress is relegated to a rubberstamp for Obama.

You forget that all of this power was from a bill passed by congress itself. I advise you to research what a dictatorship is before you start your conspiracy theories. If Obama had absolute power, we would have Guantanimo closed, public option in place across the country, the ending of Bush Tax cuts, and passage of Obama's plan to remove off-shore tax loopholes used by millionaires.

As to the obstructionists in Congress, there is a reason why there were checks and balances written into the Constitution, it was to prevent things like this from happening. Too much power concentrated in the executive branch results not in democracy, but rather, a dictatorship. Obama is not emperor, although his supporters are foolish enough to think that his being so would be a good thing.

I suggest you read the constitution itself and find what exactly this violates.

Obama signed into law NDAA, a law that effectively allows the government to detain whomsoever without trial, indefinitely, and without council. Those aforementioned provisions in the law were placed there at the request of Obama, he demanded that they be there prior to signing the bill into law.

Cite your sources for the second sentence. I have found no evidence of such a claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Actions_from_the_White_House_and_Senate_leading_to_the_vote). You forget that before the bill's passage, he threatened to veto, and the only reason he signed it at all is because it was passed with a veto-proof supermajority.

After the fact he issued 'signing statements' attempting to absolve himself of the anti-civil rights provisions which he asked for in the first place.

Signing statements have quite a bit of power, in case you do not know. What part of "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." does not make that clear to you?

And Mygirl, don't even dare accuse Obama of violating human rights without mentioning his predecessor's much, much worse policy on the matter (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Habeas_corpus_in_the_21st_Century).

Also remember that, should the Obama administration enforce the bill as you claim, it would immediately be legally challenged due to clear violations of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments.

what are you talking about? Bush did this every other day. He even passed things in the middle of night while congress was still in session.

Since when does Congress support the interests of their constituency? This move by Obama will only increase the protections of consumers; hence the name of the agency.

brendan-4: so far President Obama has made fewer than 30 recess appointments. Were you similarly incensed over the years as Bush Jr made 170?

Hypocritical? eh, maybe. But, for anyone of the right-wing persuasion to call anything done by the Dems 'hypocritical' is laughable.

On another note, though, I can tell school is out. All the kids on here this morning with their imitation rebellion - "socialist", "dictator", "hahahahaha" - it will be nice when you go back to school. If you aren't students on break, wow, I feel sorry for you.

The consumer watchdog is by definition someone who has comsumers' best interests at heart. Appointing anyone else defeats the purpose.

Rick -

Hypocritical? eh, maybe. But, for anyone of the right-wing persuasion to call anything done by the Dems 'hypocritical' is laughable.

When there is hypocritical behavior on either end of the spectrum, it should be pointed out. Claiming that obvious hypocrisy by the Democrats should be overlooked because Republicans are guilty of it too is a pretty weak argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Another trampling of the constitution in a desperate attempt to retain some political power in spite of being a quickly disappearing party.

"Expressly to keep that from happening, Republicans in the Senate have had the Senate running in "pro forma" sessions, meaning open for business in name with no actual business planned. Democrats
started the practice when George W. Bush was president to halt him from making recess appointments...

The Obama White House contends such an approach is a gimmick. For all practical purposes, the Senate is in recess and Obama is free to make the appointment on his own, administration officials told the AP."

So now Obama says that what Democrats started in order to obstruct Bush is a gimmick? Kind of like how he use to believe debt ceiling hikes were a "sign of failure". Funny how he hates things he used to do and favors things he used to hate, isn't it?

http://news.yahoo.com/using-recess-power-obama-putting-cordray-job-162516090.html

P.S.

"The president also was expected to announce other recess appointments, possibly including nominees
to the National Labor Relations Board."

The fact that someone as owned by the Unions as Obama is could potentially hand-pick a puppet to head the NLRB is tragic.

only reason this was not done threw congress is that republicans filibustered and didn't ALLOW it to come to a vote (not to be confused with voted down... i can't believe so many people are against a agency to make sure our financial markets are not exploitative to anyone without a degree in accounting or finance

When you concentrate all power into a regulatory agency, you create a monster. Who watches over the regulatory agency and checks to see that they are behaving in a fair, intelligent and unbiased manner? What checks and balances are there? There is nothing wrong with such an agency IF there are controls and oversights and...the director doesn't become a petty dictator. This appointment offers no such guarantees, rather, it does just the opposite.

It's about time the President gives the " Rs " a taste of their own medicine. And go figure . . . . .it's also good for us ! ! !

Nobody would be against this if allowed to read what it will do with out bias. It's unfortunate in this age of instant media that the FOX corporate agenda machine can brainwash the Republicans in a split second.

For Really + numbers, ITDDY, and TeaPubs et al,; THE SKY MIGHT FALL, THE SKY MIGHT FALL...typical TeaPub dribble. The newly appointed head of this agency will somehow mandate we all by Chevy Volts?!!! Where do you folks get this crap from!?!

You may blame this President for the economy and you would be mistaken, you may blame this President for not looking for Osama Bin Laden and you would be correct as this President unlike the the previous administration, found and elimnated the head of Al Qaeda You may blame this President for enacting job killing legislation, but according to most business owners You are LYING to the American public, as it is demand that hampers expansion not legislation. All business owners hire if their sales exceed capacity for any appreciable amount of time, unless they have met that challenge via other means like technology.

IF NOT OBAMA IN 2012 WHOM?

Repubs and Teapubs don't get your undies in a knot yet! You've not seen anything yet!

When the Democratic Party machine gets clicking on all cylinders, they will use every contrived trick, including the Super-PAC, that the right wing has used on them, and then some, on the road to retaining the White House, retaining the Senate and taking back the House!

And, I for one wish them all the luck!

Careful what you wish for Republicans - Karma is a b*tch!

Government grew by 300,000 jobs in Reagan's first 3 yrs and 200,000 in Obama's first 3 yrs, just saying..........

When the Sh*t hits the fan soon,all the crooks in Washington and Wall St. ,including Demorats & Republicons will be trying to hide in their rat holes like Hussein and Ghadaffy. They are having a good time at our expense right now, but when it all finally comes to a head there will be no place for them to hide,and when found hopefully they will get the same treatment as the rest of the crooked politicians in other countries have been getting recently.

Ron, I am a business owner and like most of my fellow business owners, I do blame Obama's policies for many of the economic growth problems we are currently experiencing.

Do you think that the new Health Care Laws were good for business?

Do you think hemming and hawing about whether to raise taxes, or lower taxes until the last minute and only for a year or less is good for business?

Do you think restricting oil and gas exploration and development is good for business?

I would challenge you to name one thing that the President has supported that actually helps businesses during the next 6 months to a year...

Obama finally did what he needed to do! Bypass the idiots in congress to help the citizens who have been suffering for far too long. Kudos Obama!

SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING...what you think the President promised..." You promised to give this President what he needs to do His job. What about your promise?

Which one of you after discovering you are moving away from your destination would not change your direction? Which of you would stick with a proven faulty course of action because of your ideology dictates you do so? Which of you have a crystal ball and a time machine that allows you not only to see the future but to change it? Which of you believe TeaPubs have been working toward a vibrant economic recovery since Obama took office?

Obama might have achived his goals if not for the blatant obstruction, gimmicks and tricks of TeaPubs AND an impatient an ignorant electorate. The sleeping giant is awake now and all the lullabyes in the world will not put it to rest between now and the 2012 election. I suspect we will see higher levels of desperation from TeaPubs as they realize their best made plans to tank the nation backfired.

If you are tired of the divisive rhetoric, the lies, the gimmicks, the underhandedness, the sneaky and disenfranchising legislation brought about by TeaPubs all over the nation, then you must give this President the tools he needs to position America for future growth and strategic advantage for decades to come. That means electing a filibuster proof Senate (70+ seats for Dems as they don't know how to line up) and a super-majority in the House.

IF NOT OBAMA IN 2012 WHOM?

Mark-3147899

Government grew by 300,000 jobs in Reagan's first 3 yrs and 200,000 in Obama's first 3 yrs, just saying..........

I dare you to post a link to this!!!

Also you are in for a surprise, post Bush numbers too.

What the Democrats fail to realize is that every tool put in place to control us by them, can and will be used by the Republicans later.

We are far less free than we were in the 60's.

We will be even less free in 20 years.

Right now, any of us can be labelled as a terrorist and detained INDEFINITELY without trial.

When that day comes to pass, who will you blame then?

This agency is nothing more than control. Control over EVERY financial decision made by everyone.

Big brother is real, and he IS watching.

Obama and his hijinks! It doesn't matter if other presidents did the same thing. It STILL doesn't make it right to continue the practice. Where is the "Hope and Change" you campaigned on?

Mr. Obama, You aren't any different than the other presidents we've had, oh wait, you do know how to campaign well and still not focus on the problems at hand. What a fool I was in 2008 but I '-won't get fooled again''

Machinehead-you seem to be low a few quarts of oil. That is the source of the constant squeaking and squealing that so obviously makes you say ignorant things, like equating communists and socialists. Two different things genius.

It is too late to change the system for the 2012 elections, but if you are all serious about the problems with Congress and our federal system, then get involved with the Popular Amendment Movement and help pass the two constitutional amendments - Election/Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us to download the petitions, sign and circulate them, then help start a local, county, and state-wide grassroots organization to complete your state's requirements to get such petitions processed by your Secretary of State. I have been issuing this request since I helped create the website in July 2010, yet every day I still see the same people complaining about the system and doing nothing about it. Until you all get involved, there will be NO change. Until every voter takes time (away from your postings here on Newsvine) to contact YOUR Representative and Senators and let them know how you feel, as well as posting your concerns on the White House website, you have little right to complain in the blogs. I only have voice (no vote) in the House as a resident of the USVI, but I sure let my Delegate and when possible, other members of Congress (both houses) know my concerns for pending bills, etc. I also post my concerns with the White House on a regular basis. That, along with the ballot box, is the power of the citizenry. Bug the hell out of your elected officials. Flood their offices with calls, emails, faxes, etc. You don't have to be a high dollar lobbyist to get your voice heard. Just keep "stuffing the box" with your contacts. Make your elected officials and their over-paid staff do something for the money they are stealing from you by having to take the time to answer the phones, shred the overload of faxes and letters without reading them, and having to spend the time deleting all of those emails from you. The power of the internet is with you.

WOOOHOOO!!!!!

Another "watchdog". Or is Cordray another Czar? All this is is more government incompetence. Another layer of autocratic bureaucracy to oversee the overseer's.

Let's see. How are bank's controlled? By regulators of course. Regulators from where, you may ask? Well there are a few.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC):

It oversees national banks. It ensures soundness of the national banking system, creates competition between banks, ensures fair and equal access to financial services to all Americans, enforces anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism finance laws and is the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting acts of misconduct committed by institution-affiliated parties of national banks, including officers, directors, employees, agents and independent contractors. This includes appraisers, attorneys and accountants.

