The continuous republican attack on consumers' rights

[b.c.]

Ever since the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Republicans have been quietly and not so quietly working to undermine and otherwise limit the ability of that agency to do its job of protecting the consumer:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rep...g-consumer-protection-bureau-in-spending-bill

However, as recently as a week or two ago, presidential hopeful Ted Cruz and Texas Representative John Ratcliffe have introduced a bill NOT to limit the CFPB, but to completely ABOLISH it:

http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34552

http://www.safeguardproperties.com/...wmakers_Introduce_Bill_to_Eliminate_CFPB.aspx

To hear Cruz tell of it, “The legislation… gives Congress the opportunity to free consumers and small businesses from the CFPB regulatory blockades and financial activism…” citing that standard GOP standard mantra about how “activism” and “blockades” “stunt economic growth.”

(According to the GOP, so does corporate and environmental regulations, and let us not forget corporate TAXES… a ZERO percent corporate tax rate would “create millions of jobs”… so says “the Don”.)

Btw, here is what the Consumer’s Union, the policy and advocacy arm of the widely trusted Consumer Reports magazine (and consumerreports.org) have to say about the CFPB and related interests:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ction-bureau-continue-to-do-its-job/index.htm

https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WallStreetWishList.pdf


"would you like to know more?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau

 

[b.c.]

[corrected version]

Ever since the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Republicans have been quietly and not so quietly working to undermine and otherwise limit the ability of that agency to do its job of protecting the consumer:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rep...g-consumer-protection-bureau-in-spending-bill

However, as recently as a week or two ago, presidential hopeful Ted Cruz and Texas Representative John Ratcliffe have introduced a bill NOT to limit the CFPB, but to completely ABOLISH it:

http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34552

http://www.safeguardproperties.com/...wmakers_Introduce_Bill_to_Eliminate_CFPB.aspx

To hear Cruz tell of it, “The legislation… gives Congress the opportunity to free consumers and small businesses from the CFPB regulatory blockades and financial activism…” citing that standard GOP mantra about how “activism” and “blockades” “stunt economic growth.”

(According to the GOP, so do corporate and environmental regulations, and let us not forget corporate TAXES… a ZERO percent corporate tax rate would “create millions of jobs”… so says “the Don”.)

Btw, here is what the Consumer’s Union, the policy and advocacy arm of the widely trusted Consumer Reports magazine (and consumerreports.org) have to say about the CFPB and related interests:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ction-bureau-continue-to-do-its-job/index.htm

https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WallStreetWishList.pdf


"would you like to know more?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau

 

[b.c.]

A venerable and long standing advocate of consumer's rights, the Consumer's Union (publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine and consumerreports.org) says "Let the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau continue to do its job,"

Among the successes they've cited were the creation of a consumer complaint database through which some 330,000 complaints have been received, a crackdown on fraudulent credit card practices and unnecessary and costly "protection plans", greater focus on credit reporting agencies and error fixing, the establishment of mortgage loan safeguards, and attention to debt traps created by certain payday loan practices, among other initiatives (for example, credit card account management... see

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201502_cfpb_credit_card_account_management_examination_guide.pdf,

taken from http://www.consumerfinance.gov/guidance/supervision/manual/ )

So WHY then, is the Republican Party, supposed defender of "family values", the middle class, the working man, and the consumer, so HELL BENT on DISMANTLING this agency??

Senate Republicans Attack Obama's Most Popular Achievement In Their First Budget Session
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...target-elizabeth-warrens-cfpb/article/2555055
Incoming GOP majority would target Elizabeth Warren's CFPB

 

[temptotalk]

So WHY then, is the Republican Party, supposed defender of "family values", the middle class, the working man, and the consumer, so HELL BENT on DISMANTLING this agency??

My dear oh my. I haven't a clue as to why republicans would want americans to be financially broken.

 

[b.c.]

