90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
Listen News Programs Schedule
PLEDGE NOW
July 21, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Consumer Protection And Wall Street

American finance and the little guy. It’s official day one for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. It’s founder Elizabeth Warren is out. Still no director. And, it’s under attack.

President Barack Obama announce the nomination of Cordray to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

President Barack Obama announce the nomination of Cordray to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Official Day One, today, for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau –- the federal banking watchdog that consumer champion Elizabeth Warren pushed into life to stand up for little guys and gals facing American finance on credit cards and mortgages and banking.

A big official day –- except that Warren’s been booted, the first director nominee may never be confirmed, the agency’s only half born, and bankers –- Warren says -– want to kill it.

No, say bank lobbyists. Just restructure.

This hour On Point: American finance, consumer protection, industry pushback, and the fate of the little guy.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests:


Adam Levitin, professor at Georgetown Law School, where he specializes in financial regulation.

Kate Davidson, reporter for American Banker, where she has been covering the controversy over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington.

Lynne Barr, partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, where she is chair of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Practice.

From Tom’s Reading List:

 
  • Jeff

    I hope this “consumer financial protection bureau” has the time to make a detailed examination of the speculative trading of oil and gas futures. The wildly unstable prices are kicking our economy while it’s already down. 

    • bob

      The consumer financial protection bureau’s jurisdiction will/does not include oil and gas futures as those are within the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Complain to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  If they have gotten rid of all ‘W’ appointees, you might have a chance.  Don’t count on it, as the thieves put a lot of their own in as regulators, that look the other way.  Remember ‘Deepwater Horizon’, with ‘W’ appointees in regulation?

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Remember Massacre Energy’s coal mine-murder of miners for ‘production’?  More ‘W’ regulators, that didn’t do regulating.  Remember NO executives were killed, or even hurt in these ‘citizen’ corporation-pressured debacles!

  • LC

    Obama is a puppet of Wall Street, everything he does if for their enrichment.

  • Anonymous

    Bottom line is President Obama has shown me once again that he is unable to stand up to the powers of wall street and the banks. Forget about the Republicans, he’s shown not one once of spine in dealing with the opposition. It’s really disgusting how this president throws people under the bus without an once of fight.  If Romney is the Republican presidential candidate Obama will lose. It’s possible that Romney might even win by a landslide. Why? Because President Obama has been a complete disappointment and is more like conservative centrist who is more interested in placating the special interest than doing anything for the people who elected him president.

    So the question for Obama is this: what was all these appeasement for? He’s lost most if not all of his base. It’s really such a sad state of affairs. This president has no back bone whatsoever.

    • Zing

      Rush Limbaugh has made many of the same points about Obama since before the election. See,
      I Told You So

      • nj

        LOL! To claim that drug-addled gasbag disinfotainer Limpball’s criticisms of Obama from the hypocritical, hateful, reactionary, reality-challenged special place he lives in bears any resemblance to criticisms from the left is, one its face, ludicrous. But, from this handle, not surprising.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        You take your news and opinions from a career-drug-addict?  You admire the ‘Family Values’, of a four-time divorced sadistic quipster, that crucified a teenage girl for being ugly?  There are so many other repulsive characteristics, that I’ll not waste time on someone of your obvious mindset.

        • Zing

          If you could read, you’d see how Off Point your comment is.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            My comment was on point about anyone that uses the career-drug-addict Limbaugh  as a source of information, or opinion.   The only reason that Fox has him, is that he mouthes what they want.  His life is proof that he is a liar, and a hypocrite.  Sourcing him, or his network, one arm of the illegal and immporal phone-hacking empire, destroys any credibility.

    • Thinknaboutit

      Takes a lot of backbone to complain about the president’s lack of backbone in every post anonymously on a political blog.

      • Anonymous

        I’m not posting anonymously. Anyway it’s my right as a citizen to criticize this president if I choose to do so. I’ll say it again, this man has no spine when it comes to dealing with the opposition.
        My link is my direct e-mail. If you don’t like my comment, well that’s your prerogative and right as well.

  • Margbi

    I’m so sorry that it’s not Elizabeth Warren. She would have been the best head of this agency, but probably could not have gotten confirmed by the Senate. Look how she was treated in the hearings.  I don’t know anything about the Cordray but hope he is interested in following her lead.
    And, good luck, Elizabeth, on your run for Senate.

    • Anonymous

      Obama could have appointed Bart Simpson and the republicans would not have confirmed him. They are not interested in confirming anyone the president wants for any job. That’s my point about his lack of backbone in dealing with the republicans. They are out to destroy his presidency at the expense of the people of this nation, period.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Bart Simpson???   Lack of backbone??  When the Republicans are throwing so many things at the President, and the U.S., that are detrimental, that NO one could keep up with all these throwing-stars!!

        • Anonymous

          Yes, lack of backbone. You seem pretty quick to give Obama a lot slack. He’s not shown me he has one ounce of fight in him.
          Obama does not know how to make a stand or to bring his game to the people. He’s made a lot of mistakes in this regard. The republicans have played him like a fiddle. The Democrats should have done the debt ceiling thing when they were in power and now they get this extremist ideology being shoved down their throats all because of their ineptitude and once again lack of backbone.
          While I wish Obama could be more like LBJ in political shrewdness and moxie I also am aware that these are not the same Republicans LBJ was dealing with. What we have here in the guise of the tea party is the John Birch Society dressed up in tri-corner hats.

          If there was any time for a president to stand up and fight like hell this is it. When Romney takes office in 2013 it will spell the end of all the safety nets in this nation and you and I will be waking up to a very backward country indeed.

      • Gregg

        That may be a bit dramatic. For instance, Elana Kagan was confirmed 63-37 and Sonia Sotomayor 68-31.

      • Thinknaboutit

        So Jeffe68, What could Obama do to give you the impression he has a backbone?  Would you like more partisan criticism of republicans?  Do you think attacking them on a regular basis would encourage them to support their president?

        There is nothing Obama can do to change the behavior of the obstructionists in congress, it’s up to the people who put them there to voice their opinions or replace them when the time comes.

        • nj

          Think asks: “What could Obama do to give you the impression he has a backbone?”

          Well, let’s see…

          …He might have not continued the abrogation of habeas corpus begun under Bush.

          …He might have discontinued the military tribunals instituted by Bush.

          …He might have discontinued the practice of rendition to torturing countries as was done under Bush.

          …He might not have broken any number of campaign promises, such as the one to not hire lobbyists in his administration.

          …He might not institute policies to suppress and prosecute whistleblowers.

          …He might not support expansion of Bush’s unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens.

          …He might not have caved in on his promise to support a public option in the so-called health-care “reform” legislation that will force citizens to buy sh*t insurance products with no real cost controls that will create huge new profits for the insurance companies.

          …He might not have caved on protecting net neutrality after promising to fight for it.

          Is that enough, or would you like more?

          • Thinknaboutit

            That’s more than enough to illustrate your lack of understanding of these complex issues.  Obama has to pick his battles as he is not king of America and EVERYTHING he does will be demonized by someone as many have proven. 

            Habeas corpus?  Do you mean the patriot act?  I agree it’s an abomination but apparently our lawmakers maybe know something we don’t about it’s purpose or effectiveness since they continue to vote for it.

            Military tribunals?  Since Nobody wants to try them in courts here in the U.S.A. (or they obstruct attempts to do so) what choice does Obama have?  Would you prefer he just lets them go without any kind of hearing, that would be backbone?

            Rendition?  Who has Obama sent to the torture camps?  This is news to me, perhaps you could share your information?

            Campaign promises?  Every President in the history of the United States has broken campaign promises.  Some would say breaking a campaign promise requires more backbone as sometimes it is admitting you were wrong.  Are we holding Obama to different standards than the others and why because he’s from Hawaii?

            Whistleblowers?  What exactly are you talking about here?  Wikileaks?  Are you one of the complete transparency advocates that fails to understand why there are things like state secrets?

            Patriot ACT again? 

            Healthcare?  It was pointed out when it was passed (a historic accomplishment one might add) that this bill is a step in the right direction that is meant to start us down that path.  Universal Healthcare was unatainable and there are many new consumer protections in HCR that you neglect to admit.

            Net neutrality?  Not sure it was Obama that failed you here, but ok.

            I would like to know if you think Obama has accomplished ANYTHING you approve of, or if your ideology prevents you from recognizing compromise is necessary.  Strict adhernance to partisan ideals and no room for negotiation will only get you rhetoric and disfunctional government kind of like what the teaparty is proving.

          • nj

            There you have it. A vivid display of the stunning lengths the Obamabots will go to to defend a record that, in many ways, is as bad as or worst than Bush’s.

            Obama then and now on habeas corpus:
            http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram

            Bailing on civil trials:
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209.html

            Rendition:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html

            Whistleblower suppression:
            http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2058340,00.html
            http://www.counterpunch.org/greene06302011.html
            http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers

            Health care “reforn”:
            http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdf

            Net neutrality:
            http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/president_obamas_christmas_gift_to_att_and_comcast_and_verizon_20101221/

            The question was not whether O has done anything worthwhile, it is whether he is capable or interested in really fighting on the side of the people on the big issues.

          • Thinknaboutit

            Obamabot eh?  Why, because I refuse to jump aboard the hate Obama bus?  You still refuse to recognize that those “worthwhile” things Obama has done did in fact take backbone, but since he didn’t do everything the way YOU want it done he suddenly isn’t on the side of the people.  How about the CPA for starters, was that your spineless president giving in on the big issue?

