General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren Challenges Obama: Break Up Wall Street ‘Behemoths’
Senator Elizabeth Warren cemented her growing reputation as a darling of the political left on Tuesday with a wide-ranging speech challenging the Obama administration to take on Wall Street and break up its biggest banks.
Amid renewed speculation that she might challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination, Warren appeared at a congressional event to attack regulators for failing to tackle the problem of financial institutions that are “too big to fail”.
“We have got to get back to running this country for American families, not for its largest financial institutions,” said Warren, who said the issue was an indictment of how little had changed since the 2008 banking crash.
The four biggest Wall Street banks are 30% larger than before the financial crisis, she said, while the five biggest institutions hold more than half the bank assets in the country.
Warren claimed this amounted to an $83bn-a-year taxpayer subsidy for some Wall Street institutions, because they were so large that they could safely rely on a government bailout in the event of a future crisis, and were therefore able to take bigger risks than rivals. She also cited research suggesting the crash had cost up to $14tn, or $120,000 for each American household.
The first-term senator from Massachusetts, who led the congressional taskforce overseeing the bank bailout, has repeatedly denied she has presidential ambitions, but growing talk of her potential candidacy has ensured that even is she doesn’t run, she will act as a counter-weight to Wall Street financial backing for Clinton.
MORE...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/12/elizabeth-warren-challenges-obama-break-up-wall-street-behemoths/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
malaise
(269,005 posts)Rec
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
msongs
(67,406 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)and he likely agrees with every point she made.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)So you think he agrees with these too?
“Three years since Dodd-Frank was passed, the biggest banks are bigger than ever, the risks to the system have grown and the market distortions continue.”
She said current regulators do not give “much reason for confidence” and added: “It is time to act: the last thing we should do is wait for another crisis.”
You think he believe that HIS current regulators "do not give much reason for confidence”?
You think that he isn't a fan of Dodd-Frank and believes that the risks to the system have grown?
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Her complaint is that it doesn't go far enough.... not that it isn't a good step.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I don't think Obama agrees that it "doesn't go far enough". Which of course is why he signed it.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I already suspect "friends" causing Obama trouble.
Too bad all the progressives can't get together and stay together..
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Not running for President my ass!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)This is a good sign.
-Laelth
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)What more does she have to say to you before you believe her?
Do you think she's lying to you?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)You can keep sitting in the pumpkin patch with Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear.
As for me, it is hard to get excited about a candidate for office when the candidate has said in no uncertain terms that she isn't running.
You can't "draft" someone to run for President. They have to want it.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)It is a job he wanted.... and if he didn't want it, no amount of cajoling would have convinced him to run.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)GO ELIZABETH WARREN!
There may not be another opportunity for us to elect a true progressive to the Oval Office before it is too late. Hilary Clinton, Goddess bless her, is not a true progressive. Nor is President Obama or former President Clinton.
And yes, 2014 is more important right now. But Hilary does not excite me, while Warren is almost a dream come true. Just wait until she sticks it to the banks one of these days. I mean really takes them on and wins. She will be a national hero. Ticker tape parades are not out of the question... Nor is the presidency. All politicians deny it until they change their minds and run.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)I don't recall Hillary ever making that claim.
And if she did... she hasn't lied about it yet... because Hillary hasn't declared herself a candidate for '16 either.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)More like sitting on a secret until they're ready to face the media circus.
I hope I am posting this link correctly; I googled and found this report from USA today, in which Clinton states that she will not run again, but I clearly remember her saying the same thing after the 2008 election of President Obama.
[link:http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/18/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-2016-election/1641869/|
tblue37
(65,377 posts)push Hillary (and anyone else who runs) to the left on this issue.
Reining in the big banks IS Warren's issue, her focus. She doesn't want to be president. She just wants to get the powerful "moneychangers" under control. She uses her media presence to shine the spotlight on the issue and to make it hard for Dem leaders to weasel around in their efforts to avoid annoying their Wall Street connections.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)If I read this correctly, she could actually help Clinton by creating an environment where Clinton is able to raise large amounts of cash from Wall Street, out of fear that Warren might pull the party (and Clinton) to the left. She wouldn't every have to declare, and better that she did not, so that Clinton can run around raising cash to "discourage Susan from running".
zeemike
(18,998 posts)like they use it on us?
Could be.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)And he kept referring to the group that was working on him as the "fantasy gang" or something like that.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I forget the name of the post election book. But it talked about the group that first pushed him. It included some of the Kennedy clan.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)But when it does, Warren won't go along with bad deals...
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Good for her! I think we should encourage everyone that will make the Democratic Primary stronger to run, including Warren.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)remember that, or am I just losing my mind?? If memory serves me correctly, there were several here who said she would be "too old" or "too tired" to run..
Peace,
Ghost
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Hell yeah!
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)
Butch McQueen
(43 posts)The fact she was able to get elected into the senate has done more to restore my dwindling hope for this country than another other event in the last 30 years!
Butch
Laelth
(32,017 posts)And, welcome to DU.
-Laelth
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and testing my new sig line.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)
-Laelth
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)some ultra-wealthy CEO (I'm sorry - can't recall the guy's name) who made a statement calling for the break-up of the mega-banks, and made the observation that guys like this are now to the left of the status quo of Democratic party leadership on economic issues.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)McXorsett
(21 posts)Did she say whether it was Obama's fault or Republicans' fault for the state of affairs regarding Wall Street? Or did Raw Story want a big bold headline that would be quickly picked up in message boards?
