Elizabeth Warren Takes Off the Gloves

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/16719-focus-elizabeth-warren-takes-off-the-gloves

Lately, however, she hasn't hesitated to go for the jugular. Shortly after that Politico piece was released, a video of her lambasting top regulators for settling with big banks instead of taking them to trial went viral on YouTube. Then she grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke over a Bloomberg report that calculated that big banks essentially each receive an $83 billion subsidy from the government, because their too-big-to-fail status acts as a guarantee against insolvency. Next, she attacked Attorney General Eric Holder for admitting he was hesitant to prosecute big banks, arguing that his "testimony that the biggest banks are too-big-to-jail shows once again that it is past time to end too-big-to-fail."

Why the change? The Boston Globe's Joshua Green points out that unlike in Hillary Clinton's time, keeping a low profile isn't always in a freshman senator's best interest:In the days of yore, a newcomer like Warren could bide her time, gradually win the respect of her colleagues, and then, maybe, after years of diligent effort, put together a coalition large enough to succeed. Today's Senate doesn't operate that way. Public pressure, often driven by outrage and anger, is the only force that reliably brings results. [Boston Globe]

The left, predictably, loves it. Daily Kos gleefully announced, "Oh yeah, there's a new sheriff in town." David Sirota at Salon hopes that Warren's rise "will prove that quiescence is not a virtue and that good things do not come to those who wait."

The banking industry has, at least in public, been very polite concerning Warren. But it's not hard to imagine James Ballentine, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, saying the following through clenched teeth: "She is as advertised. She came in and concentrated on being a strong advocate for consumers, and she has certainly done that and a little more."

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Make no mistake... I got this

"Now Jamie... Lloyd... Look, let's not blow this out of proportion. I'm worried about this too, and we're working on it. Let's be clear here, it's not all my fault, you guys wanted her out of CFPB, too... But how was I supposed to know Massachusetts voters aren't idiots?"

[snot]

4. +1--sad but true.

[november2]

8. Cool

Another excellent post Manny. Keep it up.

[idwiyo]

19. K&R you win this tread!

[99Forever]

20. Perfect Manny.

Cue the Bad Policy Protection Squad.

[Myrina]

33. In a nutshell, sadly, you are correct.

When, instead, he should be her biggest cheerleader.

Sigh.

[Zorra]

37. You are sooo bad.

Watch out for drones.

[forestpath]

47. +1

[treestar]

55. I want Warren elected but with a Republican Congress

To see your meltdown. You simply refuse to deal with reality and think the right President makes it all OK.

[eomer]

68. President Obama had a Democratic Congress his first two years.

I'd prefer to see what Warren would do with that.

[treestar]

69. My hypothetical calls for one exactly the same

With a Lieberman figure in it.

Are you for the separation of powers? The President does not "do with" Congress. It's supposed to be its own source of power not a tool of the President.

And that's the bottom line. People are immature about it - frustrated that having just the Presidency doesn't mean we get everything we want - and by using our personal priorities.

[Dragonfli]

74. You prefer a Republican Congress? Makes sense to me, the policies are up your alley.

It would be harder for them with an executive branch that opposed them rather than agreeing with and enabling them, so perhaps you should Pick a DLC president, maybe Hill. Or better yet a Republican.

Good luck, I will be working for progressive outcomes, so we will likely be political enemies.

[treestar]

94. that's just a hypothetical

you are pretending Obama can "oppose" Congress and get anything other than government shut down.

You simply don't accept the reality of our system.

My point is the over reliance on the Presidency and just wanting a savior president who is supposedly going to be so "tough" they will ignore Congress, which is ignoring the basis of our Republic and would get said President impeached, and they would deserve it.

A real progressive would not be hoping Elizabeth Warren can save them in 2016 regardless of Congress. A real progressive would be trying to get a 2014 Congress that won't cause government shutdown over every single piece of legislation and confirm reasonable judicial appointments, let alone pass something progressive.

[awoke_in_2003]

113. Well, the democrats control the Senate...

not that it matters a damn, because Harry Reid was against filibuster reform. His words said he was for it, his actions spoke differently.

[MannyGoldstein]

97. Would Warren agree/ask/demand cuts to benefits for the poor, the sick, and the permanently disabled?

Would Warren eagerly leap into massive new "free" trade agreements? Would Warren deregulate financial controls on publicly-traded companies? Would Warren bail out banks with trillions in taxpayer cash without demanding any serious reform? Would Warren fill her White House with Wall Streeters? Would Warren have her staff meet regularly with lobbyists across the street from the White House, so there's no embarrassing official record? Would Warren be OK with calling the Liberal wing of her party "fucking retarded"?

I doubt it.

I hope we get the chance to find out!

[ProSense]

104. Not likely

"Would Warren agree/ask/demand cuts to benefits for the poor, the sick, and the permanently disabled?"

...but, though non-binding, she did vote to repeal or reduce the estate tax.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022594278

[MannyGoldstein]

105. Yeah, that's weird.

Someone on DU suggested that it was a poison pill of some sort.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265216#post2

I'm still waiting to hear back from her office on what's up with that.

