dayman Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Getting after it on her main issue. Love or hate it...this push...very popular with almost everyone including many upper class people. Edited February 16, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 The fake indian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Is she on the warpath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 We need more regulations dammit!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Lets not forget the whole story, shall we....... Regulators 'Sheriff' Warren Scalded Are Obama Appointees Ed Schultz was in seventh heaven, lionizing Elizabeth Warren [new first name 'Sheriff'] for the way she grilled financial regulators for failing to take big banks to trial. Just one teenie-weenie factoid Ed failed to mention: those two regulators he showed Warren scalding during his MSNBC show tonight were appointed by, yup, President Barack Obama. President Obama appointed Thomas Curry Comptroller of the Currency and appointed Elisse Walter head of the SEC. Ed managed to evade those inconvenient truths. He railed instead against gutless "government regulators", never saying who put them in their positions. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/02/15/schultzs-dirty-secret-regulators-sheriff-warren-scalded-are-obama-#ixzz2L4pw7pd9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 She want to have bigum banks pay back in wampum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Elizabeth Warren’s heroic Senate demagoguery by William A. Jacobson Saturday, February 16, 2013 on the Senate Banking Committee, Elizabeth Warren once again became the hero of the left because she embarrassed Hapless Bank Regulators, as the Huffington Post put it:Bank regulators got a sense Thursday of how their lives will be slightly different now that Elizabeth Warren sits on a Senate committee overseeing their agencies. At her first Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Warren questioned top regulators from the alphabet soup that is the nation’s financial regulatory structure: the FDIC, SEC, OCC, CFPB, CFTC, Fed and Treasury. The Democratic senator from Massachusetts had a straightforward question for them: When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial? It was a harder question than it seemed. Well, of course it’s a harder question than it seems, because it’s an irrelevant question. The issue is whether regulators achieve regulatory goals, not whether there is a show trial. Lost in the hurrahs for Warren was the reasonableness of the regulators’ answers (via HuffPo): “We do not have to bring people to trial,” Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, assured Warren, declaring that his agency had secured a large number of “consent orders,” or settlements. “I appreciate that you say you don’t have to bring them to trial. My question is, when did you bring them to trial?” she responded. “We have not had to do it as a practical matter to achieve our supervisory goals,” Curry offered. Think about what Warren was demanding, that a bank under the supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency be brought to trial even if the bank consented to all the relief demanded by regulators. To what purpose? To destabilize the banking system by causing doubts as to whether the financial institution at issue would survive a trial? Warren then move on to the Securities and Exchange Commission witness (via HuffPo): Warren turned to Elisse Walter, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who said that the agency weighs how much it can extract from a bank without taking it to court against the cost of going to trial. “I appreciate that. That’s what everybody does,” said Warren, a former Harvard law professor. “Can you identify the last time when you took the Wall Street banks to trial?” “I will have to get back to you with specific information,” Walter said as the audience tittered. Walter then pointed out that the SEC does heavily litigate. And so it does, as a simple check by Warren of the SEC’s website would show. The SEC does take cases to trial(and sometimes loses). But again, what would be the purpose of taking to trial an investment bank or brokerage firm as an entity which already consented to relief the government deemed sufficient to achieve the regulatory purpose? Elizabeth Warren understands all this. Whatever she is, she’s no dummy. But she saw an opportunity to score a cheap demagogic point by asking an irrelevent question to witnesses who did not anticipate the question because the question is of importance only to politicians seeking headlines, not to people truly interested in financial reform and enforcement. . Edited February 16, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Any piece that starts out by using the phrase "hero of the left," is a good indication of how it will conclude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Any piece that starts out by using the phrase "hero of the left," is a good indication of how it will conclude... Pretty short-sighted thinking. The point of the thread was to praise Senator Warren, the point of the article was to acknowledge that (via the Huffington Post) and give opinion as to where they are mistaken. Try a little open-mindedness TPS . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 Pretty short-sighted thinking. The point of the thread was to praise Senator Warren, the point of the article was to acknowledge that (via the Huffington Post) and give opinion as to where they are mistaken. Try a little open-mindedness TPS . In any event she was pretty clear as to why she was pursuing that line of questioning, something that article left out. Simply put by Warren at the very start she pursued this line of questioning b/c the willingness to take someone to trial and ability to win those cases (whether b/c of incompetence or lack of resources) directly affect the strength of negotiation and severity of settlements. Plus it denies the public the days of public testimony regarding what went on. And however big the settlements, usually there were large profits created by the act that pay for them. And the fact DAs often squeeze ordinary citizens to set examples, and but there seems to be no "old testament justice" for the bankers...is something that resonates with a lot of people. But of course b/c she's a Democrat....nothing she does on any issue can just be seen as positive. Even if it's brining new life to the financial oversight and pressuring regulators to be tougher and perhaps in the future pushing for more resources so they can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 The thing I love about Warren is that she's a great barometer for loony progressives. If there was such a thing as "farther to the left than Obama," she'd be it. She was the original "you didn't build that" chucklehead, so when you see friends on Facebook or posters on message boards singing her praises, you know you see a full-goose-bozo progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) The thing I love about Warren is that she's a great barometer for loony progressives. If there was such a thing as "farther to the left than Obama," she'd be it. She was the original "you didn't build that" chucklehead, so when you see friends on Facebook or posters on message boards singing her praises, you know you see a full-goose-bozo progressive. Once again ... no comment on the general issue of more meaningful regulation. When it's guns it's all about enforcing the laws we have. When it's finance, it foolish to suggest anything other than nothing? A few settlements sometimes "large" by our standards but for the most part nothing more than "significant" by the largest banks standards? I'm not even a bank killer kind of guy.....but it is just crazy that b/c it's her that all the sudden this is "far left nutball stuff"...stuff that would poll higher than probably any other policy in America Edited February 17, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Once again ... no comment on the general issue of more meaningful regulation. When it's guns it's all about enforcing the laws we have. The thing I love about progressives is the predictability. If you're not excited by a Liz Warren quote, you're whipping out phrases like "more meaningful regulations" while implying that the only thing wrong with with the current gun laws is that there simply aren't enough of them. You can almost smell the "racist" line coming any moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) The thing I love about progressives is the predictability. If you're not excited by a Liz Warren quote, you're whipping out phrases like "more meaningful regulations" while implying that the only thing wrong with with the current gun laws is that there simply aren't enough of them. You can almost smell the "racist" line coming any moment. The thing I love about retarded people is it's all about progressives v. conservatives and red v. blue...and there's nothing else. You are supposed to oppose her, therefore anything she ever says or does, is completely wrong Edited February 17, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 The thing I love about retarded people is it's all about progressives v. conservatives and red v. blue...and there's nothing else. You are supposed to oppose her, therefore anything she ever says or does, is completely wrong Yep that's what it has become unfortunately. Of course when people do actually reply with some facts you troll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Yep that's what it has become unfortunately. Of course when people do actually reply with some facts you troll... Hey, here you have it...the basic gist is there was no personal responsibility...not even an attempt to produce a public record through trial.....even years later...and the are such as "oh she's grandstanding" (when a clip like this could play w/ no party affiliation and poll higher than beer) and "oh it's a Liz Warren quote" so it must be a leftist agenda when all it's really saying is rich corporations settle and pay fines out of massive profitsand executives never stand trial while DAs across the country clamp down on drug offenses and the like... Whether you would have voted for her or not she'll be a quality addition to the committee and on this issue she speaks for more than just the far left regardless of what anyone has been conditioned to believe Edited February 17, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Hey, here you have it...the basic gist is there was no personal responsibility...not even an attempt to produce a public record through trial.....even years later...and the are such as "oh she's grandstanding" (when a clip like this could play w/ no party affiliation and poll higher than beer) and "oh it's a Liz Warren quote" so it must be a leftist agenda when all it's really saying is rich corporations settle and pay fines out of massive profitsand executives never stand trial while DAs across the country clamp down on drug offenses and the like... Whether you would have voted for her or not she'll be a quality addition to the committee and on this issue she speaks for more than just the far left regardless of what anyone has been conditioned to believe I actually agree with you but what do you expect? There are very few people who dont just shoot out scripted talking points. But youre also guilty of trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 I actually agree with you but what do you expect? There are very few people who dont just shoot out scripted talking points. But youre also guilty of trolling. From time to time stop taking yourself so seriously. And anyway...mostly in retarded topics. Legitimate topics...rarely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 From time to time stop taking yourself so seriously. And anyway...mostly in retarded topics. Legitimate topics...rarely rarely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I don't generally approve of political show trials regardless of who's proposing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts