Elizabeth Warren Quietly Racked Up A Nice Win

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Thu Aug 7, 2014, 05:58 PM - Edit history (3)

IMPORTANT: PLEASE SEE DISCLAIMERS AT BOTTOM

Our future not-president took a big bite out of Janet Yellen a few weeks ago (see video at bottom) and now we have results to show for it.

Elizabeth Warren Quietly Racked Up A Nice Win

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) got her way on Tuesday when the Federal Reserve rejected the living will plans for most Wall Street banks.

Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase all had their plans rejected.*

When Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testified before the Senate last month, Warren completely grilled her on JP Morgan's living will, which she said was not enough to cover the bank's $2.5 trillion in assets.

"I think the language in the [Dodd-Frank] statute is pretty clear. That you are required, that the Fed is required to call it every year on whether these institutions have a credible plan. And I remind you, there are very effective tools that you can use if those plans are not credible. Including, forcing these financial institutions to simplify their structure, or forcing them to liquidate some of their assets. In other words, break them up."

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMERS, PLEASE READ!
1. Any opinions stated in the referenced article are not necessarily mine.
2. Anything presented as "fact" in the referenced article may be utter bull%^. Please assume that it is.
3. The author of the referenced article might, or might not, be a notorious horrible person - I haven't done any research.
4. The web site I linked to may well be involved in all sorts of disturbing activities. I have no knowledge that they are, but who knows?
5. Elizabeth Warren is not running for president, as several people really, really, really need you to know. Out of respect for her wishes, please don't use her name and the word "president" in the same paragraph.
6. I have been outed on DU as a Purity Democrat, a paid Republican rat#$%@er, an acolyte of Ron and Rand Paul, the owner of conservativecave.com, a Firebagger and worse. Indeed, I am likely all of these. Do yourself a favor and don't read this post, it's a menace to society. Please proceed to your safe room, and await further instructions.


Warren discusses "living wills" with Yellen:

[Larkspur]

1. This is why I think Warren will do more good for our country by staying in the Senate

than running for President. In the Senate she can exercise her strengths -- financial matters. As President, she'd primarily be consumed with her weakness -- foreign affairs.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but I think a Warren in the Senate will help curb Clinton's Wall Street bias.

[Scuba]

20. As President, she could fire Janet Yellen and replace her.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Warren endorsed Janet Yellen for fed chair...she said that Yellen would be terrific

She also praised her confirmation in the Senate.

[msanthrope]

29. Don't bring facts into this. nt

[Scuba]

32. That's not the point. The point is that the President has more power than any Senator ...

... including Cabinet Secretaries serving at his/her prerogative.

The idea that Warren could better serve the Country as a Senator than as President is laughable, although a favorite talking point of those who seem to represent the conservative end of the Democratic Party.

[LanternWaste]

37. A very creative allegation...

"although a favorite talking point of those who seem to represent the conservative end of the Democratic Party..."

A very creative allegation. It also implies that anyone who may disagree with your position on this is simply a conservative Democrat-- so you've got that imaginative bit of self-validating, either-or behavior going for you, too.

[dionysus]

48. i know. and it's been way overused, and is now just stale and blase....

[Ed Suspicious]

51. That implication doesn't exist outside of your

own mind. It's easy to see that a blue dog is blue. Scuba's position on issues doesn't affect where the blue dogs lie.

[ieoeja]

30. This is her first year running the Fed. As such this is her first year ruling on JPMorgan's plan.

And her first ruling was, "the plan is no good". Given that Yellen just established 100% agreement with Warren, why would Warren fire her?

Have you forgotten that Wall Street and the Blue Dogs, et all opposed Yellen's ascension to run the Fed? Do you not recall DUers celebrating her appointment as a victory for the Left?

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction by many DUers against anybody within the finanicial sector. If Warren were appointed to run the Fed tomorrow, I promise a year from now DUers would be calling her a fascist and calling for her head. Of course, there is a reason for that:

A lot of DUers are to the market what the GOP is to the government. They don't want it fixed. They want it destroyed.

[Scuba]

33. Please see my post #32. Thanks.

[Maedhros]

34. That's the problem.

The market is fixed.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. I think it was a matter of her being less bad

than the other likely alternative.

She's no Larry Summers, but she's still pretty far right.

[mdbl]

46. Who are these candidates that are strong on foreign affairs?

Everything we do overseas either is or gets screwed up. As soon as our economic system moves in, they realize how much they've been used, not to mention our aggressions.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. Yup, being one out of 100 Senators

is much more effective than being at the top of the Executive Branch

[JDPriestly]

75. If that is true, why did Hillary run for the White House in 2008?

[Art_from_Ark]

76. I was being sarcastic, of course

I didn't think the thingy was necessary.

[JDPriestly]

74. If Warren is president, she can appoint the head of the FDIC, of the Securitites Exchange Commission

etc. That's why I want her to be president. She would perhaps appoint a Supreme Court justice or two. Warren in the Senate can speak up but she can't do much to curb Clinton's Wall Street bias unless she gets the majority of Congress behind her. And that would be hard to do.

