... until she was 46 years old.
Let's change the word "banks" to "NEA" in this article for fun and see if it changes anything. 
Hydra (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-15-11 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. I remember when Warren was trying to do her job as TARP oversight
And she had to do it by going public on places like John Stewart's show to tell us that the foxes were having a feast while we were being told nothing.
As for the system being "complicated," I've only heard that excuse when someone doesn't want to talk about something. The issues are straightforward: Systemic fraud followed by lack of legal response to the fraud.
She's one of our best advocates for that reason- she doesn't dress it up and pretend it's good for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
truedelphi (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-15-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yep, it ain't that complicated.
It might involve some brain power, but nothing out of the extraordinary.
You say it all in two concise sentences: The issues are straightforward: Systemic fraud followed by lack of legal response to the fraud.
Autorank made the message in just seven words: it is all just one big Money Party.
While Mike Hudson likes to say: "Obama is about de-criminalizing Bank Fraud."
Of course the answer to the NEA is to outlaw public unions ability to contribute to political campaigns because of the inherent conflict of interest. If the members want to contribute as individuals they certainly can but ban the union from soliciting or spending any dues money on political events. Also end 'payroll' deductions. I am damn sick and tired of paying the accounting bill for a service I neither want nor support.
A couple pull quotes from the article:
Perhaps the most widely watched hearing is the one that took place in September 2009. A video of part of that hearing can still be found on YouTube, under the title “Elizabeth Warren Makes Timmy Geithner Squirm.†It opens with Warren asking the question that was on the minds of many taxpayers: “A.I.G. has received about $70 billion in TARP money, about $100 billion in loans from the Fed. Do you know where the money went?†What followed during the rest of the hearing was the spectacle of the Treasury secretary tripping over his words, his eyes darting around the room as Warren, calm and prosecutorial, kept hammering him with questions. At another hearing, in December 2009, Geithner appeared to be barely able to contain his annoyance, at one point almost shouting at her. Warren’s questioning “was masterful,†says Neil Barofsky, who ran the TARP oversight for Treasury. “She eviscerated him.†But Warren would pay a price for those hearings.
I n early spring, several weeks before Obama’s April announcement that he was running for re-election, 24 Wall Street executives gathered in the Blue Room of the White House for a meeting with the president. According to the New York Times account of the meeting, Obama spent more than an hour listening to the financiers’ thoughts on the economy, the deficit, and financial regulation. After the meeting, Obama would follow up with phone calls to the executives who had not been able to attend. The event, the Times wrote, was organized by the Democratic National Committee and “kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash.†The financial industry contributed $43 million to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, a record haul. But his relations with Wall Street had soured—remarkably many of them were enraged over his criticism of their bonuses in late 2009, which is also when he called them “fat cat bankers.â€
If the friction between Warren and Dodd was an open secret, there would be other Democrats—apparent allies—who also appeared to be trying to pry her away from the C.F.P.B. Those most notable would be Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, who led the effort, which began in the late spring, to encourage Warren to leave Washington to run against Scott Brown, the Massachusetts Republican, who is up for re-election next year. Some speculated that they were doing the president’s dirty work, trying to rescue him from a tough decision. But others would note the gush of Wall Street donations these Democrats received for their 2010 elections: $6.2 million for Chuck Schumer, the most of any senator, and $4.7 million for Harry Reid, who would clock in as the third-highest beneficiary of Wall Street largesse in the Senate—after New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand—according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
To the too few DUmmies who could actually read this article some of these revelations might have been slightly disturbing.
