Obama to Name Cordray Consumer Bureau Head in Recess Appointment

January 4, 2012

  • January 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    Corrine Garrison says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 6

    more big government

    • January 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm
      Amazed says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 9

      We shouldn’t be too hard on the President. He is creating more jobs, government jobs. Layer upon layer of government jobs doing duplicative work and not very well. Once these things are in place, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. The Founding Fathers roll over seeing how this gigantic Federal Government has evolved to regulate every single aspect of citizens lives.

      • January 4, 2012 at 2:30 pm
        The Other Point of View says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 14
        Thumb down 6

        Amazed, I agree, we need less government regulations telling citizens how to conduct their own private affairs. Can we start by eliminating government laws banning abortion, gay sex, prostitution, and marijuana use?

        • January 4, 2012 at 3:57 pm
          Anejo says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 0

          I’m off on a tangent here but once marijuana is legalized can’t you imagine congress giving farm subsidies in a few years where farmers get paid millions not to grow pot? It’s not like congress isn’t that crazy.

        • January 5, 2012 at 6:26 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          OPV:

          Government jobs for sustaining the government which further ensure our reliance on the jobs and the upkeep and it’s growth is seperate from government regulations which are not reliant on an upkeep to maintain, just a piece of paper or law. You need to seperate the two and look up a bit about Ron Paul as an example.

          Regardless: Abortion is not a private matter. Whether you want to admit it or not, scientifically a seperate life starts to develop at conception. It’s between the mother and that life. Write now you want to deem that life is worth nothing and it’s a private affair. I don’t believe you can make that arguement. Just because the life can’t think yet doesn’t mean we can destroy it. The arguement is whether or not we should protect that life whether or not my opinion is accurate to you. And the very fact that question exists, from a philosophical stand point means that it isn’t a political government driven intervention.

          Now moving forwward to prostitution and gay sex: You argue that government regulation for money distribution and business, is more important than one’s lifestyle and health? I argue you’re a fool there. Have you looked up the average life expectancy for a gay male? Have you looked up the depression, suicide, and alcoholism rates? Have you seen the studies regarding the fact that as social acceptance has gone up those issues remain the same, showing that the gay lifestyle actually is the link or cause of the issues that follow, not vice versa? I would say it’s a good idea to have the government involved in personal affairs that mean social health is harmed, a lot more important than business affairs. You revealed above which is more important to you: Money being maniuplated by the government. Because you don’t give a $%@@ about the social issues. Typical liberal…

          And I won’t even go further into Marijuana use and prostituion. You’re absurd.

  • January 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    Realist says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 19
    Thumb down 13

    Sneaky, underhanded, low-class and disrespectful.

    • January 4, 2012 at 1:34 pm
      MktGirl says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 6

      Only in this case or for any administration? Because they happen all the time.

  • January 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    Nan says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 11

    George Bush made most of his appointments during the recess. This is nothing new and should not surprise anyone considering the gop won’t approve any appointee suggested up by President Obama!

    • January 6, 2012 at 4:32 pm
      Hillsborough agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      It should surprise Obama supporters since I believe his official ‘policy’ was against recess appointments.

  • January 4, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    The Other Point of View says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 7

    The difference between the Republican refusal to confirm Cordray and Democrats refusal to confirm Bush’s appointees is that Republicans had nothing against Cordray ideologically. They all agreed he would be a good head of the agency. Republicans just don’t like the Consumer Protection Bureau as created by Dodd Frank and they have said that they will not approve ANYONE until the power of the Bureau is reduced significantly. Democrats opposed Bush’s appointees because they were deemed too radical. John Bolton as U.N. Ambassdor comes to mind.

  • January 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    Chad Balaamaba says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 8

    Why is it when someone has a hard time defending a position they are quick to say “well, so and so did it, too”.

    • January 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 7

      Why? Oh that’s simple. It’s because Republicans act so shocked, shocked! when President Obama would dare to make an interim appointment. So, we are forced to remind them that “so and so did it too.” In other words, your own guy, that you supported, did it and you had no problem with it then, so why pretend you are shocked and indignant when someone else does the exact same thing?

      • January 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm
        Nan says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 10
        Thumb down 7

        The republicans are masters at getting their appointments confirmed via recess appointments. They also refused to “break” for the summer and kept a “skelton” crew working to circumvent President Obama from exerting HIS right to do the same thing that prior presidents have done. George Bush had MORE czars than Obama has yet there were never any complaints about THEM… oh, that’s right we weren’t allowed to talk about them because we would embolden our enemies!

        • January 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm
          The Other Point of View says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 6

          Exactly correct Nan. Frankly, I’m not as thrilled about Obama as many of my posts may seem. I defend him because the things he’s accused of are the exact same things that all of his predecessors did. It’s the Republican hypcorisy that drives me nuts. I honestly think he’s been lackluster. I just don’t like the false charges levied against him constantly, like the “he apologizes for America” bit that has absolutely no basis in fact. I dare anyone to post a video or speech tanscript where he apologized for America.