About the accomplishments of the CFPB, the consumer watchdog and advocacy group, Consumer's Union, noted the following:

"Even with all those wins for consumers.... Opponents have continually tried to weaken the bureau or delay it from being able to carry out its mission. In fact, a package of bills pending in Congress would make it harder for the CFPB to issue guidance on federal regulations and law, eliminate the bureau’s civil-penalty fund that provides refunds to defrauded consumers, and repeal the agency’s authority to regulate the use of arbitration provisions in contracts for consumer financial products and services."

Why does the GOP hate the CFPB?? Could it be that THEY place other interests above that of John Q. Public's?


Republican Attacks on a CFPB Office Renovation Don't Add Up
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...se-iffy-math-to-attack-cfpb-office-renovation

House GOP Bills Attack Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/05/27/house-gop-bills-attack-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/

Republicans Aim to Keep CFPB on the Defensive
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/28/Republicans-Aim-Keep-CFPB-Defensive

 

[jaap_stam]

Banning sugary drinks, and applying the law unevenly (soda bad, Starbucks ok) is a democrat-lead attack on consumer rights. The GMO craze - scientifically shown to not have a health impact, and crazy at its core if you think about the history of crops like strawberries and corn, or even wine - is another example.

Consumer agency is being attacked on many fronts by both parties.

 

[b.c.]

Banning sugary drinks, and applying the law unevenly (soda bad, Starbucks ok) is a democrat-lead attack on consumer rights. The GMO craze - scientifically shown to not have a health impact, and crazy at its core if you think about the history of crops like strawberries and corn, or even wine - is another example.

Consumer agency is being attacked on many fronts by both parties.

Personally, I'm all for LETTING a person imbibe all the harmful substances he/she may so choose, as long as in doing so they place no OTHERS at risk.

But calling N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg's (and later, De Blasio's) attempt to ban sugary drinks a "democrat-led attack on consumer rights" is quite a STRETCH, considering two mayors in a single city hardly comprise a democratic LEADERSHIP - not to mention the fact that consumers STILL had options to go to any store of one's choice, and purchase and consume however many liters of red soda in one sitting their hearts DESIRED.

Fact is, there are many substances, considered a risk to one's health that are banned or regulated.

Comparing such efforts to the scope and nature of the GOP's attack on an agency that regulates such broad reaching matters such as interest rates, mortgages, credit reporting practices, lending practices, and numerous other matters of finance seems to me a somewhat disingenuous side-step.

However ill-conceived, the efforts at limiting sugar intake were intended to be of BENEFIT to the consumer. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain to us how the GOP's efforts to dismantle the CFPB are LIKEWISE.

 

[jaap_stam]

Personally, I'm all for LETTING a person imbibe all the harmful substances he/she may so choose, as long as in doing so they place no OTHERS at risk.

But calling N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg's (and later, De Blasio's) attempt to ban sugary drinks a "democrat-led attack on consumer rights" is quite a STRETCH, considering two mayors in a single city hardly comprise a democratic LEADERSHIP - not to mention the fact that consumers STILL had options to go to any store of one's choice, and purchase and consume however many liters of red soda in one sitting their hearts DESIRED.

Fact is, there are many substances, considered a risk to one's health that are banned or regulated.

Comparing such efforts to the scope and nature of the GOP's attack on an agency that regulates such broad reaching matters such as interest rates, mortgages, credit reporting practices, lending practices, and numerous other matters of finance seems to me a somewhat disingenuous side-step.

However ill-conceived, the efforts at limiting sugar intake were intended to be of BENEFIT to the consumer. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain to us how the GOP's efforts to dismantle the CFPB are LIKEWISE.

From where I'm standing, one side is looking to dismantle protection while the other side tries to protect by removing choice. Neither side is particularly introspective about the actually daily obstacles that to a certain extent dictate actual citizen behaviors.

You do realize that obesity is disproportionately afflicting the poor, right? And that, if the poor had options, they wouldn't be eating McDonalds. But that if you are poor, and need to feed a family of 5, the 10 euro meal with 5000 calories is the better choice than the 50 euro meal with 1000. Banning sugary drinks, or putting descriptive labels won't change that initial calculus for someone who is poor and lives in a food desert. What you have done is make it harder for them to feed themselves without providing any solution for their actual problem - lack of access to affordable healthy food with a reasonably high calorie count.