[ProSense]

106. Really?

"Someone on DU suggested that it was a poison pill of some sort. "

A poison pill in a non-binding bill? There were 19 Democrats who voted against it.

[MannyGoldstein]

107. You may be right.

I'll wait to hear what her office has to say.

[ProSense]

64. Remember

Wall Street reform?

Reed, Brown, Warren Demand an Up or Down Vote on CFPB Director

Senators say efforts to prevent a vote on CFPB Director imperils consumers and undermines our economy

WASHINGTON, DC – In an effort to protect consumers and crack down on financial fraud and abuse, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today called on Republicans to end unprecedented obstruction and allow an up or down vote on Richard Cordray’s nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Reed, Brown, and Warren, who are members of the Banking Committee, said that confirming a CFPB director will help consumers and strengthen our financial marketplace.

Congress created the CFPB in 2010 to help ensure the financial products and services that Americans depend on every day —including credit cards, mortgages, and loans—work better for the people who use them. But in an effort to limit the effectiveness of the consumer watchdog, a sufficient number of Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of the CFPB’s director, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. Earlier this month, 43 Republican Senators sent a letter protesting the CFPB’s independence and vowing to oppose any nominee to lead the consumer protection agency.

“Every year, hard-working American families lose millions of dollars to deceptive financial practices like hidden fees and predatory lending. The CFPB is there to help keep families from getting scammed. They are shining a spotlight on predatory loan practices and products -- bringing them into the light, where they can be seen and stopped. We must not let opponents of Wall Street reform turn back the clock on consumer protection. Instead of preventing the CFPB from doing its job, opponents of the agency should take an up or down vote. A well-regulated marketplace is good for the economy. It improves consumer and business confidence and ensures fair competition,” said Senator Reed.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stands up for average Americans,” Senator Brown said. “And yet, Wall Street special interests and their allies in Congress have repeatedly refused to approve anyone to serve as the Director unless the agency’s authority is watered down. The American people are fed up with the obstructionism in Washington. We need to protect this agency that protects American families.”

“Under the leadership of Director Cordray, the CFPB has been making a real difference for hard working families everywhere. After two years, it is time for the Senate to give Rich Cordray a vote--up or down--and remove the uncertainty that is costly to families, to community banks and credit unions, and to everyone in financial services.” said Senator Warren. “Political stalemates don’t end in more government or less government, but in bad government - government that lacks the clarity and predictability that our businesses need to plan for the future, to serve their customers, and to create jobs.”

Since the CFPB opened for business in 2011, it has helped hold financial institutions accountable for mistreating consumers and worked in coordination with our federal regulators to return roughly $425 million to consumers’ pockets. The agency’s Consumer Response center has already heard from more than 100,000 consumers with their individual problems related to their credit cards, mortgages, student loans, and bank accounts.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=339671

[WillyT]

65. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[AverageJoe90]

75. -1,000,000,000,000. n/t

[Plucketeer]

67. SPOT ON! Manny.

You and Ms. Warren need to STAY OUT OF small airplanes!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

70. Here Manny, let me fix that for you...

[img][/img]

"Now Jamie... Lloyd... Look, let's not blow this out of proportion. I'm worried about this too, and we're working on it. Let's be clear here, it's not all my fault, you guys wanted her out of CFPB, too... I pushed for and signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 that created the CPFB, then nominated Elizabeth to run the CFPB for about a year until the GOP made clear that they would constantly filibuster if she was the nominee, and then specifically went out of my way to endorse her Senate run, even though a President doesn't always do that.

But how was I supposed to know Massachusetts voters aren't idiots? still there should be more than I can do for her."


Gee, and I thought the D.U. was the place people went to get away from asswipes who lie about Democrats. My bad.

[wryter2000]

76. Hear, hear n/t

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Let's start with your last point...

On what date did Warren win the Democratic primary?

On what date did the President endorse her? Same day? Next day?

Answer that, and we can move on to the other two.

[ProSense]

82. Do you

"Let's start with your last point...

On what date did Warren win the Democratic primary?

On what date did the President endorse her? Same day? Next day? "

...think he secretly hates her?

[MannyGoldstein]

83. Isn't it fair to answer my question first? nt

[ProSense]

87. Sure

"Isn't it fair to answer my question first?"

You: On what date did Warren win the Democratic primary?

The primary was on September 6, 2012, but she was unopposed having secured the nomination at the party convention in June 2012.

Elizabeth Warren lands party endorsement with record 95 percent support at Massachusetts Democratic Convention
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/elizabeth_warren_lands_party_e.html

You: On what date did the President endorse her? Same day? Next day? "

October 16, 2012.

President Obama Endorses Elizabeth Warren for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts

October 16, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC - President Barack Obama endorsed consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren for the United States Senate, praising her commitment and leadership standing up for middle class families.

"Elizabeth Warren will be a strong, tireless and determined advocate for the people of Massachusetts, building on her remarkable record of working to help middle class families get ahead," said President Obama. "Her life's work has been helping ordinary Americans get the fair shot they need and deserve. Elizabeth's passionate advocacy on behalf of consumers led to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency is now protecting people from being taken advantage of by powerful companies. I know I can count on Elizabeth to stand with me to create jobs and opportunity for the people of Massachusetts and keep our country moving forward."

President Obama asked Warren to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new federal financial watchdog that she advocated and led the fight to create. A recent ad from the Warren campaign featured President Obama praising her efforts.

"I am honored to have President Obama's endorsement and eager to work with him to help the people of Massachusetts and to level the playing field to help middle class families get ahead," Warren said.

http://elizabethwarren.com/news/press-releases/president-obama-endorses-elizabeth-warren-for-u-s-senate-in-massachusetts

Now, my question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595437

[MannyGoldstein]

96. So Obama waited either 1 or 4 months to endorse Warren

I have no idea if Obama hates or dislikes Warren. I am confident that he's pretty disappointed that Warren is/will make his cherished banker caste upset, and that she is poised to block the very serious adult business of compromising with insane people, cutting government spending in a depression, and reducing benefits to the poor, the elderly, and the permanently disabled.

[ProSense]

98. You're

"I have no idea if Obama hates or dislikes Warren. I am confident that he's pretty disappointed that Warren is/will make his cherished banker caste upset, and that she is poised to block the very serious adult business of compromising with insane people, cutting government spending in a depression, and reducing benefits to the poor, the elderly, and the permanently disabled. "

..."confident" the President is "disappointed" Warren is doing her job?

Statement from Sen. Elizabeth Warren on confirmation of Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441721

Federal Reserve Chair: ‘Too Big To Fail’ Banks Still A Problem
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2593142

[MannyGoldstein]

100. "needs to be addressed if at all possible"

Sounds like Benanke's gloves are off!

[ProSense]

103. President Obama is likely rooting for Warren. n/t

[JDPriestly]

108. Obama was elected in 2008 to a good extent thanks to money from the

too-big-to-fail banks. He owes them. His appointments to Treasury, the Attorney General's Office and to the Fed prove it.

The big banks are not prosecuted, not even when they launder huge sums of drug money, because Obama's administration, his appointees, don't do it.

[ProSense]

110. Well

"Obama was elected in 2008 to a good extent thanks to money from the too-big-to-fail banks. "

...they can thank him for putting in place Dodd-Frank, including the CFPB.

Public Citizen, a public interest nonprofit organization representing more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, hereby petitions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) to recognize that the Bank of America Corporation (“Bank of America” or “the bank”) poses a “grave threat” to the stability of the United States financial system and to mitigate that threat, as provided by section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”). 1 Pursuant to the authority in the Act, the Board and the Council should reform Bank of America into one or more institutions that are smaller, less interconnected, less complex, more manageable and, as a result, less systemically dangerous.

Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a “grave threat” to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, “shall” mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institution’s mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.

- more -

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441546

[JDPriestly]

118. The Public Citizen's proposal to have the Fed and the Council impose

penalties on a bank that is out of control is like asking organizations controlled by the banks to police themselves.

It is absurd. Dodd-Frank is not nearly hard enough on the banks to be effective. It is a wet noodle. It was not what advocates for consumers wanted.

[AikidoSoul]

123. YES! THANK YOU!!!!

I'm really quite sick of the distortions and lies about Obama on DU.

SICK!!!!

[dipsydoodle]

84. Exceptionally astute observation.

Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2013, 06:26 AM - Edit history (1)

[awoke_in_2003]

112. I hate to say you may be right, Manny...

but actions speak louder than words.

[mercymechap]

2. We really need a lot more

Elizabeth Warrens if we are going to keep the GOP from getting control back.

[Larry Ogg]

11. The GOP has plenty of accomplices within the DNC...

Who abolished "Glass–Steagall"?

Who gave banking and Wall Street criminals cabinet positions within Democratic administrations?

Who rewarded criminal behavior with trillions of taxpayer dollars, while doing nothing to discourage such behavior in the future, etc... etc... etc...?

How do we benefit when one corrupt Party looses control to their partner in crime, i.e. the other corrupt Party?

It's like the only difference between the two Parties is their religious views towards gays, female genitalia, and migrant workers.

Putting aside the manufactured distractions of homophobia, bigotry, and racism, when it comes to working for, protecting, and pandering to the predator class, with few exceptions, both Parties are one and the same.

[The Wizard]

51. yes

and yes again.

[mercymechap]

61. that's why we need more Warren's -

she doesn't go with the flow like many Democrats are willing to do so, just to keep peace, or their jobs.

However, there's more differences between the two parties than their views toward gays, female genitalia and migrant workers - the Republican Party also wants to cut Welfare, abolish Obamacare (go back to supporting ER treatments), abolish unions, privatize Education, SS, Medicare, as well as reduce Medicaid to a worthless nothing. They also want to deport anyone that isn't born here regardless of how long they've been here or how they got here.

[dkf]

3. Same with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

[daybranch]

5. Bologney

Neither Rand Paul nor Ted Cruz give 2 cents about the people. They only say what they believe necessary to advance their careers.

[jybarz]

6. Are you serious?

Not even close. These guys talk $hit. So unlike from Warren who's got plenty of substance.

[dkf]

7. You didn't see Hillary nor Obama doing this yet they had substance.

Elizabeth Warren, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are the new type of Senators putting their concerns front and center despite their lack of seniority. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. Ted Cruz is an arrogant, condescending jackass

who is more concerned about being the smartest man in the universe rather than ANYTHING to do with actually helping people. He would nitpick a nit even if it meant people starved by the thousnds.

