Shame on Elizabeth Warren

[Mr. Shaman]

Elizabeth Warren's Aggressive Questioning Prompts Anger From Wall Street

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) meeting with bank regulators Thursday left bankers reeling, after the politician questioned why regulators had not prosecuted a bank since the financial crisis.

At one point, Warren asked why big banks' book value was lower, when most corporations trade above book value, saying there could be only two reasons for it.

"One would be because nobody believes that the banks' books are honest. Second, would be that nobody believes that the banks are really manageable. That is, if they are too complex either for their own institutions to manage them or for the regulators to manage them," she said.

POLITICO Morning Money - POLITICO.com

SHE’S BACK! WARREN TERRIFIES BANKERS IN FIRST HEARING — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) generated serious fireworks in her first big Senate Banking Committee hearing, asking tough questions of regulators, repeatedly peppering them to identify the last time they brought a big Wall Street institution to trial rather than settling. There were no real answers. She also earned significant ire from bankers with her line that one reason big banks mostly trade below book value may be that “nobody believes” their books are honest. Most of the complaints came on background or off the record given that these bankers have to deal with Warren in the Senate for at least six years and perhaps much longer and are (apparently quite justifiably) freaked out at the prospect.

It takes a woman to stand up to the old boy network.

2/15/13

Elizabeth Warren Strikes Fear
Into Wall $treet​

"Some bankers hoped that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the liberal firebrand who helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, would be subdued in her first term as she learned the ways of the Senate. Warren’s avoidance of the Beltway media appeared to stoke these hopes.

Well, forget it!!"

 

[Mr. Shaman]

February 14, 2013

Thanks, Elizabeth!!!!!!​

"The CARD Act. Passed in 2009, this law protects consumers from unfair credit card company policies by regulating interest rates and fees, and mandating better disclosure. The American Bankers Association predicted that it would hurt consumers and small businesses. But survey data indicates that now even businesses praise the legislation."

. . . .


. . . . . . ​

 

[jasonnfree]

I was watching it. Fantastic. Imagine, asking the people who are supposed to protect us from unscrupulous bankers how many have gone to "trial" and they couldn't name a single one.

Republicans must be "livid". How dare the Democrats for holding banks "accountable".

But Elizabeth Warren is the only democrat that has talked like this. How many years have democrats waited for Obama to do something bold? It'll never happen. After four years we're stuck with a nightmare in the waiting called Obamacare and then he puts entitlements on the table to add insult to injury.

Elizabeth Warren in 2012 and either Elliot Spitzer or Alan Grayson for attorney general maybe.

 

[Erand7899]

I was watching it. Fantastic. Imagine, asking the people who are supposed to protect us from unscrupulous bankers how many have gone to "trial" and they couldn't name a single one.

Republicans must be "livid". How dare the Democrats for holding banks "accountable".

Why would Republicans be "livid"? We are used to dumbass Democrat politicians grandstanding for the benefit of their "low information" base. Perhaps she should read the Dodd/Frank bill before she gets too deep in the crap.

BTW. She was berating government employees that work for the Obama administration, not bankers.

 

[Stephanie]

I was watching it. Fantastic. Imagine, asking the people who are supposed to protect us from unscrupulous bankers how many have gone to "trial" and they couldn't name a single one.

Republicans must be "livid". How dare the Democrats for holding banks "accountable".

Why would Republicans be "livid"? We are used to dumbass Democrat politicians grandstanding for the benefit of their "low information" base. Perhaps she should read the Dodd/Frank bill before she gets too deep in the crap.

BTW. She was berating government employees that work for the Obama administration, not bankers.

you'll ruin his tingles

 

[S.J.]

Elizabeth Warren's Aggressive Questioning Prompts Anger From Wall Street

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) meeting with bank regulators Thursday left bankers reeling, after the politician questioned why regulators had not prosecuted a bank since the financial crisis.

At one point, Warren asked why big banks' book value was lower, when most corporations trade above book value, saying there could be only two reasons for it.

"One would be because nobody believes that the banks' books are honest. Second, would be that nobody believes that the banks are really manageable. That is, if they are too complex either for their own institutions to manage them or for the regulators to manage them," she said.

POLITICO Morning Money - POLITICO.com

SHE’S BACK! WARREN TERRIFIES BANKERS IN FIRST HEARING — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) generated serious fireworks in her first big Senate Banking Committee hearing, asking tough questions of regulators, repeatedly peppering them to identify the last time they brought a big Wall Street institution to trial rather than settling. There were no real answers. She also earned significant ire from bankers with her line that one reason big banks mostly trade below book value may be that “nobody believes” their books are honest. Most of the complaints came on background or off the record given that these bankers have to deal with Warren in the Senate for at least six years and perhaps much longer and are (apparently quite justifiably) freaked out at the prospect.