[Laelth]

2. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

3. Too bad you spoiled an interesting post with your whiny disclaimers.

All that time wasted...

Oh, and here's a working link to the story. In your haste to include the disclaimer, I guess you missed checking your link:

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-wins-on-bank-living-wills-2014-8

[leftstreet]

7. I thought it was clever

and amusing

I'm continually amazed at the energy and effort wasted on this OP's threads by posters anxious to draw attention away from his/her content

[MineralMan]

8. I wasted very little energy or effort.

I'm a very fast typist.

I thought the disclaimer was completely unnecessary and detracted from a very positive story about Elizabeth Warren, who is one of my favorite Senators. It drew attention away from Warren and put it on the OP, instead. A pity, really, since she is far more important a subject than is the OP.

Your mileage may differ.

[leftstreet]

14. Well, your own disclaimer is certainly less wordy n/t

[MineralMan]

16. What disclaimer?

Do you mean my signature line? That's not a disclaimer. It's a signature line. Or did you mean "Your mileage may differ"? That's not a disclaimer, either. It's an acknowledgement that we may disagree.

[leftstreet]

24. ??

Note: All posts written by me are my opinion only. Your opinion might differ.

[LanternWaste]

41. I imagine many people feel compelled to point out the obvious human condition.

" It's an acknowledgement that we may disagree..."

I imagine many people feel compelled to point out the obvious human condition. I may begin prefacing all my posts with "I'm breathing right now"... as it's quite relevant too.

[Scuba]

21. I love the disclaimer. It's so spot-on it just sings!

[MineralMan]

23. Clearly, I do not love it.

[Scuba]

25. How sad for you.

[tkmorris]

35. Thread ain't about you

Frankly I found your criticisms of the disclaimer in the OP to be kind of petty.

[MineralMan]

39. You did, huh?

OK.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

61. Pretty much.

[Andy823]

68. I liked this part

In number 6 "I am likely all of these"! Kind of makes one wonder.

[Autumn]

72. I love it too. It's just perfect and sums the responses up to him nicely, of course their milage

may vary.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Thanks for the heads up.

Link fixed.

[Silent3]

42. I love the disclaimers too

Way, way too many posters on DU quickly jump on other posters with stupid, shallow knee-jerk responses. They seem to do little beyond scan for key words that trigger pre-packaged angry retorts directed at convenient straw men.

Whether disclaimers such as the OP's actually helps prevent or reduce this lazy hostility is questionable, but I fully relate to the sense of annoyance and frustration that inspires these disclaimers.

[BainsBane]

54. The declaimers are the best part

My favorite thing Manny has ever posted.

[Lancero]

63. Jury results, 1-6 leave

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a personal attack. Whiney disclaimers?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 7, 2014, 04:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As they used to say in journalism, "it ain't libel if it's true." To call a series of whiny disclaimers "whiny disclaimers" is not a personal attack if the disclaimers are indeed whiny. It's also a question of nuance. The poster didn't say the person posting is a whiner, but that the disclaimers were "whiny."

In any case, the OP fairly begged for some blowback, posting what is essentially flamebait.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: At first glance, it'd seem this way. But anyone who has seen their posts know that this is just someone deciding to play along with Manny's joke.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whiny alert.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack of a 12 year old nature.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[MineralMan]

64. Thanks.

[leftstreet]

4. "In other words, break them up"

[msanthrope]

5. This is why she is so effective in the Senate. And she was correct in her assessment

of Frank-Dodd.

Why all the disclaimers? They detract from the great story about EW. And your link is broken.

[MineralMan]

15. Here's the working link:

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-wins-on-bank-living-wills-2014-8

It's a good story. Too bad the link in the OP didn't work. I found it by searching Google News.

The Disclaimer made it into the post, though, but it wasn't at the link.

[conservaphobe]

6. Best Senator since Ted Kennedy.

I look forward to her work with the Clinton administration on these issues.

[wyldwolf]

9. great reply and great sig line

My sig line used to read 'Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.'

[conservaphobe]

10. Thanks, but that was strange.

I had just changed my sig line before 'My Posts' lit up yellow.

[wyldwolf]

13. too bad. It was appropriate

[Union Scribe]

17. To be slightly less obvious, I suppose. nt

[conservaphobe]

36. I am the 85%. nt

[tkmorris]

40. Congratulations?

[conservaphobe]

43. Then I plead for people to stop suggesting otherwise.

I shouldn't be attacked just because I am a Clinton and Obama Democrat.

I get enough of that here in Kentucky. From some of my own family.

[Union Scribe]

47. So quit attacking the left.

That shit probably plays well back home, not so much here.

(Edit to add example of what I'm talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5349852)

[conservaphobe]

53. I haven't attacked anyone truly representative of the left.

A majority of the left support Obama and Clinton.

And I'm here to converse with them.

You may ignore me if you wish.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Are you suggesting that the left doesn't have ...

a fringe element that goes off half-cocked at the slightest perceived provocation?