Warren knows what the actions taken by banks and others have on the middle class and others. Her priority is helping them and easing their plight is at the crux of her argumnts.

Rand Paul is a twit who will take a stand especially if it can move his political agenda forward in all its glory.

You can sing the praises of Rand and Cruz and laud their thumbing their noses at seniority. You put your finger on the problem. "Their concerns" are what consumes them. They don't give a happy damn about the people who elected them or anybody else. They are all about their dogma and their careers.

You can have both of them. Enjoy!

[dkf]

26. Actually I'm not lauding any of them. I prefer Hillary's route for newbie Senators.

The thing is the base of both parties loves rabble rousers, not legislators that work diligently and create the cooperative atmosphere that advances laws. Instead people who get work done are called traitors for compromising.

I love how my former Senator Daniel Inouye handled himself. His grace and gravitas were wonderful to watch as was his dignity.

I also respect Hillary for how she handled her entry into the Senate. She could have asserted herself as Warren, Paul and Cruz have, but she didn't. Instead she put her nose down and worked as only she can to create a foundation of relationships that she can build on. Now that is smart.

[The Wizard]

52. Calling for justice

is rabble rousing? Not anymore.

[dkf]

59. Complaining that the market isn't recognizing the assertion that the Government will let banks fail

won't do a thing. The alleged discount the banks are getting is the price some bond buyer is putting on the lack of government credibility. Whose fault is it that people don't believe the government? That isn't the banks getting better rates by conning the public into thinking the government won't let them fail.

And the HSBC thing...that is an international problem with international implications. Moreover their presence in the US isn't big at all so they aren't too big to fail here. Are we now dictators of world banking policies?

She engenders rage but its not constructive. She is an impractical problem solver.

[JDPriestly]

111. Are we now dictators of world banking policies?

Nations around the world, with a very few exceptions, agree on drug policies that prohibit banks from laundering money.

We don't have to dictate world banking policies, but we can still enforce our laws here. Banks that launder drug money shoul be put out of business.

It's not Elizabeth Warren who engenders rage. It's the bankers and their repeated abuse of their position to make poor people even poorer and to push the hard-working middle classes into poverty.

They did it with the rancheros in Southern California. They did it with the farmers in the midwest during the Depression. And they did it to homeowners in 2008. It's repeated, and the Obama administration refuses to do anything about it. (I'm only mentioning a few of the banker's landgrabs in the past couple of hundred years. Banks have been doing this for a long time.)

"The alleged discount the banks are getting is the price some bond buyer is putting on the lack of government credibility." It's greed.

Savers are getting next-to-nothing for the money they deposit in the banks. Bond-holders are wealthier than ordinary savers and are taking advantage.

[Are_grits_groceries]

115. She is an impractical problem solver?

Well none of that bunch on Capitol Hill seems to have the stomach to really solve any financial problems. They nibble politely around the edges and act as if they are doing great things. However, they are scared shitless of offending the big money.

Warren knows what questions to ask and who to ask. AND she will ask them.

I'll take her any day. She will point out blatant failures and push for action. Her very pointed moves may well force some action toward progress. Warren may not write it, but hands might be forced.

[vinny9698]

58. Hillary was building support for her presidential run

Warren has no interest in running for president. Using the senate as a stepping stone to the presidency, you need to act one way.

[dkf]

62. Turning the Senate into the House is not good.

That just leads to more adversarial relationships and less cooperation.

Even if Hillary doesn't run for President she was a better Sec of State having earned respect and trust from her colleagues. That's why she largely escaped the Benghazi debacle. That woman is a smart cookie.

[JDPriestly]

114. You seem to be saying that Hillary is a cleverer conniver than Elizabeth

Warren.

I think that Elizabeth Warren is an unintended politician. She is in it for the policy, not for the power and fame.

Elizabeth Warren is on a mission to change something. I don't think Hillary Clinton is. Hillary Clinton just goes along with the majority.

Her stance on the Iraq War proved that.

[gateley]

27. I think Rand Paul, at first, used to be up front about his concerns/beliefs. He still is to some

extent, but I just get the feeling he's begun to watch his P's and Q's with an eye on a Presidential run in 2016. I don't think his father ever started couching what he said. Don't agree with either of them but you have to give a grudging respectful nod at someone in that crazy arena who doesn't just obediently fall in with the Party Line.

Ted Cruz -- I've never viewed him as anything other than a manipulative, power hungry politician. My sense is that every word he's spoken is carefully planned to get him in the Presidental race.

I'm happy Warren is breaking with tradition and coming out full blast. Especially regarding the state of the big banks, etc. This is important and an area she's been involved with for some time -- not just political posturing. As long as we have someone who is sincerely passionate about this, we don't have time to wait for her to take baby steps.

Just responding because I understand the point you're making.

[dkf]

35. Banks are a risk to the system so I can understand being concerned about that.

But being mad about bank services is so misguided because there are so many options out there!

Moreover being upset about inequity due to banks is crazy talk to me. I'm reading a study on the reasons for inequity and they don't address banking at all.

