General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWarren Lays Out Ambitious Agenda For Curbs On The Financial Sector
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) laid out an ambitious legislative and regulatory blueprint for further curbs on the financial sector Wednesday.
Accusing Republicans of engaging in “pure crony capitalism” by trying to relax rules on Wall Street, Warren is pushing for reform that goes further than the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, laying out several legislative steps Congress should take.
“Dodd-Frank made some real progress,” she said in remarks delivered in Washington. “But there is more work to be done.”
The big-bank critic has been no stranger to financial regulatory issues, but her remarks Wednesday mark her broadest plan yet for overhauling how the government monitors Wall Street, covering everything from high-frequency trading to how bank CEOs take home a paycheck.
<snip>
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/238907-warren-were-not-done-with-wall-street-yet
I think it's clear that Warren will use her influence to try and push Hillary on these issues.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)She should be at the forefront with these proposals. These safeguards are PRUDENT and CONSERVATIVE financial practices and an easy sell to Americans who have a deep distrust of banks and Wall Street.
cali
(114,904 posts)and she waits quite a while on many issues. She defended her vote on Iraq for years- until there was overwhelming opposition to the war. She came out yesterday for the marriage equality to be a constitutional right. Until recently she said it was a state issue, and she opposed marriage equality until after many dems supported it- including the President, Biden, and a raft of congressional dems. she claimed that as Sec of State she wasn't in a position to openly announce support it.
I do not see Clinton as a profile in courage, but as a profile in political maneuvering.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage/
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am mystified as to why people count her as a big ally of the LGBT movement when her view on marriage equality was vintage 1967 Virginia claiming the right to prohibit interracial marriage. That is not a "neo-liberal" view, that is "neo-confederate".
Of all the bullshit written about the Clintons back in the 90s the ONLY bit that was accurate was the description of how they "triangulate" on issues.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)WASHINGTON — Last summer, Hillary Clinton gave a tense interview to NPR where she was pressed on same-sex marriage. Her position then? Leave it up to the states.
"For me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state and in fact that is what is working," Clinton told Terry Gross on June 12, 2014.
She added that soon after stepping down as secretary of state she announced in 2013 that she "was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state." The interview didn't sit well with gay rights activists who strongly oppose the idea of letting states ban same-sex marriage.
Ten months later, Clinton is officially running for president, and appears to have shifted her view toward a full embrace of marriage equality. Her new position? Marriage should be a constitutional right for same-sex couples.
-- snip
brooklynite
(94,563 posts)Maybe she's confident that appropriate policies will be forthcoming?
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm sure she realizes that Clinton is pretty much the only game in town for dems and is trying to influence her. She has not, as so many of Clinton's supporters here claim, endorsed her.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)simply perfunctory. Also, she is not getting much love from Bernie Saunders who rightly pegs her as a tool of Wall Street.
brooklynite
(94,563 posts)"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and Democratic women "urged {her} to run, and I hope she does" is not "I endorse her for president".
Politicians tend to be very specific with their words.
brooklynite
(94,563 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)HRC would make a "good choice"?
Warren says:
"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific,"
Nope, can't find any place where she says she would be a "good choice".
Again, politicians are very picky about what they say, or don't say.
brooklynite
(94,563 posts)Am I to assume you think she would encourage Hillary Clinton to run for President if she thought Hillary was a BAD choice?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Who else would Warren describe as "terrific" and would she "urge to run"?
In order to "choose" one must have a group of people to "choose" from.
I think bacon is "terrific". I would certainly "urge" my wife to put bacon on my plate. But if I had to "choose" between bacon, spinach, and bread, with the caveat being what is best for me, then my choice would have some meaning.
At the moment, there is no choice, since there is no other candidate.
brooklynite
(94,563 posts)She encouraged Hillary to run when (as people lived to say here) nobody was running. She could have encouraged Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown or Alan Grayson. The only name she's ever mentioned was Hillary Clinton.
BTW I don't know how you make YOUR food choices; I make mine was the entire list of possibilities, and then seek it out.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)No one has asked her whether she "urged" anyone else to run or who else she thinks is "terrific".
In order to "choose" there must be a set of people to choose from. You inferred choice from what she said, however she never "chose" HRC or said she would be a "good choice".
cali
(114,904 posts)Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gave less than full-throated support to Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday, days ahead of Clinton's expected entry into the 2016 presidential race that some Democrats to Clinton's left want Warren to also join.
Asked whether Clinton is the "future of the Democratic Party," the Massachusetts senator hedged.