I love her.

Maybe you should tell her. She might be interested, she looks kinda butch.

 

[jasonnfree]

Anybody remember the Savings and Loan crisis and subsequent failure?

Back in the good ole days. When S&L executives actually went to jail for fraud and embezzelment.

Now, according to the head of the Obama criminal justice dept, the executives on Wall street are far to important to the economy to actually be held accountable and go to jail for their fraud.

It's pretty cool to see our justice department create a class of individuals above the law.

Maybe Elizabeth wants to change that attitude. I hope she does.

Ah for the good ole days.

What good ole days?

Aside from a couple of notables, like Milken and Boesky, who were out of the pokey pretty quickly..there really weren't many folks that cooled their heals in the slammer.

And this time around it was worse, much worse.

So if you didn't get some of these folks on board with the bailout..you were looking at Lehman Brothers..all around the street.

But it seems it might be a case of "justice delayed".

We'll see.

Neal Bush was one of those S&L gangsters that didn't go to jail either. He did pay some type of out of court settlement from the Silverado deal. No jail for him of course. This didn't stop him from pushing his education software on the government later on either.

 

[Connery]

I do not care who does it, but someone needs to kick ass on the finanacial indistry and bankers in particular.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxhyUAWPmGw&feature=player_embedded]Senator Elizabeth Warren's First Banking Committee Hearing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rdean]

Elizabeth Warren's Aggressive Questioning Prompts Anger From Wall Street

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) meeting with bank regulators Thursday left bankers reeling, after the politician questioned why regulators had not prosecuted a bank since the financial crisis.

At one point, Warren asked why big banks' book value was lower, when most corporations trade above book value, saying there could be only two reasons for it.

"One would be because nobody believes that the banks' books are honest. Second, would be that nobody believes that the banks are really manageable. That is, if they are too complex either for their own institutions to manage them or for the regulators to manage them," she said.

POLITICO Morning Money - POLITICO.com

SHE’S BACK! WARREN TERRIFIES BANKERS IN FIRST HEARING — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) generated serious fireworks in her first big Senate Banking Committee hearing, asking tough questions of regulators, repeatedly peppering them to identify the last time they brought a big Wall Street institution to trial rather than settling. There were no real answers. She also earned significant ire from bankers with her line that one reason big banks mostly trade below book value may be that “nobody believes” their books are honest. Most of the complaints came on background or off the record given that these bankers have to deal with Warren in the Senate for at least six years and perhaps much longer and are (apparently quite justifiably) freaked out at the prospect.

She repeated one question.

A lot.

My guess is it is all she could remember.

If you can't answer the most simple of questions, then why bother with the "complex"?

 

[rdean]

Elizabeth Warren's Aggressive Questioning Prompts Anger From Wall Street


POLITICO Morning Money - POLITICO.com

I love her.

Maybe you should tell her. She might be interested, she looks kinda butch.

So does her husband.

 

[Bigfoot]

I do not care who does it, but someone needs to kick ass on the finanacial indistry and bankers in particular.

Senator Elizabeth Warren's First Banking Committee Hearing - YouTube

She is going after Obama appointees.

 

[Staidhup]

Very interesting in that apparently the senator fails to understand the role government played in setting the foundation for the collapse. But then again just another liberal mouth piece without a brain. Sad to see an elected representative make such an uneducated statement as that.

 

[Freewill]

Isn't it interesting that the right wing loons on this thread are not even addressing what she is doing, but just slamming her personally? So you guys are ok with the uber capitalists on Wall St ripping you off as long as they're pissing off liberals/Dems? No wonder the right get more irrelevant with each passing day. Going against your own self interest just to make a partisan point is never going to end well...

Who and how exactly are they ripping us off? If you know of someone doing so then please inform us. This they vs us mentality of the liberal left wing is tearing the country apart. Could it be, or is it just an impossibilty, that there is no one actually violating the law that rises to the need to be taken to trial???? More fear mongering and class warfare.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[Freewill]

There's no jumping through hoops..it's a simple question.

Because you don't seem to know what communism means. I'd like to get your take on it.

Unless it's just a word you throw out there to insult people you don't like.

Then, it's meaningless. You could be calling Warren a dirty diaper head.

And I don't wear skirts, Stephy. You should know that by now.

repeat, do I care what you think?
now go back to crowing about the fake Indian, commie

Okay you, HEATHEN!