By monitoring capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, information technology, consumer compliance, and community reinvestment, the OCC is able to determine whether or not the bank is operating safely and soundly, and meeting all regulatory requirements.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB):

It oversees state-chartered banks (banks that receive authorization to conduct business from the state instead of the federal government) that are members of the Federal Reserve System. Membership in the Federal Reserve System is required for national banks, but it is optional for state-chartered banks. The FRB also regulates bank holding companies.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC):

This agency oversees state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System.

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS):

This oversees federal savings and loans and federal savings banks.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA):

This administration oversees federally-chartered credit unions.

While different banks are regulated by different federal agencies, each state has just one banking agency that oversees most state-chartered banks and other financial institutions conducting business in the state. A state’s banking agency will work with the appropriate federal agency to regulate a bank. For example, a bank that is state-chartered in Michigan and not a member of the Federal Reserve System is regulated by both the Michigan Department of Banking and the FDIC. These banking regulators ensure strong supervision of the banking industry.

So, we have a massive bureaucracy already in place at the Federal and State levels. These entities all have the capacity to address consumer problems, however, in most cases the response takes months and is so disjointed about who is responsible solutions are rarely found. Regulators should work to address long check holds, high overdraft fees, and misleading credit-card practices. And they should support, not fight, stronger state laws that protect consumers. Improvement of the current systems and regulation reform is the solution, NOT creating another Bureau that will just create more confusion and inefficiency.

This non-recess appointment is not only unconstitutional it will be just as ineffective as the mountain of regulators we already have. Perhaps if in 1998 Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Levitt had listened to Brooksley Born the housing meltdown could have been avoided. Perhaps if in 2004 the criminals Frank, Waters, Meeks, Clay and others were less concerned about protecting the embezzler Franklin Raines and his cohorts and listened to the Republicans and OFHEO the collapse of Fannie and Freddie could have been avoided or at least minimized.

The GAO recently exposed the consequences of our massive overlapping government morass of Agencies, Departments, Offices and incompetent programs. The cost of this redundancy being over $200 BILLION Dollars a year. So, now our Incompetent In Chief takes a photo-op in Ohio to announce his illegal and unconstitutional appointment of his lackey Richard Cordroy. Another step in this criminal president’s goal of upsetting the Balance of Power our Constitution demands on the 3 branches of our government.

The elections in November MUST be a referendum on this alleged “Constitutional Scholar” who repeatedly allows the usurpation of its Supreme Laws. You can’t get any more rejection by a president of the fact that our Constitution IS a Charter of Negative Liberties than this.

ABO (Anybody But Obama) 2012

Let's just face the FACTS! ANYTHING which will benefit the middle class and average U.S. Consumer will be opposed, out-of-hand, by the Republicans both in Congress and out of Congress! They have been that way for over 3 years, and they will remain that way so their wealthy benefactors, (individuals, groups, and corporations) can get even wealther at the expense of the vast majority of economically struggling individuals and families in the middle and lower economic classes. THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!

SHHHHHHH!!!! Did you hear that??

Another Government Agency to help insure all business and jobs goes overseas where you you don't have to deal such crap. No EPA, no IRS, no Consumer Czar, no new health care costs, no OSHA, no audits, no Obama. Just a people and country happy to have taken the business and jobs from America.

anti-trust proponent, amendments will do nothing. All of those within the three branches do not follow our Constitution, run OUR government the way it is supposed to be ran because we are under attack from within our country (domestic enemies).

Don't believe me? How many Rights do we have left that our Constitution gave us written guarantees that OUR government would NEVER be allowed to alter or do away with for any reason; not war, not us being under attacks, no reason ever? That and that alone would let you know.

The following are 30 signs that the United States of America is being turned into a giant prison....

#1 A new bill that is going through the U.S. Senate would allow the U.S. military to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial. This new law was recently discussed in an article posted on the website of the New American....

In what may be a tale too bizarre to be believed by millions of Americans, the U.S. Senate appears ready to pass a bill that will designate the entire earth, including the United States and its territories, one all-encompassing “battlefield” in the global “war on terror” and authorize the detention of Americans suspected of terrorist ties indefinitely and without trial or even charges being filed that would necessitate a trial.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham is a big supporter of the bill, and he says that it would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield".

According to the PPJ Gazette, the following are three things that this new law would do....

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

#2 U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman is asking Google to install a "terrorist button" on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers can easily flag "terrorist content" for authorities.

#3 Most Americans have no idea how sophisticated the "Big Brother" prison grid has become. For example, in Washington D.C. the movements of every single car are tracked using automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The following comes from a recent Washington Post article....

More than 250 cameras in the District and its suburbs scan license plates in real time, helping police pinpoint stolen cars and fleeing killers. But the program quietly has expanded beyond what anyone had imagined even a few years ago.

With virtually no public debate, police agencies have begun storing the information from the cameras, building databases that document the travels of millions of vehicles.

Nowhere is that more prevalent than in the District, which has more than one plate-reader per square mile, the highest concentration in the nation. Police in the Washington suburbs have dozens of them as well, and local agencies plan to add many more in coming months, creating a comprehensive dragnet that will include all the approaches into the District.

#4 In some American schools, RFID chips are now being used to monitor the attendance and movements of children while they are at school. The following is how one article recently described a program that has just been instituted at a preschool in California.... Upon arriving in the morning, according to the Associated Press, each student at the CCC-George Miller preschool will don a jersey with a stitched in RFID chip. As the kids go about the business of learning, sensors in the school will record their movements, collecting attendance for both classes and meals. Officials from the school have claimed they're only recording information they're required to provide while receiving federal funds for their Headstart program.

#5 Increasingly, incidents of misbehavior at many U.S. schools are being treated as very serious crimes. For example, when a little girl kissed a little boy at one Florida elementary school recently, it was considered to be a "possible sex crime" and the police were called out.

#6 But what happened to one very young student in Stockton, California earlier this year was even worse....

Earlier this year, a Stockton student was handcuffed with zip ties on his hands and feet, forced to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and was charged with battery on a police officer. That student was 5 years old.

#7 In the United States today, police are trained to respond to even the smallest crimes with extreme physical force. For example, one grandfather in Arizona was recently filmed laying unconscious in a pool of his own blood after police rammed his head into the flood inside a Wal-Mart on Black Friday night. It was thought that he was shoplifting, but it turns out that he says that he was just trying to tuck a video game away to pick up his grandson to keep him safe, and so other crazed shoppers would not grab it out of his hand.

#8 Did you know that the government actually sets up fake cell phone towers that can intercept your cell phone calls? The following is how a recent Wired article described these "stingrays"....

You make a call on your cellphone thinking the only thing standing between you and the recipient of your call is your carrier’s cellphone tower. In fact, that tower your phone is connecting to just might be a boobytrap set up by law enforcement to ensnare your phone signals and maybe even the content of your calls.

So-called stingrays are one of the new high-tech tools that authorities are using to track and identify you. The devices, about the size of a suitcase, spoof a legitimate cellphone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless communication devices into connecting

Ron, you just don't get it. That's ok, ideologues seldom see past their rhetoric, so you are forgiven.

IF the healthcare mandate is ruled Constitutional, and the government can regulate commerce to the point of requiring every American to purchase a commercial product from a third party, in this case health insurance, then your freedom of choice has just been stolen from you.

For if they can decree that you have to buy health insurance, then they can decree that you have to buy whatever product they deem important.

Since they are on a "green" kick, they can require every American buy a "green" car when they replace their current vehicle. That would be perfectly legal for them to do IF their mandate is ruled Constitutional.

With this new agency, they will have the power to regulate every financial transaction in the country. Every check you write, every credit card swipe. They will have broad powers that will limit our freedoms.

Regulations and laws only serve to restrict actions. The more that exist, the less freedom there is.

Welcome to the new US, it ain't what it used to be.....

Ron in Seattle -

You may blame this President for the economy and you would be mistaken,

I blame all of our politicians for this economy. Past and present. President Obama should be partially blamed because he was a Senator and his party was in power in the Senate and House leading up to and during the recession. As President, I blame him for our continued stagnation. Our country hasn’t had unemployment over 8% this long since the great depression. His administration has not focused on job creation, which should have been his #1 priority since January 2009. I also blame Obama and Congress for our reckless spending, which is directly determined by the Executive and Legislative branches.
Are you honestly going to argue that Obama has no responibility for our current economy?

you may blame this President for not looking for Osama Bin Laden and you would be correct as this President unlike the the previous administration, found and elimnated the head of Al Qaeda

I applauded the Obama admin for getting Bin Laden, as well as many other high-profile enemy combatants. Our intelligence team have done a great job as well. Its disengenious not to give Bush some credit though for the intelligence gathered on his watch that eventually led to the breakthrough in 2010 concerning Bin Laden. I also give Obama credit for draw down in Iraq and the 2009 surge in Afgahnastan.

You may blame this President for enacting job killing legislation, but according to most business owners You are LYING to the American public, as it is demand that hampers expansion not legislation.

You base this analysis on what?
According to a Gallup poll in Oct 2011 of small business owners, the most important problem their businesses face is complying with government regulations.
And according to the same Huffington Post story, the Tarrance Group found that 75% of U.S. voters say businesses are over-regulated.
If you have data to back up your claim, provide it.

All business owners hire if their sales exceed capacity for any appreciable amount of time, unless they have met that challenge via other means like technology.

As per the stats provided above, its not just demand that influences business owners. As we have seen with this recession, stagnation and little growth have continued for a longer period of time than any other recession since the Great Depression. Some of this can be attributed to lack of demand. However, the uncertainty of regulations and our future tax structure has also stalled business development. Obama, being the face and voice of government, has done a poor job convincing business owners that these burdens on their business will not increase.

Triple Dog...This "maneuver" was not invented by the Dems to screw over Bush 43. Bush 41 did it 77 times and Reagan did it 240! Not to mention, that the first recess appointment was made by GEORGE WASHINGTON!!!!! Anybody want to continue talking about the unconstitutionality of it???

Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments. Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795.

Knine, did you even take time to READ the two amendments before posting your negative comment? It is the electorate that has helped maintain the stupidity and corruption in Congress that you are complaining about. Until we change the way our elections are run, we will NOT correct the problems you seem concerned about. All politicians (no matter what their party affiliation) are corrupt, greedy people out to only line their own pockets and the pockets of their wealthy friends through maintaining power through that corruption. That is why I'm one of the FEW voters who exercise our rights and responsibilities by voting NONE OF THE ABOVE or NO VOTE on our ballots.....to let all politicians know that they are undeserving of our support and vote.

