Liberals blast Obama on consumer protection
Our left-leaning Readers Who Comment are furious this morning to read that the Obama Administration could compromise on its proposal for a new independent consumer protection agency and instead place it within an existing federal department.
Several readers compare this with Obama's abandonment of the so-called public option in the health care reform debate and ask themselves why they voted for him. It's the strongest anti-Obama string from the left I have seen in almost three years of reviewing comments.
It's not a done deal. Negotiations with Congress continue. But as David Cho and Brady Dennis write, Obama's "economic team is now open to housing the consumer regulator inside another agency, such as the Treasury Department, though they still prefer a stand-alone agency. In either case, they are insisting on a regulator with political autonomy and real teeth..." Those who comment clearly don't think that's likely if the agency is created within an existing structure.
We'll start with coqui44, who asked, "...How come [I] am not surprised? Oh, I know. It's because he did the same thing with health care 'reform'. He ditch the people's option because, well, there was no 'consensus' and he can't take a fight for the people. Obama has never meant to stand for the people..."
IGiveup1 wrote, "Obama has found one more way to suck up to some anonymous critic of his policies. This is so unexpected. I keep telling myself that at least he's better than McCain/Palin, but the results are indistinguishable. Convincing myself is getting harder by the day."
wizard2 said, "I guess this makes sense, since the idea of protecting "consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products" is obvously something the Republicans will fight to the death at the request of the lobbyists that own them."
xclntcat wrote, "Encasing consumer protection within either the FDIC or the Federal Reserve automatically produces a dual relationship and a conflict of interest as most of the time the best interest of the bank is in direct opposition to the best interest of the consumer. The banks own the U S Senate so believing that you could get anything through our corrupt, dysfunctional Senate that the banks do not want is delusional."
But LillyRomanoff said, "A stand alone agency for financial regulation is not appropriate. Before we start creating something new, costly, and ineffective, let's consolidate what we have - and evaluate who has been doing a good job of protecting consumers and who has not..."
While strupplawyahoocom offered that "While there need not be a new agency, there needs to be independence. Without independence meaningful consumer protection will suffer from the same neglect and anti-consumer influences that caused the current crisis. This "compromise" appears to be nothing more than a gimmick to seek votes in November."
mycomment wrote, "as news breaks of the banksters' ongoing role in the economic collapse of greece (guess what giant bloodsucking squid is a key player), we see yet another of mr hopey changey's campaign promises collapse in their favor."
dolph924 said, "So what else is new -- the wimpy professor is once again letting the GOP and the DINOs push him around."
cautious asked, "What ever happened to the veto threat? This guy can't keep a promise for two months."
yellowtavern2 wrote, "Hey, why protect taxpayers anyway? Just because we BAILED OUT WALL STREET and let them make record profits from our pockets, and now we're running scared from regulating them? People think the Tea Party movement is angry, wait until the regular middle class begins to realize that they have been used and then thrown away like cheap dates at the discoteque."
mimosa1 said, "Yet another great promise bites the dust from the comic economic team from the Obama team. Dems are just the weakest, lamest little weasels, they are republican enablers ... that's their only role in our ungovernable govt..."
zixu said, "Obama has compromised on everything else that would bring change, why wouldnt he throw away this important new protection for consumers. He likes war,landmines,suppression of civil liberties, military commissions, etc. and he fights for nothing in his campaign agenda. What a bitter meal we are forced to eat. If you want to see what the American people really want, get the Pew polls on the beliefs and positions of the american people. Disgusting."
farhorizons wrote, "Of course he's going to bend. Why are we not surprised... Obama is a true believer in the "Anything is better than nothing" creed. Sometimes it's necessary to fight for something one believes in, but Obama doesn't seem to believe in anything enough to fight for it. Except, of course, his election."
We'll close with bodgerslick, whose views are a pretty good summary of what the majority in this comment string had to say: "So much for real financial reform. Obama concedes again. What won't this President accept half a loaf of? Can he not pass any legislation he finds necessary without it being diluted to the point of little effectiveness. The longer this goes on the more of a failed Presidency everyone sees."
All comments on this article are here.
Posted by: solsticebelle | February 25, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: dove369 | February 25, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.