        • January 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm
          southern gal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 7

          Bush had 33 czars, Obama has 38 (at last count). And Obama railed against recess appointments as a senator but I guess as President he’s all for them. It’s good to be “king”, eh?!

          • January 4, 2012 at 5:20 pm
            The Other Point of View says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 5

            President 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. Today’s appointment makes a total of 29.

            So, please spare me the “Obama is destroying the country” routine. He didn’t rail against them, in general, as a Senator. He did express disapproval of teh recess appointment of John Bolton, not because it was a recess appointment, but because Bolton was “damaged goods.” (his words).

      • January 4, 2012 at 4:08 pm
        PM says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 10
        Thumb down 12

        OPV it appears you like the smell of BO so much you can’t see that he’s ruining the USA! The reality is that there were already to many ineffective watchdogs. BO and Dodd/ Frank only adds more people to the federal welfare system for worthless non-business cronies!

        As far as comments on Bush, your non-factual 10 mile high view can only come from the twisted bias we see on the lame stream media that forgot the purpose of news.

        ps. I said this with the goal of you actually thinking of any benefit BO has provided for the future of the USA, not some BS story he tells to get votes by creating partisan issues between Dems, Repubs and Independants while dividing the rich and poor.

  • January 4, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    PB says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 11

    Just another government bureaucratic group that do little and draws a paycheck from the American People who do not need another bureau to tell it citizens what to do. Will this President ever stop!!

    • January 6, 2012 at 3:11 pm
      Ralph Kramden says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 2

      I’m hoping he gets stopped in about 10 months from now…it’s up to US to stop him…and Pelosi…and Reid…and ALL of them!

  • January 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    The Other Point of View says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 21

    You’re absolutely right PB. Who needs a watchdog agency to protect consumers. Screw consumers. Because who needs a watchdog to make sure that banks aren’t robo-signing foreclosures. Let’s let businesses do whatever the Hell they please. We need fewer consumer protectiosn because businesses do such a good job on their own protectng us. Businesses have our best interest at heart.

    On the other hand, George W Bush created more beauracracy and expanded the size of the federal government in one fell swoop when he created the TSA, but you are concerned abouut this President. Typical.

    • January 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm
      New Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 5

      Really? I see you dislike Obama being falsly accused, yet you continue to change the subject to Bush. I realize Bush increased buracracy and really screwed citizens, but that doesn’t mean Obama is a saint. Can’t you have a conversation about what you like/dislike about Obama without saying “well, Bush did this”. That’s nice if he did, but Bush isn’t president. Obama is calling the shots, which, for most people, they suck, whether they know it or not.

  • January 4, 2012 at 2:42 pm
    Cheetoh Mulligan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 9

    I would like to see Obama start a government bureau to be a watchdog over our government that would protect citizens against the government getting larger, ultimately costing the citizens more in taxes.
    To OPV,are you nuts? You’re advocating starting a watchdog agency, at taxpayer expense, to stop what has already been identified and stopped? They already appointed czars for that.

    • January 4, 2012 at 4:15 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 7

      Cheetoh, your comment belies the common myth that the size of the federal government is out of control and that somehow President Obama is responsible for this massive growth. As if he put job listing on Monster.com and intervewed and hired people.

      You want the truth? Go to the government website for the Office of Personnell Management. They list the statistics there.

      http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

      What will you find? Wow! The government is much smaller today than it was during the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations! Amazing what facts can do for you. Try it, you’ll like it!

      • January 5, 2012 at 10:14 am
        ComradeAnon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 3

        You’re wasting your time with wingnuts. “Facts” mean nothing to them.

      • January 6, 2012 at 4:40 pm
        Hillsborough agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 2

        you might want to look at the trend before and after Obama took office. Government employment is increasing under Obama (at a time when public employment is not). And the argument about Obama is that SPENDING is out of control. Not the hiring of government employees – although that is certainly trending up thanks to the evidence you provided (don’t you hate it when your own evidence proves you wrong?).

        Nice Straw Man Argument though. Everyone digs a good straw man.

        • January 6, 2012 at 4:41 pm
          Hillsborough agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          should say ‘when private employment’ not ‘public.’ I blame Obama for that.

  • January 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    Cheetoh Mulligan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 2

    OPV, Did you not look at the stats site you posted. Federal Employees have increased over 300,000 since Obama took over, and Federal Employment is the highest it has been since 1996. Reagan was a great President and I believe the downsizing trend started with him. One more fact; Military employment is up 180,000 since Obama took over. Didn’t he promise to have all the troops out in 7 months when he was running in 2008? Do you know if he hired 180,000 pilots and boat captains for the exodus?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features