Because those same corrupt politicians will NEVER vote to change our electoral system the way it needs to be changed, I and a small group of people put together the two amendments over eighteen months ago and chose to use the "implied" constitutional method of getting the amendments passed.

Machinehead- Nice post to a third party blog that actually says in the first sentence "not really"... but if you didn't read the "Not really" comment, just read it was on the washington post and ignored that it was a random blog post, yea I geuss they did sue the democrats (not really).

@Really? Occupy Wall Street morons who decry Capitalism because someone might make more money than someone else.
So you think the OWS protesters are morons. Let me tell you something, OWS are all of us including republicans, democrats, & independents. We are not just hellbent on destroying anything but it is time that the people woke up to the inequality and injustice in this country. Our middle class is in shambles yet our politicians would rather argue amongst themselves than to make progress on improving people's lives. We don't decry Capitalism, you haven't been keeping up or you would know that what we are against is the Crony Corporatism in the country. Yes, Huge Corporations and Wall Street purchasing politicians like they were friggin' racehorses....and then controlling out political environment with those puppets. And YES we are in favor of the 1% paying their Fair Share of taxes, most definitely!! We need tax reform, political reform and we need JOBs. We need a country where our children can affort to go to college. JOBS, Now there is something that this 112th Republican Congress surely doesn't want or they would learn to compromise instead of listening to the likes of Grover Norquist and Eric Cantor, their puppetmasters. This congress has blocked everything sent their way concerning jobs just in order to "Make sure that Obama is a one-term President"! How @!$%#ing stupid and selfish is that for this country...a congress that would rather see our country fail rather than our president be re-elected. I am the 99% and I'm tired and mad as hell at all this gameplaying!

So you think the OWS protesters are morons. Let me tell you something, OWS are all of us including republicans, democrats, & independents.

Yes they are morons. They have no idea of what they want, other than wealth redistribution.

Ask 10 of them and you get 10 different answers.

All they have done is substitute 1% for Bourgeoisie and 99% for Proletariat.

They "occupy" nothing but space. Now they are trying to disrupt the political process. That can lead to severe violence as the people have a right to have the process work without interference.

Let me ask you one simple question and see if you can answer it.

What is "their fair share?"

bunny -

Triple Dog...This "maneuver" was not invented by the Dems to screw over Bush 43. Bush 41 did it 77 times and Reagan did it 240! Not to mention, that the first recess appointment was made by GEORGE WASHINGTON!!!!! Anybody want to continue talking about the unconstitutionality of it???

Please go back and actually read my comments. The maneuver I reference is the creation of pro-forma meetings by Congress to keep them in session during holiday and summer breaks, NOT RECESS APPOINTMENTS.

As I previously stated, Democrats did create and implement this maneuver during the GW Bush admin. It has never been done prior to that.

Jezza, the Repubs didn't block the that great jobs plan called Stimulus how is that working out for us? Besides putting states further into debt.

The Repubs didn't block Obama Care and that hasn't created jobs, oh wait they Government took over the Student Loan industry with that bill and caused close to 30,000 works to lose their jobs.

The Repubs didn't block Dodd/Frank and if you work in the finance industry you would realize that cost companies hundreds of thousands of dollars, again causing people to lose their jobs.

But hey I guess you are right!

One interesting thought. This gives us a good situation to watch when the financial industry snaps its fingers and see which dogs come whining to the table. Shelby ("My family owned 170 nigras.") and Sessions from Alabama are always near the front of the line despite the fact that no self-respecting financial company would ever associate itself with Alabama. The fact is just that senators from Alabama can be bought cheap.

Roll, Tide!

Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors:
Goldman Sachs $235,275

Citigroup Inc $178,450

Merrill Lynch $176,125

Morgan Stanley $170,350

Lehman Brothers $154,800U

BS AG $125,150

JPMorgan Chase & Co $123,800

Bain & Co $121,475

Marriott International $121,150

Bain Capital $118,550

Kirkland & Ellis $111,700

The Villages $110,900

Credit Suisse Group $104,900

Compuware Corp $103,550

Huron Consulting $102,050

PricewaterhouseCoopers $92,250

American Financial Group $87,550

Affiliated Managers Group $82,112

Cerberus Capital Management $79,450

Sun Capital Partners $77,850
WHO DO YOU THINK THIS GUY WORKS FOR?

TO THE USA - Obama will try to dissolve the constitution to fit his needs. He now goes past the Congress and does what he wants. The constitution is here for a reason!! No constitution no country!!! Get use to being a sheep. Lift your tails and take it.

If you don't like a President using his constitutional powers, complain to the Founders.

Hey l4augher, do a little research. Looks pretty much like the Obama contributors from the '08 election.

Question. Why can't or won't consumers watch out for themselves ? ? WHY should gov't do it?

Toasty: I can't help myself, I have to ask, are you ok with the new and improved Patriot Act? You know, the NDAA bill. The one where anyone can be deemed a terrorist (sorry, but true according to the new and somewhat vague 'terrorist' classifications...including OWS BTW) and held indefinitely without trial or access to legal council? Your hero just signed that into law.

He spit on the constitution and you still defend him. Oh, wait, those signing statements, the ones where he says even though he made it the law of the land, he won't actually enforce it (not, until he changes his mind or it suddenly suits his agendas)

As to using his constitutional powers, when he uses said powers to destroy the Constitution, well, yeah, I have a really serious problem with his actions. Guess you think you're exempt somehow, right?

After reading through the posts I have realized that most of the 'progressives, the one's praising Obama, don't pay attention to the gist of the story, they only read the headlines. Rather Orwellian, they think something call 'The Consumer Protection Agency' sounds really great. Hey, we need to be protected from wicked and exploitive businesses. Except there are agencies in place already, who, if they did their job, would be out protecting consumers. But, no, we need a super-agency, above all those other agencies, since they aren't working. Indeed, and, to make it even more powerful, it can create rules and regulations, binding as law since, in effect, they are law, and, even better, there is no one to oversee and direct this new agency's director....except...Obama.

MYGIRL1

I don't know what Constitution you have read that says the Head of the Consumer Protection Agency works for the President. The President appointed him but he works for the American Government. The Congress has the same control of this office as they do with every other office in the Executive Branch.

He did a recess appointment because that is the way the founding fathers set up the constitution. The President keeps the Government system working while the Congress is NOT in session. This scam that the Senate & House are now running is totally illegal and President Obama has acted in accordance with the Constitution.

Carl:Are you aware of where the funding for this agency comes from? Not the Congress, but rather, the Federal Reserve. Are you aware of how much oversight there is with the FED? This agency is not accountable to the government per se, and are you aware of how much power this director will have?

AlwaysAnother #2.59:

The federal government hasn't passed a budget in two years. Please remove head from sphincter, THEN type.

They can do whatever the <bleep> they want to, until we say, "... or else." and back it up.

:-(

Post #2.52

Who cares? Or better yet, how about if you publish Obama's big donors? HINT: It's an auful lot longer and and a lot bigger numbers!

Here's a start

At least 15 of Mr. Obama's "bundlers" -- supporters who collect donations from
multiple people on behalf of a campaign in order to generate big donations
without violating the law -- work in the lobbying industry though they are not
technically registered as federal lobbyists, the Times reports. These key
supporters, with ties to heavy-hitting industries like telecommunications and
pharmaceuticals, have raised more than $5 million so far for Mr. Obama's
re-election.

How about these

The campaign released a list of 244 individuals and couples who have raised $50,000 or more so far for Obama’s re-election bid, showcasing his support from Wall Street to Hollywood. The group can account for at least $34.95 million of the more than $86 million raised through June 30.

$500,000 or More

Obama’s list of fundraisers includes 27 individuals and couples who have already brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, or a joint committee with the DNC that is designed to boost his re-election efforts.

In Chicago, Obama’s hometown and the location of his re-election headquarters, fundraisers include Les Coney, an executive vice president at Chicago-based Mesirow Financial; John Rogers, chairman of Chicago-based Ariel Investments LLC; Chicago billionaire Neil Bluhm, managing principal of Chicago-based Walton Street Capital LLC and chairman of a new casino operation opening this month in suburban Chicago; entrepreneur and philanthropist Fred Eychaner, who supported Hillary Clintonin 2008 and is one of the nation’s top Democratic donors; and Penny Pritzker, who led Obama’s 2008 fundraising efforts.

$35 million is is a whole lot bigger than $2.5 Million Romney has gotten isn't it.

Obama is doing what Romney is on a much Grander scale! Where do you think they are raising funds from when they are from Wall Street, Casino owners, telecommunications (another article) and pharmeceuticals?

dk...YOUR POINT IS????? Super Pac's was a REP/TEABagger idea....live with it.

Good for the President! To hell with the republicans!

Yeah, right on. Like the republicans and the democrats are two separate parties. Uh-huh.

Ease off on the hstrionics, MG. First off, the President doesn't make laws in the United States, congress does. Complain to them. It's right there in the constitution, the same constitution that you seem to think is being destroyed (without any evidence to back up your view, I might add).

Thel4ugh!ngm@n "Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors:
Goldman Sachs $235,275"

And Goldman Sachs gave Obama $994,700 in contributions, so what was your point?

Roy they gave his opponent pretty much the same amount. Big companies do that every election, so that no matter who wins they get face time.

Obummers list of top contributors.

University of California
$1,648,685

Goldman Sachs
$1,013,091

Harvard University
$878,164

Microsoft Corp
$852,167

Google Inc
$814,540

JPMorgan Chase & Co
$808,799

Citigroup Inc
$736,771

Time Warner
$624,618

Sidley Austin LLP
$600,298

Stanford University
$595,716

National Amusements Inc
$563,798

WilmerHale LLP
$550,668

Columbia University
$547,852

Skadden, Arps et al
$543,539

UBS AG
$532,674

IBM Corp
$532,372

General Electric
$529,855

US Government
$513,308

Morgan Stanley
$512,232

Latham & Watkins
$503,295

Obummers list of top contributors

ptalbott,

RE: your post #2.72

Your numbers are acccurate as they were reported. However after adding them ALL up, they total just $14,453,110.00! Now I would ask you to consider that it is estimated that the upcoming election in November of 2012, just for the office of president, will see expenditures of around $1 BILLION dollars (both parties). Another FACT: The Republican Party is the party which was the driving force for the Supreme Court's ill advised Citizen's United Case. Now NOBODY has to detail or even admit they have given even one cent to a political candidate. This includes corporations and even FOREIGN corporations. So the list you supplied is just a paltry sum in the total picture. I wish there were laws which limited EQUAL AMOUNT of money to each candidate. Currently the money donated and spent is going higher with the blessing of the Republican Party. As you may recall in last years State Of The Union address Obama chastised the Supreme Court for thier Citizen's United Case decision to many of their faces, and was roundly critized by, you guessed it, the Republicans! Sometimes ptalbott, it is worth digging a little deeper and to consider more facts on a subject to shed more truth on the findings. That is up to you and I to do, and not jump to conclusions one way or the other until ALL the FACTS are actually known.

