Elizabeth Warren: Damaging the Democratic Brand [WITH CORRECTION]
Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:18 PM - Edit history (2)
I know that a lot of Looney Left thinks that Professor Warren's cute little questions are all FDR, but it's just GRANDSTANDING.
Those of us who are smart, experienced, and really study these things know that the decent civil servants that she savaged for her own glorification DON'T NEED to put our Financial Titans on trial, BECAUSE THEY'VE STOPPED COMMITTING CRIMES.
Just look at the following chart and see for yourself:
See! Wall Street is so SCARED by Obama that they've stopped committing crimes! These are actual statistics! You'd think a so-called "Harvard Professor" like Warren could understand REAL numbers, and figure out some other way to get some attention, like proposing a free trade bill with North Korea.
Warren's antics are doing NOTHING but angering the Important Americans, and there will be consequences. Next time Bill, Rahm, Larry, or the rest go back to Wall Street for cash, make no mistake, they'll get less. And the price of mansions isn't going down, you know.
Poor Timmy might start at less than $10 mil a year! That's not right!
24 years of Third Way PROGRESS is in jeopardy!
So LET'S STOP WARREN. If you live in Massachusetts, tell your fellow Lefty Moonbats to vote for Scott Brown next time to help make up for last November's mistake. If you live in another state, send cash to Bill, Rahm, Larry or one of the other patriotic Americans whose work is being destroyed by this difficult woman.
And won't somebody do something for poor Timmy?
Sincerely yours,
Third-Way Manny
ON EDIT:
An astute reader noticed that the chart above doesn't actually cover what I claim it does. I don't know when "facts" started to matter, but just in case, I've created a new graph based on the NY Times article In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures.
See! Proves my point even better! That shrill woman is barking up the wrong tree, there's NOTHING to be found. Statistics don't lie!
= new reply since forum marked as read
I can't. Fines were paid but their criminality still remains to this day. Can you name the Wall Street criminal that Spitzer roomed with at Princeton?
That same criminal described how easy it was to "rip off clients" while Spitzer was AG:
IMHO, Spitzer is a politician playing the game, nothing more.
Maybe Holder would come after them then? 
at the end of his post. For those of us used to reading his messages, it was pretty clear.
I thought I had wandered into a parallel universe winding up into the neo-con's Cave.... My bowls were roiling and I forgot to breathe. 
Don't pull shit like that, without qualifying it, please! 
I'm an old woman and scares like that aren't good for my BP. 
Warren is my feminist superhero and she is coming through on her promises, taking no prisoners! 
It's late. Good night my new friends. 
welcome to DU!
That would be you, Manny. As for Sen. Warren, meh. Nu, do me something. 
Together, we will fight the Bank Griefers!
"See! Wall Street is so SCARED by Obama that they've stopped committing crimes! These are actual statistics! You'd think a so-called "Harvard Professor" like Warren could understand REAL numbers, and figure out some other way to get some attention, like proposing a free trade bill with North Korea."
...they were "SCARED" by Bush too. Did you notice that the decline in prosecutions coincides with the repeal of Glass-Steagall? I mean, the prosecutions dropped by more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2008.
Posted by Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein: So JP Morgan lost $2 billion. They’re not asking for a bailout. They’re not threatening to capsize either themselves or anyone else in the system. And so they say, and it’s not an entirely unfair question, why is this Elizabeth Warren’s business, or the U.S. Congress’s business? Isn’t making bad investment decisions legal?
Elizabeth Warren: That is what Jamie Dimon has said. He says it’s stupid and sloppy but we’ll fix it. So stay away. But what if the next loss is $20 billion or $200 billion? Is he saying JP Morgan should be entitled to continue to take these bets right up until the day it lands in the taxpayers lap again?
Banks are different than other kinds of companies. We learned that in 2008. They run the risk of bringing down our jobs, our pensions, our economy. The basic deal we made with them is they get to operate banks — the things that take savings and investments and checking accounts and get a federal guarantee — in return for submitting to substantial oversight to make sure their activities are safe.
<...>
EK: Do you support a modernized Glass-Steagall law?
EW: Yeah! I’ve talked with Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington State. She’s been working on that, and I think the debate should be on the table.
EK: What about breaking up the big banks?
EW: You’re approaching risk from two different directions. One is the risk of the activity. That’s the Volcker rule. The other direction is to say risk is an assumption of size. Community banks shouldn’t have to deal with complex regulatory oversight, but the largest institutions should be subject to far more aggressive oversight and have to pay more for the protections they receive from the American taxpayer. Then shareholders may decide to invest in institutions that are not so large.
<...>
EK: Can Dodd-Frank work if it’s effectively implemented?
EW: I think Dodd-Frank is a strong bill that moves in the right direction. But the market keeps changing. The practices keep changing. The idea that we’ll pass one law and then declare that problem is solved, we’ll be back again in 50 years, just doesn’t work anymore. We had a double problem here: Both deregulation and the failure to adapt to new financial conditions and products and practices. That’s what permitted risk to multiply in the system until it nearly brought the economy to its knees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/elizabeth-warren-thats-the-strongest-argument-for-a-modern-glass-steagall/2012/05/14/gIQAfxTLPU_blog.html
Like I said in another post, if Elizabeth Warren succeeds in getting regulators to do their jobs, it will ensure that Dodd-Frank has significant impact. That was one of the complaints: Regardless of the law, nothing will happen if regulators don't do their jobs.
The next few years are going to be fun. It will be even more fun if Democrats maintain control of the Senate and regain control of the House.
- "Woah!"
And why can't he just borrow a stake from daddy and start an investment company like everyone else does?
You do have some powerful arguments for the third way! By gosh, sign me up! I never realized just how effective they are. Can't argue with statistics!
that the way forward is to tighten our belts, just a little less than the Republicans want to.