I think she has a great scapegoat in banks, but she is really off base thinking that's a solution to inequity.

This is the Bloomberg piece
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/the-shocking-truth-about-inequality.html

This is the study:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Spring%202013/2013a_panousi.pdf

For a professor you would think she would be more contemplative.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Ever-growing inequity is due to the game being rigged

And the rigging is being done by the bankers, with the eager-beaver help of politicians from both parties for promises of campaign contributions and millions in reward money once they leave office.

Senator Warren gets that. More than getting it, she preaches it, and is fighting to fix it.

[dkf]

42. So when the Cyprus banks fail everything is hunky dory? I doubt it.

Well maybe then everyone will be equally miserable. If that's the goal then it just may work.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Sorry, I'm a little slow today.

Can you explain your point in small words for me?

[JDPriestly]

117. The Cyprus banks are failing because they got too big to fail for a country

the size of Cyprus. They were giving very high interest rates to Russian depositors who not only liked to keep their money in Cyprus thanks to the largesse of the banks but also because Cyprus did not make them pay taxes.

Cyprus was a haven for very rich Russians who wanted to avoid taxes.

It was probably also a haven for other very rich tax-cheats from around the world. Cyprus was giving away money it did not have.

The problems of the banks and of the economy in Cyprus was like that of Iceland. Their bankers were either fools or crooks and they got caught. That could happen anywhere.

If we would raise the taxes on the Wall Street speculators in this country and especially tax their bonuses and the capital gains of big investors, then we could avoid some of the problems of Cyprus. Elizabeth Warren is very precisely trying to veer us away from the pitfalls that Cyprus has fallen into.

[gateley]

43. Without reading these yet, my feeling is the inequity comes from the big banks

getting a pass -- and we never seem to. They're not hurting, we are. I want us ALL to be healthy -- the banks and the people -- our society!

I'll check these out, thanks.

[dkf]

44. The banks are a tool of the financial system of this country.

They expand the money supply by lending, and cause deleveraging when they don't. That is the government's interest in keeping it viable. The solution to struggling cutizen's problems are income related and debt management.

The stunning thing is that the EU has banking problems multitudes worse than we have it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592835



Are European banks responsible for Euopean inequity?

If I honestly thought banks were the problem and the solution to inequity I would have no hesitance in stating so but I don't see the connection. I understand why the average Joe is upset with his/her bank balance and obligations and having to be so meticulous about keeping up with it all. But really that isn't the bigger picture solution to our problems. Its just the one we see in front of our face.

[JDPriestly]

116. As a Harvard professor of law, Elizabeth Warren thinks of things in

terms of justice. Economists are often not concerned with justice. Nor are historians in general.

And while not all law professors care about justice, Elizabeth Warren does.

Our country was founded on the hope that we would never have an aristocracy. Unfortunately, the right-wing in America including the bankers (and especially including the bankers and a few Texan billionaires) are intent on forming an American aristocracy.

Banks are part of the effort to form a landed aristocracy in the US. Our farming is dominated far too much by "corporate" agriculture -- funded by the banking and hedge-fund aristocracy that controls what seeds are planted and how land is used. Our industry is dominated by the same banking and hedge-fund aristocracy through big corporations in the retail and defense and energy sectors. They love "free trade" because the only thing it frees is their capital -- to make huge profits overseas and hide their money from the taxes in the various tax havens around the world.

If you are born rich in America, you don't have to take on the student loan debt that is impoverishing a generation of middle class kids who are smart and hard-working.

If a person is born rich, he thinks that the banks are just fine.

Conversely, if a person thinks the banks are just fine, it is very probable that he was born rich. And if a person was born rich he is a part of the class that is seeking to become the aristocracy or already belongs to the select few in the aristocracy. Naturally, a person who is born rich thinks the policies and practices of banks and hedge-funds are just wonderful.

So of course, a person who was born rich and likes the policies of banks and hedge-funds and doesn't care about justice for ordinary people will prefer Hillary Clinton who does the bidding of the banks and hedge-funds to Elizabeth Warren who seeks to regulate those same banks and hedge-funds.

Our opinions reflect our experience, who we are and who our parents are or were.

[maindawg]

66. I am amazed

that anyone one this forum would could be fooled by Rand Paul. Let me make this clear, Rand Paul is a light weight. Rand Paul is a creep. Only ignorant rednecks would see Rand Paul as a statesman.Only a clueless make believe doctor would think he can run for president.
When Hillary came into the senate we were not in a great depression caused bt criminal bankers. We are now. Be glad we have one honest senator.

[gateley]

85. if you're referring to me, I am not "fooled" by Rand Paul.

If I were, I'd be posting elsewhere, wouldn't I?

My point, as I mentioned to the DUer to whom I was responding, is that I think he and his father have not been afraid to state their beliefs even if it went against Party Speak. I do acknowledge that in any politician - because it's so rare on EITHER side.
Again, as I stated, I think Paul the Younger has begun playing the game and is pandering and adjusting now to get in the groundwork for 2016. That's all I was saying, and how you would think I had been fooled by him is an erroneous supposition on your part.