To all the TeaPubulicans who just say, "well, Congress just won't fund the new consumer bureau" read the bill. The agency does not get its funding from Congress. The LAW was written so that once established, the agency would be able to operate without interference from politicians.

You see, there are a few intelligent politicians out there, including Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank, who discovered that part of the cause of the financial crisis was the failure of existing agencies to protoect consumers. The agencies which are meant to regulate industry have to report to and are funded by Congress. What often happens is that Congressmen have their hands out to the industry for bribes campaign contributions and at the same time have to fund and have hearings on what the regulators are doing.

Is it any wonder that the ability of the CFTC to regulate derivatives was destroyed while Republicans controlled Congress and the White House ?

Circumvent Congress. Wow, the libs would be screaming if a Republican did this. I thought we had a democracy, not a dictatorship.

The President certainly has the power to make recess appointments. Only problem in this case is that Congress is NOT in recess.

dirp -

You see, there are a few intelligent politicians out there, including Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank, who discovered that part of the cause of the financial crisis was the failure of existing agencies to protoect consumers.

Seriously dirp?
The same Barney Frank who has been quoted saying:

• "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"
• "I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists."
• "These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing"
• And infamously in July 2008 - "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. I think they are in good shape going forward."

But why would we expect Barney Frank to know the financial health of Fannie & Freddie, he was only the ranking member on the committee that oversaw these institutions...

What often happens is that Congressmen have their hands out to the industry for bribes campaign contributions and at the same time have to fund and have hearings on what the regulators are doing.

You mean like the ranking member (Barney Frank) of the Congressional Committee who was tasked to oversee and regulate Fannie & Freddie, receiving over $40,000 in campaign contributions may be suspect? No....

If you think Mr. Frank is an intelligent politican, who should still be entrusted to protect consumers, perhaps you've had your head in the sand or been brainwashed.
Even Barney Frank knows his most liberal supporters have abandoned him. No wonder he isn't running for re-election!

TripleDog: actually that is exactly what I am talking about. Politicians on both sides of the aisle utilizing the power to fund and hold hearings on various agencies to line their campaign pockets with cash from the industries which are being regulated. Mr. Frank is very aware of it because he did it. Never said he wasn't part of the problem.

The issue remains, how do you get the politicians out of the regulatory enforcement process? Take away their ability to withhold funding and limit their ability to hold "hearings" (a/k/a political theatre) neither of which improve the ability of an agency to do its job. This law does just that. The GOP is just upset because it limits their ability to obtain cash from the regulated industry and grand stand in front of their supporters as protecting business from big government.

I agree with many who say that Glass-Steegal should have been fully reinstated. Given the fragile state of the financial services industry, most of the industry could not make a profit without the ability to gamble in investment banking, so I understand why it was not.

We don't need Congress... We don't need the Senate... All we need is President BHO...

So, you apparently favor a monarchy ..... all HAIL OBAMA AS KING !!!

But your bong down and put away the beers ! That is, of course, unless you would rather move permanently to Greece. That is where this power-hungry Narcissist is heading our country !

Oh boy, GE-OMSNBC is spinning like crazy today!

Hey, anyone know why the Republicans are trying to stop this "consumer watchdog" agency???

I know, all you Obamanites think it's because they're a bunch of meany heads who don't want to see the little guy protected from the banks.

THIS IS FALSE!

Put on your big brains people. I totally understand that you have been lied to, and that's why you feel that way, but wake up!

What is the republicans main objection to this agency? Funny the article doesn't say, lols.

Answer - That it is funded directly by The Federal Reserve. No Congressional budgetary approval or oversight.

You know, the Banksters you're supposed to be being protected from? They will be running the show. They will hold the pursestrings for the new "consumer protection" agency.

Anyone remember The Federal Reserve ever looking out for the consumers? Lols.

Anyone who wants The Federal Reserve in charge of consumer protection is Looney Tunes!

Obama has unleashed a full fledged assault on the constitution. His healthcare law gives IRS aganets the ability to look into your bank accounts, no warrant, no court order, they can casually look in whenever they want to. This violates your Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In addition, there is the individual mandate, which attempts to state that the Federal Govt can dictate you spending your own money on a private, for profit, corporate product. The NDAA, which repeals the Posse Comitatus, the act restricting the Feds from unleashing the US Military against her own citizens. It allows indefinite detention and suspends habeus corpus. The government can now send soldiers to snatch you from your bed in the middle of the night and make you *POOF* Disappear.

Think it doesn't affect you?

Do you have more than 7 days worth of food in your house? CONGRATULATIONS! You're a Terrorist!

All returning US sevice men and women are placed automatically on a terrorist watch list. Thanks for your service!

Anyone missing a limb, a finger, or a toe is automatically placed on a terrorist watch list. Huh?

STOP THE MADNESS!!!

Only one Presidential candidate has sworn to repeal the patriot act, the ndaa, and the hrca.

Ron Paul.

If following the Constitution is crazy, then I guess I'm crazy too.

ITripleDogDareYou! Comment collapsed by the community

Not true MJ. Democrats invented the maneuver to hold pro forma meetings so appointments couldn't be made during recesses. Democrats wanted to stop GW Bush from making any appointments during Congress' recesses and they were successful. I'm not saying Bush wasn't going to try it, he probably would have. However, Democrats created the manuever to block him from making any appointments.

Kind of hypocritical of Democrats to say Republicans are obstructionists when they are only borrowing tactics that Democrats invented in the first place.

You just make this sh!t up as you go?

"Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 of them were for full-time gigs. As of Wednesday, President Obama has made 32 recess appointments, all of them to full-time positions, according to the White House."

Alil Common Sense,

You, my friend, are in serious need of some well qualified references... quite a load you got there.

ITripleDogDareYou!

bunny -

Triple Dog...This "maneuver" was not invented by the Dems to screw over Bush 43. Bush 41 did it 77 times and Reagan did it 240! Not to mention, that the first recess appointment was made by GEORGE WASHINGTON!!!!! Anybody want to continue talking about the unconstitutionality of it???

Please go back and actually read my comments. The maneuver I reference is the creation of pro-forma meetings by Congress to keep them in session during holiday and summer breaks, NOT RECESS APPOINTMENTS.

As I previously stated, Democrats did create and implement this maneuver during the GW Bush admin. It has never been done prior to that.

Is the rest of your history that faulty? Recess appointments date back to George Washington. The senate in 1789 refused to confirm John Rutledge.

LmarcT, I'm not sure which part of my post you are taking issue with. There's a lot in there. Is it the references to the NDAA that Obama signed into law even though it is in direct violation of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights?

Maybe John Stewart can explain it better than me, at least you'll get a laugh!

http://www.myvidster.com/video/3541676/Arrested_Development_-_One-Way_Train_to_Gitmo_-_The_Daily_Show_with_Jon_Stewart_-_120711_-_Video_Clip_Comedy_Central

HELLO FELLOW FREE STUFF GIVERS:

THIS REFLECTS THE FEELINGS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE

I have never heard this said as simply or as well. Class war at its best.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are
RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

Elizabeth warren that wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor? Elizabeth warren that says that the taxes they paid in the past don't mean anything and the RICH HAVE TO PAY MORE? The same elizabeth warren that is telling small businesses to pay more because they use the roads more they should pay alot more?

The Same elizabeth warren so called champion of the middle class that calls for income redistribution?

bahahhahaha

Yes, that one.

brendan, you are either rich, or a lackey.

"Elizabeth warren that wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor?"

Ya, ?because the rich don't steal, lie, imbezel, pump and dump, commit fraud? It's really called 'Business', and if they get caught doing 'Business' they just pay a fine. Hey why not just tax them less on their 'Business' while we're at it. I've got a better idea, let's just write a check out to these 1% and hand them all our money.

People like you who pretend these rich people don't do anything wrong, MAKE ME SICK.

There are PLENTY of people taking from the poor to give to the rich. One Person comes along to challenge that dynamic and you ATTACK them. You are a real peice of work.

You must HATE poor people, they are ALL poor because it's their own fault, right. Millions were laid off because it was their own fault? NO! they were Laid Off because the [rich] people in charge BLEW IT ROYALLY. Why should the greater 'WE' pay, when 'they' F'd up, they should pay!

You know what, Making the Middle Class Pay for everything the Banks [rich] Screwed up THAT IS SOCIALISM. Bush and bernake STARTED socializing the banking system, via bailouts. but, somehow you think they deserve more??? You must have amnesia.

brendan-4

Rich people don't do anything wrong. Rich people follow the rules placed before them, because remeber, if they stole something they would be arrested.

No, it was all those darn poor people who tanked the economy in 2007, and then were rewarded by record profits in 2010 and 2011 while the middle class suffered.

You're just another far-right conservative who thinks that anything that big business can get away with that's not illegal is OK. You're part of the "moral" majority, no doubt.

They bloody well do - they have profited handsomely on the backs of the poor and working class for decades and the diminishment of the middle class. Soon, however, there won't be a middle class left for them to feed off of. Even now fewer middle class workers have any interest in - or assets left for - investing (or donating) to the stock market - they've been burned enough, watching 401Ks disappear into the pockets of those most entitled of individuals - financial services honchos, the alleged "job creators" who "create" pretend assets out of what had been real peoples' retirement funds and shrug when those assets "disappear." The only jobs they create are for lawyers, auditors, and lobbyists.

So, brendan, you are putting the blame, at least partly, on the "lax regulations in regards to loans". But, I thought you were against the Consumer Protection Agency? Who knew you were for tighter regulations?

Uhh Brendan....

What about Bank of America's $350 million settlement recently that admitted racial discrimination toward Blacks and Latinos in credit lending over the last decade?

Or how about OTC derivatives, the shadow banking industry, bypassing established standards for credit lending--leveraging on investments risky enough to crash the whole system?

And you're a supporter even though the banking industry and big business spend millions of dollars to lobby Congress to keep various tax loopholes and anti-regulatory provisions in place (capital requirements, the environment, etc.)?

They understand that the power they invoke here erodes democracy, but they justify it on the stance that either they are above ordinary people. Or they don't justify it...and then, that's what we just call plain outright greed.

Either way, are these positions not a little haughty, elitist, (some would argue) immoral?

Or maybe you agree they should have the power to circumvent how true democratic outcomes?

Brendan-4

I find it really interesting that it is always the homeowner that tried to get the loan who is at fault for the mortgage problem. Someone (the banks, mortgage company, etc) had to approve the loan. That same someone was gaming the system to get bigger bonuses. Countrywide is a prime example of this. It is time to quit blaming the homeowner for the entire problem.

