Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Warren vs. Geithner, Cont.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:05 PM
Original message
Warren vs. Geithner, Cont.

Warren vs. Geithner, Cont.

On Friday, we saw a brewing contretemps between Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren. Warren, the Harvard Law professor who is a central advocate of the financial reform bill's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is seen as a likely nominee to lead the new agency. Reports arose that Geithner opposes Warren's nomination, leading to harsh words from reformers about the administration's commitment to consumer protection. Now, in a TAPPED exclusive, a source friendly to Warren passes on this video of Warren talking about Geithner and consumer protection at conference this weekend put on by the pro-reform Roosevelt Institute:

<Video>

Warren defends the administration's record on consumer protection; throughout the legislative process, consumer protection was probably the only portfolio that reformers could count on the administration to aggressively push.

Just as Warren's political allies increased her profile in Washington with stories that she was considering a run in last year's Massachusetts senate election, there is a messaging operation urging the president to appoint her to head the CFPB. Congressional Democrats are well behind the effort and see the likely opposition of the financial sector and Republicans as a benefit to their party; consumer advocates feel that Warren is the most qualified for the job, and though she does not have a extensive management experience, most are confident that experienced deputies can solve that problem -- Warren's big-picture vision and strong communications skills are more important for setting the tone at the new agency.

While stories highlighting a conflict between Warren and Geithner, something of a bete noir on the Left, have increased excitement about her in the progressive base, Warren is trying to push back against the conflict narrative: A widening rift could damage her chances to gain the CFPB job. While Warren has been unhesitant to criticize the administration's policies when she sees them failing American families, the relationships she developed working with the administration on consumer issues will be important if she is tapped to lead the new consumer protection bureau.


Go Elizabeth!

:)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. We should totally decide appointments on internet message boards!
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 04:15 PM by boppers
Who needs a government when we have the wisdom of crowds?


edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yeah, we can't be trusting the people
Who knows what chaos that might lead to? Lol, interesting attitude you've got there. Explains a lot of your posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well, we can't trust teabaggers.
Angry mobs are not trustworthy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Democracy requires we trust people to be, by and large,
capable of making decisions. The distrust of the "mob" I see in certain groups of posters, whether it is rejecting public input about appointments or denouncing voters, is truly telling.

So, incidentally, is the kneejerk response of "teabaggers!" that is invariably the first defense of that attitude, rooted in either derision of liberals or paranoia over marginal groups. Usually both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Really?
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 04:33 PM by ProSense
"Democracy requires we trust people to be, by and large, capable of making decisions."

We elected a government, and entrusted our elected officials to make decisions. If they aren't serving the people, then they deserve to be called out and held accountable.

Can you point to any source that says baseless rumors should be used to hold our elected official accountable?




Edited for clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Most teabaggers are manipulated patsies. (nt)
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 05:00 PM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. We should do this for medical diagnosis as well!
The people are truly the best decision makers, who needs doctors, lawyers, rocket scientists, when blogs and message boards can fulfill those functions! Imagine the progress we could make if we got rid of expertise and knowledge!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Um, you do know that doctors, lawyers and rocket scientists..
blog and post on message boards, right?

Hello? This is 2010. How clueless are you??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Dude, I'm totally a rocket scientist.
It's true because I just said so. Nobody lies or invents absurd fabrication on the internet, right?

:sarcasm:

Seriously, I'm a long-term editor at wikipedia (7 years, 5 months), where we have mounds and mounds, and years and years, of understanding the benefits, and drawbacks, of crowd-sourcing information, opinions, and voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. I'm not even talking about crowd sourcing.
Edited on Mon Jul-19-10 03:16 AM by girl gone mad
I recently exchanged message board posts with one of the most brilliant mathematicians of all time (youngest Fields medal winner in history), for instance. I wasn't even surprised to see him hanging out in message boards, despite the fact that he's an octogenarian.

Some of my best friends work at LHC and CERN and I get information from them through twitter, facebook, blogs and message board posts so I am up to date on their results or the latest gossip and news weeks or months before papers are published.