  • http://richardsnotes.org Richard

    While I agree with jeffe68 that Obama tossing Warren under the bus in some kind of warped political calculation is not a good thing, what this has done is unite many of us behind Elizabeth Warren. Frankly, I’d rather see her as a Senator from Massachusetts than as the head of a consumer protection agency. Senator is a better stepping stone to President. I can’t think of anyone, male or female, Democrat or Republican who I’d rather see running. I trust this woman, not only to represent my views and interests but to tell the truth, no matter what it affects.

    Of course, the ugliness she experienced in her short term in Washington may turn her off to the entire mess and I wouldn’t blame her if she went back to her life at Harvard.

    Either way, I’ve been a fan of hers from the beginning and will continue to be a fan of hers.

    From what I hear, Cordray has many of the same views so maybe he’ll represent our interests well.

    • Zing

      Dude.  You were already under the bus snacking on sour grapes.

  • Bob from Burlington.

    I heard Elizabeth Warren on NPR a few years ago and I remember one excellent investigative discovery she made.

    1)Credit card companies would add a special fee to a person’s bill.2)The person would call and ask about the fee and the credit card company would say it was a mistake and would remove it.3)The fee would show up again in their bill4)The person would call and ask about the fee and the credit card company would say it was a mistake and would remove it.5)Eventually, a certain percentage of people would give up and just pay the fee.

    She basically found that credit card companies employed people to come up with schemes to make more money on top of the billions in fees they already make. This is why she was bounced. She exposed too much.

    Until issues like these are addressed it will be legal for money and power to make corrupt profit off anyone, even the very poor, and they will be regarded as what makes America great and exceptional.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    The multitude of GREEDY Corporate Criminals, that receive Corporate Welfare, have laws written to benefit them, at everyone’s expense, destroy anyone that opposes them with their Criminal Media (like Newscorp apparently is), and a myriad of other crimes, that will destroy the United States of America.  The LUST for power has to be the root of all evil.  Money is just a tool, and a lot of power crimes do not involve money. 

  • Anonymous

    As others have said, the reason Warren was withdrawn is because Senate Republicans would not let her have a vote.

    What is not said enough is that it doesn’t have to be this way.

    The Senate rules on holds and filibusters are arbitrary. They are not in the Constitution. There is no reason that the Senate could not function like the House, with simple majorities required to do business.

    The existence of these arbitrary rules allows a minority to prevent the majority from governing. That is profoundly undemocratic and means that there is no real accountability, because a party that “wins” an election doesn’t actually get to govern as if it had.

    The Stimulus Bill was too small because it needed 60 votes.

    The Health Care bill took too long because it needed 60 votes.

    We can’t get a jobs bill because it needs 60 votes.

    The 40 most conservative senators represent states with about 10% of the population of the US, and they only need to get half that 10% to vote for them. That means that 5% of the American electorate can prevent the rest of the Senate from even voting:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/10/927641/-Senate-40-vote-rule5-of-all-voters-decide

    • Zing

      But it’s alright for Democrats to use filibuster, right?  Apparently Warren isn’t worth the nucular option.
       

      • Anonymous

        I would gladly eliminate the filibuster whichever side is in power. That way, the party in power can actually be held accountable for the bills it enacts and for its Presidential appointments.

        But let’s not fall into the false equivalence trap. There is no comparison between the Democrats and Republicans on this.

        Take a look at this graph:

        That spike is the current Republican obstruction of all things Obama.

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/breaking_the_filibuster_in_one.html

        If you want it in prose:

        A)”Here’s the important thing to understand about life in the now-expired 111th Senate: near as I can tell, every single nomination made by Barack Obama — certainly every nomination that made it through committee — had the support of at least 60 Senators, and yet every single nomination was filibustered.”

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/nominations_and_the_filibuster.html

        B)  Amazingly, the 125 cloture motions that have been filed this Congress (as of November 23rd) exceed the total number of cloture motions filed from 1919, when the Cloture Rule was first enacted, until 1975. This number is also more than double the average number of cloture motions filed per session from 1975 through 2005. 

        http://tomudall.senate.gov/files/documents/Blog/NYUBrennanCenter-FilibusterAbuse.pdf

        • Zing

          What you would do is irrelevant.  Like all liberals you are afraid to join the  fray and would rather other people do what you think is right.

      • Thinknaboutit

        Why does nearly every conservative defense start with “but the democrats”

        • nj

          I think it’s it’s a disservice to real conservatism to label as “conservative” what  emanates from the current reactionary right and Tea Baggers. 

          • Anonymous

            How many conservatives denounce the tea baggers though?

          • nj

            About the same number of progressives that meaningfully criticize Obama.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve been criticizing him.

          • Thinknaboutit

            I stand corrected, my post should have read “Why does nearly every response from THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE CONSERVATIVES…”

        • Zing

          Maybe you should start thinknaboutit.

    • Fredlinskip

      I think that when you take into account the redistricting that goes on in some of these states, the percentage would be brought down below 5%.I think you’ve hit upon the most critical thing wrong with our troubled Democracy. Senate under W didn’t require 60% majority on all issues. If I recall correctly rule was mostly used only in attempt to block some really absurd judicial nominations (such as Harriet Miers to Supreme Court). And of course W & Co were so offended that for a time they threatened to eliminate th rule altogether (this at a time when Newt and others were working to try to attempt to set up GOP as a “permanent majority” [talk about scary]). That was when the “gang of 14” got together and worked out some mysterious compromise, the results of which was rule wouldn’t be eliminated BUT some understanding was made that filibuster would be used only in extreme circumstance- after this meeting Dems seemed to kowtow more to administrations desires. On the day was Obama was elected, the use of this rule radically changed. If weren’t for this, Obama admin wouldn’t be handcuffed in everything they attempted (health care “compromise” would have been settled much more favorably towards individuals and less towards insurance cos, etc, etc.)This more than anything has damaged the aspirations of so many that expected so much more when they voted for Obama and Dem majority in both houses in ‘08.Maybe Obama is responsible for not tackling this issue head-on from get go (such as W & his gang of 14). Maybe Obama thinks he’s Lincoln and likes to get people to compromise. If he does deserve some blame for this, I don’t think he realizes the damage that has been wrought to the hearts of those who voted for him that expected so much more. (And this coming from someone  truly amazed at what he’s been able to accomplish in confines of the system in which he operates).

  • Michael

    Yet the Consumer Protection Bureau thanks to Barney Frank excludes Car dealerships. Which are equally dishonest if not more than the folks on Wall Street.

    • Anonymous

      Last time I looked used car dealerships were not causing an economic downturn.
       

      • http://richardsnotes.org Richard

        All car dealerships are excluded, not just used car dealerships (any car dealership that makes car loans). And, the Consumer Protection Bureau isn’t being built to turn the economy around (although that may be a nice side effect), it’s being built to protect consumers from the shenanigans that banks, brokerage houses (on and off wall street), car dealership loan sharks, and the like use to mislead and take advantage of consumers.

        The fact that wall street is more responsible for the current mess doesn’t excuse car dealerships from being slime balls.

        • Anonymous

          I never said they were not slime balls. Personally I think the whole loan industry a kin to legal loan sharking.

      • Michael

        How many folks have been affected by a slim ball dealer/dealership? why give them a free pass. I’m also talking about the financiers as well who finance cars.

  • Janet_Coul

    And the nanny state continues … we are so stupid we need some bureaucrat to shadow us every moment of the day.   

    • nj

      Get back to us when you have something useful to say.

    • Anonymous

      Do you understand the fine print on your credit card contract?
      She was advocating for simple language with no hidden traps or fees for people like you. But no you don’t want government regulating the air you breath or the water you drink (clean air and water laws). You do not want government telling banks that charging 30, 40% or more in interest is wrong (usury laws). You don’t want any regulations so wall street can do whatever it wants and when they bring the world down again, and they will, will you be the first to cry were was the government?  By the way we are right back were we where before the great recession, wall street is doing whatever it wants as are the banks.

      • Anonymous

        If you are not smart enough to know you signed up for a bad deal, and you don’t ask for help from some friend or family member that has an IQ of at least 100, than I suppose you deserve what you get.  It is the individuals responsability not the state.  If you want to give up your personal responsability, move to Cuba, or North Korea!

        • nj

          Branstad to the rescue of the banking industry! Way to go, champ! I’m sure they appreciate your help.

          • Bob

            If you don’t like the banking industry, don’t use it, or lump your money together with like minded people and start your own bank.

            Wait, that would be a free market response… that can’t work…. lets look at what a communist or socialist country has done and do that….

          • nj

            You’re joking, right? Trying to be ironic?

    • Thinknaboutit

      Speak for yourself Janet.  Perhaps you need someone to shadow you every moment, the rest of us are satisfied with Warrens approach if the corporate sympathizers don’t water it down.

    • Cory

      Does your definition of nanny statism include corporate welfare or the military industrial complex?  

      • nj

        Probably not. The military protects our “national security” and corporations provide jobs, so no worries there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joseph-Rice/100000693874282 Joseph Rice

    I think that she was an excellent choice (and the fact that financial firms oppose her is proof enough of that), but in the end, political maneuvering would have watered down most activity anyway. Rather than run for office any time soon, I think she should continue to investigate, write, and appear in the media discussing these issues, where she would have freer rein and probably even a greater influence with the public.