It is also time that the average person gets some protection from the antics of the big banks.

Brendan:

Watch Wal-mart: The High Cost of Low Prices.
Basically one and a half hours of how one company steals from the poor to benefit the rich.
Theft is not limited to purse-snatching on the side of the road, and if you believe that ALL business practices are sound and legit, I feel you're missing a large percentage of the overall picture... but who am I to judge.

Have a nice day.

Brendan....

Being born in 81, I obviously don't know what it was like to need 20% down for home ownership. And guess what.... in 2004 when I graduated college, the bank had no problems lending me 125k with zero down to purchase my first home at 23 making 32k per year. It was the best investment one could possibly make. Right?

The whole system was rigged against the consumer. Big Gov't knew it, and Bigger Banks knew so much about it, that some gambled that it would fail. At even bigger gains!

Sure would have been nice if there was someone... anyone.... who would have said "this might not be in your best interest." Especially after I asked "is this really in my best interest?"

My wife, and just about every other person I know my age, was told the same damn thing. Regardless of how many questions we asked. The banks deserve a consumer watch dog.

People like you are the real moral problem. You refuse to acknowledge that the rules were heavily in favor of the house, and there wasn't anything there to prevent the scam from occurring. And then you want to turn around and blame the same people who were conned by trusted advisors for being scammed.

Shame on you. Hopefully your kids are 27-33 sitting on an upside down mortgage.

@Floretta

They did not cheat you. Again, your scared of what you do not understand. instead of taking time to understand the system and make money from it, you would rather blame the rich. Its natural to be scared of what you do not understand.

@ Rick

Im not against the CPA. Im against the way that obama is appointing someone when congress is not in recess. Read any other arcticle on the same thing, its reported entirely different.

@ ST.
What about it? It goes to show that due to the community reinvestment act in the 1990's that they were approving loans for people that could not afford them. Or granted them higher interest rates because they were black.

Your reading me wrong st. I support ending loopholes ( which by the way is a fancy way of saying tax law).

Corporations are not the only ones benefiting from "loopholes". How about EITC? How about deducting your children? How about other tax write-offs? All of them are loopholes....

And btw, we are not a true democracy. we are a representative republic.

@Reality

ah, the free market. competition driving down prices benefits the consumer in the end. because wal-mart can import things it sells at 1/5 of what it costs to manufacture here that is not considered ripping off the middle class. try again

@J-Doggin

Actually im in the same age group as you, im only 26.

Difference is i was responsible and you were not. How did you think you could afford 125k again making 30k a year WITH NO MONEY DOWN?

You took a gamble and now you want others to pay for it like its NOT your own fault. Im almost ashamed that your considered part of my generation; we were taught better than that.

Logic prevails

Scared, hell - I retired ten years ago, thank you very much and understand the financial system and business better than my CPA - poor fella, pretty good at tax returns and investment advice but he keeps trying to make it big with businesses other than finance and gets creamed every time. I got out of the market ahead of the 2007-2008 debacle and started getting back in during March 2009 (bought GE when it hit $7.) I am not a millionaire and have no interest in being so, more trouble than it's worth. I have a roof over my head, food on the table, clothes on my back, no debt, money in the bank enough for travel and treating myself and loved ones - as my grandmother would say, "enough is as good as a feast." Point is I understand the moneyed class all too well, and for the most part am not impressed. We hear a lot of whining from (mostly) Republicans scornful about entitlement programs - which they apparently think are only for the poor and working class. But the biggest entitlement group is the 1% - they get to write their own entitlements into the tax code, and bitch and moan at any suggestion that they have it easy.

@Floretta

im glad you were able to retire comfortably and hapily. sadly, with the way our politicians print money and the crazy inflation thats going to follow will insure that i among others will be working until i die. its not the fact that our society discourages savings as a whole, more so our society encourages the reliance on the government instead of self reliance.

Entitlements in our country will sink us - theres no question about that - the question is how long are we going to prop up a bad program? The way i see it, i feel like people are stealing my money from my paycheck to keep ponzi schemes going. I will not see a penny of that money that I worked for and earned back.

Don't get me wrong im all for cutting loopholes across the board - and that includes to everyday citizens like you and me. Either we have them for everyone or we don't have them for anyone.

@Brendan

"logic prevails" - kind of a cop out don't you think?

And as far as age group, actually no you are not. You would have been a freshman in college at the time I was buying my first house. Or, even worse, still living with mom and dad sponging off their insurance, using their internet to download free porn and then their washing machine to wash your sock(s). Do you pay for your own insurance yet?

Likewise, I didn't say I didn't have money, I simply stated that I was urged heavily by Realtors, and Banks alike to make the "greatest investment possible" with zero down and a low income. Likewise, the main supports available for consulting (AKA family and peers) were also being duped by the same scheming people into thinking that this was the best thing. After all, property values always increase. These people are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals who were lied to, misled, and outright victimized by the industries that relied on them as income. And furthermore in the sole interest of quick profit.

As far as responsible goes.... that was just a hurdle. And it's the hurdles we overcome that make us strong. Was it difficult working two jobs for three years as the housing market began to collapse? Was it frustrating to realize that after working all these extra hours that the value of the home had decreased due to things that were out of my control.

As far as responsible goes... I still own my own home and that was just a hurdle.

Have fun with your sock.

P.S. I love your text book answers above. Let us know when you have a genuine thought. We can all parrot phrases from books we've read or news articles written.

P.S.S. Not everyone has loopholes. Only the 1%-ers do.

How much money is a trillion dollars? Now, multiply that by 15.3 and that is the National Debt as of today, it will and is getting bigger by the second. Those of you applauding Obama had better rethink yourselves. If the government continues on this trajectory it will be utterly bancrupt in less than three years. Think Greece is bad? You ain't seen nothing yet. Have investments for your retirement? What are they worth now and what will happen to them if nothing is done to address the debt?

@J-Doggin

A Whopping 4 years apart. you must be leaps and bounds ahead of me maturity wise, i mean, err,,umm.. i wasn't the one who bought the house they couldn't afford..

Yes ive been paying my own insurance since i was 22(the same age as you incase you forgot). When was the last time that you listened to a salesmen and took thier advice 100% on anything? You act like a realtors act in your best interest...when infact they just want to be paid commissions on the house you just bought.

Houses always increase? Did you really buy that hook line and sinker? You shouldn't believe everything you hear or are told. Nothing "always increases" Common sense tells you that.

I applaud your ability to keep your head above water in these tough times.

Text book answers? Everything i write is exactly how i think, then damn, im in the wrong profession.

You ask people to give you specific examples of how the rich have cheated the poor, and then affirm that it was okay that banks racially discriminated against blacks and latinos?

If the social contract is supposed to protect rights endowed by the creator, among those property (i.e. economic opportunity), how is that with unprecedented levels of income inequality you can't see that the balance of "wage for production" is unfairly favoring the rich? If the protection of economic opportunity or even less, the protection of the wage (property) is apart of what makes the government legitimate, doesn't the government have an obligation to restore balance as apart of that social contract?

Also, it doesn't matter whether you supported ending loopholes, big business and Wall Street doesn't.

I'll take your support however, as conceding the point. Thank you.

@ Chandra-768247

I agree, Elizabeth Warren does deserve the position, but, my opinion, she will also make an excellent Senator. I feel that she can express her opinions and ideas on a wider range of subjects, more so as a Senator than she would ever be able to as the head of an agency.

I never said it was ok that banks did that? I said that the community reinvestment act pushed banks to lend to less qualified applicants and when the banks didn't want to approve a segment of the population that has historically had horrible credit, they tried to offset that risk by offering those people from that segment a higher interest rate.

Had the government not mandated that we all should own a home in the first place and push interest rates down and push no money down mortguages then we wouldn't all be in this situation in the first place.

What you fail to see is the problem is not the rich, its the government and the policies that have been pushed over the last 20 years.

The government should not be a redistributor of wealth, it has NEVER worked in the past. Income inequality has always been there, yes its higher now, but are you seriously blaming the people making the money as the problem people? Or should you be blaming the people pouring the kool aide?

Brendan... no wonder you are so misinformed! You're a youngster. ;-) Homes did increase in value at one time, but you had to be up on the maintenance. There are many, many people who can't sell their homes because of the housing market tanking. They can't sell their homes for anywhere near the price of their mortgage. No regulation and the Repubnuts.... great combination! Housing tanked and the Repubnuts still have their homes. Go figure.

@Loren

No wonder your so misinformed! your a baby boomer. The generation of kick the can down the road and bankrupt our grandchildren.

Please do not tell me im misinformed when you boomers are so much of the problem.

Wow...so now generally black people have bad credit, white people don't...we judge people on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. We still do have a ways to go.

Even if statistically blacks or Latinos are more likely to have bad credit, racial discrimination by the banks in this instance is when the banks offered those individuals who are black or Latino higher interest rates solely because they are black or Latino, not because they had a credit rating that was worse off than the next man. That would explain the reason it is called discrimination.

I'll take a point on that one, once again.

And what you fail to see is that you still didn't answer my original question. Does the government have an obligation to protect property (wage) or not? Have you forgot what the founders stood for? If only a small segment of the population benefits from an increase in overall production, how can you justify this, saying that the middle class is getting their fair share of the increase in that production. If their was a fair balance in the distribution of wealth, a rising tide would lift all boats.

Are you ready to quit your yapping yet?

Brendan-4,

I can tell by your posts and rebuttals to other posts that you already know-it-ALL. That's just great! I hope everyting in life comes easy for you, it should because, after all, you already know-it-all! Have a GREAT life!

The government has a obligation to protect private property. Private property does not include wages you have not earned yet because they do not become your property until you work for those wages. The government does not have the obligation or right to unfairly burden or take from one section of people because they are more succesful than the rest of the population as you imply.

Where do the rights come from that say the middle class should be included in the profits of the wealthy when the middle class took none of the risk?

Have you forgot what our founders stood for? According to them any income tax is unamerican.

Are you trying to get to something here? ARe you saying that the government should decide how much each person keeps based on how well off they are compared to thier neighbor?

Do you understand what your are implying?

@Scrambolo

Never once did i say i know it all. nice cop out on a serious debate we are having here. I guess other opinions on liberal boards get branded as know it alls.

Brendan I see you have had your ears sufficiently boxed but remain convicted to your uninformed position. Question: If there is ample evidence presented to you to the contrary would you change your position?

I suspect NOT...huh

You are blaming the victim for getting raped. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was not the cause of the financial collapse 30 years later, neither was the proliferation of loans people could not afford. The single most important catalyst, like it or not, for the finacial collapse was the bundling, marketing, and selling of junk CDOs. Let me repeat that, decades of loans no problem, UNTIL Wall Street found another way of feeding the greed.