"Well, I think we have to see, first of all, if she declares, and what she says she wants to run on," Warren said on CBS This Morning. "I think that's really the interesting question at this point.”
That sounds far short of an endorsement from the political figure who has emerged as the darling of the Democrats' progressive wing. Warren has repeatedly said she will not run in 2016, and has made no clear moves toward a reconsideration of that stance. Still, a persistent group of disaffected Democrats is urging Warren to challenge Clinton from the left.
more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/09/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-may-or-may-not-be-the-future-of-the-democratic-party/
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)From Elizabeth. You folks on the Hillary mailing list should get some updated quotes, figures, poll numbers, and talking points.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/09/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-may-or-may-not-be-the-future-of-the-democratic-party/
On the question if Hillary is the future of the Party.
That sounds far short of an endorsement from the political figure who has emerged as the darling of the Democrats' progressive wing. Warren has repeatedly said she will not run in 2016, and has made no clear moves toward a reconsideration of that stance. Still, a persistent group of disaffected Democrats is urging Warren to challenge Clinton from the left.
In a sometimes testy exchange, Warren was pressed on whether Clinton represents what Warren thinks the party ought to be.
“I don't think the Democratic Party is a static thing," Warren said. "The Democratic Party grows. The Democratic Party is full of energy right now. The Democratic Party is very much about drawing contrasts, frankly, with the Republican Party.”
So a week ago, Warren was wondering if Hillary would actually run. Hmmmm. Perhaps they're not the BFF that we've been led to believe.
If you don't like that link. Here's another. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_n_6991314.html
So what will Hillary do? Will she go with the rich and shameless and continue protecting her friends on Wall Street? Or will she try and subvert the Warren Supporters who think Wall Street should be reformed by the short and curlies until they squeal? I'm betting empty rhetoric. If Wall Street squeals, it will be with delight.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)If she'll start endorsing any or all of these ideas, and stay specific, I'll be pleased.
renegade000
(2,301 posts)I really like Warren and her approach. Praising incremental change in the right direction is a good way of building popular momentum for said direction (and the further reform she desires), even if these previous measures were flawed. At least, I find it a better recipe for success than the alternate, all-or-nothing approach:
"Monsieurs Dodd and Frank, your reform measures do not nearly go far enough. I therefore denounce you as a counter-reform, corporatist sympathizers and traitors to the American people! Guards, take them away, there is the underside of a bus that awaits!" 
Angel Martin
(942 posts)but it doesn't really address the huge systematic risks that remain in the financial sector.
CEO pay is fine but won't reduce systematic risk.
the predatory auto loans are systematic risk. unfortunately the domestic auto cos. have the lowest income customers with the worst credit. the predatory loans are supporting their sales to a significant extent so those loans are going to be hard to stop.
high frequency trading is systematic risk. the financial transactions tax may put a dent in high frequency trading (or just move it to London).
but, the biggest source of systematic risk i see is that there is ten trillion of US dollar denominated debt lent by offshore lenders to offshore borrowers. a lot of those borrowers were in the oil industry so their revenues have collapsed as the oil price has fallen. also, all of those borrowers are in countries where the currency has fallen against the dollar. so dollar denominated debts are harder to pay back.
if there is a financial crisis denominated in dollars, it will hurt the US economy, even if it happens offshore.
needless to say, Warren doesn't have anything right now that strengthens the financial sector against that kind of offshore crisis.
but, i wish Warren would run. she's the only one who seems to understand that there are big risks remaining in the financial sector.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is more concrete and detailed than any we have seen from HRC, so there is that.
calimary
(81,265 posts)Glad you're here! Seems to me there's such a high mountain to climb to force the playing field back to across-the-board level ground that we can't eat the whole thing. But we can at least start taking bites out of it. Even BIG bites. Why can't we do to the banksters what the bad guys have done to Roe v Wade? Nibble away at it until it's no longer too big to fail.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)the problem with financial regulation is that it is trying to regulate a constantly moving target.
the shadow bank sector has moved on to other things since 2008, so the next crisis will not start with illiquidity in mortgage backed securities. It will be something else.
Another problem: a lot of the risky financial derivatives can be synthesized. So even if they are banned, an identical derivative can be created.
to see this, say credit default swaps on mortgage back securities are banned. if you short a treasury bond and buy a mortgage backed security, you just created a payment stream identical to if you wrote a CDS (MBS defaults, you pay). If you buy a treasury bond and short a MBS, the payments are the same as if you bought a CDS (MBS defaults, you get paid).
effectively regulating in this sort of financial environment is really tough.