[wyldwolf]

67. the jury on that post made a bad call

[Union Scribe]

70. lol

I don't think you really needed to explicitly declare that. Everyone knows your affection for the left.

[wyldwolf]

77. Lol

I'd say it about any bad jury call.

[tkmorris]

57. I think I am related to half the folks in Kentucky

Heya Cousin.

[sunnystarr]

44. That made me sing :)

[JackRiddler]

31. You mean you look forward...

to Warren being completely ignored (with a bit of lip service) from the neo-liberal administration that will emerge, whether it's Clinton, someone who defeats her, or the Republican.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

62. Too early to tell IMHO.

[bettyellen]

11. you could have used that disclaimer for obviously crazy RW gossip crap you posted, but it seems

pretty silly when linking to Business Insider. Hmm, are you unable to judge the sources of things you pass along at all- because you seem relatively intelligent and opinionated.
So, it seems really silly, but so does all that third person talking. Reminds me of that Seinfeld, "Jimmy likes Elaine".

BTW, I think Warren is awesome, and we need to elect more like her. In both houses.

[MineralMan]

12. Here is a working link to the story in the OP:

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-wins-on-bank-living-wills-2014-8

The link in the OP is broken.

[DanTex]

18. In other words, the Wall Street regulations that Obama passed are proving effective.

You might want to self-delete -- the Obama haters might have a heart attack when they see this!

[emsimon33]

19. I love your disclaimers

[Scuba]

22. I love the disclaimers!

Was Yellen going to give the banks a pass on this until EW held her feet to the fire?

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Thanks. Just trying to keep people safe.

I'm not saying that the brave women and men of our splendid intelligence services aren't keeping us safe... but as they themselves tell us, we can never be too safe.

[Maedhros]

38. I beg to differ, sir.

It is clear that the intelligence services believe that whistle blowers are entirely too safe.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. And I beg to differ with *you*, sir

Thanks to the smart, brave, good-looking, kind, generous, wise, and moral women and men of our intelligence services, everything is just as General Clapper wants it. Not a thing is amiss. Truly, we are living in the best of all possible worlds.

[Maedhros]

55. In the end, I will come to love Big Brother. [n/t]

[George II]

49. With all those disclaimers, why did you bother to post?

[dionysus]

50. shame you posted a good article but managed to make the OP "evryone look at meeeeeeeeee"

[BainsBane]

52. Is that disclaimer going to accompany all your OPs from now on?

Perhaps a new sig line?

[MannyGoldstein]

59. Hopefully somebody will share the jury results. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. The results are in...

[F4lconF16]

80. I'd be happy to.

Women get enough of this crap IRL. Not here, thanks.

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

I'm sure this was made to be alert bait. Please oblige him.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Aug 8, 2014, 12:14 PM, and voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Juvenile sexism at it's rankest. Has no place here.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Oh great ... idiocy is becoming the new norm
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's juvenile but there's plenty of stupid ass crap posted on the internet.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's juvenile. It's not hideworthy.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm hoping this guy's 12 year old kid is posting on his dad's computer,if not,that's just sad. Hide.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: while the claim to idiocy may be true, it doesn't negate that fact that it was inappropriate. This is a place for grownups isn't it?

[ReRe]

58. Yesssssssssssssssss!

Break them up!
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Won't happen.

[ozone_man]

69. “These are extremely complex documents”

Well simplify them!

Elizabeth Warren is great. Thanks Manny!

[joshcryer]

73. You're easily impressed. Yellen is an unelected administrator.

She does what she is guided to do by the committees. In this case she appeared before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, was told what to look in to, and she did.

What, do you think Yellen would ignore her elected peers with their guidance? She would be remiss to do that from an administrative point of view because that's how you get your resignation. Yellen's response at the hearing was perfect administrator speak. Warren, in her political savvy, acted as if Yellen is the one who can sign off on the credibility of a report, when obviously she can't read thousands of pages of paperwork and make such a statement.

In other words, nothing has changed in any way except Warren gets to act as if she's doing something comprehensive. If she wants the companies to simplify their reporting then she needs to offer legislation to those ends. Because companies are not going to work with the government if they don't have to. Dump 10k pages to the Fed and let the Fed sort it out, that's what they are allowed to do. Warren really shows her inexperience when she fails to ask Yellen what administrative measures she has at her disposal and to further discuss legislative options to fix the problem which (apparently) Warren didn't even know existed.

When you read the Fed's filing you see that it is mere administrative legalese, that it's still a work in progress, and that ultimately nothing substantive has changed. The 5 major "changes" that the Fed is seeking are not going to be resolved in a way to make the reports less than thousands of pages. There is no way banks that are inherently too big to fail can make a credible "living will" that meets Dodd-Frank's requirements.

I'm so unimpressed by this it's a joke.

[postulater]

78. Please put the disclaimers first next time.

Then I will know if I should read the article or not without having to scroll to the bottom and back up.

[Gothmog]

79. I am glad that Dood Frank is having an effect

The first round of living wills were weak. Hopefully the next round will be better