President Obama plays the game like a Republican - GOP howls in protest

[Riot]

President Obama tells Mitch McConnell GFY, and does a typical and common Republican move of naming a recess appointment (for comparison, Bush W. named 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were Czars named as heads of agencies) Good for you, Mr. President!

It should be noted that the Republicans think Corday is outstandingly qualified and well-respected.

It's just that the GOP, acting on the advice of their banker and Wall Street owners, don't want a Consumer Protection Agency to exist. Even though the agency was passed, by them, into law last year, and has been and is functioning now, the GOP has been blocking the chief appointment (first was supposed to be Elizabeth Warren) to keep it from 100% functioning.

This is great news for citzens vs Wall Street/corporate ownership of our government!

Stirring up a fight, Obama names consumer watchdog

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press – 16 minutes ago

SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio (AP) — Defying Republican lawmakers, President Barack Obama on Wednesday barreled by the Senate and installed a national consumer watchdog on his own, provoking GOP threats of a constitutional showdown in the courts. Setting a fierce tone in the election-year fight for middle-class voters, Obama said: "I refuse to take 'no' for an answer."

Obama named Richard Cordray, a respected former attorney general of Ohio, to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, after giving up on hopes for a confirmation vote in the Senate. The appointment means the agency is able to oversee a vast swath of lending companies and others accused at times of preying on consumers with shady practices.

In political terms, Obama's move was unapologetically brazen, the equivalent of a haymaker at Republicans in the Senate who had blocked his nominee. Acting right after Tuesday's presidential caucuses in Iowa, which showered attention on his opponents, Obama sought to make a splash as the one fighting for the rights of the little guy.

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 a process known as a recess appointment.

But Obama went further by squeezing in his appointment during a break between rapid Senate sessions this week, an unusual move that the GOP called an arrogant power grab.

The White House said what the Senate was doing — gaveling in and out of session every few days solely to avoid being in recess — was a sham. Obama's aides said the president would not be stopped by a legislative gimmick, even though it was Senate Democrats who began the practice to halt President George W. Bush's appointments.

"When Congress refuses to act, and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them," Obama said from Ohio, a state vital to Obama's re-election bid.

Consumer groups hailed Obama's decision; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce balked and warned it was so legally shaky that consumer bureau's work may be compromised.

The response from Republicans was blistering.

The top Senate Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said Obama had "arrogantly circumvented the American people" and endangered the nation's systems of checks and balances. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah called it a "very grave decision by this heavy-handed, autocratic White House."

And House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said: "It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward. This action goes beyond the president's authority, and I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate."

Mitt Romney, a leading Republican presidential candidate, accused Obama of displaying "Chicago-style politics at its worst."

It was not immediately clear who might file a suit on the matter. Most likely, a private party regulated by the consumer agency would have the legal standing.

More than a standoff over one significant appointment, the fight speaks to the heart of a presidential campaign under way.

Obama is presiding over a troubled but improving economy. To try to win over voters, he is employing two strategies: in-your-face politics against a Congress held in low public regard, and a campaign pitch that he would represent the crunched middle class better than any of the Republicans he would face.

The Cordray appointment fits both.

Only with a director in place can the consumer bureau keep "dishonest" mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and others from harming consumers, Obama said. Speaking from a high school in the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights, Obama said Republicans were only blocking Cordray because they wanted to water down consumer protections.

Republican senators have called the consumer bureau too powerful and unaccountable, and held off on Cordray's bid as a means to get changes.

Cordray essentially starts right away, although his nomination will become official later in the week, the White House said. He is expected to serve until at least the end of 2013, which is the end of the Senate's next session.

In plowing ahead, the White House had to contend with some uncomfortable history.

Just last year, a lawyer from Obama's Justice Department said the office's view was that recess appointments could only come during legislative breaks of more than three days. That doesn't match up with what Obama did with Cordray, since the Senate was technically just in session on Tuesday.

The Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, said in 2007 he would keep the Senate in "pro forma" sessions to block Bush from making an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with controversial nominations. That's exactly what Obama's White House now calls a gimmick. Yet on Wednesday, Reid came out in support of what Obama did.

As a senator in 2005, Obama opposed the recess nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying at the time that a representative who couldn't get through a Senate confirmation would be "damaged goods" with less credibility. Obama spokesman Jay Carney said Obama was just talking about the merits of the Bolton pick.

Obama certainly hasn't opposed recess appointments as president.

He had made 28 recess appointments before Wednesday, then named Cordray and three members to the National Labor Relations Board.

Bush made more than 170 such appointments when the Senate was away.

At the heart of the conflict this time is the arcane matter of what, exactly, constitutes a congressional recess.

White House lawyers ultimately determined that, for all practical purposes, the Senate is in the midst of about a monthlong break and Obama can move ahead as he pleases.

Feller reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...5cb4d84d5ba9de

[jms62]

Not the Change I was Hoping for when I voted for him. Politics as usual.

[Antitrust32]

that article made Obama out to be a hypocrite, not a hero.

All Hail Caesar!

[dellinger63]

It also makes Riot a hypocrite but that's par for the course.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

Not the Change I was Hoping for when I voted for him. Politics as usual.

When one party literally says it's only goal is to make sure the President is a one-term President, and blocks routine Senate business at historically-never-before-seen levels, it's about time the President uses the same rules tactics as the several presidents before him to achieve the implementation of a law that was duly passed by that same obstructive Senate.

The law the GOP helped pass requires a head of this agency be appointed. If the GOP didn't like the law, they shouldn't have voted it into being in the first place.

But they did.

