Elizabeth Wsrren Speaks out about "Big BAnks" Your Taxpayer Money Used to Grow Profits for Big Banks!

Please watch and share;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJpTxONxvoo

Look Debbie, Fauxcahontas isn't that special..Go Hillary!!!!

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren before I would vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't know if Elizabeth Warren has any criminal background, but I am very much aware of Hillary Clinton's.


Jim

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren before I would vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't know if Elizabeth Warren has any criminal background, but I am very much aware of Hillary Clinton's.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Elizabeth Warren is not backed by "big money", only the people. She is very popular among modern democrats. I did see a video where she stated she did not want to run! I hope she changes her mind. She would be a hero and many times over, for Americans and humanity worldwide.

Elizabeth Warren is not backed by "big money", only the people. She is very popular among modern democrats. I did see a video where she stated she did not want to run! I hope she changes her mind. She would be a hero and many times over, for Americans and humanity worldwide. Originally Posted by SeekingTruth

Well it's good to hear she's not playing the game. If it stays that way and she gets elected, this country might make some progress. Simply because we'll be the main event again instead of the big bankers and other big money machines that corrupt these people.

Jim

Elizabeth Warren is not backed by "big money", only the people. Originally Posted by SeekingTruth

If you are genuinely "seeking truth," I suggest that you take a closer look. One of the simplest and most common aphorisms is that you should observe what politicians actually do, not just what they say while giving speeches and making campaign stops.

Well it's good to hear she's not playing the game. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Except that she is!

See explanation @ http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...te-shills.html

My summary conclusion:

Warren's appeal derives almost wholly from the view that she's a real "champion of the people," and stands ready to aggressively take on financial sector shenanigans, crony capitalists, and politically favored, moneyed interests.

But she is nothing if not an ambitious politician. Once they become ensconced in office, politicians rarely fail to conclude that it's in their best interest to "play ball" if they don't want to be shoved to the sidelines. And Ms. Warren appears to be quite willing to play ball.

Uh-oh! Looks like someone's bona fides as a great "champion of the people" just went up in a puff of smoke.

.

If you are genuinely "seeking truth," I suggest that you take a closer look. One of the simplest and most common aphorisms is that you should observe what politicians actually do, not just what they say while giving speeches and making campaign stops.



Except that she is!

See explanation @ http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...te-shills.html

My summary conclusion:

Warren's appeal derives almost wholly from the view that she's a real "champion of the people," and stands ready to aggressively take on financial sector shenanigans, crony capitalists, and politically favored, moneyed interests.

But she is nothing if not an ambitious politician. Once they become ensconced in office, politicians rarely fail to conclude that it's in their best interest to "play ball" if they don't want to be shoved to the sidelines. And Ms. Warren appears to be quite willing to play ball.

Uh-oh! Looks like someone's bona fides as a great "champion of the people" just went up in a puff of smoke.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I don't think that just because she supports one bill exactly proves that she is a corporate puppet.
You can't close your eyes (like COG) and say that ALL corporations are bad. That is because they are NOT. They do end up creating millions of jobs and are the powerhouses that run our economy. Her support for the bill could have many founded reasons that could be entirely economic in reason and not at all political. I'm completely against corporate influence in politics but even I don't suggest that we should just completely bankrupt our corporations and start over!

What we should do is allow more transparency in campaign finances (which Warren has suggested many times) and limit the number of contributions and money that can be used to fund a political campaign.

Just a couple of observations ...

I don't think that just because she supports one bill exactly proves that she is a corporate puppet.

Well, maybe not in all regards. But if she wants to establish bona fides as an anti-crony capitalism warrior, I think she needs to pick and choose her battles very carefully. In this instance, she failed to do so.

You can't close your eyes (like COG) and say that ALL corporations are bad. That is because they are NOT. They do end up creating millions of jobs and are the powerhouses that run our economy. Her support for the bill could have many founded reasons that could be entirely economic in reason and not at all political. I'm completely against corporate influence in politics but even I don't suggest that we should just completely bankrupt our corporations and start over!

I am one of the last people around who'd be likely to "close my eyes" and say that "all corporations are bad." I've been in the VC and private equity business for decades, and am as fervent a supporter of capitalism as there is (just not the crony kind). And not even Paul Krugman thinks we should "completely bankrupt our corporations and start over!"

But if Elizabeth Warren wishes to support the relatively small percentage of Ex-Im activity that doesn't accrue to the benefit of large, politically-connected behemoths, she should openly and clearly call for fundamental reform of the process and the institution, instead of simply serving up a steady stream of platitudes.

What we should do is allow more transparency in campaign finances (which Warren has suggested many times) and limit the number of contributions and money that can be used to fund a political campaign.

I certainly don't disagree with you there!
Originally Posted by shanm

Senator Warren is certainly long on populist rhetoric that pleases her followers, but seems either to be steeped in the sort of hypocrisy typical of ambitious, self-aggrandizing politicians, or woefully short on understanding of economics and finance. Or both. (And neither condition bodes well for her potential appeal as a candidate for higher office.)

Her enthusiastic, unabashed supporters should realize this before getting all excited about jumping onto the "draft Liz" bandwagon.

.

Corporations are not bad. Corporations exerting influence to bend the will of government to their own benefit and detriment of others is bad. Corporations "too big to fail" are bad. Corporations using their power to restrict competition are bad. Corporations buying politicians are bad.

Corporations are not bad. Corporations exerting influence to bend the will of government to their own benefit and detriment of others is bad. Corporations "too big to fail" are bad. Corporations using their power to restrict competition are bad. Corporations buying politicians are bad. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Exactly.

You, too, are one of the last people I'd expect to see making the blanket statement that "all corporations are bad." The short list you posted covers the bulk of what falls under the rubric of "crony capitalism."

.

Big banks encourages untrained people to take misdirected risk with the shareholder's, and ultimately the taxpayer's, money and Warren doesn't like this but the Republicans want to give the banks more ability to do such nonsense. Whose side are you on?

Just a couple of observations ...



Senator Warren is certainly long on populist rhetoric that pleases her followers, but seems either to be steeped in the sort of hypocrisy typical of ambitious, self-aggrandizing politicians, or woefully short on understanding of economics and finance. Or both. (And neither condition bodes well for her potential appeal as a candidate for higher office.)

Her enthusiastic, unabashed supporters should realize this before getting all excited about jumping onto the "draft Liz" bandwagon.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I agree with you.

EW is a very smart woman, unlike many democrats and (by extension) many of her supporters. I guess some of them believe EW's reign would mean an end to corporate capitalist culture in our economy, but the reality is far from it.
EW is not against corporations. No one should be. We are a capitalist country by nature and that is what has made America so great.
Unforutnately, crony capitalism is increasingly the more prevalent form in the U.S. I think COIdiot put it perfectly:

Corporations are not bad. Corporations exerting influence to bend the will of government to their own benefit and detriment of others is bad. Corporations "too big to fail" are bad. Corporations using their power to restrict competition are bad. Corporations buying politicians are bad. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

EW essentially wants to get money out of politics. She doesn't want corporations backing politicians and spending billions every election to sway voter opinion. She wants the government OUT of regulating free market capitalism and bailing out big banks when they fail. She says that multiple times in the video in ST's OP. All these are steps to reduce crony capitalism and NOT capitalism in and of itself.
Big Louie has a fair point too

Big banks encourages untrained people to take misdirected risk with the shareholder's, and ultimately the taxpayer's, money and Warren doesn't like this but the Republicans want to give the banks more ability to do such nonsense. Whose side are you on? Originally Posted by BigLouie

For the record, I was for the government bailouts of Chrysler GMC because I don't think it's a good idea for an entire American industry, already lagging behind foreign companies, to go out of business. For many, American car companies represent the last great industry that still support manufacturing jobs in the U.S, and therefore, shouldn't be allowed to fail. I might be wrong on that, but it's just my educated opinion.
But Louie and COIdiot both have a point though; we should not be using tax payer money to bail out failing companies. The "too big to fail" argument certainly has it's merits, but that is just on downside of free-market capitalism. You screw up, you lose. Queue up the next big player to replace the fallen.

Big banks encourages untrained people to take misdirected risk with the shareholder's, and ultimately the taxpayer's, money and Warren doesn't like this but the Republicans want to give the banks more ability to do such nonsense. Whose side are you on? Originally Posted by BigLouie

OK, BigLouie. Since you asked, I'll try to briefly explain which "side" I'm on.

It's pretty simple, really. I'm aligned with those who vigorously oppose crony capitalism in all its forms, as well as the myriad sorts of financial shenanigans so prevalent today, irrespective of whatever party they may (or may not, as it were) indicate that they're a supporter or member of. Of course, that means that I can't be a blind partisan supporter of either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, I'm generally simpatico with many libertarian-leaning economists, who tend to support real financial reform, not useless "feelgood" nonsense like Dodd-Frank (which, among other things, does very little about TBTF).

How about you? Are you simply a partisan apologist for just about anything Democrats do or say, no matter how much bad judgment, corruption, or incompetence the statement or action may involve? Judging from what I've seen you post over the last few years, it certainly would seem so. Although you very often lambaste Republicans (and not without justification, of course), I don't recall an instance where you've spent a single keystroke addressing the disingenuity, hypocrisy, or malfeasance manifested by any prominent Democrat. If you think there was one, perhaps you can link to a post wherein you've done that.

But I don't think I'll be waiting with bated breath for that to happen!

.

OK, BigLouie. Since you asked, I'll try to briefly explain which "side" I'm on.

It's pretty simple, really. I'm aligned with those who vigorously oppose crony capitalism in all its forms, as well as the myriad sorts of financial shenanigans so prevalent today, irrespective of whatever party they may (or may not, as it were) indicate that they're a supporter or member of. Of course, that means that I can't be a blind partisan supporter of either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, I'm generally simpatico with many libertarian-leaning economists, who tend to support real financial reform, not useless "feelgood" nonsense like Dodd-Frank (which, among other things, does very little about TBTF).

How about you? Are you simply a partisan apologist for just about anything Democrats do or say, no matter how much bad judgment, corruption, or incompetence the statement or action may involve? Judging from what I've seen you post over the last few years, it certainly would seem so. Although you very often lambaste Republicans (and not without justification, of course), I don't recall an instance where you've spent a single keystroke addressing the disingenuity, hypocrisy, or malfeasance manifested by any prominent Democrat. If you think there was one, perhaps you can link to a post wherein you've done that.

But I don't think I'll be waiting with bated breath for that to happen!

.

[Edit: The same post appeared twice for no apparent reason. I didn't even touch the mouse or the keyboard again after hitting "reply" for the first one. How the fuck did that happen? Someone please call ghostbusters!]

Well Captain, I seem to recall just yesterday you were bemoaning all the red ink we keep spilling in our trade with the rest of the world:

One result of all this free-trade globalization is that we have run up about $10 trillion in balance-of-payments deficits over about the last forty years. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If we are ever going to correct this serious imbalance, then we need to be promoting our nation's exports and exporters as much as possible, not cutting off funds for one of the few US government entities operating under such a mission. I read the Daily Beast story trying to figure out what is so objectionable about the US Eximbank, which I always viewed as a boring, non-partisan backwater trade-boosting arm. I still have no idea how (after all these years) it suddenly became a poster child for crony capitalism.

The author claims that Eximbank loans and loan guarantees are tantamount to “export credit subsidies (that) will never raise the overall level of trade”. Really? So all the Eximbank-financed trade would have occurred anyway without its help? I call bullshit on that one. She never quantifies how much taxpayer money has been spent on the subsidies or what they consist of either. Are the loans made at below-market interest rates? Do they have a high default rate? Does the bank generate a profit? How much money are we talking about anyway? She mentions current legislation to raise the Eximbank's lending authority by $20 billion over 7 years. That's chump change! Total US exports in 2014 alone were over $1.6 trillion.

The author complains that 64% of Eximbank's loans benefit 10 large US companies. She mentions Boeing, GE and Caterpillar. What a SHOCK to learn that an agency tasked with boosting our nation's exports is working primarily with some of our largest exporters! Duh! Look, I am all in favor of teaching smaller US firms how to tap overseas markets and I'm pretty sure Eximbank tries to help them too. But you can't tell me they are being disadvantaged because Eximbank helps Boeing beat out Airbus on a sale, or works with GE against Siemens, or lets Caterpillar win a bid against Komatsu. I'm just happy we still know how to build a few things the world wants - like airliners, tractors and turbines. We're competing against a lot of other countries that subsidize the hell out of their exports. We can either file complaints with the WTO and lose a ton of business waiting 4 years for a ruling - or we can level the playing field with our own modest export assistance programs.

None of this means I am not in favor of reforming how Eximbank does business, making it more effective or telling it to devote more resources to small US companies that need to be educated about export opportunities. But IMO, out of all the parts of the federal government that are wasting our money and pissing away our tax dollars, it's not even in the top 30.

.