 

[keenobserver]

Republicans are trying to dismantle every government agency that regulates. It's what they do. There is a belief system in place in America that being wealthy is a blessing from God, and that if you were doing something really bad, God would stop it. Seriously.

The financial regulations in place grew out of the Wall Street collapse and housing market collapse. They are both fair and reasonable, but it will make it harder for rich banks to steal from people so of course Republicans are against those regulations.

The Bloomberg overreach on sodas, while well intended and even logical becomes the poster for government overreach and social engineering. A better tactic would be to raise awareness of the damage these drinks do to people and force congress to stop supporting subsidies to sugar. The resulting price surge will sort out the market place on consumption.

The country has embraced science deniers on every issue - from global warming to obesity. Anything that requires thought, change and sacrifice for the good of all is denounced as un-American. That is the state of the United States of America in 2015. It will not improve anytime soon.

 

[b.c.]

Republicans are trying to dismantle every government agency that regulates. It's what they do. There is a belief system in place in America that being wealthy is a blessing from God, and that if you were doing something really bad, God would stop it. Seriously.

The financial regulations in place grew out of the Wall Street collapse and housing market collapse. They are both fair and reasonable, but it will make it harder for rich banks to steal from people so of course Republicans are against those regulations.

The Bloomberg overreach on sodas, while well intended and even logical becomes the poster for government overreach and social engineering. A better tactic would be to raise awareness of the damage these drinks do to people and force congress to stop supporting subsidies to sugar. The resulting price surge will sort out the market place on consumption.

The country has embraced science deniers on every issue - from global warming to obesity. Anything that requires thought, change and sacrifice for the good of all is denounced as un-American. That is the state of the United States of America in 2015. It will not improve anytime soon.

I like your observations here. And yes, the Dodd Frank Act, the CFPB and the regulations grew out of that whole Wall Street, housing market, bank bailout debacle; regulations which indeed make it harder for the wealthy to steal from the rest of us.

Regarding comparisons to the admittedly overreach on sugary substances, I fail to see the comparison, in that the highly localized attempt to regulate the sale of large containers of drink from SPECIFIC vendors, hardly constituted a liberal plot to undermine people's right to consume sugar (NOT that I'd expect a family of five eating at McDonald's on a regular basis to be more cost efficient than a home cooked meal complete with liters of red soda, anyway).

Which, IMO, makes the comparison a lot of "stuff" being thrown up, with the effect (intended or not) of diluting the legitimate concerns of the topic at hand.

It's sort of like responding to a thread about questionable killings of black people at the hands of cops by saying, "Black people kill black people too." As if the one somehow should negate the concerns of the other.

The issues of concern HEREIN are undisclosed and ridiculous finance charges and fees, student loan debt that people cannot get from under, people losing their homes because of mortgage terms, charges, and fees they cannot possibly meet, warranties and product protection plans that are essentially USELESS, bait and switch tactics, truth in lending and financial disclosures, accurate credit reporting, and a host of other concerns for the average consumer, all of which is addressed by an agency that the GOP has systematically BEEN trying to hamstring, hogtie, and eliminate.

Now if someone believes that people not being able to buy large sodas in N.Y.C. from specified vendors (last I'd heard, that was overturned by an appellate court) constituted a liberal plot to deny people the right to sugar, then perhaps they should start their own thread about it.

On the other hand, if they want to explain how the GOP's actions against the CFPB is beneficial to consumers, I'd be happy to entertain it.

 

[b.c.]

Attacks on the CFPB are Attacks on the Middle Class

 

[jaap_stam]

I like your observations here. And yes, the Dodd Frank Act, the CFPB and the regulations grew out of that whole Wall Street, housing market, bank bailout debacle; regulations which indeed make it harder for the wealthy to steal from the rest of us.

Regarding comparisons to the admittedly overreach on sugary substances, I fail to see the comparison, in that the highly localized attempt to regulate the sale of large containers of drink from SPECIFIC vendors, hardly constituted a liberal plot to undermine people's right to consume sugar (NOT that I'd expect a family of five eating at McDonald's on a regular basis to be more cost efficient than a home cooked meal complete with liters of red soda, anyway).