Background & Purpose

• The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e.

It is fairly obvious your expertise is a derivative of taliking points and were not researched. You are smarter than this so do yourself a favor and get informed. See link to FFIEC: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/

And another thing...

While you may be right that income inequality has always been there...when one refers to income inequality, the point is mainly about the distribution of wealth--how the rich are getting richer and the middle class getting poorer.

Historically, there have been periods when all parties were benefited by an overall increase in production. Take the post WWII prosperity, for example. The highest tax bracket during this time was at 91%! I agree that it was good policy that taxes were lowered then, but now Republicans scoff because Democrats want to raise the highest tax bracket from 28 to 36%!

Are you kidding me? The distribution of wealth is obviously way out of balance.

But individuals like you are mercilessly led astray, not taking the facts for what they are--sticking to those talking points spit out by right-wing advocacy groups, on which points have their obvious contradictions.

Brandan-4,

RE: your post #3.27

You do know, I assume, that 90% of ALL the wealth in the United States is owned by only 10% of the population! Of this 90%, approximmately 42% inherited large fortunes from family members. THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT WORK FOR THIS "SEED" MONEY!

http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400

@ST. Sure its out of balance, but the government has no right to try to fix it via tax code. They have no right to take more from one segment and give it to the other. And the reason i say this now is because IF i was rich, i would hate the government doing the same thing to me. Everyone always thinks of it how they are now, instead of putting yourself in the wealthys shoes and forcibly having a government take additional funds from you because you are successful is wrong and immoral.

thats all im saying, im not arguing that things are messed up ( because they are) im merely arguing the government has no right to do what it or what you people want it to do

@scambolo

so? Does that mean that you have the right to his money? NO! what is the point of your post?

@Brendan "Where do the rights come from that say the middle class should be included in the profits of the wealthy when the middle class took none of the risk?"

It is inherent to the fabric of the community, city, state, and country that those who can afford to pay more should openly pay more. The problem with your statement is that many people who work for these companies do take a risk. They take the risk that their job will be cut because your so called "risk takers" have decided to close and move the company off shore to enjoy larger profits at lower tax rates.

You sound like you have grown up extremely privileged to have these opinions. I hope you never run for any kind of office as you truly would rather see your fellow countrymen stand in the streets and starve less afford them an equal and "fair" lively-hood.

It's one thing to make 40k a year and get by. It is completely different to make 400k/year and get by. If at 400k/year, you are unable to make ends meet and at the same time help out others, then you are in fact irresponsible and selfish.

No, making a fair amount myself, I can truly say I don't mind paying more to make more. Just remember... the more I've paid in taxes, the more I've made.

Brendan...

I think you need to check your understanding of Locke's writings, for which the understanding of the protection of property is based.

Locke posited that a man was endowed by the creator the inalienable right of property BASED ON THE WORK that the man exerted upon a particular property. Given that there is enough land for everyone, if I take the initiative to pick an apple, I should be able to eat it. It becomes my property. The basis for the right comes from my WORK.

But because money was introduced into society, wages then came to reflect the sentiment of property. In other words man has the inalienable right to a fair wage.

My point to which you have so miserably failed in addressing is this: if the top income earners are the only ones largely benefiting from the work that men exhibit, than it is evident that men are being denied their inalienable right to a fair wage--a wage that is proportional to the worth of the applied work.

I'm not implying that every man's work is equally valuable, but when the wealth is distributed so unevenly, this should send red flags that big businesses are taking advantage of labor.

And FYI...

11 months from now, if your are dumbfounded wondering how Obama could have possibly won the election with all that has happened in the past three years with the economy...revisit this discussion. If it does happen, it will be precisely because of the argument I just posited.

Most people can see Obama is fighting for the middle class at a time when the middle class needs fighting for.

Brendan? That was not the Boomers kicking the can down the road.......it was the previous generations. The rape of americans began in the 60's. Boomers were kids. And the info hwy was not available like today. Yes we protested. And yes we got beat up. If ya blame anyone blame those born before 1950......

Brenden, how is taking a coordinate percentage "taking more" from the rich? Having 90% of the wealth, shouldn't they carry 90% of the responsibility for supporting the system that they gamed to get that wealth? Or in your world, is putting 65% of the tax burden on those with only 10% of the wealth somehow "equal"? Just goes to show how mathematically challenged those on the Right really are.

One thing for sure. Dont want to hear whining and belly aching from a bunch of spoiled know it all little brats old enough to vote. Ya have solutions lets hear it.

Brendan is still getting money from mommy and daddy, has a silver spoon stuck in his face and looking for the teet. A know it all zit face kid. Ya got a long road ahead brendan.

@AUSACITIZEN - Your generation raised us, so deal with it. Especially since your generation is responsible for creating the largest income gap. And more so, responsible for sending more companies and jobs over sees than any generation before and hopefully since.

It will be our generation and the businesses we create that will have to compete globally with all the free trade agreements your generation allowed to take place. It will be our generation that has to rebuild this debt loaded country while trying to figure out how we will pay for YOUR Medicaid and Social Security.

That's it! Call us a bunch of "spoiled know it all little brats." You better hope we know it all! Because the people in charge for the last 20years sure didn't get it.

We are the leaders of tomorrow! And one thing is for certain..... We do not like the road YOU have paved.

@J-Doggin - "should openly pay more" should not be confused with should be mandated to pay more. People should not be penalized for being sucessful.

@St. Ok, so let me play devils advocate. If a business has record profits the person working there should share on those profits in terms of a wage increase right? What about when a business is no longer profitable, is it "fair" then to decrease thier wages in line with how unprofitable the company is? or would we hear the working class screaming bloody murder that they are being ripped off by the company you work for?

Also - who and or what determines fair wage? The government? You? The business? currently markets determine what that wage is, so does competition. Why should you share the rewards when all you do is work there and don't own any of the property you work on?

Yeah, hes really working for the middle class holding 35,800 dollar a plate dinners.

@usacitizen

yes it is the boomers, you boomers elected all the people that run our country now. instead of electing someone to help out our situation, you elected people that constantly raid social security, give payroll tax cuts (further defunding socical security)

@spirit dance. Do they not pay more in respect to thier wealth now than you do? Of course they do!

@AUsacitizen.

Certainly don't want to hear anything from your generation when social security is dry and we don;t want to fund your retirement because you were too selfish to save anything for yourself. Its called self reliance, something you aparently were never tought either by your parents or school.

i really enjoy debating these issues as i learn alot from you guys so please don't take any of my opinions as personal attacks... thanks - brendan

Brendan...

Your devil's advocate argument is ridiculously absurd, as if your questions don't have answers.

To your question about, would you hear the working class screaming bloody murder if wages were cut when a business was unprofitable: have you never heard of companies laying off employees when profits go down? It happens all the time. But even then people might raise questions because of the outlandish amount executives get paid.

Also, your statement claiming that markets determine wages is exactly why we now know you have no idea what you are talking about. The very idea that the markets would control wages has its origins in very Progressive liberal thinking.

And this is exactly my point...

It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about and you are actually with each post proving my arguments more and more. If the markets determined wages then the distribution of wealth would be far more spread out than it is now. As my previous posts (and others' posts) have stated, because of the extreme income inequality in this nation the government has an obligation, as a guarantor of those inalienable rights defined under our DofI and Constitution, to restore balance. Taxes that fund government programs to help the poor and middle class is a way to do this.

What is obvious from this conversation is that there is a disconnect between conservative ideology and policy among ordinary Conservative grassroots citizens that is horribly misinformed, and frankly, poisoning the democratic process.

I can only hope that these posts will cause you to base your understanding of policy based on facts in reality, rather than politically motivated right-wing advocacy groups.

@ST the whole argument that property or "wages" extends to work done at a place of business where the employee has no vested interest beyond his or her job in the company is absurd.

Maybe its just your opinion, but Locke's writings never translated to working for a company or wages. Wages are earned after work is done, and you are paid for the work that was done. Beyond being paid for your work, your saying that employee should have rights to the profits the company makes? Lockes writings also loosely hold the foundation for individual PROPERTY rights. How you made that assertion is beyond me. The employee does not OWN the company, therefor they have no inherent rights to the profits made. If simply doing work for a company entitles me to a "fair" wage from said company, damn, I would own a lot of companies. If your opinion was true, anytime i did ANY work ANYWHERE that was not my own property, i am entitled to a living wage because of the constitution. What the???

Hmm...are you suggesting that we should not have a minimum wage law? That's interesting. Your about to argue yourself off a cliff.

You call me absurd, but then actually want to argue that men have no inherent right to a fair wage? I'll try to run it by you again.

When Locke gave the example of a man having the right to property of the apple that he picked...the worth of the work the man exerted was implied in the property he received--the apple.

With the introduction of money into society, wages became a reflection of that sentiment expressed about private property. In other words money is a representation of private property because money as an equal value to some amount of property.

Does this not make sense to you? I'm trying to go slow.

Why would men introduce money into society? To extrapolate the amount of property available for men to acquire.

The basic point: wages are undoubtedly tied to property. Even Mitt Romney knows this.

So then, (now that we have that established) if wages are tied to property....and property is protected under the Constitution.....then wages are protected as inalienable right under the Constitution.

Again, I'm trying to go slow.

Now governments obligation is to make sure those inalienable rights under the Constitution are not breached. If it does not uphold this obligation....then it loses its legitimacy.

Like I have said before, the amount of income inequality going around is proof that men are not getting due the inherent value of their work. Instead of getting a whole apple, big business is coming along roughing up the little guy, taking a bite of the apple before he can ever get it home.

The work which the man has put in, does not match the property (wage) he has received.

I think you should be paying me for this.

@ ST

Thats also part of our freedoms. If that man does not think the property(wage) he has received is not equal to the work which was put in, doesn't he have the right to look elsewhere for work for a higher paying wage? He certainly does NOT have the right to mandate that the company pay him more.

What your saying is that the company should be mandated to pay that person more because he is seeing it as an inequality. That goes against every free market principle which this country and capitalism is based on. Is it that the little man isn't compensated enough, or is the big man upstairs compensated to much? Which is it?

Who and how dictates enough? Is the the employee that makes that distinction giving the employer no rights? Or is it the federal government dictating how much giving the employer and employee no rights?

If your relating this to minimum wage, shouldn't the minimum wage address the income equality gap? Has it? No...

And yes, i don't think there should be a minimum wage. Your wage should be set by the amount you produce or the value you provide to your employer. You receive wage increases when the company was profitable or you provided a value to your employer above and beyond your minimum wage.