    It isn’t a case in most routine dealings that people are stupid, it’s just that almost every daily interaction with business has become adversarial, and as Warren has pointed out in the past, activities of these firms are often unethical, if not criminal.

  • SteveV

    What America has needed for some time is a leader. But we don’t have one sitting in the White House, nor are there any on the (political) horizon. As the old saying goes, people get the type of government they deserve. I suggest we are getting just that.

  • Markus

    I know we have to go through the litany of how evil republicans killed this and weak Obama caved in and dastardly corporations are out to screw the little guy, etc, etc. But after that, does anyone know anything about Warren’s history more than what is written in the Times? I liked what she’s said, but didn’t like the fact that she’s largely an academic and a government bureaucrat. Neither is necessarily bad, but Obama has too few people on his staff who’ve ever helped grow a business. And the head of Consumer Financial Protection should have some feeling for how what they do can hurt or help business.  Thanks.

    • Gregg

      She wasn’t all that forthcoming to Congress. Probably not a good idea.

      http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-adviser-tells-congress-she-has-more-important-things-to-do/

      • nj

        That’s what ya got, Gregg? A quibble over scheduling? That’s weak, even for you.

        • Gregg

          It is was it is. There’s no agenda from me, just shedding a little light regarding Markus’ comment. For all I know she’s a fine woman.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            It is was it is.  ????

          • Gregg

            Exactly.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            That’s my point!

    • Anonymous

      Oh for the love of… Amazing simply amazing.

    • Fredlinskip

          My feeling is she is very competent and passionate in her desire to protect the American consumer from the forces of corporate malfeasance. It should be obvious to all, that more oversight of some of these companies is required. Don’t believe her goal in anyway is to impede the growth of small business or legitimate business practices. If this was W administration her position would be filled by a high ranking member of one of the companies most responsible for the recent credit/mortgage/financial crisis.     But admittedly I haven’t studied matter in great depth.

      • Markus

        Thanks for this thoughtful response as well as the details from Bob of Burlington on credit card companies. So much coverage of her on TV and papers is either idealogical, snarky or about who’s winning or losing.

    • Cory

      Why is being a scholar considered a hancicap to American conservatives?

      • Geri

        By asking the question, you reflect the attitude of the many millions of Americans who have been on the public dole for most of their lives and never taken personal responsibility for their own welfare or well-being.

        • Anonymous

          Seems to me those who adhere to your attitude are the ones who are truly sucking our country dry. Status quo for the rich doesn’t cut it anymore  – they will have to grow up and share their toys with the rest of the country. Instead they prefer to hog government resources for themselves and have tantrums when things don’t go their way anymore. Boo-freaking-hoo!

        • Freeman

          I would bet that you are Part of the PROBLEM ( you work for the goverment) All those lavish perks and beneifits and you WANT them paid for by the SUCKER that is working for minimum wage and NO benefits.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          WHAAAAT???

        • Cory

          Thanks for your comment.  Care to respond to my comment?

    • nj

      Cue “Really?!? with Seth and Amy” 

      Really? At a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is as large as it has ever been, and getting worse…

      When the banking/finance industry nearly plunged the country into another Great Depression as a result of a web of deception, lies, greed and other assorted malfeasance, and not a single one of the bankster crooks is in jail…

      When there are dozens of corporate lobbyists for every Congress Critter…

      Where “free trade” rules tank middle-class jobs…

      When corporations collude with the corrupt, money-whoring politicians in ALEC to actually write legislation favorable to Big Business…

      you’re worried about the head of a consumer protection agency (read that again: CONSUMER protection agency) not being friendly enough to business.

      Really?!!!!!????

    • Thinknaboutit

      Is it more important to help business than to ensure a fair environment for consumers?  From where I stand business doesn’t seem to need the help, it’s the consumers that are being taken advantage of.

  • Anonymous

    Once again, Obama is spineless.  I hope she runs for the Senate. 

    • Thinknaboutit

      Better yet, she should run for president as a Republican.  That might actually give the GOP a chance though.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      The President is juggling several throwing-stars, with opponents throwing in many more, from different directions.  As a President, not a DICTATOR, he has to compromise, to govern.  That is the basis of a Democracy, AND a Representative Republic, such as the United States is.  The wannabe oilgliarchs, will fight amongst themselves, after they destroy this country!

      • Anonymous

        He doesn’t know how to compromise.  He doesn’t get anything in return and he starts at the halfway point. 

  • Mike in PA

    I agree with J_o_h_n.  As a conservative Repub, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Elizabeth Warren.  If not the Senate then on to the Supreme Court.  I will certainly be an out-of-state donor to her campaign.

    • Bob

      What do you like most about Elizabeth Warren?

  • Anonymous

    What happened to personal responsability?

    It seams that over the last 100 years the progressives have done very well at shifting personal responsability to the government, and many of todays problems result from the irresponsable policies of the progressives to eliminate personal responsability for individuals and buisnesses.

    • nj

      Yeah, you know, you’ve got a point there.

      All those people who were trapped in the Traingle Shirtwaist Factory fire should have known better than to keep working in those dangerous conditions. Now we’ve got all these damn worker safety rules. Such a burden on business.

      And all those farm workers who insist on being in the fields when pesticides are being sprayed. They should just take personal responsibility and get out of there. Who needs rules and oversight?

      And people should do their own food safety testing. I mean, geez, we’ve got the USDA, the FDA, the CDC…all these agencies with all their rules checking for contaminants, bacteria and stuff. Heck, let’s just do it ourselves. There’s gotta be a home test kit or something.

      Folks should check their own cars, too. Emissions standards? Crash safety? Nah, why bother. Heck i can just use some old rope for a seat belt.

      Brandstump is right, let’s get government out of our lives!

      • Gregg

        “Triangle Shirtwaist Company”? That 100 years ago, do you think your analogy might be a little flawed? Safety rules are fine.

        I’m very careful when I spray and yes it is my responsibility. Remember DDT and how the do-good effort to ban it resulted in malaria deaths skyrocketing? Or MTBE the gas additive that was supposed to result in cleaner air but didn’t work. Now it’s in our water. This isn’t about wanting no government and everybody finning for themselves, it’s about government being incompetent and good intentions leading to bad outcomes.

        Would you buy bad meat? I guess I eat plenty of untested venison and fish by that aside, private industry could do the job. But NO ONE is advocating getting rid of the FDA.

        Back when the car industry was a private sector enterprise they did their own crash testing. It’s good business. Do you believe they want to sell unsafe cars? It’s no one’s business if I wear a seat belt. In a fire or cliff dive they may get you killed. That should be my choice. Ditto Motorcycle helmets. I personally think only a fool would not use either.

        • Anonymous

          If you don’t wear a helmet, in the event of an accident, please make sure you die and don’t burden society with the result of your choice.  Also, don’t sue anyone else involved in the accident as you didn’t do you part to minimize harm to yourself.  And make sure you pay more to the insurance company so we don’t have to subsidize your risk assumption. 

          Also back when the car industry was a private business, they decided that the cost of settling lawsuits was lower than making the Pinto safe. 

          • Gregg

            I won’t even get on a motorcycle with a helmet, don’t worry.

            I’m assuming since you are worried about risk assumption that you are in favor of outlawing skydiving and eating deep fried twinkies. Where does it end?

            The Pinto, that’s great. Glad you brought it up.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

          • Anonymous

            As long as you don’t land on someone, I don’t care about skydiving.  I think deep frying twinkies makes them healthier as at least the fat is possibly a natural substance. 

        • Terry Tree Tree

          You drink the water from your pesticide run-off?  You live down-wind and down-stream from a chemical plant, or other dangerous polluter, and have no protections from that pollution?
               As a Volunteer Rescue Squad member, I have seen, and heard of a lot of fools that don’t wear seat belts, or wear helmets on a motorcycle.  Usually, NOT pretty!!  Just remove insurance coverage, and required emergency aid for those fools, and the problem will solve itself in time.  Darwin Awards, posthumously.  Children, mentally handicapped, and others NEED to be protected by law, though!

      • Bob

        Did the Shirtwaist Factory fire happen in the last 30 years?  If it did, wouldn’t the owners be put out of business and thrown in jail if they were guilty of not protecting their workers?

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Massey Energy killed 29 miners, with company policy, proven by their Security Chief SHREDDING pertinent documents, to destroy evidence of crime!!  The company that bought them, should HAVE to be prosecuted, because they were trying to end the prosecution of the criminals!

        • Lee

          That’s the point, Bob. Welcome to progessivism.

    • Lee

      that’s really interesting logic you got going on there.

      One day, progressives just decided, out of the blue, to just go in and change everything.  There was not abuse going on whatsoever. And if the government had just kept its big fat nose out of it, those corporations would have seen the light, eventually.

      And besides, the triangle factory workers had a choice right? They could have either  jumped to their deaths or be burnt to death.
      That’s what’s so great about libertarianism. All those choices…

      And I am sure, the meat packing plants in Chicago would have stopped grinding up rat feces in their sausage if only the mean old government just gave ‘em a chance. They probably were not even aware of it, right?

      And Massey energy… I feel so bad for them having to comply with all those nasty regulations about ventalition. They really had the best interest of their workers at heart, we know that. So what if a few workers get killed, they had choices right? So they must be responsible for their own deaths, right Brandstad?