Which, IMO, makes the comparison a lot of "stuff" being thrown up, with the effect (intended or not) of diluting the legitimate concerns of the topic at hand.

It's sort of like responding to a thread about questionable killings of black people at the hands of cops by saying, "Black people kill black people too." As if the one somehow should negate the concerns of the other.

The issues of concern HEREIN are undisclosed and ridiculous finance charges and fees, student loan debt that people cannot get from under, people losing their homes because of mortgage terms, charges, and fees they cannot possibly meet, warranties and product protection plans that are essentially USELESS, bait and switch tactics, truth in lending and financial disclosures, accurate credit reporting, and a host of other concerns for the average consumer, all of which is addressed by an agency that the GOP has systematically BEEN trying to hamstring, hogtie, and eliminate.

Now if someone believes that people not being able to buy large sodas in N.Y.C. from specified vendors (last I'd heard, that was overturned by an appellate court) constituted a liberal plot to deny people the right to sugar, then perhaps they should start their own thread about it.

On the other hand, if they want to explain how the GOP's actions against the CFPB is beneficial to consumers, I'd be happy to entertain it.

The topic was about attacks on consumer rights. I understand that you want to exclusively focus on what the republicans are doing wrong, but I do enough business in California that I make it a priority to follow lawmaking there. It's a very liberal state, yet it is quite distopic if you are a poor minority with so many well intentioned programs that utterly miss the mark from program design all the way through execution. The sanctuary city status of San Francisco, and how services are (mis)managed results in tremendous urban blight and feeds the high crime rate across the bay area (in particular, drug related violence).

I was pointing out with my dissenting opinion that from the perspective of a poor minority, good intentions are just as bad as evil ones if the policy makes life harder in the end. The sugary drink example is an important one because it highlights the fact that well intentioned but badly designed policy is NOT qualitatively better than evil intentioned policy from the perspective of the only people that matter - the segment of society that said legislation is meant to serve. If you have never been on food stamps, its easy to talk academically about how dismantling consumer protection services are evil but soda bans serve a public good.

 

[jaap_stam]

Attacks on the CFPB are Attacks on the Middle Class

And this whole "attacks on the middle class" trope is very tired. Preservation of the American and European middle class at current lifestyle expectation comes at the direct expense of the development of a healthy middle class across the rest of the world.

Netflix, youtube, clickbait/productivity and braincell killing clickbait sites, and especially a sedentary lifestyle are all bigger threats to the middle class than republican legislation - republicans who have been elected by said middle class.

 

[b.c.]

The topic was about attacks on consumer rights. I understand that you want to exclusively focus on what the republicans are doing wrong, but I do enough business in California that I make it a priority to follow lawmaking there. It's a very liberal state, yet it is quite distopic if you are a poor minority with so many well intentioned programs that utterly miss the mark from program design all the way through execution. The sanctuary city status of San Francisco, and how services are (mis)managed results in tremendous urban blight and feeds the high crime rate across the bay area (in particular, drug related violence).

I was pointing out with my dissenting opinion that from the perspective of a poor minority, good intentions are just as bad as evil ones if the policy makes life harder in the end. The sugary drink example is an important one because it highlights the fact that well intentioned but badly designed policy is NOT qualitatively better than evil intentioned policy from the perspective of the only people that matter - the segment of society that said legislation is meant to serve. If you have never been on food stamps, its easy to talk academically about how dismantling consumer protection services are evil but soda bans serve a public good.

And this whole "attacks on the middle class" trope is very tired. Preservation of the American and European middle class at current lifestyle expectation comes at the direct expense of the development of a healthy middle class across the rest of the world.

Netflix, youtube, clickbait/productivity and braincell killing clickbait sites, and especially a sedentary lifestyle are all bigger threats to the middle class than republican legislation - republicans who have been elected by said middle class.

I still hold that your rather dismissive attitude regarding the well documented efforts of the GOP to undermine this agency amounts to a lot of fuzzy logic comparisons, and side-stepping arguments. But as you apparently don't want to address the o.p. and since we're using comparisons let me reference another.

