Why Not Elizabeth Warren For Consumer Bureau Chief?

Fortune:

Someone like Warren is a shock to that system. She unabashedly sides with consumers. She hates fine print and contracts with "gotcha" clauses. She wants to eliminate predatory loans. And she thinks that it's okay for bank profits to be crimped in service of a level playing field between borrowers and their lenders. In other words, she is Jamie Dimon's nightmare.

Read the whole story: Fortune

Comments

[cat kuzya]

04:34 AM on 08/05/2010

and answer to that question is the other question - "What finer testimonial could a consumer protector have than to be vehemently opposed by the special interests she would regulate?"
http://www.alternet.org/story/147736/jim_hightower_who_do_we_want_elizabeth_warren_when_do_we_want_her_now

[Tom95134]

03:33 AM on 08/04/2010

Fortune Magazine asks, "Why not Elizabeth Warren?"

The answer is simply, "Because Warren puts a big knot in Timmy Geithner's knickers." There is no way that Geithner wants Warren to run the new Consumer Bureau and I'm sure that Summers is in just as much a panic. How would they even explain it to their Wall Street masters.

[MetalCanuck]

06:02 PM on 08/03/2010

She will never get in and if she does she will be told to do what they want or else.

[Tom95134]

03:36 AM on 08/04/2010

I'm also afraid she will be muzzled. The Good Old Boys destroyed Brooksley Born when she tried to bring the casino of derivatives trading under control (The Warning - Frontline) and the same guys will try the same thing if Warren in nominated and confirmed.

[exmate]

01:23 PM on 08/05/2010

Obama will appoint Warren in the Senate recess. Even if did not want to he would be crazy and perverse if he did not. I think that he wants to. Warren will be a winner and Obama will get full credit for her.

[guveqzero]

02:07 PM on 08/03/2010

Geithner made it clear yesterday, Banks will continue to borrow money at 0% and invest in Treasuries at 3% to rebuild their tier one capital. By the time the financial regulations take effect, they will have transferred enough money from Treasury to the banks to float them without the need for US government backstopping. Hence, borrowing rates to banks can rise. Meanwhile, banks play no role in creating US jobs or rebuilding our country. It's called, put the money in my piggy bank for the next crises. How Warren or anybody else will change this so that the banks start fair loaning of money to US corporations and individuals is beyond me. The only positive role I see for a consumer protection chief is on credit cards, payday loans and school loans. Although these are high profit for banks, they have several other profit scams in their portfolio. What we really need is a financial czar.

[exmate]

04:47 PM on 08/03/2010

who can they borrow from at 0%?

[mtrem]

10:36 AM on 08/04/2010

I believe the banks borrow from the fed at 0%. that is the federal funds rate

[catbite]

01:45 PM on 08/03/2010

The Congress does not want a whistle-blower amongst them. They don't want an honest person. They are terrified of what she could do.

[Tom95134]

03:39 AM on 08/04/2010

Actually, they are terrified of what she will make known to the electorate. The people are always up for a good blistering congressional investigation that makes lots of headlines. The only real question is would the media give it coverage or would they shove it under the carpet to cover their own butts.

[studlyguy]

01:36 PM on 08/03/2010

She is not in on the takedown (stealing) with the banksters,so Warren has no chance in h*ll of getting anything,cause banksters are running the show,not O.

[iridium53]

01:12 PM on 08/03/2010

This article seems to answer it's own question.

Why not Warren? Because she angers bank executives?

Okay.

The assumption here is that's a good thing.
It is a false assumption.

Obama, Geithner, Summer, Romer, Bernanke, Dodd and Frank are working as hard as they can to give the bankers everything they want while, simultaneously, cynically, and hypocritally, giving the appearance to the American Public that they are actually doing something.

Warren would be a continuous thorn in their side because she has access to the Media and is less controllable than Sheila Bair and others that will not really do anything, not rock the boat, not say anything.

Obama needs a team player that will not do anything to disturb the banksters, or anything that will actually accomplish anything that might, possibly, actually help the average American. He needs someone who will act the part, do nothing, and have lots of plausible excuses. Warren does not fit.

