Now they strike again. It’s very important to protect lenders from the evil consumers. The WSJ, under the headline “Democrats Soften Financial Bill,” tells us that the bankers’ favorite Democrats are stripping important consumer protections out of the Obama Administration’s financial regulation bill. The requirement that lenders offer plain vanilla credit cards, mortgages and consumer loans is gone. That was too populist. Really. Or maybe it was an interference with the right of banks to contract on whatever terms they want. And get this:
The banking industry and Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan have criticized a plan to give states the ability to enforce consumer-protection laws against national banks such as Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. [Congressman Barney] Frank has long supported such a move, but Wednesday acknowledged it was a controversial issue and that its future still hadn’t been resolved.
Controversial? It’s controversial to suggest that we add more people to enforce laws against cheating people? Only in Crazyville, AR and Sillyman, TN. Here’s a typical Republican, Congressman Tom Price, of Brainless, GA:
“We take the current regulators and say ‘y’all have to do your job,’ and if there are new products or financial institutions out there that aren’t being watched, somebody has got to watch them, and you are in charge of determining who will watch them,” Mr. Price told Mr. Geithner. “Is there something wrong with that?”
Geithner explains that it leaves us exposed to another financial disaster, thus demonstrating that he, at least, learns from his mistakes.
In the short video clip above, Paul Krugman tells Rachel Maddow that if Congress can’t pass consumer protection laws, it certainly won’t be able to pass the crucial regulatory laws. We know which side the Blue Dogs are going to take, don’t we?
Related posts:
- The Consumer Financial Protection Agency: A Small Victory for the Good Guys
- Obama’s Weekly Address: The Consumer Financial Protection Agency
- Consumer Protection Agency Approved by House Committee; Auto Dealer Financing Exempt
- Blue Dog Melissa Bean Bites Bank Customers
- Hey Blue Dogs: It’s Time For The Rich to Pay Back Those Tax Loans
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
gaw………..2 of my favorite people
Doesn’t this make them Blue Chip Dogs?
I believe many of the Blue Dogs support the protection of those who consume lobbyists’ donations. See, for instance, this link from the previous thread . . .
That’s real consumer protection for ya!
Blue dogs and republicans are the same thing. same thing one is = the other.
Please don’t tell me any more about an 11 dimensional chess game, because the only ones getting played are us. I simply can’t imagine that obama is to dumb to see what is happening in terms of the positions taken by the blue dogs (thanks, rahm), so all of this has to fit with what obama is happy with. All of the talk about helping the little guy along with the big financial institutions was just so much more gamesmanship.
By the way, why are we allowing more M&A so that the entities that are “too big to fail” just get bigger? The blue dogs only seem happy with saving money when something may require expenditure to help the average person.
It’s becoming very clear why Rahm got all these Blue Dogs elected.
Well, Rahm may be the attack dog but Obama holds the leash. Corporate stooge.
Don’t know, but it most certainly makes them assholes.
The banks can’t make the profits they use to make without funny product to sell. Sure they can sucker Consumers but who in the finance industry will be willing to buy bank mortgage paper for example?
Or Credit Card debt during a recession unless the price is discounted which of course would cut into the banks profits?
I will admit that the finance industry does have its share of Suckers.
I don’t think anyone should ever trust Rahm. He’s just one of those people who sends off vibes of creepyness.
They’re fiscally conservative when it’s convenient, but show them a big hole in the Mid-East they can shovel money into, and they’re shoving their way to the front of the line.
Who is talking about 11 dimensional chess?
Little known non-fact: He’s a third cousin to Carville.
Seriously? Wow
Primary these people! We elected them to change things for the people not to change into republics.
Funny you should mention that . . .
Rahm and Carville are related this explains so much!
I don’t often use clips, but this one is a real winner. Maddow’s explanation that her show has focused on consumer protection issues is heartening.
The simple protections consumers need are not controversial. Bank of America is advertising a simple one page explanation of the terms of their loans. Letting state watchdogs go after violations of consumer protection laws looks like a no-brainer. I can’t imagine a real argument against these simple things. That leaves only really bad alternative explanations for the positions taken by these guys.
It’s the Accountability, stupid!
Stop it, you’re scaring me.
Sadly, no — it’s a nonfact.
Whew! I was going to have nightmares for a month…
I don’t think this is true. Giethner wants the Fed which missed everything to be the new super-regulator. He has learned nothing.
That’s a bit harsh, Hugh. At least he understands he has to do something, unlike Congressman Price, who thinks everything is just fine.
I agree that using the Fed is a horrid mistake. The board of governors will not be able to shake off the ideological bonds of the Chicago School, and we need a whole new set of people to regulate.
I would like to see some people with a serious interest in criminal prosecution get involved. Judge Rakoff may have encouraged that.
More like Blue Bottles feeding on the corpse of the GOP.
There should be some price for failing to do the most basic things that financial institutions are supposed to do, like keep enough capital on hand to not go belly up. The complete lack of such action has been very discouraging.
Geithner’s right, at least in his prediction. Another failure will happen soon if we don’t fix what’s wrong.
The answer is no as pointed out by Krugman. And it was the democrats under the Clintons and Rubin who paved the way for deregulation of the banks in 1999 and provided the stage for Rubin later as Chairman of Citi.
that is a rhetorical question isn’t it? it now is all too obvious the republicans in sheep’s clothing calling themselves democrats are hopelessly bought and paid for by their corporate sponsors from the banking industry and wall street to the health care for profit industry to the oil, gas and coal industries.
whatever does or does not happen this time around on all these issues, one thing is for sure, these blue tics need to go! tell them to come clean and switch parties where they belong! there constituents on both sides will thank them; and don’t get me started on rahm who enticed these guys to run as democrats in the first place!
Was the disclosure about Ross not enough for your blood lust?
Q: Are we talking about state gov’t regulators (potentially) enforcing state laws or federal laws?
Q: Or, are we talking about federal prosecutors within states enforcing federal laws?
My impression is that the executive branch wants to give a little direction, but leave the real legislating to Congress. There we can expect Frank & Dodd and perhaps a few others to weigh in. Many of those in Congress will be more friendly to the view of progressives (and even the dfh who frequent this foul-mouthed fem-blog).
MarkH, the idea is to let the state people enforce their own consumer protection laws, as well as to let them enforce Federal laws as well, as I understand it.
The administration gave Congress a fairly detailed set of ideas for legislation.