    • Peter (Boston area)

      Oh, please!  Someone please help me find the quote from one of the Wall Street fraudsters that ran something like, “There should have been some adults in the room”.  Maybe it was in the documentary “Inside Job,” which I recommend to Brandstad. 

      • Anonymous

        You’re wasting your time with this chap.

  • Gregg

    I’m all for Consumer protection but do we really need more government? The mindset seems to be all producers are evil, all consumers are helpless and only more government can make it right.

    I don’t believe it’s in the interest of any business to try to profit from fraud, gouging and deceit. I also believe there are many good honest businesses that won’t allow it. I think consumers are wisest when spending their own hard earned money and businesses are most successful when they provide the best product or service at the best price. That’s who gets my money. If a business wants profit then long term it’s the only way to go. My grocer doesn’t give a wit if I go hungary, he wants my money. I want ribeyes for $4.99/lb. It’s beautiful.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Nice of you to admit that you are naieve and simple-minded.  Never been out of your cloister?  Anybody that has done much business at all has been screwed-over by unscrupulous business.  Some do it on a global scale!

      • Gregg

         Actually my business is wholesome, charitable and thriving.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          And NONE of your suppliers, service companies, personal accounts, or ANY business you’ve dealt with have EVER been the least dishonest with you?  Your parents were $Billionaires, so no one would cheat you? 

          • Gregg

            I’m not sure I get your point. I don’t allow myself to be cheated. I read fine print. Dishonest companies don’t get my business. But I never said the world was perfect.

    • nj

      Gregg reassures: [[ I don't believe it's in the interest of any business to try to profit from fraud, gouging and deceit. ]]
      Who needs rule and regulations, then? Gregg says everything is okay.

      People should just somehow know ahead of time if a company is engaged in illegal or fraudulent behavior. And if they are, then, oh well, too bad for you.

      Assuming Gregg isn’t a paid hack, what wrong with him? Why do what i assume to be common folks just bend over and ask for more?

      • Gregg

        Did I say no rules or regulations? I just think all a new agency will do is cost money (taken from taxpayers) to make more warning labels like this:

        Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish.
        – On a bottle of shampoo for dogs.
        For external use only! — On a curling iron.

        Do you see the difference?

        • nj

          Right Greg, because some rules go astray, we shouldn’t try to place restrictions on the banksters that have a long, clear, demonstrable record of greed, duplicity, and otherwise taking advantage of people. I got it now.

          • Gregg

            If we didn’t tell “banksters” to loan money to people who cannot afford houses for fear of steep penalties for discrimination and then guarantee those bad loans with taxpayer money then no problem. If Bush’s attempt to change that policy would have been followed, no problem. If Barney Frank and Chris Dodd hadn’t run cover for Freddie and Fannie, no problem. If banks had to get a return on their investment through unmolested marketplace strategy then they would have been forced to be much more careful. They would have been highly skeptical of dastardly appraisers. They would have required more money down and Democrats would scream racism… and did.

          • Buzzes38784

            3o years since Reagan at least this theory of deregulation and trickle down has been tried:  and look where we have ended up.  is not the lesson obvious enough?

          • Gregg

            Deregulation seemed to work well for consumers in the airline and telephone industries.  Lessons.

          • jimino

            Gosh, you mean all those now-vacant houses in Vegas, Florida and California that sold for hundreds of thousands were sold to poor folks under the mandate of the CRA?  You are woefully uninformed and clearly incapable of deductive reasoning if you think that’s at the heart of the fraud that fueled the housing bubble and financial sector meltdown.  Bush was the leading proponent of “the ownership society”, and any claim that his administration was stymied in their effort to rein in the fraud in lending and off-loading of the risk created can only be explained by ignorance or blatantly lying.

          • Gregg

            It only started under Carter’s CRA. When Andrew Cuomo was head of HUD under Clinton the ante was upped with “affirmative action” lending. I personally don’t think race should be a factor at all for lending or anything else. Bush tried to do something in 2003. Yes, he was for the “ownership society” for those who could afford homes. By 2006 when Barney Frank and Chris Dodd gained control of their respective banking Committees the crises and cover up was on steroids. Here’s Barney Frank. There were a lot of culprits that took advantage of people but the biggest problem was government trying to artificially influence markets.

            Smarty pants.

          • Gregg
          • Gregg
          • jimino

            Thanks for the laugh.  I’ll go with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission for my info and pass on the Fox “news” mashup.  The idea that the government encouraging lending to provably previously discriminated against poor people did not play any significant role in the meltdown. 

            Fraud by lenders who were able to skim fees off their fraudulent transactions, then pass the risk on to the investment-banker middlemen, who also skimmed fees before securitizing mortgage-backed securities they knew were worthless before selling them under false pretenses, then betting on the inevitable failure they knew would follow, THAT’S what caused it.

            And during the process, the federal government and its regulators literally delegated to the wrongdoers the obligation to enforce the laws! 

                 http://www.npr.org/2011/07/13/137789065/why-prosecutors-dont-go-after-wall-street

            . 

          • Gregg

            Like I said, Government’s fault. They concocted a perfect brew for unscrupulous lenders, bundlers and clerks to legally game the system and prey on folks who should have known better but are the real victims. They then said everything was cool and blocked efforts to stop it. I showed you their words.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            IT WASN’T LEGAL!!  It was FRAUD!!  That is a crime! Many people, especially the CEOs of those banks that committed fraud, should be in REAl PRISON!!  The regulators, and legislators, that facilitated the crimes, and the others that voluntarily committed crimes, should ALL be behind bars in a REAL prison, NOT a country club Fed!!

          • Michael

            “code word” from Gregg

            Aka

            Poor Minorities took down the ecomony,

            It’s what (who I glady call a uncle tom)Michael Steele ran on during the Hantity show.
            And  of course dev’s, credit swaps, slicing and dicing or
            mortgages had nothing to do with it. This was the talking point on foxes news for weeks if not months.

            Old of my co-workers tried to state the same, claiming minorities in his area was buying McMansions with there welfare check even knowing full well it wasn’t the case.

          • Michael

            One of my older co-workers tried to state the same, claiming minorities in his area was buying McMansions with there welfare checks even when he knew it wasn’t the case. when I called him on it. He admitted it didn’t make sense but heard it on the news.

            guess which news station? Foxx

          • Gregg

            No, it was government’s fault for encouraging bad business practices and guaranteeing them with taxpayer money. There was no way for it to work.

    • BHA in Vermont

      Unfortunately, for all the honest people/businesses out there, there are enough who will do whatever they can to make more money for themselves. The consumer doesn’t control anything. The banks blew the economy with unregulated credit default swaps and other ‘innovative instruments’. The bad loans would not have been made if they weren’t buying, slicing and dicing bad loans then selling them to investors who didn’t know what they were buying. The local bank would have no where to sell it. They took no heat because they knew they weren’t going to hold it anyway.  The melt down wasn’t related to whether you had your checking account with one bank or another.

      The robber barons of the 19th century raped and pillaged prior to regulation. Drive your competition out of business with REALLY low prices they can’t afford, then jack the prices when there is no more competition.

      Look at Bill Gates. Microsoft walked the very edge of the regulatory lines for years and years, stepping over on many occasions. When their product was not superior, they bought competitor’s company and in some instances the superior competitor’s product disappeared.  Sure they lost some law suits but too little, MUCH too late. On the whole, the illegal activity paid off. Microsoft pretty much owns the PC, and by extension the business computer on most people’s work desk, and Bill got rich.

  • Cory

    I don’t have any faith that this new agency will accomplish much. I know very little about Ms. Warren, but I do know she had alot of support across the political spectrum.  Her nomination being derailed for partisan reasons is not a good sign.

    I’ll even go so far as to say that the government we currently have is incapable of effectively regulating the financial industry. 

  • Terry Tree Tree

    The oilgliarchs and ‘bought’ politicians will GUT, and DISABLE the Consumer Protection Agency, as they have ALL that interfere with their theft.  In 2000, they said they would INCREASE the Budget Surplus, Make us SAFER, and CREATE JOBS, with the tax cuts on the rich.  They also sell a prime beachfront resort in Antarctica!  Watch for all the ways they will prevent this agency from helping and protecting real people, to the benefit of those that only know ENOUGH is far less than they have stolen!

  • Anonymous

    Obama stood up for tax cheat Wall Street puppet Geithner but not middle class hero Warren.  Disgraceful.

    • Fredlinskip

          Unfortunately, because of the way our “fractured” democracy presently works, Warren’s nomination would not have been accepted.     Hopefully she will be able to influence things behind the scenes and maybe we’ll see her as a Senator.      That said I sure wish she was nominated and we actually had a real “filibuster” where Seantor’s would argue endlessly for days; because on this issue (& in others) GOP has not “a leg to stand on” and prolonged debate of them trying to defend Wall Street Profiteers and corrupt corporate practices would further help reveal to American people whose interests these folks truly represent.

  • BHA in Vermont

    There is no question, the ‘little guy’ will lose to the big bankers, as always. Money owns the government.

  • John in Amherst

    The financial industry spends millions on lobbying congress every year for regulation that is as favorable and/or lax as money can buy.  Is it too much for the public to have an independent agency looking out for consumers, free of industry meddling and right wing ideology?