Cordray was nominated months ago, and had a majority of support in the Senate via vote - the normal path to nominee approval. It's the GOP using "politics as usual" to halt the complete implementation of a law they already passed, for a chief whom already has received a majority affirmation in the Senate.

With the appointment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Chief, perhaps the headline seen this week, "Massive consumer mortgage fraud by GMAC and Wells Fargo", where they ripped off average people on their mortgages by an extra $1000-$2800 in fees - won't be seen again.

However, you can see why the bank-owned Republican Party has been blocking this appointment. Their Bank masters told them too. Can't threaten to cut the gravy train of consumer fraud.

So have to keep the citizens stirred up and distracted, so that they think passing consumer protection for themselves is a bad thing. Pay those extra false charges buried in the paperwork, citizens! Somebody has all the money - and it's not 80% of the American people.

President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.
President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 were to full-time positions.
President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions.
President George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments.
President Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments.

Obama discovered that the best way to stand up to a bully is to punch him back. Glad he stood up to them, even though there will probably be immediate court challenges to anything the CFPB tries to do.

Ocala Mike

You would be glad, imbecile. Go to the nearest community college and take a novice level American History class.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You would be glad, imbecile. Go to the nearest community college and take a novice level American History class.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

With the appointment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Chief, perhaps the headline seen this week, "Massive consumer mortgage fraud by GMAC and Wells Fargo", where they ripped off average people on their mortgages by an extra $1000-$2800 in fees - won't be seen again.

However, you can see why the bank-owned Republican Party has been blocking this appointment. Their Bank masters told them too. Can't threaten to cut the gravy train of consumer fraud.

B]

Can you explain to me how this massive consumer fraud works? and how a foreclosed consumer is affected by these fees?

Sure.

Why it's such good news that the @CFPB finally has a director, and what it means to you: http://OFA.BO/78hWGz


Ocala Mike

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Sure.

Why it's such good news that the @CFPB finally has a director, and what it means to you: http://OFA.BO/78hWGz


Ocala Mike

ROR !! I'm from the Government and I'm here to help

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Can you explain to me how this massive consumer fraud works? and how a foreclosed consumer is affected by these fees?

Go read the thread, here:
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45056

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Go read the thread, here:
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45056

What I want to know is how a foreclosed customer (who doesn't pay or they wouldn't be in foreclosure) is paying these so called fees? A bankrupt customer is either restructuring their loan terms (ch 13) and thus the bank is losing thousands of dollars or they are reaffirming on the debt (ch7). In the bankruptcy cases I guess I could see where the consumer could possibly be charged extra fees, but not in a foreclosure.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Sure.

Why it's such good news that the @CFPB finally has a director, and what it means to you: http://OFA.BO/78hWGz


Ocala Mike

We the government will protect you from the evil banks (which Prez Clinton, Barney Frank and others were forcing the banks into creating many of subprime/home ownership programs that caused many of the issues). We the government told the banks to do this now that it didn't work we will protect the customer from these evil people. We will even create more government to make sure the consumer is protected (reality is the customer gets charged more because it costs more to do the same type of lending now). However this is good for the consumer because they can not think or be responsible for themself. We the government need to be able to do this for them so they are not responsible for the actions.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by geeker2

ROR !! I'm from the Government and I'm here to help

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

What I want to know is how a foreclosed customer (who doesn't pay or they wouldn't be in foreclosure) is paying these so called fees?

Go to the aforementioned thread.
Click on the link to the original source.
Read the words in the original link that comes after, "Here’s how the double-dipping scam can be pulled off."

[Handsome Boy]

Originally Posted by bigrun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQ_rMRV5z8

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Go to the aforementioned thread.
Click on the link to the original source.
Read the words in the original link that comes after, "Here’s how the double-dipping scam can be pulled off."

What that says is the banks are charging them double for their escrow account, once as part of their payment and once as a shortgage. Since the escrow account is in all reality the customers own $ how is the bank making out on this? If the home is sold or the loan is paid in full the customer gets their escrow money back. When the taxes are due the bank pays the taxes with the $. Same with the Home owners insurance. If a ch 13 bankrupt customer falls behind on their payments wouldn't their escrow account also fall behind thus creating a shortage in the escrow? What am I missing?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

What that says is the banks are charging them double for their escrow account, once as part of their payment and once as a shortgage. Since the escrow account is in all reality the customers own $ how is the bank making out on this?

The consumers are declaring Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The bank has charged them double for escrow fees, thus the bank is demanding double the amount they are due (in escrow fees) in the bankruptcy proceeding. The banks are (allegedly) making a false claim of monies due, in excess of the truth, above what the homeowner really owes the bank. The bank says, "Homeowner owes us 5 months back payments, plus the new escrow fee" - except the escrow fees are already included in the "5 months back payments" and the "new escrow fee" is fraud.

Federal investigators are looking into allegations that banks have wrongly pocketed tens of millions of dollars from troubled homeowners by double-billing for mortgage escrow fees, The Post has learned.

Exactly how much in phony profits the banks may have pocketed from this alleged practice is not known, but an analysis by The Post of bankruptcy cases in 2011 shows it could range higher than $150 million for just the new cases filed this year.

The problem has gotten so out of hand that lawyers and accountants at the New York City office of US Trustee — charged with protecting the integrity of US bankruptcy courts — are poring over local Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases for evidence of wrongdoing.

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf may be feeling the heat as the federal government’s US Trustee program, which investigates fraud in bankruptcy courts, has asked lawyers for information on Wells Fargo and other banks double-billing in foreclosure cases.

The federal investigators were tipped to the alleged practice by metro area bankruptcy lawyers. Cases specifically involved Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage, but lawyers say most banks had double-dipped.