[Tom95134]

03:44 AM on 08/04/2010

What we need to watch is how does Obama handle this. If he simply nominates her then it is almost 100% that she will not pass confirmation hearings in the Senate unless Obama is willing to burn a lot of political capital.

If Onbama does a Recess Appointment it is for a very short term and would be good only for setting up the Bureau and getting things started. The advantage of a Recess Appointment is that it takes the process of putting the new Consumer Protection Bureau out of the hands of Geithner and might just earn her enough credibility with the people so that the Senate would be forced to confirm her appointment.

But then I don't think Obama has the cojones to do a Recess Appointment of Elizabeth Warren.

[meko]

01:05 PM on 08/03/2010

The only knock against her is that she'd be a fierce, honest, effective advocate for the middle class.

And that's reason enough for Obama, Geithner, Summers, and the rest to stand in her way.

[exmate]

02:07 PM on 08/03/2010

I think that Obama will appoint her in recess. If he does not, he will lose me as a supporter.

[Lolasmom]

01:03 PM on 08/03/2010

Dear Mr. President- GIVE ELIZABETH the job.
As your birthday is almost here, give yourself and us the gift of keeping your promise of working on behalf of the people. Elizabeth Warren is your opportunity to show that CHANGE is possible. YES YOU CAN!

[BannedNBoston]

12:40 PM on 08/03/2010

We have had THOSE WITH EXPERIENCE (Geitner, Bernanke, Emmanuel, Vilsack) give us some to oppose the banks and stop the rippoffs with COMMON SENSE!

http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/an-autopsy-of-the-bp-gulf-oil-well-at-the-macondo-prospect/

[TParrish]

12:36 PM on 08/03/2010

As a consumer, I want Elizabeth Warren protecting my interests.

[gottomortone]

12:34 PM on 08/03/2010

Banks will say that she'll slow things down, that she'll be bad for business, in a time where we're hurting for jobs and for business to gain momentum.
Actually, the very opposite is true. When the middle class does better, it drives the economy in a more consitenet and positive manner. It may take longer, but is more sure and healthy in the long run. But banks don't care about or have the big picture in mind. They only want immediate results. So who made them God?

[castlerider]

02:24 PM on 08/03/2010

You mean you don't worship at the church of the mighty dollar?

Their favorite prayer goes something like:
"Our dollar, that art in wallet, hallowed be thy worth..."

[exmate]

12:33 PM on 08/03/2010

Elizabeth Warren lacks experience in overseeing the creation of mess in banking that those seasoned veterans like Geithner and Bernacke have done. She has identified the problems and has articulated them is such simple terms that most ordinary people can understand. Financial institutions fear not because she does not get it but because she does.

[Tom95134]

12:20 PM on 08/03/2010

I don't want a consumer advocate that is impartial. What I want is someone who will go out there and make the banks so nervous they wet themselves.

Frankly, I don't think she will be appointed because Obama doesn't want to take a chunk out of Terrible Timmy's authority. My question is, "Will Obama make Warren a Recess Appointment as soon as Congress is out of town, or will he wimp out as usual?"

[exmate]

12:34 PM on 08/03/2010

An " impartial advocate" seems like an oxmoron to me.

[castlerider]

12:18 PM on 08/03/2010

It's not a threat. If Obama doesn't pick her, he loses his re-election, and gains a surreal indifference in the midterms that will infect his popularity in a horrible way..
Even Conservatives know this, so you bank on the fact that they're lobbying the banks super-hard to threaten Obama with economic chaos if he picks her.
I hope he's smart enough to call their bluff on it, but he hasn't on any previous strong decisions yet. Not that it really shows he has, that is.

[gottomortone]

12:23 PM on 08/03/2010

Ha ! Not only that.... Watch conservatives POUNCE on Obama and tear into him after the fact for not picking her ! How ironic will that be?

[exmate]

12:42 PM on 08/03/2010

I suspect that Obama will pick Warren as a recess appointment. First he will get sole credit for appointing her. Second he will shield the Democrats who have been bought and owned by banks and obama will pick up political IOUs in the process. Obama will take a hit from the banks but it will be worth it for him.

[meko]

01:06 PM on 08/03/2010

That is the best case scenario.