  • Fredlinskip

    I think you’ve hit upon the most critical thing wrong with our troubled Democracy. Senate under W didn’t require 60% majority on all issues. If I recall correctly rule was mostly used only in attempt to block some really absurd judicial nominations (such as Harriet Miers to Supreme Court). And of course W & Co were so offended that for a time they threatened to eliminate th rule altogether (this at a time when Newt and others were working to try to attempt to set up GOP as a “permanent majority” [talk about scary]). That was when the “gang of 14” got together and worked out some mysterious compromise, the results of which was rule wouldn’t be eliminated BUT some understanding was made that filibuster would be used only in extreme circumstance- after this meeting Dems seemed to kowtow more to administrations desires. On the day was Obama was elected, the use of this rule radically changed. If weren’t for this, Obama admin wouldn’t be handcuffed in everything they attempted (health care “compromise” would have been settled much more favorably towards individuals and less towards insurance cos, etc, etc.)This more than anything has damaged the aspirations of so many that expected so much more when they voted for Obama and Dem majority in both houses in ‘08.Maybe Obama is responsible for not tackling this issue head-on from get go (such as W & his gang of 14). Maybe Obama thinks he’s Lincoln and likes to get people to compromise. If he does deserve some blame for this, I don’t think he realizes the damage that has been wrought to the hearts of those who voted for him that expected so much more. (And this coming from someone truly amazed at what he’s been able to accomplish in confines of the system in which he operates).(had incredible difficulty trying to respond to Newton Whale’s post below- decided to try as new comment)

    • Gregg

      With all due respect, your recollection is not accurate. It was Democrats that first attempted to filibuster Supreme court nominees. And it wasn’t Harriet Meyers. Republicans, angry with the choice forced her out. The “Gang of 14″ (including McCain) prevented the “nuclear option” which I would have preferred. Filibustering Supreme court nominees is unconstitutional.

  • http://www.facebook.com/drpmeade Paul S Meade

    I can’t add anything to Elizabeth Warren’s comments in regards to what the republicans want to do with the new commission. When will the American populace wake up to who really runs the government (especially the GOP)? What is real purpose of the government? Protect the public!

  • http://profiles.google.com/lloydrph Jonathan Lloyd

    Elizabeth Warren for President! I am–and a Republican to boot–one who’s going to write her name in at the voting booth. Nobody better.

    • Yar

      I would rather see her on the Supreme Court.

    • Anonymous

      I would elect her for our local dog catcher…

      • nj

        Self-embarrassment is not an inhibititory factor for Branny.

  • Anonymous

    Has anyone else noticed that over the last 30 years government regulation has gone up on financial products and the fine print has gotten more lengthy and convoluted.  Why will more of the same “additional govt oversight and regulation” result in the opposite of what it has for the last 30 Years! 

    • jimino

      Another post proudly and publicly displaying your ignorance.  Usury laws that once controlled financial transactions are gone, along with state regulation of them.  Separation of real and “investment” banking, likewise gone, leaving the financial sector essentially unregulated.  Now, it is the writer of the fine print who gets to enforce their convoluted, un-understandable terms under the guise of the sanctity of contracts.  Deregulation has led to rule by those who can write the more convoluted, confusing, and complex provisions.  Hell, most of those who made money off them don’t even understand them themselves.

  • Steve in Lexington

    The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency messes up the US financial industry’s business model, which is to use deception and fraud to rob ordinary working Americans of their hard-earned money.

    Regulating our financial industry is the least we could do.  In a better world the predators who run the US financial industry would be in prison.

    Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in the wake of the S&L mess caused by financial industry fraud, over a thousand financial industry criminals were convicted of felonies.  The financial fraudsters committed far greater crimes during the past decade but none have been indicted.

    It is time, at long last, to lower the boom on the financial industry thieves.  Creating a strong agency to protect consumers of financial industry products is a good first step.  It is outrageous that Republicans want to weaken this agency.  We should be moving the other way–toward indictments, and lots of them.

  • Freeman

    Tom & Guest;
                        How many times have the “masses” marched on Washington ? Think it is by accident that the “eight riches counties” in America are just outside Washington.  Oh, uhmmmm  a ; that is the Majority leaders Cantors’ district. P.T Barnum would be really proud of the American people.    Come-on Tom; the deck is stacked and you know it. Amazing ,our soldiers are all over the world potecting other peoples and THE AMERICANS have nobody protecting them. Hmmmmm 

  • Anonymous

    Tom,

    You should let your guest know that a bank that doesn’t make money, doesn’t stay in buisness.  Because of this a banks interests must come before the consumer because without them looking out for themselves, you have what happened in 08…. Too Big To Fail

    • BHA in Vermont

      And even “too much bigger to fail” now.
      Yes, they do have to make money to stay in business but there is no reason they should be doing it in a subversive way.

      If it costs ‘x’ to service a savings, checking or credit card account, then charge ‘x’. Don’t add in all the ‘fine print’, massive interest rate hikes if you make a payment a day late, etc. If you need fine print to explain anything, you are hiding too much.

      Show me what it costs and I will choose between the suppliers of the same product.

      No ‘innovative’ financial instruments that even those that create them can’t ‘unwind’. Clarity of process.

      But, in the end, there are those in power, those with the money, who will cheat whenever possible to make another buck for themselves no matter how much they are already making.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I am still waiting for the Justice Department to decide which bad actors to prosecute.  We kept hearing that it would take lots of legal time to sort through the mountains of data and go after X, Y, or Z at the banks that brought down the economy.
         It’s hard to understand how the system can be rectified if there are skeletons in the closet, elephants in the room.  I think we were somewhat placated for the extent of the bailouts of bad actors by the idea that the government would take responsibility for sorting this out.
         Can the regulators sue themselves for failure to do their jobs?  I think it underlies congressional reluctance to get on with the show.

  • Jmmc

    it should be mentioned that up to this point, not one single fed regulator that was responsible for monitoring the market has been dismissed or been given blame for the lack of oversight. I think the only point that the Republicans may be correct on in financial reform is that we need to have more oversight on both sides of the financial industry, that includes our goverment as well as the free market, the both failed the consumer because they both had mutual interests.

  • Madeline Leone

    If there may be an interim appointment, why not appoint Elizabeth Warren rather than Cordray?

  • Anonymous

    How many stedents does the department of education teach every year?  I suspect this new government agency will protect the same number…

    • Anonymous

      Wow, you’re a real comedian. 

      • Anonymous

        I am glad to see that at least one person here knew enough about the DOE to realize it was a joke!

        Please pat yourself on the back for that

  • Colin

    Ask Miss Barr about giving a no-doc/stated income mortgage loan and piggy-back home equity loan to a blind borrower who runs a convenience store in a federal building.  The loans were given to her without reading the terms to her, or giving her an opportunity to have them read to her.  Miss Barrr’s firm just had the Boston USDC throw out the borrower;s consumer protection claim.

  • Dh001g

    Please talk about the duel finance systems in this country. In the suburbs you get access to highly regulated banks. In the inner city it is much less regulated and much more predatory. The financial crisis was caused by that predatory system spilling over onto the rest of america and devouring our savings. Notice Angelo Mozilo is still rich while many of the rest of us have been wiped out.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Remember the caller a couple days ago  who was unemployed and had the time to go to the bank and contest an $8.95 fee?  I think I know his bank, and it’s my bank.  A couple months ago they started charging $8.95 for sending a statement, and said they notified us about this last summer.  They will send free statements without itemizing what has gone on, and I said okay, I’ll have that.  But they are continuing to take $8.95 out each month.  I’ll have to undergo more hassle, but imagine multiplying that out by several million.

    • Freeman

      Ellen :  “You have been had”; welcome to America. Time to leave the banks and go to the Credit unions period

      • Ellen Dibble

        That’s for a checking account.  I’m waiting for the promised web site that this particular Consumer Protection agency was supposed to put up.  I was going to post that as an example of exploitation.  But the bank who is doing this would not be outruled by anybody.  It’s like the Rupert Murdoch of banks, and if it does something like that, it’s cleared all the legal hurdles first, and it’d take you a month of Sundays to find a lawyer willing to try to argue your case.

      • Buzzes38784

        absolutely.

    • BHA in Vermont

      The “attack and retreat” business model. Catch as many as you can in a scheme. Some will complain and demand a refund. Most will not and you make a lot of money. When everyone opts out of the $8.95 statement, the business move on to some new scheme. They charge you to use an ATM. Some only charge for using those from your bank. Some charge you twice, once by the bank you use and once by your bank. When people stop using the ATM, they threaten to charge you to use a teller.

      And that is a RIDICULOUS price for a paper statement. The data is in their computers, it is the same data you get with an online statement. They have computers and machines that print the statement, the envelope (complete with metered postage number), stuff the two together and ship it out the door. It isn’t like they are paying people to do this, nor do they have to go out and buy all these machines, they did only paper statements for decades, there was no ‘on-line’. 

      • Ellen Dibble

        Exactly.  They e-mail me daily to please sign up at their database, and I try to protect myself from databases, given the tactics of such as Anonymous.  My retirement accounts are some such database, and that was reportedly hacked, and I no longer count on the security of that, either in its worth, or its not being stolen.  Once upon a time, most of us could be pretty complacent and do our jobs and go home to a beer and pizza, laughing at sit-coms.  Now, not so much.  The winds of manipulation are regularly coming, clear from the heights of the great institutions right down to the likes of me, trying to keep a tiny business afloat.  Not one single aspect of it is to be taken for granted, not for a day, not for a week.