Say some “lowlife” individual decides to pay someone heavily to deliberately lure a lion from a protected environment, to another pre-destined location so that the "great... hunter" could shoot it with an arrow, then have others finish the job… to which SOME respond with outrage.

Others MIGHT argue that the outrage is unfounded and overblown, using logic such as "we as a species are meat eaters," and "people hunt all the time," which, IMO are BOGUS arguments, because of the despicable and conniving method employed by said “lowlife” ALONE.

If that WASN'T despicable, then maybe I could pay someone to lure an elephant from the Audubon Zoo so I can pick him off from the corner of Magazine and Walnut with my Beretta. Jolly good sport, eh??

YOUR initial argument regarding the anti-consumer actions of the GOP was to suggest that limiting sugary drinks was equally some (democratic led) attack on consumer rights, referencing a 10 euro meal for a family of five at McDonald’s as an example of a logical (if not preferable) choice for someone poor.

For one, I looked up 10 euro, and seems it’s barely $12.00 U.S. Don’t know what Big Macs go for in Europe, but $12.00 won’t feed a family of five around these parts, bub. Not at Mickey D's. Maybe $20. To which the point I made was, maybe the money would’ve been better spent on a home cooked meal. Which brings us to another point.

The purpose of the ATTEMPTED New York legislation was concern for the HEALTH of individuals consuming too much SUGAR, the consumption of which translates into additional health problems such as high blood pressure, obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc. etc. with which THE POOR and minorities are GREATER afflicted with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729116/

And that translates into added hospitalization, added medical costs, higher insurance costs, costs for prescription medicine, poorer quality of life, and increased fatalities for those at greater RISK and who can ill afford the added expense.

Now granted the LOCALIZED effort in NYC (somehow it seems to escape you how this local regulation, which was rejected by an appeals court, PALES in comparison to the potential NATIONAL effect the removal of the CFPB would have) was not received well by the public, however well intentioned. As noted below:

"Perhaps the most important lesson is old news: economics often drives health policy. New York City's efforts to reduce obesity grew with its desire to control its health care costs for its residents, a disproportionate share of whom are obese or have diabetes. Meanwhile, large corporations continue to use their influence and money to derail public health measures that could reduce their profits. Although the general public shares the goals of public health, many people remain skeptical of government's choice of means for achieving those goals. Agencies that overstep their bounds or adopt rules that are intrusive or just plain silly invite backlash, which can make effective public health regulation impossible. They make fools of themselves and heroes of the opponents of public health."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1303706

And granted, there are other programs elsewhere that may be well intended but miss the mark. But does that legitimizes the actions of the GOP against the CFPB? Does that make the potential harm that may result of any LESS concern?

In short, because we are hunters and meat eaters, is it OK to kill the lion?

The ORIGINAL POST was about the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and GOP efforts to dismantle it, about which YOU have yet to respond. I have, at least, entertained sugary drinks. So score one for you in thread DERAILMENT.

(Btw if you haven’t been paying close attention, the fact that voters vote for Republicans or that they control Congress does not translate into all this faith in them on the part of the entire electorate, as much as it’s perhaps a reflection of who didn’t bother/get to vote. Sometimes people vote for reasons other than self preservation... and sometimes they live to regret it, I might add.

And if you don’t believe THAT, ask the voters of Louisiana what they think of their beloved Bobby Jindal NOW.)

 

[b.c.]

CU urges House panel to reject bills that would undermine Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

NAACP-Supported Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Cfpb) Is Under Attack By Unscrupulous Members

 

[jaap_stam]

To which the point I made was, maybe the money would’ve been better spent on a home cooked meal. Which brings us to another point.

The purpose of the ATTEMPTED New York legislation was concern for the HEALTH of individuals consuming too much SUGAR, the consumption of which translates into additional health problems such as high blood pressure, obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc. etc. with which THE POOR and minorities are GREATER afflicted with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729116/

...

In short, because we are hunters and meat eaters, is it OK to kill the lion?

The fact that you made such a glib point about money better spent on a home cooked meal fully reveals the point I was making about how policy makers on both sides are completely removed from the day-to-day realities of those being served.