When I needed surgery a few years ago, I got excellent advice at a q&a forum on the message board of one of the top specialists in the world.

I've invited business leaders, a billionaire, and expert economists to post on my old blog and also right here on this message board.

I daily read the blog of the professor I'm considering moving half way around the world to study under - a truly incredible thinker who is leading a revolution in his field.

You seem to think only losers and lowlifes hang out online and post to message boards, which is very far away from reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. You are confusing me with someone else.
Perhaps this will make it clear:

"You seem to think only losers and lowlifes hang out online and post to message boards"...

Nope.

I am, however, aware that "losers and lowlifes" (to use your verbiage) post to the same boards as actual experts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. And you're too dumb to know the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Yes, that must be it!
Wow, that's genius!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Especially crowds who base their "outrage" on spurious speculation...
from some anonymous source who knows squat in reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. Who is the government supposed to represent?
My job is to be here for the people. They've been shut out Elizabeth Warren to Michael Moore in 'Capitalism, A Love Story'

Geithner's job, otoh, is to represent Goldman Sachs. Easy to see why they have clashed in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. The government is supposed to represent the people.
Not just "the people with strong opinions on internet message boards".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. People like yourself?
I agree. It would be nice if they now started representing the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Yes, people like myself, and everybody on DU....
...Along with people who don't have the luxury of 24x7 internet connections, or their own computers, or with enough time to spend hours generating or flogging their opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
29. If the administration had listened to people on message boards..
about the bailouts, health care reform, unsafe offshore drilling, gay rights, torture, and unemployment, we might not be in such real danger of losing Congress and the Presidency.

But, you just keep telling yourself that a few clowns in the Washington echo chamber know best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. As compared to the internet echo chambers?
You think the Obama admin should listen to freerepublic, huffpo, FDL, DU, Kos, politico?

There are clowns in more places than just DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Rate Geithner & Warren from 1-10.
It might be revealing.


Me: G 1 W 8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Warren's words in this instance mean nothing, do they? n/t
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 04:36 PM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Now you're a defender of Geithner?
You do know that Warren is in the administration too, dont you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Are you for baseless rumors as long as they target people you don't like?
Interesting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Its only baseless to admin defenders
To others its a rational possibility Geithner (and his bank buddies) would rather not have Warren in that position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. No, it's baseless because it's baseless.
I guess Geither denying the story and Warren smacking down the claim isn't enough to kill a baseless rumor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
42. is their some alternate reality
where Geithner admits he doesn't want her to have the job and Warren doesn't "smack down the claim", knowing that if she doesn't she'll never get the job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. So G 10 W 0?
Sounds about right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. Every public appearance I saw, Warren confessed to knowing very little.
While it is refreshing to see such candor, to see it repeatedly disturbs me.

Imagine 3 years down the road:
Q. "What has your department done for consumers?"
A. "I don't know."
Q. "What has your department done to change the regulatory framework?"
A. "I don't know."

Being honest about ignorance is a great quality. Maintaining that ignorance, not so much.

G 1 W 0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. Abject idiot?
The only take-away from 0.

Chimp gets a 10, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lifelong Protester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. I certainly hope she is nominated and accepts the post.
And for many of us here, the message board is the only way we know that there are others out there who have some of the same feelings. I don't see that as a mob.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Doesn't matter where
baseless rumors start, online or off, they're not constructive and are damaging.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. That's from the same posters who differentiate online people from real people
You know, the "this isn't even an issue with people in the real world!" crowd.

Oh, and I agree with your subject line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. Thanks!Good to hear Elizabeth Warren say this herself. So hope WH offers and she accepts the job.
She would be outstanding as head of the first Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. It seems a no brainer for the WH to juice the base--particularly now with the mid-term rapidly approaching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. Sheesh, your first link debunks the story that there is a contretemps
After a single anonymous source told the Huffington Post that Tim Geithner is trying to block Elizabeth Warren's potential nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, critics are teeing off on the Treasury Department.