  • darla

    I am profoundly disappointed that President Obama did not have the political courage to nominate the architect/builder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren. She analyzed the problem, defined a solution, nurtured it though Congressional scrutiny into the Frank-Dodd bill, laid the foundation for that solution, and was on the way to implementing its construction when President Obama caved to the big bank interests who want nothing to interfere with their unlimited pursuit of profit. I expected considerable heat and resistance from Republicans but that President Obama would stand behind her, whether through nomination or by recess appointment. I was wrong. We should expect now the gradual disintegration of this agency through creation of a hydra headed directorship, hobbled powers, and restricted funding. A major opportunity to create balance for consumers has been lost.  

    • http://twitter.com/FilipinoBoston FilipinoBoston

      Yes!!! Elizabeth Warren is the answer to help the American consumers. A very very smart Lady comparable to Hillary Clinton. If Elizabeth Warren runs for the Presidency. I will vote for her. We need people like her in Washington. An outstanding Americana a true fighter of consumer rights. Thank you Darla for mentioning her.

  • Ed Pickett

    Tom Ashbrook, Thanks for taking my call and the opportunity. I hope I was clear enough for you all.
    Ed. Pickett, Staunton, VA

    • Sam

      Ed, you strike me as a republican or even a libertarian.

      I believe, that unless you are one of the super wealthy, you shouldn’t vote for republicans because ultimately they believe in things and policies that will make your life worse.

      I don’t understand why anyone, other than a super wealthy, maybe top 10% of earners,  would vote for republicans. I really don’t.

      They advocate for cutting such vital government programs that make ALL of our lives better. The poor people who use art and educational govt subsidized programs are better off, staying off the streets, gaining access to education and trying to get themselves better off. Thus, making our society better off.

      I don’t advocate for mindless subsidies and have people who can work, sit on their butts and not do anything.

      I advocate for programs for children and others which empower people and give them tools to help themselves.

      Republicans are the ones who want to cut all that. I think it’s just plain stupid to vote for them, if you are not the top 10% of US earners.

      • Steve in Lexington

        Wise comment, Sam, but I suggest one edit:

        The Republican agenda is to advance the interests of a very narrow elite, at the very top of the economic pyramid.  Most folks in the top 10% income bracket are not helped by Republican policies.  Rather, the Republicans aim mainly to serve those in the top .2% or .3% income bracket–the Kochs, the Coors, the Mellon-Scaifes, Hank Paulsen and his friends at Goldman Sachs, etc.

        The Republicans and their conservative movement allies have done well at concealing how narrow is the group that benefits from their policies.  But the evidence is in plain sight.  An example: the Republican push to eliminate the estate tax, a move that benefits only a handful of ultra-rich Americans  It was dishonestly sold as a change that would benefit only family farmers–a total fib, but the conservatives made it fly.

    • Alex Kingsbury

       Thanks for calling, Ed.

    • Tom Ashbrook

      Ed – You were terrific.  Thanks for calling.  Come again!
      Tom

  • AndyF

    Once again – Intelligence is NO measure of Common Sense.
    Look at our government – Congress is loaded with millionaires and very rich people.  They have the BEST Pension and Healthcare plan for life (!) found anywhere in America.
    Now – How many “average Americans” have THAT deal?  Few if any.
    And yet we allow these people to make decisions for us as though they would understand what life is like for the other 99.9% of the country.
    So is it any wonder why that even after Wall Street brought this country to its knees, we have not punished hardly anyone, and we wont.  Why is it that Republicans keep saying “Job Creators” when it is well-documented that not ONE SINGLE JOB has been created by those who get richer because we give them outrageous tax breaks.  In fact, it is proven that these people simply salt the money away for themselves.  The top 1% of rich American held 9 Trillion dollars of wealth when Prez Reagan left office… Now?  That same 1% holds 40 Trillion dollars of it!!!  THAT is “Job creation”???  Face it, Washington has NO relation to average Americans and tons of relation to the absurdly rich.  Who do YOU think is going to get the most consideration?  Simple, the rich – at the cost of killing the middle class and millions of Americans – and worst of all, laughing all the way to the bank as they do it.
    Our greatest enemies are not Al Quaeda, not terrorists, not even climate change – its our own completely out of touch government that panders only to the rich and their lobbiests, because that is ALL they understand.

    • Hmagee48

      I agree that this country’s greatest enemy is our own out of touch government.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties (but primarily the Republican Party) are responsible for the current and continued demise of this great nation.  I certainly understand how and why a “Bastille Day” took place in France — the general populations were fed-up with only the rich having representation.  I seriously believe that we need to heed President Lincoln’s words, that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” 

      —————–

      ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————  

  • Tom from Scituate

    Why do we need confirmation at all?  Just put her in there, and let Congress squawk all the way to the Supreme Court!  I’m thinking FDR-style here!

    • Zing

      Obama’s thinking under-the-bed style here.

  • Anonymous

    Lets be clear here, republicans are not into consumer protection it’s clear as a bell to me. The banks and credit card companies are charging in some cases over 25% in interest and on top of that they add penalty fees.
    It’s clear to me that the republican party is against anything that keeps Americans safe on any level. You hear comments such as “nanny state”, and comments such as “hindering job creators” all of this is just hot air.

    In my view Obama is showing how spineless he is yet again.

  • Sam

    Just an observation …
    Aren’t at the core of republican’s believes – less government and cut spending?
    Then why are they proposing a LARGER government in terms of having a GROUP of people running this agency, instead of just 1 person making decisions?

    This is just one of the hypocrisies of republicans.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      BRAVO, Sam!!!

  • Peter

    Obama should have appointed Warren. He’ll have to do a recess appointment to get anyone in as director, so he might as well have gone with the person with the most passion for the bureau.

    • Ellen Dibble

      The guest said that Warren is best at “explaining” the way the banks are not serving the public but getting the public to serve their interests.
           In my opinion, she would actually sink into the government, would not be able to get her points across, because she’s be up against the various brick walls our elected representatives bring to the table, courtesy of lobbyists.
          No amount of clear explaining will help.  Congress is not a Harvard class interested in understanding the truth.
           To that extent, the way to “get at” the circumstances blighting the American public is far, far more complex than situating her in a position of “power.”  I think Obama could tell us a little bit about what it means to be in a position of “power.”
           The “explaining” has to insinuate itself in places you cannot imagine.  I’m thinking of putting together furniture that comes in pieces.  The actual linkages where the screwdriver has to go are many and often unseeable.

      • FedUp2Here

        I can think of lots of places the screwdriver should go for Congresspeople who won’t stand up for the average American family who doesn’t want to get screwed when banking, borrowing, or buying ordinary things they need just to LIVE.

  • Anonymous

    Two months ago in July Elizabeth Warren spoke at an event with George Soros and Van Jones. She also spoke at a conference with Soros in March. She’s a big, big Soros person. She’s a hero of the progressives. Arianna Huffington calls Warren her hero. Michael Moore loves her. Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders urged Obama to pick her. Al Franken wrote a letter in support of her. She spoke at Netroots Nation conference 2010, Building a Progressive Economic Vision. She said then, “Remember Franklin Roosevelt faced his economic royalists. Remember it took him years to get his entire economic package into place. It was tough, but it paid off.” Andy Stern tweeted about her the other day. He said Chris Dodd is wrong: The Obama administration should do what is right for consumers and appoint Elizabeth Warren to enforce the new laws fairly. She’s not going to be enforcing the laws. She’s writing the laws. By the way, she spoke at SEIU at one of their conferences back in 2010, way back in 2010, in May of this year. The AFL CIO has also come out and endorsed Warren. Everyone seems to love Warren, including the attempt to get the Internet to be regulated. Just for your protection, of course. They said that if she’s not given real power, there will be hell to be paid. She apparently is someone that the left puts a lot of stock into. If you don’t know who she is, she’s been the one who has been overseeing TARP to make sure that’s been fairly given out. 

    • nj

      Hey, look it’s Brandstump elevating his trolling by copying Glen Beck drivel without attribution.

      http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/45632/

    • Anonymous

      I judge her by her enemies.

    • BHA in Vermont

      I fail to see anything wrong with any of this. I’m sure it was originally delivered with a loud voice and admonitions that the ‘left’ is trying to take over the country and destroy the ‘right’ and ‘we the RIGHT’ have to stop her. 

      • nj

        Calling someone “liberal” is all the wingers have to do to get their followers frothing.

    • Anonymous

      In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon…

    • Ellen Dibble

      You mean Elizabeth Warren is the reason the banks are sitting on the money rather than lending it?  Maybe she’s the reason corporations are sitting on their profits rather than investing and employing.  This reminds me of the House of Commons I heard yesterday arguing about the influence of News International (a foreign corporation, i.e., USA), and the “Secretary of State,” a Jeremy Hunt, wound up the day for all the MP’s who had come in from vacation and orated following Cameron’s presentation, and Hunt’s job apparently is to summarize and appreciate, and he enumerated and praised a couple dozen of the speeches, referring to the members not by name but by the name of the district each was representing.  I liked that.  Nothing was said in the chamber that was not connected to the people being represented (no lobbyists warping that voice?), and I thought that was good.  The members were shown on the live video as he referred to their points.  And I thought wow, in the UK they are all getting on the same boat.  Nope.  Not so fast.  Not so fast.  Then he stated that everything the opposition had said was strictly partisan and contributed much of nothing.  Basically, that Murdoch was more defiling Tony Blair’s government than the current one.  But I believe I heard all sides, and everyone was saying various aspects of the same thing.
          We need a Secretary of State to point out that everyone is saying the same thing, and somehow it is a great fight, which isn’t too odd, since in this country News International paid about the same amount to each party.  Tony Blair called Murdoch umpteen times before bringing the UK into the Iraq war, the implication being that said war is good for business.  (Did he pass that on to his friend across the Atlantic?)
          My Point?  Everyone is on the same page EXCEPT when it comes to voting.  I don’t pretend to understand.