So no real details, from you about who may need to be put on trial, gottja.

Here is a Rolling Stone article that describes incompetence to the level of criminal, but that is just my and I believe their opinion.

Rolling Stone

 

[zeke]

repeat, do I care what you think?
now go back to crowing about the fake Indian, commie

Okay you, HEATHEN!

So no real details, from you about who may need to be put on trial, gottja.

Here is a Rolling Stone article that describes incompetence to the level of criminal, but that is just my and I believe their opinion.

Rolling Stone

Hey free, why be purposefully obtuse? You were asking and having answered pretty much the same questions a couple pages ago. I don't get it.

Charges could have and should have been brought against several of the CEO's and CFO's and other VP's of areas that were involved in purposefully committing fraud.

You don't really know what they were fully guilty of because.....they never had charges brought against them and got their day in court. They didn't have to answer for their decisions because the justice dept. head (watch the interview on Frontline) says these people are to important to the operation of their banks and that to destabilize the banks would be harmful to the overall economy. For real the guy says this. A class of citizens to "important" and therefore outside the law. Crazy.

 

[Mustang]

Isn't it interesting that the right wing loons on this thread are not even addressing what she is doing, but just slamming her personally? So you guys are ok with the uber capitalists on Wall St ripping you off as long as they're pissing off liberals/Dems? No wonder the right get more irrelevant with each passing day. Going against your own self interest just to make a partisan point is never going to end well...

RWers would cheer the sinking of the Titanic if someone made the argument that the ice berg was a conservative and the ship was a liberal.

Obviously, I'm being intentionally facetious. But I'm trying to make a point.

A great number of people, both liberals AND conservatives, have been economically devastated (some will never EVER recover) by the financial meltdown of 2008. And instead of appreciating Warren's tough approach to powerful people who caused the problem in the first place [people who not only did NOT get punished in any meaningful way, but actually were REWARDED by bailouts of their institutions (AND careers) by two successive administrations, one from each political party], they instead focus in on Warren's party identification as if that someone negates what she's trying to do. Maybe they should ask themselves why no one in THEIR party is being tough on bankers?

ALL Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be angry at the powerful men who caused this problem and got away with it. And all Americans should have demanded that the politicians held the men accountable even if it was necessary to save the institutions from collapse in order to prevent a full scale melt down of the economy.

 

[AmericanFirst]

This is what we needed the last four years instead of the Obamas and Harry Reids. Send republicans back to the sewers they crawled out of.

The sewers are the home of the dimwits like reid and pelosi.

 

[Stephanie]

Isn't it interesting that the right wing loons on this thread are not even addressing what she is doing, but just slamming her personally? So you guys are ok with the uber capitalists on Wall St ripping you off as long as they're pissing off liberals/Dems? No wonder the right get more irrelevant with each passing day. Going against your own self interest just to make a partisan point is never going to end well...

thats becuae she isn't doing shit..she IS ubber captialist no matter she lied, cheated and stole from the taxpayers to get there, putting on a show,how intersting is that

 

[Freewill]

Okay you, HEATHEN!

So no real details, from you about who may need to be put on trial, gottja.

Here is a Rolling Stone article that describes incompetence to the level of criminal, but that is just my and I believe their opinion.

Rolling Stone

Hey free, why be purposefully obtuse? You were asking and having answered pretty much the same questions a couple pages ago. I don't get it.

Charges could have and should have been brought against several of the CEO's and CFO's and other VP's of areas that were involved in purposefully committing fraud.

You don't really know what they were fully guilty of because.....they never had charges brought against them and got their day in court. They didn't have to answer for their decisions because the justice dept. head (watch the interview on Frontline) says these people are to important to the operation of their banks and that to destabilize the banks would be harmful to the overall economy. For real the guy says this. A class of citizens to "important" and therefore outside the law. Crazy.

I am not being obtuse, you are being obtuse. I want details. If there were settlements made then those are on the record. Who does Warren thinks should have gone to trial but did not? Who do you think should have? Not just a CEO or some unnamed person, who?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Isn't it interesting that the right wing loons on this thread are not even addressing what she is doing, but just slamming her personally? So you guys are ok with the uber capitalists on Wall St ripping you off as long as they're pissing off liberals/Dems? No wonder the right get more irrelevant with each passing day. Going against your own self interest just to make a partisan point is never going to end well...

thats becuae she isn't doing shit..she IS ubber captialist no matter she lied, cheated and stole from the taxpayers to get there, putting on a show,how intersting is that

Which is it Steph? Is she uber capitalist, or is she a communist like you'd said a few posts back?

Do you even know the definition of communism?