We have more than one honest senator -- but I think Warren is the best suited for this battle and will keep up the good fight. We need to let her -- and Washington -- know, she's got our support.

[pacalo]

72. You're implying that Elizabeth Warren doesn't have substance???

And directly accusing her of "putting HER concerns front & center"?

You just lost a lot of credibility. A lot.

[demwing]

77. That means nothing

Sure, Cruz and Paul are not willing to take the long road, which is one point of the OP, but their similar styles don't translate to similar politics, or motivations. Style is superficial.

I know you prefer the slow and steady path, but I don't get why. The major point of the OP is that this method doesn't work any longer.

Why would you support an outdated, ineffective method?

[JDPriestly]

109. Do you have any quotes from Ted Cruz regarding his plans for

policies to help the middle class?

Same for Rand Paul?

They represent the people who were born with capital and who use the capital they were born with as leverage to ruin the lives of others.

Libertarianism only helps the rich. It does utterly nothing for those of us born without silver spoons in our mouths. Anyone who claims to be a Democrat and does not understand that is a fool.

[Le Taz Hot]

9. You equate Rand Paul and Ted Cruz

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

with Elizabeth Warren? Wow! When did Rand Paul and Ted Cruz achieve their doctorates? Warren is a professor at Harvard. You guys are already getting desperate and it's only 2013. Well, you should be because she's something we've seen in Washington far too rarely -- intelligence and a willingness to fight for the people. And she's got grassroots support, something the Third Way candidates will never have. Yeah, I'd be scared.

[graham4anything]

13. It's still rock and roll to me. Elizabeth is part of Team Obama. Member in good standing.

Let's stop with the division it only hurts Senator Warren and the Democratic party, of which she is a member in good standing now.

Reelect Elizabeth Warren for 6 terms US Senator, make her the best sinceTeddy & LBJ
I know I fully support Elizabeth Warren to be the LBJ of the Senate.

Elizabeth has done a remarkable turnaround since she was a republican and she voted for Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush, one has to admit.
I myself don't play this silly Ralph Nader sound byte that Bush and Gore were one and the same, and Kerry and Bush were one and the same, and the other debunked Nader lies
and deceptions.

And I fully support the reelection of Democratic Senator Warren to the US Senate in
2018, 2024, 2030, 2036, 2042, 2048, etc.
(admiting of course that she will be 94 in 30 years, around 2042, but Lautenberg is still senator, and so was Strom Thurmond).

BTW, I don't understand the OP as Elizabeth Warren is a great team player on a team
led by Barack Obama, President. So it makes no sense.

Everything she is saying is obviously endorsed in advance by President Obama, that is what I would think.
Senators can always say things (as can governors and House) that a President is unable to say out loud.
Their team is like the open mike asides.

but protocal makes it impossible for a president to say certain things.

Sort of like that movie line "If you build it they will come" and "It takes a village".
President Obama can't do it alone, that is why he built his team to build the coming decades.

Team mates like Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton, like Sonia Sotomayer, like Elena Kagen, like Janet Napolitano, like Corey Booker, like Deval Patrick, like Eric Holder etc.

They are all on the same team.

I thought that was a given, that it was obvious.
They are working TOGETHER not working apart.

or as Billy Joel (c) sang-
"It's the next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways
It's still rock and roll to me
Everybody's talkin' 'bout the new sound
Funny, but it's still rock and roll to me"

[MannyGoldstein]

14. So which open mike aside is controlling here?

Holder and Breuer saying big banks cannot be criminally prosecuted? Or Warren urging jail time for money laundering bankers?

Extra credit question: which one of these three will *not* be paid millions by Wall Street upon leaving government?

[Autumn]

16. You can have her six terms in the Senate. I would rather get her in the White House

for two terms. ASAP.

[idwiyo]

22. +1 or send her to us, she'll make a damn great PM for UK.

[Autumn]

24. No!!!! We are going to keep her, all for ourselves.

I'm sorry that there just isn't enough of her to go around. Here's a , not much of a consolation.

[idwiyo]

25. Hug is appreciated but maybe we can share? A month here, a month back in US? Please?

[Autumn]

32. When she's President, she will come and visit you.

But you can't keep her, sorry.

[idwiyo]

38. Well, that's not bad actually. We can always win her over and convince her to stay here for a bit to

teach our morons how to govern properly. Just for a short while....

MwaHa ha ha ha ha ha

[Demeter]

53. Second That

Or at least, Treasury

[gateley]

29. I'm thinking she may not be just operating with Obama's full endorsement --

not being a spokesperson for the administration.

I can't imagine Obama saying "go ahead and give Holder crap for not prosecuting the big boys" --

I think she's doing what she feels is right, but yes, is on Obama's team nonetheless.

[Demeter]

54. Elizabeth is on MY team--Team 99%

and the hokey-pokey President is NOT.

[A Simple Game]

41. "that a President is unable to say out loud"

You do know that President Obama is a lame duck, don't you? Just what percentage of the public would disapprove of him calling for bankers to be prosecuted?

Do you believe that President Obama is practicing the old saying "keep your friends near but keep your enemies nearer"?

If I were the Democratic Senator and Representatives, late this year and early next year I would start screaming for these rich criminals to be prosecuted, you would get half of the Republicans voting for you in 2014.

[JDPriestly]

120. Obama has not hesitated to suggest Medicare "reform."

Very few people want to see cuts to Medicare.

Obama also seems to favor the chained CPI for veterans and seniors. No hesitation to support that.

So, Obama is not afraid to step on toes. He is not afraid to offend a big part of the electorate.

Obama is just afraid to step on the toes of wealthy bankers. He is going to have two kids to put through college when he leaves the White House, and while he is wealthy compared to most of us, he will still need to do something. A nice speaking tour funded by big corporations and banks will probably fit the bill quite well.

And so our aristocracy grows in power. We don't notice it, but it is constantly gaining power over us.

[madville]

17. Paul and Cruz both have doctorate degrees

Rand Paul has a MD from Duke and Ted Cruz received his JD from Harvard.

Not endorsing them in any way whatsoever though

[Le Taz Hot]

23. Well, ya learn something new everyday.

I've never been interested enough in either of them to do any serious research on them. What I do know is that both are opportunistic, bigoted representatives of the 1%. They can't touch Elizabeth Warren in her ability to care for the interest of the people of the U.S. She's got class and intellect and could best either one of these jack offs on her worst day.

[gateley]

30. I think you nailed it -- the difference. Elizabeth warren is passionate about what is happening

to the people. She cares. They don't.

[JDPriestly]

119. Best of all, Elizabeth is a woman of the people.

Democrats are often accused of being elitist. That is actually pretty rare nowadays, but thanks to FDR and the Kennedys we have that reputation.

Elizabeth Warren teaches in an elite Ivy League school, but she is not Ivy League and not elite.

She is an Okie. That is what she is. And that is what she will always be. She sees things from the point of view of the middle and working classes.

I really respect and like Elizabeth Warren.

I'm glad she is on the side of real Democrats.

[trumad]

15. Did you really just go there?

[99Forever]

21. Fuck Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Throw out stinkbait, much?

[formercia]

45. Stink bait for those shit-eating bottom dwellers

that like to crash a good thread.

Warren 2016

[99Forever]

48. Exactly.

Did I mention:

Fuck Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

?

[2ndAmForComputers]

71. Still smarting from that horrible, awful, no-good day you had almost five months ago?

[delrem]

12. Elizabeth Warren totally looks to be for real.

She isn't a "player" like Hillary Clinton - no comparison that I can see.

I tell you, the Dem base better have her back, because the "Blue Dogs" and the DLC will be aiming knives at that spot, for sure.

[gateley]

31. Agree, agree and agree. nt

[WonderGrunion]

89. For god's sake, the DLC has closed up shop years ago.

This makes us look as bad as the right complaining how Acorn threw the 2012 election to Obama.

[delrem]

90. ????????????

2011 isn't long ago. The people making up the DLC didn't just vanish - they sought power, had power, coordinated with each other in managing power, and the connections they built didn't disappear.

But nevermind - if you say it all vanished "years ago", I'll go along for the ride. But what the hell has this to do with "the right complaining how Acorn threw the 2012 election to Obama"? I'm curious how you make that connection.

[WonderGrunion]

91. Acorn is equally as closed up.

And equally as powerless as the DLC to influence elections.

[delrem]

93. OK - I wasn't talking about influencing elections. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

99. True. They got a bad rep, so they changed to the Third Way.

In reality, the DLC is now called "the Democratic Party". They don't need a separate organization.

Time to flush 'em.

[WonderGrunion]

101. A refreshingly honest post from you Manny

It's nice to see you admit you want to flush the Democratic Party on Democratic Underground.

[MannyGoldstein]

102. Just to be clear - only the Third Wayers

Which is probably 90% or so. Replace them with FDR Democrats like Harkin, Warren, Markey, Begich, etc.

[bemildred]

18. Sen. Warren knows it's going to be a war, to get anything changed.

Billions in public money are at stake.

[ProSense]

28. Federal Reserve Chair: ‘Too Big To Fail’ Banks Still A Problem

Federal Reserve Chair: ‘Too Big To Fail’ Banks Still A Problem

By Travis Waldron

Amid rising concerns about large banks from senators, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that “too big to fail” banks still pose a major risk to the American economy. Massachusetts Sen. Elizatbeth Warren (D) grilled Bernanke over the persistence of Too Big To Fail institutions during a Senate hearing last week, and at a press conference yesterday, Bernanke made it clear that he agrees with Warren that such banks are still a “major issue” that need to be addressed:

BERNANKE: I certainly never meant to say to Senator Warren, and I share her concern about Too Big To Fail, it’s a major issue. I never meant to imply that the problem was solved and gone. It is not solved and gone. … I hope that we’ll make progress against Too Big To Fail, because I agree with her 100 percent that it’s a real problem and needs to be addressed if at all possible.

Warren’s reputation as a critic of Wall Street followed her to the Senate, where she has questioned regulators over bank prosecutions and whether large financial institutions were “too big for trial.” But Warren isn’t alone: Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) are prepping legislation to reduce the size of large banks, and Brown and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) have also pressed regulators and the Justice Dept. over the lack of prosecutions that creates the perception that banks have a “get out of jail free” card.

The largest banks, as this chart Brown displayed on the Senate floor last month shows, have only grown larger since the financial crisis:

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/21/1754021/bernanke-too-big-to-fail/

[healthnut7]

36. Ted Cruz

This hurts me to say, this yahoo was born a Canadian. I wonder what happened to him that
makes him so vile and heartless!!!
So one thing that you never have to worry about is him running for President!!

[The Wizard]

56. His physical resemblance

to Tail gunner Joe has him channeling the disgraced drunk Wisconsin senator. In essence, he's a jerkoff.

[DhhD]

60. And a liar; as he makes up stories about people he knew from the past calling them a, Pink-o

meaning they were communist. I would not believe anything that twisted babeler says.

[Maineman]

40. Help her clean up government !!!

How to Clean Up Government

Neutralize corporate, foreign, and other big money.

1. Require structured campaigns. Campaigns would consist of
- a specified minimum number of broadcasted debates among all reasonably viable candidates
- equal numbers of interviews by professional media personnel
- biographical information or resume provided by the candidate and checked for accuracy by the media, no random reports disguised as news will be permitted.

2. If any primary media entity (TV, radio, newspaper, magazine) accepts an ad for one candidate, the ad may not be run until that media entity has ad buys for equal time from all reasonably viable opponents. All ads will be charged at equal rates.

3. Media entities that do not follow the rules will have their license suspended for a minimum of one year. This applies to all relevant prinicpals not just the name of the media entity.

4. Control of Internet communications would not be feasible, and should not be attempted.

[gussmith]

49. Supreme Court Should Be Looking at This (in) Equality

..."a Bloomberg report that calculated that big banks essentially each receive an $83 billion subsidy from the government." Why are these fat cats more equal than those who pay the bills?

It baffles me that some people have the courage, conviction and commitment it takes to run for congress yet they are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to doing the right thing such as regulating such unfair payoffs. Poorly stated but I am incensed at the injustice of squandered taxpayer money. Elizabeth Warren is a leader and the rest of those elected officials should get on board.

[closeupready]

50. If all other news today is bad, this made mine anyway.

I so LOVE that woman, and would be so eager to see her run for President!!!

K&R

[Swede Atlanta]

57. At one time the same argument was made about "Ma Bell"....

It was argued that the nation's economy was closely tied to the ability of the Bell System to provide telephone and other electronic communication to the nation (and the world) that breaking it up would be detrimental.

The opposite has proven to be true. Breaking up de-facto monopolies benefits consumers and drives innovation and competition.

I seriously doubt that without the AT&T breakup, we would see local and domestic long distance service as a "commodity". We would still be paying way too much just to connect to another telephone (no call waiting, 3-way calling, etc.) in our same area. Long distance would still be exorbitant. I recall paying an average of $200.00 a month just for long distance to keep in contact with my family in the inter-mountain and pacific areas of this country. Today I pay a combined total of $25.00 plus taxes and fees for the same service.

We MUST breakup the big banks. We MUST re-instate Glass-Steagal. We MUST create an environment in which the failure of one or two institutions does not bring our economy to its knees.

Go Senator Warren, Go!!!!!

[JDPriestly]

121. Great post! Thanks.

[gtar100]

63. I doubt that is what James Ballentine is saying through clenched teeth.

It's about time criminals and their accomplices get treated as such. These bankers and supposed "regulators" are willing to cause horrific suffering across the globe to satisfy their own greed. They deserve neither respect nor deference.

[Dragonfli]

73. There is no doubt about it, she is shinning an extremely bright spotlight

on the cockroaches that are devouring an entire nations cash, I like watching them scurry about in panic mode searching for a shadow or crevice they can hide in.

I only wish there was some Dept. that could prosecute crimes and punish criminals, I don't know what such a Dept. might be called but would be an excellent way to enforce Justice by prosecuting crimes with an intent to punish the guilty. It could work well in concert with her efforts to expose these criminals.

There is an organization run by some guy named Holdout? Boulder? (don't quite remember the name), but that dept. is concerned with deciding the cost of the license to defraud and steal, a comparatively small fee compared to the profit of such epic larceny, a reasonable cost of doing business. It is a start to charge a small fee, but I think we need another Dept. like the one I described.

I bet Obama is working on such a new Dept. right now, if only he had some authority.

[JDPriestly]

122. +1000

[yurbud]

79. what do we have to do to make sure that voices like Warren dominate the party not

corrupt corporate Dems?

[blkmusclmachine]

80. Nice words, but how about the ACTION???

[99Forever]

86. Can you say...

.. Attorney General Erik Holder?

[BillyRibs]

81. Elizabeth Warren,

Why isn't this Woman My President?

[WonderGrunion]

88. I love Elizabeth Warren

And I love President Obama for all the support he has given her and continues to give her.

[midnight]

92. Why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans

want?

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/16700-why-are-politicians-tone-deaf-on-the-economy

[supercats]

95. I Love Elizabeth Warren!

I really want her to run for president in 2016. Nobody on the democratic side that I can see will be as helpful to the majority of americans as she will be. She would give the american people a true choice as to what kind of a country they wanted when she ran against the same old tired republican challenger, whoever it will be.