    • Anonymous

      So it’s wrong to have someone like Elizabeth Warren in government but it’s OK to have a pro business lobbyist shill, or a wall street supporter such as Larry Summers and Geithner in government.Is this your argument? That Warren is to much of a progressive and therefore not fit for any role according to your rule book.

    • BeBettBonghong

      It is a fact of life: Really stupid people are too stupid to realize it.

  • Steve in Lexington

    Tom–
    You should invite William Black of the University of Missouri at Kansas City on your show as a guest.  He provides excellent insight on the causes of this and other recent financial crises.  Please invite him.

  • Chris

    I recently purchased a home and was faced with the 50+ pages of closing documents.  I told my banker / realtor that I *will not* sign those documents without reading them.  So, unless they want to wait there with me for 3-4 hours while I read them, they should force their upstream folks to send me the documents ahead of time, preferably a weekend before.  I promised them that I would read them; they “found a way” to get them to me earlier.

    • BHA in Vermont

      Pretty scary isn’t it. There is no reason to have all that. It shouldn’t take many pages to say “I promise to pay this much money at this interest rate on this schedule, total interest = xx”.

  • Dee from NYS

    Elizabeth Warren was the one person brought in by Obama who was not part of the cabal of Wall Street Banksters who put the economy into free fall in the first place. She cut through all the crap and baloney spewed from on top. No wonder she is gone. Forget running for the Senate, I want her to run for President. We haven’t had a true Progressive since FDR. It is one the one thing that might – might – save us.

    • TFR

      Part of me thinks that for a true progressive, like Warren, that the right has exhausted their rhetoric on our first biracial president to the extent that they won’t have any higher setting on the dial to crank it up to.

  • Buzzes38784

    vis-à-vis Elizabeth Warren, ending the tax cuts in December, & other perceived sellouts by the Prez, perhaps he takes the view of better to lose or tie in these battles but stay in the war (i.e., get re-elected) so the overall shifts in policy (trying to save the middle and working classes) can be continued longer.

  • Kopnitsk

    When a republican complains about government regulation they need to be reminded that republicans “help” make the regulations.   Republicans are not for good government.   They want to obfuscate and make government impotent so that they can get away with ripping off the working class.   The real problem is that all the wealth and money have floated up to a few while the rest of us have little or no resources.    Until we find a way to make the money circulate and give every one access to the means of production we will continue on this boom bust war cycle such as what came before WW2.      During the previous depression the wealthy had mansions there own luxury train cars and could while they had millions buy workers for a nickel an hour.

    • Zing

      How ’bout Democrats for war?

  • Steve

    Regardless of political stripe there is a discontent afoot in the U.S.

    It is time to make ourselves as independent as possible.

    Support only those business/people you know personally.
    It takes work, we will have to opt out of many expedient lifestyles.

    In opting out and with the avenues of communication now available to us-though only for a short time-we can begin grass roots boycotts that will truly starve the real beasts.

    If you cannot opt out of using your credit cards let’s start with eliminating those issued by BOA for example.

  • Karen

    I am SO disappointed that Elizabeth Warren has been pushed out of the way that I don’t know where to start.  Once again–as with single payer health care–Pres. Obama throws out his best card first.  He automatically assumes “it can’t be done, we don’t want to be partisna, so we won’t even try.” Repbulicans laugh, because that’s exactly what they wanted.

    Nobody is protecting or looking out for middle-class families, and the financial “game is rigged against us. This is not a Wall Street gambling GAME–it is our very lives and homes and children’s futures.

    I applied to refinance my mortgage. I brought documents showing my income and the valuation of my house (local tax records). The bank officer wrote on the application documents that my income was significantly higher, and the house was worth considerably more. He wanted me to sign, and I refused, since I did not want to commit fraud. I walked out of the bank (Citizen’s–time to name names of shady corporations!). The next day in the mail, I received a letter stating my new loan had been approved! And I hadn’t even signed for it! Yes, I called, finally got a real person on the line, and the “loan” was cancelled. I have a master’s degree from a fine university. I can only imagine how people who’ve had to drop out of school get fleeced right and left because the needlessly complicated transactions leave people throwing up their hands with confusion and fatigue.

    Try figuring out why your wireless phone rate goes up and up and up, even though you don’t want the “upgrades” and the “data” capabilities and didn’t sign to pay for them! Try to get your credit scores revised when they contain errors. I’ve got “closed” credit card accounts showing up from 20 years ago, even though I’ve written to tell them I’ve cancelled them at my own request (I wasn’t delinquent, I just hate credit cards). Then there’s the tax code, which ordinary people can’t understand either. Having to hire somebody to do ordinary taxes should be a crime! Nobody’s listening. Nobody’s listening.  NOBODY’s LISTENING AND NOBODY IN GOVERNMENT (Barney Frank excluded) CARES!

    Yes, I will vote for Elizabeth Warren. She is the sole voice of reason we can hear speaking up for us. Run, Elizabeth, RUN!!!

    • Buzzes38784

      yes, i’ve gotten in touch w/a credit card company over and over about a card i haven’t used since 1992 and have requested to close many times. yet it still keeps showing up year after year.  it’s like facebook & biometrics including facial recognition and even the individual manner in which we type:  once it’s out there and you’re in the system, they’ve got you by the short & curlies and they never let go.

      • Steve

        Use only cash – to the extent you are able.

        Or barter.

        • http://twitter.com/FilipinoBoston FilipinoBoston

          A very good advise

    • KlipKloppenshoppeh

      The most important thing we as individual can do to insure that the
      sociopath leaders and power elite get back into line and stop their war
      on the rest of us is to start killing them. Did you loose your
      retirement because of an investment banks criminal activities? Find out
      the top person responsible and take them out.  Are you dying of cancer
      because  you are addicted to nicotine and couldn’t stop smoking? A
      lawyer for the tobacco industry would go a long way as a cautionary note
      to the rest of them. If we begin to hold these scumbags personally
      responsible without the protection of their wealth and the system they
      are gaming, they will reform in short order. Get mad as hell and don’t
      take it anymore. We can stop all this bull in the next few days if some
      of the victims grow a pair and make them pay for what they have done.

      • jimino

        I’m nowhere close to agreeing with you.  That would be wrong.  But I have been thinking that a vigilante movie like those that used to feature Charles Bronson going after the inner city bad guys, but changing the targets to the present day white collar equivalents, might be a hit.  And they wouldn’t have to exaggerate the wrongdoers deeds to the extent they did in those older movies.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          A MOVIE is going to fix anything, except let people dream the problem is solved?

      • Zing

        Oh please.  Another gutless liberal who wants everyone else to do the dirty work.  You get out there and fire the first shot instead of hiding under your bed with a copy of the Koran and a Kathy Boudin bobble head for company.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Klip,   You are advocating a crime. A FELONY.   Anyway, most people that  are ‘fed up’ of wrong-doing, do NOT go after the leaders responsible, they shoot other victims, as their protest.  Stupid and counterproductive, isn’t it!  Few big-wigs, of criminal corporations, are in the public access.  They, like Saddam Hussein, have doubles.  Criminals are cunning, and know most people don’t like them.  They try to steal enough to ‘buy’ “respectability”, which they can NEVER earn!  History is FULL of Robber Barons, that bought monuments to their ego, like museums, and libraries, with the money stolen from their victims.
            When the heat is on them, these criminals will fake their death, like I believe ‘Kenny Boy Lay’ did.  Remember the Enron exec that ‘conviently’ died before court, so his widow and children kept the stolen loot?

  • Anonymous

    For more information on Elizabeth Warren, check out this video of her recent appearance at Netroots Nation, speaking on her progressive economic vision.  Dubbed a “true progressive champion,” Warren participated in a panel discussion on “Building a Progressive Economic Vision”with AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson (D), George Goehl of National People’s Action, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins of Green For All and Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change.

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/8571967

    • IamU

      I know Brand — right?  It’s like there are these really dumb people out there and they are so brainwashed that they think that the words progressive and liberal really mean regressive and libertine. When we all know that the founders of our country were liberal progressives (for their time) to a man. The great liberal western tradition has been fighting against the totalitarian (kings and such) and repressive belief systems (religions made up by the power elite like all of the really popular ones) since the times of classical Greece. We did have a bit of a setback during the dark ages when the forces of conservatism and faith based schooling made a big comeback, but fortunately most of us have eliminated lead from our diets and are now ready to proceed to the shinning future that humanity would have if it can free itself of the forces of stupidity and conservatism. You do know that the only thing that the leaders of conservative movements want to conserve is their own power and status. See all of human history.

    • Janet_Coul

      Thankfully we avoided that.

  • http://twitter.com/FilipinoBoston FilipinoBoston

    Smart people tend to leave government office. Dull people insist to be in office to serve themselves.