Fact of the matter is that people will not work for nothing. The company will always have to pay a competitive wage to retain employees, otherwise they would leave. (Freedom, hello?) The real problem is the fact that we have a so called " Black market" for labor, or illegal aliens. If you want to get mad about anything get mad at the immigrants that take under the table jobs depressing wages for everyone else only increasing the income gap.

I see where you make the connection of money to property rights, but we both know that has never held up in court.

Yes Brendan...

The worker does have the freedom to look elsewhere for a higher wage. But what we are talking about is more related to GOVERNMENT'S responsibilities under the social contract.

The government's legitimacy is based on its ability to secure those property rights (fair wages), which are covered in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, for every man--not just the rich.

At the point income inequality becomes as prevalent as it has, it is evident that businesses are being unfair to labor. Labor is not getting their just due for the work they have put in. The whole system of rewards has become unbalanced. If government allows this to continue, it will be in danger of not fulfilling its obligation to its citizens.

When you say that a person's wage should be set to the value they produce for their employer, you are actually arguing my point. What is so hard about this?

Can you not see that workers are not getting the value of what they are producing? This is how the rich get richer and the middle class gets poorer...when big business takes advantage of labor. Just answer this question for me: how do you explain GROWING income inequality?

There is ultimately something called GDP. Big businesses are keeping an unfair proportion of the profit that results from that GDP. They are getting richer while the middle class is getting poorer!

And of course the connection to property rights and money has held up in court. Why do you think the minimum wage is not seen as unconstitutional? Or even the idea of raising taxes to pay for government programs that help the poor or middle class? No one has ever argued that these are unconstitutional and won.

The trend of American history has for the most part always been progressive. Many times, wealthy men will try to see how much they can take advantage of the little guy. Eventually, when Americans have had enough, citizens wake up and demand a Progressive change.

so since some of rich steal now we punish the honest rich too? yes the finical system was rig in pump and dump mode. The law that were on book were over looked. Now we need more government even before government got bigger had the power to stop it. Fraud is always illegal. the problem was the fed , liberials want every one own a house and big business. The problem in mid 2000 was that we had fox guarding the hen house. we all ready have consumer watch dog and that watch dog is the FBI. I feel Obama just repeating a lot of mistakes that japan made. the fed created a liquidity trap by set rates too low causing banks not give out loans because they can not charge interest rate high enough to make money highly risky economy. guys we are in depression and not going to end until 2028.

Spark,

You obviously have not seen the reports on the banking industries earnings for the past fiscal year. Overall, the banking industry has had extraordinary profits this year. How?

They borrowed money from the Fed, at hardly any interest, and then bought Treasury bonds that yielded a slightly higher percentage.

But you argue the banks don't have capital to lend...SMH.

And Spark, a hike in taxes for the top income earners is not a punishment. How do you explain Republicans whining about a tax increase from 28 to 36%, when in 1964 the tax rate for top income earners was at 91%?

I mean, I'm just saying...

TO: brendan-4 who wrote:

"... No wonder your so misinformed! your a baby boomer... Please do not tell me im misinformed when you boomers are so much of the problem."

Excuse the hell out me but we've been paying taxes all our "baby booming" lives, not to mention how hard WE have worked to make the "upstarts" such as yourself live a better life than we lived, so when (and how) did WE become "the problem"?

Let me guess, after George W. Bush and his Republican Administration robbed Americans blind, and now WE might need something instead of it being just you you you all the time?

Sounds "spoiled" and "unappreciative" to me.

TO: spark300c who wrote:

"so since some of rich steal now we punish the honest rich too?..."

Hey, if paying everyone's fair share in taxes is punishment, then it's only fair that all suffer a little.

I'm not getting any free ride, so why should the rich, especially if "the rich" ain't hiring!

TO: S.T.-3384625 who wrote:

"Yes Brendan...The worker does have the freedom to look elsewhere for a higher wage..."

Yo! Brendan! Everybody in the United States can NOT work the same (few) companies who are willing to pay employees their full worth, with benefits without being forced to do so!

American Girl,

Nicely clueless.... The avatar is perfect...

First off, most of that "1%" don't have incomes like we do. I earn in the top 10% of EARNERS. If we are all using the words the same way, that means: I work, I get paid, Unsle <cenosred> takes his "fair share", and I get table scraps which then go to the STATE'S "fair share", the LOCALITY'S "fair share", then licenses and fees and "taxes" hidden out of sight of the mumbling mornonic hordes of sheeple - the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, firearms, dogs, cats, driving, in fuel prices, etc. (Disclaimer, I don't own guns, don't smoke, do have dogs and cats, do drive, do drink.) There is even a MANDATED tax on RESTAURANT SERVICE here in Boston, MA. But HOME is New Jersey - and there's the mortgage there, and the dogs and cats, and Boston wants some of my money, and MA wants some, and NJ wants some, and of course Uncle Sugar gets the first cut - which he then uses to "bribe" (blackmail) the states into compliance. (QV federal highway funds, No moron left behind, DYFUS, VAWA, etc. All incentives to padd the numbers to make more money flow downhill. And we won't get into how divorced men [mostly] paying alimony and child support PAY THE TAXES on the WHOLE INCOME, while she gets the money tax-free, and is not forced to use that money for the betterment of her children, or to allow him to be a part of his childrens' lives - can't enforce that, no! YET!!! YET, he can be expected to live on the leftovers; "assigned" a "possible income" via "imputed wages", then have licenses, money, whatever taken away - yet he is still supposed to pay? (Think electrician without his professional license, see "bum on the street", get the picture?)

I wish Utopians would WAKE THE <censored> UP and see they are being LIED TO, MANIPULATED, cradle to grave. It's no accident, either. The "Fourth Estate" is complicit, Glaxo-Kline/GM/Turner Broadcasting/Fox News/ CNN/MSNBC/Democrat/Republican/CPUSA/NOW/McDonnel-Douglas/USNavy/NYPD/ETC!!!! They are ALL controlling you one way or another. It's kind of hard NOT to rant when you start realizing it's all a lanyrinth designed to make you quiescent and USEFUL to those who profit off it.

For "us", it's $0.25 or so for each offense. For us to band together and say something costs even more - $50.00, say. EACH. Substantially mroe when you look at the Tea Party shenanigans, or OWS. And for me, I'm a contract worker - if I'm not at work, producing, I'm not earning - so each day costs me $560 (gross), of which I'll see.... $336, MAYBE. But it's also COSTING me that $50, PLUS whatever to get there, PLUS counts against me in hiring/firing/advancement, etc. Plus I'll need food, which might be an inconvenience (Need to buy instead of bring), SO, I've lost by taking a day off to argue with these vermin, almost $400 - and you want me to PAY MORE, and They want me to BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, and those two can easily make a day cost me over $600.

And if you're not as well-off (HAH!) as I am, then... You get to watch your family starve, and participate, or go to work and endure the problems, and hope it gets better. (And make no mistake, since we're talking INCOME, I'm in the same boat. We're not eating caviar, we're just TRYING to eat steak once a week. And I KNOW others are far worse off, but not ONE of us HERE is flush. )

As for the "Wealthy"? They don't get their lavish offices and lifestyles from INCOME. That's what POOR people do.... Inheritance, stock options, tax deferrals, donations to charity, tax code loopholes, etc, etc, etc. Read this article for an example:

And by my math, some of those numbers? Account for almost 10% of the NATIONAL DEBT! But you want to tax ME more, because I EARN more? I'm also here at 8:25 PM EST, working on a report on a computer system (think Amazon or ebay). I started late today, 9 AM. And I'm the slacker this week. (BTW, no such thing as OT, I'm only allowed to submit 40 hours/week, although they'll happily take more.)

What about people on fixed income? How about the homeless? (Sub-zero weather out there right now, but I'd bet they'd be HAPPY to work if they could! it means INCOME to EAT....)

And then there are the Welfare Queens as a counter-point. WTF do they get PAID to be a sperm repository? More kids = more money... But no one checks on the children's quality of life... Why? "'Cuz tha's RACIS'!"

But those who would be affected by "their fare share" of taxes will just push it down to us. That $10,000,000 lawsuit you heard about? WE are paying for it. (Actual lawsuit incidental, Johnson and Johnson, Bayer, Honeywell, Microsoft, all the same - passed on to the CONSUMER.)

And even top income percentages don't have the WEALTH to find loopholes in the code. You find a shady accountant who can shave off $300 in income taxes, you got it MADE.... Until the audit. (And while you SHOULD be protected, watch an "overzealous" prosecutor nail you using the RICO act - if not outright planting evidence. Ever hear of Nifong? One of MANY. )

This latest stunt is just a symptom of where we are heading. Here's a hint: It won't be pretty.

Venom...

Who is arguing for the middle class to pay higher taxes?

He's making the point that it is all a scam with the little peons taking it in the rear. The 'rich' which are always attacked of late, are not exactly the 1% which OWS is so fond of misrepresenting. In Obama's world definition, rich is anyone making $250,000.00.

Soooo, why bother to work, if all you are is a cash cow for the 'wealth redistributors?'

He also points out just how many taxes, taxing entities, fees and fines there are, all created to suck the little peon even more. Soon the little peons will be dry husks, then what will the taxing entities and bureaucracies feed off of. Parasites tend to expire themselves after they have killed off the host animal. In this case the parasites are starting to feel the pinch, so, in desperation they create a class warfare, lets get those rich people, take their stuff and then we'll all be even. Let's make employees the bosses of the companies, of course the employees never had the grief, sacrifice or uncertainty which the business creator had to endure.

What is already here is a fascist state, under the guise of socialism. A unique hypbrid, destined to eat itself.

I can read mg1

But neither you or venom answered my question:

Who is arguing that the middle class should have their taxes raised?

MyGirl,

The "rich" is anyone making over about $90,000 - the cutoff for FICA (SS and Medicare) taxes. (Slightly higher, I rounded.)

S.T.,

American Girl wrote:

TO: spark300c who wrote:

"so since some of rich steal now we punish the honest rich too?..."

Hey, if paying everyone's fair share in taxes is punishment, then it's only fair that all suffer a little.

In other words, tax anyone who still has money. Once you cut through the bull, that's what it's all about.

Who is rich? Anyone who has more money than I do.

That's PERSONAL greed, which is the root of it all.

Venom: of course you tax people who have money. If you tax people who don't have money, you don't end up getting any taxes.

Why should the wealthy pay more ? Because they receive a greater benefit. If a wealthy person has 3 multi-million dollar mansions, like Mitt Romney, or 7 or 8 (John McCain) he probably expects our government to keep away the hoards of Islamic Jihadists and others who would take away those mansions.

Likewise those who have business investments or simply have lots of "toys." The more you have, the more you have benefited and will benefit from our government.

As to the argument that the government does not have the right to use the tax code to redistrubute wealth, the Constitution (at least in the preamble) "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility" and what about "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare".... need I go on ?