Particularly in the realm of public health and behaviorally-driven diseases like Type 2 diabetes and obesity. The laws on the books in New York and proposed in California completely miss the psycho-social barriers to the decision to simply "make a home cooked meal" instead of going to McDonalds. If it was as simple as hearing that message, you wouldn't need to ban sugary drinks. And that logic also doesn't apply to someone who is poor who lives in a food desert (or who makes minimum wage, is on food stamps, but lives across the street from a 7/11 and a Whole Foods - real situation in many parts of urban California, for example). If you're a single mom working 3 jobs to feed 2,3 kids, and you moved far away from your family to get the best income you could, when are you going to have the time to make that home cooked meal?

So again, I go back to intention. The sugary drinks laws were well-intentioned, in contrast to the Consumer Protection laws. I have no argument about the effect of what the conservative party is trying to do, or where it is driven. I was simply trying to illustrate that the shoe fits on the other foot too - even well intentioned laws created without a real understanding of the choices people are forced to make (or in your case, with a paternalistic or condescending understanding - ie they make bad choices because they are too stupid so we need to limit their choices) have bad consequences. And from the perspective of the governed, intentions mean nothing if the outcomes suck.

As for the Cecil issue...talk to an actual Zimbabwean about the whole outrage. By and large, they are bemused that people worldwide are mobilized to act in outrage over a lion, but do nothing about the people who have been suffering for over 15 years in a bottomed out economy. If you actually care to hear the perspective of the actual people affected (rather than assume you know best how they should feel), here is an article written by an actual Zimbabwean about the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html

The general issue I was trying to raise in my dissenting opinion is that there isn't much room for the actual perspective of those affected by the policies you are talking about when you claim that the rival political tribe is "evil" while your own is "good." Approaching policy analysis from an ideological perspective will lead to the creation of bad policy.

 

[b.c.]

The fact that you made such a glib point about money better spent on a home cooked meal fully reveals the point I was making about how policy makers on both sides are completely removed from the day-to-day realities of those being served.

Particularly in the realm of public health and behaviorally-driven diseases like Type 2 diabetes and obesity. The laws on the books in New York and proposed in California completely miss the psycho-social barriers to the decision to simply "make a home cooked meal" instead of going to McDonalds. If it was as simple as hearing that message, you wouldn't need to ban sugary drinks. And that logic also doesn't apply to someone who is poor who lives in a food desert (or who makes minimum wage, is on food stamps, but lives across the street from a 7/11 and a Whole Foods - real situation in many parts of urban California, for example). If you're a single mom working 3 jobs to feed 2,3 kids, and you moved far away from your family to get the best income you could, when are you going to have the time to make that home cooked meal?

So again, I go back to intention. The sugary drinks laws were well-intentioned, in contrast to the Consumer Protection laws. I have no argument about the effect of what the conservative party is trying to do, or where it is driven. I was simply trying to illustrate that the shoe fits on the other foot too - even well intentioned laws created without a real understanding of the choices people are forced to make (or in your case, with a paternalistic or condescending understanding - ie they make bad choices because they are too stupid so we need to limit their choices) have bad consequences. And from the perspective of the governed, intentions mean nothing if the outcomes suck.

As for the Cecil issue...talk to an actual Zimbabwean about the whole outrage. By and large, they are bemused that people worldwide are mobilized to act in outrage over a lion, but do nothing about the people who have been suffering for over 15 years in a bottomed out economy. If you actually care to hear the perspective of the actual people affected (rather than assume you know best how they should feel), here is an article written by an actual Zimbabwean about the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html

The general issue I was trying to raise in my dissenting opinion is that there isn't much room for the actual perspective of those affected by the policies you are talking about when you claim that the rival political tribe is "evil" while your own is "good." Approaching policy analysis from an ideological perspective will lead to the creation of bad policy.

The person who's being condescending is YOURSELF, bud, especially when you presume to think I don't understand the choices people are forced to make, or that I've made ANY assumption at all about Zimbabwe's perspective on Cecil. And I especially object to your putting words in my mouth, i.e. "they make bad choices because they are too stupid so we need to limit their choices."