  • Fredlinskip

    Unfortunately, because of the way our “fractured” democracy presently works, Warren’s nomination would not have been accepted.   
        Hopefully she will be able to influence things behind the scenes and maybe we’ll see her as a Senator.    
        That said I sure wish she was nominated and we actually had a real “filibuster” where Senator’s would argue endlessly for days; because on this issue (& in others) GOP has not “leg to stand on” and prolonged debate of them trying to defend Wall Street Profiteers and corrupt corporate practices would further help reveal to American people whose interests these folks truly represent.

    • http://twitter.com/FilipinoBoston FilipinoBoston

      I think Elizabeth Warren will never run for the Senate or for the Presidency. I think she’s one of those people who serve and help the American people via private sector.

  • Lou

    Having been laid off (no more direct deposit from my employer), I was surprised to see how little was in my checking account and saw that I needed to move cash from savings to checking, which I did first thing in the morning, a minute after the bank opened. I actually withdrew the cash and then handed the bills back to deposit into checking, to make sure there would be no processing delays. The teller assured me that the newer checking account balance was now fully available. Later that same day, several checks of mine bounced, even though the cash had been in the account to pay them. When I got my bank statement later that month, I’d been charged $39 apiece for each check that had bounced that one day! When I went to the bank to protest the charges, the bank officer said they process any withdrawals before deposits! WHAT?! So I pulled out the teller’s receipt, which clearly stated that the available cash balance at 8:31 am. was X, more than enough to cover the “bounced” checks, which print-outs showed were processed later in that morning and afternoon. In the face of this proof, the bank rescinded the overdraft charges. Good thing I was laid off so I had time to get all that straightened out.! We’re nickled and dimed so much it adds up to their billions, yet Republicans want hold all budget negotiations up to have more time to depreciate the value of their private jets. Should I be cryin’ alligator tears at the hard, hard lives they lead while they try to kill Medicare and Social Security?!!! And destroy a consumer protection agency?!!!  SHAME ON THEM.  

    • Ellen Dibble

      I think the more people who lose their jobs, who go bankrupt, the more the credit agencies have to stretch to cover the losses from loans gone bad, and inevitably anyone with money left is required to make up for that, paying the banks for the ever-riskier lot of the American consumer whom they are trying to serve.
          In other words, there is an “American consumer” credit quotient of some sort, and if the banks seem to need an extra $150 in hidden fees and try to get away with and succeed, it must be that people like Geithner think the banks need those “sweeteners” in order that the banks don’t end up insolvent again.  They probably think we’d rather pay ridiculous fees, balancing out our peers who go insolvent, than let the American taxpayer (Uncle Sam) bail out the banks again.
          If the economy would right itself, and if borrowers were less risk-prone in general, I suspect the fees would normalize.  But the lenders try to encourage borrowers to take unwise risks, the better to fleece them/us down the road.  We do know.  I wish the general arc of the story could be different. 

      • Terry Tree Tree

        The leaders of those ‘poor lil banks and credit agencies’, take a lot of money for themselves!  They aren’t starving!  FAR from it!  They are frauds and thieves, that will stoop to whatever, to amass more money!  NOTHING IS EVER ENOUGH FOR GREEDY THIEVES!!!

  • Plushkin

    test

  • Fidescontemplor

    John, Columbus, Ohio – Democrats have nobody strong enough to reclaim the Governor’s office with Kasich at about 50% approval rating.

    Cordray’s appointment (a good one) will give the Dem’s a more viable gubanatorial candidate down the road.

  • applecart

    Washington is completely corrupted by money because of the way campaigns are financed, regardless which party you talk about. A system like that cannot benefit ordinary citizens more than big donors.  

    • AngelODeath

      We know this. Everybody knows this. This will never happen. Real campaign finance reform will not happen without blood shed. That is how strongly the evil leaders feel about protecting that which gives them their power. During the revolution only ten percent of the people who supported the revolution actually fought for it. Today it is what? .001%? and they are all marginalized by the corporate media and made into our enemies in the small minds of the conservatives. This whole thing must be brought down. The people who destroyed our economy must die, instead we honor them, or more accurately, we allow them to honor each other and pretend we are all stupid enough to go along with it. We are not stupid, the police are stupid, for betraying our country and protecting the bastards who are in the process of destroying it.

  • SenateBill5

    Cordray was very narrowly voted out of his AG position in the “Tea Party Tirade” election so he’s not a weak candiadate and had every major endorsement in the state during his campaign. I know him as a friend not a polical cronie and he is as intelligent and honest as they come. His Tea Party-backed successor Mike Dewine is not. What a joke. Now if the Repubs here in Columbus could just produce a viable Mayoral candidate to oust perennial Mike Coleman.

  • Sonjacob

    Richard Cordray is an exceptional public servant. He is balanced, smart, thorough, level headed, and effective.

    We need strong consumer protection in several ways. Laws with teeth. Stronger lemon law.s

    And,an agency with the power (and the ability to use it) to effectively get justice for consumers who have been misled, lied to, misinformed, confused, and not forthrightly been provided full accurate disclosure of what they have committed to and/or bought.

    With the largest part of our population growing older, there will be every manner of scam on caregiving services. We must protect those who do not have families to help them make good decisions.

    Concerning wall street and banking: I do not understand why our country allows loan sharking in the name of business as usual. We must put a stop to being able to change terms of doing business after the consumer has signed on.

  • ipie

    @31d793b834a9e00fcd3f80e7f7bd55ba:disqus  You need to shop around for a new bank! Many banks do process credits before debits. The other way around simply takes advantage of the consumer. If you make an error and need to run to the bank to cover an overage THAT DAY, a bank who processes credits first doesn’t care at what exact time the deposit is made as long as you have a positive balance when the day ends.

  • david

    Another new Bureau, another new agency, another new office, another new expense. Do we not already have a Dept. of Consumer Protection???
    How many other agencies do we already have that are suppose to oversee these things.
    Our Govt. has become fat, inefficient, and gobbling up tons of money, near cardiac arrest and here we go throwing it yet another cupcake!!
    Just like the Titanic, nobody believed until the water touched their shoes.
    No budget in two years, $4 Trillion more to the debt in just 2 1/2 years and we add a new expense.
    The Dems will claim it will save money, sure! just like tarp saved the “to big to fail banks” the top 10 now hold 77% of all bank assets!!!
    I am beginning to wonder where the sanity is?
    Wake up America, troubling times are coming!

  • Zing

     Thanks for the comment board, On Point.  All the lazy keyboard commandos have a place to verbalize their revolution fantasy hoping in true liberal fashion that someone else will do the dirty work.

  • Dee

    Once again, the GOP is proving itself to be incapable of placing the
    interests of Main Street over the interests of Wall Street. I am look-
    ing forward to seeing this party being added to the endanger species list in the next elections cycles….Its membership is unfit to govern this nation and the American people….Dee

  • Bin

    The hypocrisy of the GOP traitors is disgusting. Just “restructure” it? Meaning to turn it into an “industry-friendly” patsy for an industry that has gutted America?

  • Mhorn01

    This is typical of both parties. The law was a joke in the first place; it did not break up Fannie and Freddie or the big banks; it did not put back the fire wall between banks and wall street that was gutted in the 1980′s and 1990′s.

    Now there is a pretend fight to save the few good things about the law, then they (both parties) can gutt that too.

    Welcome to the New America where Congress is bought and sold to take care of the Rich American; for the Rich American, so their money many never perish from the earth. 

  • Ras201

    If he has not done so already, the President should read ‘Reckless Endangerment”.  There are so many lessons to be learned there.
    Whether anyone in power will learn them is another matter.
    Also, most of the greedy and corrupt individuals who put us where we are today, are named in the book.  What is worse, no one is going after them.

ONPOINT
TODAY
May 22, 2013
3 Comments
Apple CEO Tim Cook is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, May 21, 2013, prior to testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent subcommittee on Investigations hearing. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Apple in the hot seat. Lawmakers say the company dodged billions in taxes on overseas profits. We’ll look at the world of off shore tax escapes.

May 22, 2013
5 Comments
A woman carries her child through a field near the collapsed Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore, Okla., Monday, May 20, 2013. (Sue Ogrocki/AP)

After Oklahoma’s giant twister, does Tornado Alley need to change the way it builds and lives in the age of superstorms?

RECENT
SHOWS
May 21, 2013
55 Comments
Henry Ford sits at the tiller of his first automobile, the Quadricycle, in front of the John Wanamaker salesroom on Broadway between 49th and 50th Streets in New York City in 1904. (AP)

The controversial and brilliant Henry Ford and the world he invented.

 
May 21, 2013
274 Comments
Detail from the book jacket of "The Unwinding: An Inner History Of The New America" by George Packer. (Farrar, Straus and Giroux)

New Yorker writer George Packer’s inside history of the great unwinding of America’s 20th century way of life and where we stand now.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Switching Shows For Our Second Hour Today
Friday, May 17, 2013

Adventures in live radio. Richard Snow, our guest for our show on Henry Ford, was held up — possibly by a faulty Model T? — so we’re running a terrific archive show on great quotations.

More »
5 Comments
 
Floyd Abrams On Obama Vs. Nixon
Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Floyd Abrams — one of the country’s leading authorities on the First Amendment — joined us today to talk about revelations that the Justice Department seized two months of phone records from the Associated Press.

More »
Comment
 
Dr. Judy Garber On Angelina Jolie’s Cancer Decision
Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Dr. Judy Garber — director of the Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute — joined us for the final segment of our show today to talk about star Angelina Jolie’s decision to undergo a preventative double mastectomy.

More »
Comment