By what right do the wealthy have to limit themselves to paying almost NO taxes while the poor and middle class are taxed to death ?

If the wealthiest individuals have 90% of the wealth of the country, why are they not paying 90% tax rates ?

Venom...

That actually was exactly my point....

Just because AmericanGirl wrote it doesn't mean it has any relevance to what is actually going on, as far as from an actual policy perspective...

I could tell from what you were saying that your income was not above $250,000, the threshold for raising taxes that Obama campaigned on, which now has moved because of this Congress' extreme shift to the right, to $1,000,000.

If we're talking from a pure policy standpoint (which is what would make the most sense), then AmericanGirl's comments are completely irrelevant. Matter of fact, looking at an increase in taxes should not be looked at as a punishment, especially if done on the top income earners at a time when income inequality has grown and is growing as much as it is.

The basic point: a tax increase for the top percentile and a capital gains tax (as you somewhat eluded to) would not affect you.

Yes, trampling the constitution is great... there has never been a "recess" appointment made during a 3 day break while the Senate was in session. It was the Democrats own "gimmick" strategy... until they were the ones trying to be dictator.

"Expressly to keep that from happening, Republicans in the Senate have had the Senate running in "pro forma" sessions, meaning open for business in name with no actual business planned. Democrats
started the practice when George W. Bush was president to halt him from making recess appointments...

The Obama White House contends such an approach is a gimmick. For all practical purposes, the Senate is in recess and Obama is free to make the appointment on his own, administration officials told the AP."

http://news.yahoo.com/using-recess-power-obama-putting-cordray-job-162516090.html

Do you even understand that the objection wasn't to the person himself, but to having a single unaccountable man calling the shots?

It is what it is!

If it you feel it isn't legal, then sue!

I for one like the idea that Obama is stuffing this right down the right-wingers throats, even if he loses in court over it!

Go Obama!

I second that. In fact tell the worthless house and senate they can stay on vacation....without pay. Were better off without them.

Sorry PJ, but just because it makes you sad doesn't make something unconstitutional.

I see your strange obsession with me has resumed. I trust your holiday was uneventful.

If the Congress is in session, please point to the Congressional Record of what, if anything has been done. I looked, the only action is gave-ling "into session," reading the appointment of the next pro tempore person, and gaveling out.

The actions of the President are an expected reaction to an obstructionist minority. I hope the Democrats retain the Senate and eliminate the filibuster. It would serve the GOP right given their behavior. They are not governing, they are attempting to destroy America.

George W Bush made 171 recess appointments. So much for your will of the people and 30 years cr@p. This is provided for in the Constitution you dolt. Try and not to continue making an idiot of yourself with your stupid comments.

Steve: The Senate is NOT in recess. This act by Obama is illegal. He doesn't get to decide what the laws are.

Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised President BUSH on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham "pro forma" sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.

So there.

Steve0 - Bush actually followed the law and made his recess appointments during actual recesses... kind of like how he got congressional approval before commiting U.S. military resources to foreign wars.

How ironic is to have "liberals" blindly following the most dictatorial, power grabbing president we have ever had?

"Expressly to keep that from happening, Republicans in the Senate have had the Senate running in "pro forma" sessions, meaning open for business in name with no actual business planned. Democrats
started the practice when George W. Bush was president to halt him from making recess appointments...

The Obama White House contends such an approach is a gimmick. For all practical purposes, the Senate is in recess and Obama is free to make the appointment on his own, administration officials told the AP."

http://news.yahoo.com/using-recess-power-obama-putting-cordray-job-162516090.html

It is what it is!

If it you feel it isn't legal, then sue!

I for one like the idea that Obama is stuffing this right down the right-wingers throats, even if he loses in court over it!

Go Obama!

(yep, I cut & paste, so sue me!)

Go USA+numbers

Generally, a recess is a break in House or Senate proceedings. Neither chamber may take a break
of more than three days without the consent of the other. Such consent is usually provided
through a concurrent resolution.

The Senate (Mitch "Peabody" McConnell) cannot impose anything without a joint resolution: hence THIS IS A GIMMICK.

Before leaving for its holiday break, the Senate imposed a schedule of "pro forma" legislative sessions designed to block the move. But the White House apparently concluded that the schedule is a legal gimmick that doesn't interfere with Obama’s power to make the short-term appointment, which runs for a years.

7 A recess within a session is referred to as an intrasession recess. In recent decades, Congress has typically had 5-11 intrasession recesses of more than three days, usually in conjunction with national holidays. The break between the end of one session and the beginning of the next is referred to as an intersession recess. In recent decades, each Congress has consisted of two 9-12 month sessions separated by an intersession recess. The period between the second session of one Congress and the first session of the following Congress is also an intersession recess.

Thanks President Obama......consumers thank you. Keep going.

Presidents of both parties long have gotten around a stalled confirmation by naming a nominee to a job when the Senate is on a break through recess appointments. Bush made more than 170 such appointments when the Senate was away and Obama has 28. So why is it so different when Obama does the same thing other Presidents have done. They are anger because he maneuvered his way around the "faked" Senate sessions. Bush did the same thing.

Hugo Chavez..I mean Barrack Obama must be racist because he is now doing what he WHINED about Bush was doing but didn't end up doing......

"Illegal act?" GUSA, who taught you civics?

except they arent on a recess LOL

boy that went over everyones head

brendan First off Richard Cordray IS a Rep. from NJ Also fella did ya know George W made 171 recess appointments...including in2005 he snuck in John Bolton who was being investigated on wrong doings...go figure. Sometime things don't go the way YOU want them, but that does Not mean its illegal or even wrong. It is the law...get over it & yourself. You have a LOT to learn...evan in Col.

LOL at liberals here spouting off about civics that they know nothing about..all I can say is I have an X marked where these epa regulations kick in and when our energy prices spike no matter what is said or done it is Obama's fault......

What Brenden said in sarcasm I say as a compliment to the white house. Nice job appointing a man to operate the consumer protection agency. Obama is listening to the will of the 99 percent. Since when do the rights of one percent of the people supercede the rights of the 99 percent? When the TEA Party is calling the shots. Why is a vocal minority given control of congress?

Go USA any attempt by the congress to curtail Obama's recess appointments are invalid. If the only reason to setup a dummy session of congress is to impose a constraint on Obama that did not exist for G.W. Bush, then the session itself is illegal.

David from your posts you are either a blue dog dem, or a TEA party republican wearing false colors. In either event I give the nonsense you are posting two thumbs down.

Read your Constitution you loon.

Truthfinder my A##, a more fitting nick for you is, (censored)spouter3. I will use your chosen nick when you type "Obama" instead of the 7 letter insult I see in your posts.

And the political fall-out is like a 100-year flood? LOL

Time to enforce the "Constitution" with the African-Americans, Illegals and "Freeloaders" who would vote thier country into Bankruptcy for another 23 weeks of un-Employment and free food.

Nuke San Fransisco, Detroit and L.A. (for a start) then move on to other "Urban" areas...Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, D.C., New York,...............Etc.

CA Kid

Nuke ten or more states? Hmmm and where would continue to sleep and have really stupid thoughts? PLEASE DONT BREED

Do you do anything beside LOL all day? Or do you just like seeing your name here even though you have nothing to contribute?

The FACT of the matter is that the Republicans have been more than willing to sit down and come to compromise with president obama, but if you will remember, obama's statements at the time were "the republicans can come along for the ride, but they are going to have to sit in back"

and "Republicans, you lost, get over it"

they wasted 2 years trying to work with this president, only to get a knife stuck in their back every time.

If nothing else, Republicans need to tell the president NO more often.

Elizabeth Warren would have been great, but she'll make an even more effective Senator! Even the Rs agree that Cordray is an excellent choice but they want to add a "committee" of "advisors" to the agency to water down and delay badly needed reforms.

chumbkt,

The FACT of the matter is that the Republicans have been more than willing to sit down and come to compromise with president obama, but if you will remember, obama's statements at the time were "the republicans can come along for the ride, but they are going to have to sit in back"

and "Republicans, you lost, get over it"

they wasted 2 years trying to work with this president, only to get a knife stuck in their back every time.

If nothing else, Republicans need to tell the president NO more often.

Do you only watch fox news, the president has constructed proposals based on what the GOP wanted. The GOP has consistently been the party of, "No you can't" to every proposal made by the president. The rest of what I want to say is not fit for print so I will end this post now.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you mean "buffoons." (Spell check is free.)

Actually, the MAJORITY of American voters put him in the WH. I know you'd like to turn this into a dictatorship. Not this time.

Better luck next time. (Demotards is to be capitalized. Question mark after "class." Get to a decent adult ed class, will you? LOL.)

Whereas you're demonstrating it on an individual basis?

Whereas you're demonstrating it on an individual basis?

Good one Severed!

er, I mean LOL! Severed

Rough day huh SpendMore... with all the Collapsed and Deleted comments...?

Rough day is probably saying what most of the Country is thing (and saying) about our Liar in Chief and He must be Repblican and Caucasian...November comes mighty early this Year LMAO...

Everytime I see a rich a**hole lose a dollar I rejoice!!

So you cry when a poor a**hole loses a dollar?

Have you always been jealous and spite-full of what you couldn't achieve yourself?

After the GOP takes both houses in November....................

Ain't gonna happen!

I kinda think ......the clown car has gone over the cliff......4 years without obstruction, were going to get issues cleared up. Yes after we throw the old obstructionist guys out with the teabags......its smooth sailing.

Absolute Idiot:

If you are being sarcastic ignore the rest of this post, if not...after TeaPubs take over Congress, there will be no Congress and by that time we can and most likely all bend over and kiss our collective behinds goodbye.

Don't worry, the republicans are going to lose seats this year. Again.

Bush led the way!

Hmmm, since he is a Muslim, that would mean???? Here he goes again, his mighty O'ness, one above the law, with the swipe of his powerful pen, doing whatever HE wants. He needs to learn about the Executive Branch and study the Constitution. Don't forget also the $$$ spent when HE went into Libya, without approval of congress. Etc.Etc. What an awful example of a leader.

Patriot4Sure, Get over the fact America elected President Obama and will re-elect him in 2012! Go back into the wilderness with the rest of the wing nuts until you all have a vision for all Americans to move this country forward. I also suggest to start with facts not lies. President Obama is a great leader, not about big government, but smart government!

Odummy is a muslim.

wastelandpast, go back into the wilderness learn to live the truth not the lies.

"Odummy" doesn't exist wasted mind pass, Barack Hussien Obama is a Christian. I'm sorry I messed up on your nick.

I thought that is what the IRS is suppose to be.

The IRS is the tax attack dog, they don't protect taxpayers, they go after taxpayers. Guess you aren't aware that the IRS can take EVERYTHING YOU OWN and still come back for more, years and years of coming back.