Where the fuck did I ever say that, I'd like to know?

On the contrary, I've acknowledged and even linked references as to how following that particular precept has led to backlash from the very people that the sugar drink referendum were supposed to help.

Frankly, I find YOUR presuming that poor people are not capable of, able to, or willing to make healthy choices, rather "PATERNALISTIC." Sounds too much like those who, when critical of Michele Obama's healthy school lunch initiatives, responded with something similar.

Bottom line is, YOU chose (as I've notice you've done in other threads) to hijack THIS thread, and pour cold water on the legitimate concerns expressed HEREIN, rather than ADDRESS it.

Sort of like someone going in your "Tianjin Explosion" thread and responding to that horrific tragedy by saying some stupid s****** like, "stuff blows up all the time."

 

[b.c.]

Oh, and regarding that tripe about "claiming the rival political tribe is 'evil'" and "the actual perspective of those affected by... policies"--- here are some MORE "actual perspectives" by some who, like me, ARE those affected by the policies I (certainly not YOU) am talking about:

It’s Time to Stand Up For Consumer Protection. Again. http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/its-time-to-stand-up-for-consumer-protection-again/

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is working. So why is Congress trying to cripple it? http://morningconsult.com/opinions/...king-so-why-is-congress-trying-to-cripple-it/

Why The CFPB is Under Attack… and Why It Should Be Protected http://blog.readyforzero.com/why-the-cfpb-is-under-attack-and-why-it-should-be-protected/

Despite Stellar Record, CFPB Remains Under Attack http://seattlemedium.com/despite-stellar-record-cfpb-remains-under-attack/

House GOP Votes To Take 'Consumer' Out Of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/house-anti-consumer-bill_n_4870113.html

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency that actually listens http://sfbayview.com/2015/06/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-a-government-agency-that-actually-listens/
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau isn’t out of the woods yet http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-protection-bureau-isnt-out-of-the-woods-yet/

From the President: CFPB is under attack in Congress http://www.woodstockinst.org/blog/2015/president-cfpb-under-attack-congress

 

[jaap_stam]

The person who's being condescending is YOURSELF, bud, especially when you presume to think I don't understand the choices people are forced to make, or that I've made ANY assumption at all about Zimbabwe's perspective on Cecil. And I especially object to your putting words in my mouth, i.e. "they make bad choices because they are too stupid so we need to limit their choices."

Where the fuck did I ever say that, I'd like to know?

Per Zimbabwe - I was merely trying to illustrate that Zimbabweans didn't frame the issue that way, and that as someone with recent lineage in that part of the world, you argument was unconvincing. Zimbabweans care more about the fact that the Western world cares more about a lion getting killed (and are willing to do something to make a change) than it does about the plight of Zimbabwean people. And since this is something that happened in Zimbabwe rather than in the US, who are you to say what Zimbabweans should prioritize? Why is the lion getting killed the biggest issue in a case where a rich American paid Zimbabweans to help him do X illegally?

Per me putting words into your mouth. I did not.
You said it here:

"For one, I looked up 10 euro, and seems it’s barely $12.00 U.S. Don’t know what Big Macs go for in Europe, but $12.00 won’t feed a family of five around these parts, bub. Not at Mickey D's. Maybe $20. To which the point I made was, maybe the money would’ve been better spent on a home cooked meal."

Frankly, I find YOUR presuming that poor people are not capable of, able to, or willing to make healthy choices, rather "PATERNALISTIC." Sounds too much like those who, when critical of Michele Obama's healthy school lunch initiatives, responded with something similar.

Can you point out where I have said the poor are not capable or able to make healthy choices?