While there is some tension between the two arising from Warren's job overseeing the TARP program, this story is being overblown. For instance, this item tries to catch the White House in some kind of "cleanup" operation resulting from the story, but all those on-the-record quotes complimenting Warren -- from the administration's regulatory point man, Assistant Secretary Michael Barr and White House communications guru David Axelrod -- are commonly expressed by government officials. Regardless of the rumors, keep these two facts in mind:

This isn't Geithner's decision. It's President Obama's call, and more than any other official in government, he's been the driving force behind the administration's consumer push. He's a personal fan of Warren's, and she in turn has good relationships with White House staff. White House officials understand the history-making nature of this appointment and want someone who will leave a mark. Democrats think appointing Warren is good politics.
The Bair Comparison. There have been comparisons between this conflict and Geithner's tensions with FDIC Chair Sheila Bair. For all the attention on that feud, Bair and Geithner have a strong working relationship, and Geithner has been criticized by reformers for supporting Bair's ideas on foreclosure prevention and echoing her concerns about various parts of the financial-reform bill. That doesn't mean that Treasury and the FDIC don't have their disagreements, but the personal aspects of these conflicts are often way overstated and have more to do with people's institutional roles.


http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=friday_freakout_tim_geithner_a

Why on earth would you make a link to an article that is trying to prove the opposite of what you want to argue? Maybe it's because nobody reads links?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Both pieces are by the same author.
Hence the title of his current piece.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Yes, but I still don't get it
In the later piece, he still says that the story is a bête noir, that Warren totally supports what the administration has done on consumer protection, and that "Warren is trying to push back against the conflict narrative" because it could hurt her chances to actually get the job.

So actually, what Warren herself is saying is please don't push this story that there is some sort of rift. It is doing more harm than good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I don't get what you're having trouble understanding. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emeritus Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. Do you think the chances of Obama nominating Warren are good?
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 05:58 PM by Emeritus
How likely do you think it is she will be picked? I'd say he picks Warren.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I agree with you.
I think Obama picks Warren as a bone to progressives and indys. Geithner shouldn't even be in a position to have any sway over such an appointment in the first place. There should be no debate that Warren should have the job. It's tailor made for her. The Warren appt. will help Obama's supporters with the argument that his critics are unreasonable and always want everything to be perfect. The Warren appointment will help blunt criticism that this bill still does not fundamentally alter Wall Street, which is is true. But putting Warren in there will be good politics for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. Geithner is a "bete noir" to more than just
the "left".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
27. Has everyone gone mad? Robert Kuttner
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 09:17 PM by ProSense
Robert Kuttner

The Warren Drama: Another Missed Opportunity?

For the past several days, people who care about whether financial reform is to be real or sham have been following the drama of whether President Obama will name Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau is the best thing about the financial reform bill that Obama will sign later this week, and its prime architect was Warren, a folksy Harvard law professor who has become a well known and admired public figure championing reform.

It's no secret that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner doesn't want Warren. As Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the Treasury's conduct of the bank bailout under TARP, Warren turned what might have been an obscure and toothless agency into a feisty forum for challenging the Treasury's coddling of the big banks. She did not pull her punches in asking tough questions of the treasury secretary and demanding sometimes embarrassing documents.

Over the past several days, the Treasury has leaked other names being considered for the job, giving the deliberate impression that Warren is just one candidate among many. White House political adviser David Axelrod, given the chance to clearly deny that Geithner was trying to block Warren's appointment, described her as well qualified but his statement was widely taken as faint praise.

All of this infighting and leaking must be amusing to President Obama, the man who ultimately will make the appointment. It was Obama who personally decided that he wanted a strong consumer protection agency in the financial reform bill, partly to offset the perception that the administration was too cozy with Wall Street.

more


It's no secret? His link is to the bogus rumor. I guess Knutter isn't aware of the statements from Treasury officials denying the rumor or the OP video of Warren (even though it's published by his own organization: American Prospect).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC