Dems fail to protect consumers from usurious credit card rates! Fails 35-60

[flpoljunkie]

Statement of Purpose: To restore to the States the right to protect consumers from usurious lenders.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00159

Vote Counts: YEAs 35
NAYs 60
Not Voting 5

[havocmom]

1. Any questions remaining about who both parties represent?

[sandnsea]

3. Who were the 35 votes?

Akaka (D-HI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[DCBob]

4. Kudos to them...

hang the rest.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Thanks. Where are the states rights Republicans? Only Cochran, LeMieux??

[Cha]

18. Thanks, sandnsea...my two New York

Senators were there and one of my future Hawai'i Senators Akaka. Of course Lincoln isn't there and I don't see Arlen. One's a surprise..like Begich and the republicons from Florida, LeMieux and Cochran Missouri.

Even Feinstein's there..Who and Why are they missing?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Yeah, their constituents.

Unfortunately, we have a number of Democrats representing states where credit card companies are one of the biggest employers, such as:

Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay

There's seven automatic no votes, and 4 other Democrats weren't there to vote. No one in their right minds is going to vote for a bill that will threaten employment in their state during the current economic climate.

[flpoljunkie]

14. If not now, when? If not us, who? -Barack Obama

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. "We need jobs, NOW!" - every American voter

For these Senators, this bill potentially goes in the opposite direction.

[Cha]

21. I see that but in my own naive mind..

I'm thinking why wouldn't comsumer protection be good for the credit card corp too?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. I dunno, but they don't think that's true so it doesn't seem to matter. (nt)

[freddie mertz]

36. Unless they had the courage to put working people over corporate predators.

Cantwell is especially disappointing.

[SpartanDem]

20. Not this tired there's no difference BS again

I would point that Durbin's amendment to limit credit/debit fees and Franken's amendment to end the conflict of interest in credit rating agencies PASSED because of DEMOCRATS. Could they better yeah, but there is difference.

[Cha]

22. I see lots of Dems protecting the consumers..that's what I see.

[Lorien]

33. Care to explain? How do crippling fees and rate hikes "protect" any of us?

and please, share in detail these other wondrous ways that we are all being "protected".

[frylock]

2. damn you ralph nader!!1!

[xchrom]

6. Recommend

[TheKentuckian]

7. Another failure for the people in support of big money

As is how in the world is this bill as currently written supposed to stop another crisis?

Its time to remove our "representation" without prejudice until we get a group capable of conducting the people's business.

[Lorien]

34. Amen. Bring on some real Liberal/ Progressive True Dem challengers! nt

[Writer]

9. Why are we equating a political failure with a moral failure?

Democrats are not of one mind, as we continue to remind ourselves on this site.

Were the 35 who voted for the bill not Democrats voting "for the people?"

The 60 assholes who voted against the bill - those are the folks with the moral failing. THEIR moral failing - not the Democratic Party, because many in the Democratic Party DID vote to protect consumer rights!

[Jennicut]

26. Very, very true.

Some Dems have good votes for us and some don't. They are not "all the same".

[TheKentuckian]

35. They appear to be still in good standing

if the party doesn't want to be associated with those with "moral failings" then the party should stop associating with such folk.

Success finds many fathers but failure is always an orphan.

[greencharlie]

10. unbelievable...

with a unified Democratic Senate this could have passed...

[freddie mertz]

37. Did the president take a stand on this?

Was there any real effort by the administration to protect the people from these predators?

I am asking because I do not know.

[jillan]

11. There's some pretty interesting names on the NAY list - why?

What is the reason for voting against this bill? I seriously don't know.

[greencharlie]

12. because they're in the back pocket of the CC companies. Plain and simple I'm afraid. nt

[ProSense]

17. Yeah, yesterday Cantwell

was a hero, today she's "in the back pocket of the CC companies."

It would be interesting to hear the logic for voting no.

After all, the two Republicans who voted yes (Cochran and LeMieux) aren't exactly pro-consumers.

[Cha]

19. Exactly.

[ej510]

23. Corporate whore like alot of dems and all of rethugs.

[freddie mertz]

38. She certainly let us down on this one!

Shocking, really.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Whitehouse would not support this if proposed CFPA covered this.

I'd love to hear their rationale for voting against this.

[ej510]

16. Almost half of our party in Washington is owned by a corporation.

[Mass]

27. The perception that, if it passes, they wont get the 60 votes for the bill.

I dont see that as a good reason and am disappointed my senator voted against this, but I think this is the rational: put only amendments that will not prevent the final vote.

[Greybnk48]

25. Those in power want to get rid of Feingold in WI.

They say he's vulnerable. I say he's one of the only real Dems in Washington and everyone in the country who is like-minded ought to be supporting his campaign.

[ieoeja]

28. Dems pass a FEDERAL law to limit credit card rates, deny STATES that power.

Thought I'd give you a better headline since yours is somewhat inaccurate given the Durbin amendment they *did* pass to "protect consumers from usurious credit card rates!"

[Mass]

29. The Durbin amendement is about debit cards fees for companies that accept debit cards.

Nothing to do with this.

[flpoljunkie]

30. Thanks for clearing that up, Mass.

[Bryn]

31. Blanche Lincoln voted NAY

What a xxxxxx!! I hope Halter beat her in runoff. We don't need her here in Arkansas.

Lincoln (D-AR), Nay

[Lorien]

32. Oh man, that's depressing

I don't use credit cards, but I have four friends who are in serious trouble with the ones that they have. I was really hoping that the Dems would win one for the people on this issue. :(

[HCE SuiGeneris]

39. Why are we paying their salaries? It used to be when we were usurped

we actually revolted against it.