See your words that I quoted above. There is a lot implied in your comment, and reveals a real lack of empathy for the specific circumstances that lead to unhealthy lifestyle choices. I was illustrating that such healthy choices were not simply a matter of not choosing to cook at home, but that there were other stressors that made the "right" decision rather difficult - working multiple jobs adds a level of stress that makes sound decision-making rather difficult. Banning sugary drinks - a paternalistic policy - does not address the underlying problem; the lack of psychological and social support. It's not that the poor are incapable. It's that decision-making breaks down when you put a human under a high degree of stress over an indefinite amount of time. Plenty of research on this:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/jadmus.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/toxic-stress-poverty-hurt-developing-brain/
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/AhmedPovertyFamilyStressParenting.pdf
http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cpr/cpr_lab_poverty_and_stress.html

tl;dr here - the conditions and stressors of poverty affect your brain chemistry and impact your decision-making abilities. If you want to help the poor, reduce their stress levels. Taking away choices is a band-aid of a solution, and inherently requires a paternalistic view of "what are the right choices that should be made available"

I fail to see how pointing out how little real support the poor have to actually make the right financial and health decisions for themselves is paternalistic at all. Particularly when you were complaining about republicans dismantling consumer protections. We're saying the same thing - consumers need support and protection.

However, I'm using a liberal-lead policy to illustrate models of policy construction that also bring about bad outcomes because it does get tiresome to have everything framed in such a liberal vs conservative partisan manner. I think it was liberal icon John Stewart who excoriated pundits (was it on the show Crossfire?) about "being part of the problem" in how they turned everything into a partisan issue.

Bottom line is, YOU chose (as I've notice you've done in other threads) to hijack THIS thread, and pour cold water on the legitimate concerns expressed HEREIN, rather than ADDRESS it.

Sort of like someone going in your "Tianjin Explosion" thread and responding to that horrific tragedy by saying some stupid s****** like, "stuff blows up all the time."

Per thread derailment - I think that a thread discussing consumer protection is fair game for discussing other areas where policy-makers are impacting consumer rights. Bans on sugary drinks falls in that category. There is no rule on this board that I must post things that are in agreement with your perspective or political views.

Per Tianjin, there were some comments to that effect. I simply provided evidence to support why I disagreed with minimum frothing at the mouth or fuss.

 

[b.c.]

Look, I get that you hold yourself to be some voice of an unbiased political viewpoint (file under: fence sitting 101) but you seem to quite often DO so (in this thread and others) at the expense of real concerns and issues expressed herein.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, I don't need schooling from the likes of you on Zimbabwe. I wrote about Mugabe here LONG before your coming.

If YOU want to discuss Zimbabwe, let me suggest you make a thread about it.

As another put it in the thread about the lion, we are entitled to our OWN opinions and concerns about HOW that unfolded, and such concern in NO way precludes or signifies LACK of concern for the people of Zimbabwe. Your suggesting that it necessarily DOES is INDEED putting words into anothers mouth (file under: bullshit straw man rationale).

Further I don't need schooling from you on the needs of the poor. Contrary to what you suggest, home prepared food is not some UNKNOWN to poor families. In America at least, families (poor and otherwise) have been making the most of that prepared at home over the LUXURY of a restaurant purchased meal for generations LONG before McDonald's (file under: Eddie Murphy's "momma burger").

You spend MUCH effort here lambasting so-called "liberal-LED" policy makers for well meaning but misguided efforts to regulate sugar intake in NYC.

Too bad you don't spend an EQUAL amount of time speaking of how a CONSERVATIVE led Congress has undermined and cut back assistance to families, voted against extended unemployment benefits to the long termed unemployed, and systematically obstructed other initiatives that could've "relieved the stress", as you put it, on said individuals.

Instead you choose to TRY to use the example of that one piece of New York legislation in a poor attempt to liken it to the broader (potential) effects of the GOP's actions against an agency EFFECTIVELY working on behalf of the consumer. A well meaning LIBERAL effort THAT WORKS.

Which, IMO, would make your attempt to dismiss the topic, A PISS-poor attempt, at least.

However, if YOU want to persist in writing about the liberal plot to deprive people in New York of sugary drinks, let me suggest you MAKE A THREAD ABOUT IT.

THIS thread is about the concerns of a great many people HERE, in America, who may be negatively affected by congressional action against the CFPB, an agency that HAPPENS to be doing a lot of good for consumers here.

ABOUT which you have YET to offer anything of SUBSTANCE, in spite of all your posturing and deflection (file under: B.S.).