..
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Nowhere in her speech did she "challenge Obama" or even reference him or his administration.
In fact... I would argue that President Obama agrees with 99% of what she said.
It is a great speech and is right on the money.
But it in NO WAY takes on Obama or blames him in the slightest.
HijackedLabel
(80 posts)They're trying to create the illusion of Democratic in-fighting.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)We need a lot more like her!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... as per the 2016 election. She's going to kick ass, no matter where she is. And I'm glad we've got her. Amy Goodman had Thom Hartmann on yesterday talking about his new book that purports that there's going to be another crash come 2016. His message pretty much follows right on track with Sen Warren's. Heck, I've heard it from other sources too. And basically, it's only common sense. Nothing has been fixed and the big banks are right back doing what they did to get us into the 2008 mess... what we are struggling from to this very effing day. We haven't recovered from 2008, and who knows... we may never (if you take the Shock Doctrine route of thinking.) If we have another one like 2008, we're cooked. Keep it Elizabeth Warren! Hammer away every chance you get!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Common sense. This country is cruizin' for a bruzin' if it doesn't listen to Sen Elizabeth Warren.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)
-Laelth
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)Do you have some inside info or something?
Are you thinking about the other party, which is in the grip of an ACTUAL death spiral?
Please, explain.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Sup with the hair-trigger temper there, cowboy? I think LOoniX is referring to the right wing of the Democratic Party. A right-wing Democratic Party is NOT a Democratic Party. Comprende? He/she has probably been chewed on by some of those false, er turd way guys today. Go easy. Have a drink and relax. 
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)by saying that big banks ought to be dismantled. I look at it this way, what has Obama and Holder done to anyone associated with the financial meltdown? Nothing. As a matter of fact, they continue with the popular but false impression that they're to big to prosecute.
Look to Iceland to see the dramatic results of prosecuting bankers.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Uncle Joe
(58,363 posts)Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)WASHINGTON, DC - In remarks to Americans for Financial Reform and the Roosevelt Institute today, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren discussed the actions Congress needs to take to end Too Big to Fail and help prevent future financial crises.
"We should not accept a financial system that allows the biggest banks to emerge from a crisis in record-setting shape while working Americans continue to struggle," said Senator Warren in her speech today. "And we should not accept a regulatory system that is so besieged by lobbyists for the big banks that it takes years to deliver rules and then the rules that are delivered are often watered-down and ineffective.
"What we need is a system that puts an end to the boom and bust cycle. A system that recognizes we don't grow this country from the financial sector; we grow this country from the middle class."
The full text of Senator Warren's remarks as prepared for delivery is available here.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=281
Transcript:
It has been five years since the financial crisis, but we all remember its darkest days. Credit dried up. The stock market cratered. Historic institutions like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were wiped out. There were legitimate fears that our economy was tumbling over a cliff and that we were heading into another Great Depression .
We averted that grim outcome, but the damage was staggering. A recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimated that the financial crisis cost us upward of 14 trillion dollars— trillion, with a t. That’s $120,000 for every American household—more than two years’ worth of income for the average family. Billions of dollars in retirement savings disappeared. Millions of workers lost their jobs and their sense of financial security. Entire communities were devastated. And a Census Bureau study that came out just a couple months ago shows that homeownership rates declined by 15 percent for families with young children. The Crash of 2008 changed lives forever .
In April 2011, after a two-year bipartisan enquiry, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a 635-page report that identified the primary factors that led to the crisis .
The list included high-risk mortgage lending, inaccurate credit ratings, exotic financial products, and, to top it all off, the repeated failure of regulators to stop the madness. As Senator Tom Coburn, the Subcommittee’s ranking member, said: “Blame for this mess lies everywhere from federal regulators who cast a blind eye, Wall Street bankers who let greed run wild, and members of Congress who failed to provide oversight.” Even Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has emphasized inadequate regulation as a source of the crisis. He wrote this to his shareholders: “had there been stronger standards in the mortgage markets, one huge cause of the recent crisis might have been avoided.” The crash happened quickly and dramatically, and it caught our nation and apparently even our regulators by surprise. But don’t let that fool you. The causes of the crisis were years in the making, and the warning signs were everywhere .
As many of you know, I spent most of my career studying the growing economic pressures on middle class families—families that worked hard and played by the rules but still can’t get ahead. And I’ve also studied the financial services industry and how it has developed over time .
A generation ago, the price of financial services—credit cards, checking accounts, mortgages, and signature loans—was pretty easy to see. Both borrowers and lenders understood the basic terms of the deal .
But by the time the financial crisis hit, a different form of pricing had emerged. Lenders began to use a low advertised price on the front end to entice customers, and then made their real money with fees and charges and penalties and re-pricing in the fine print. Buyers became less and less able to evaluate the risks of a financial product, comparison shopping became almost impossible, and the market became less efficient .
Credit card companies took the lead, with their contracts ballooning from a page and a half back in 1980 to more than 30 pages by the beginning of the 2000’s. And teaser-rate credit cards— which advertised deceptively low interest rates—paved the way for teaser-rate mortgages .
When I worked to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I pushed hard for steps that would increase transparency in the marketplace. The crisis began one lousy mortgage at a time, and there is a lot we must do to make sure there are never again so many lousy mortgages .
CFPB made some important steps in the right direction, and I think we’re a lot safer than we were .
There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.
Even so, the law is not perfect. And so it’s important to ask: Where are we now, five years after the crisis hit and three years after Dodd-Frank?
I know there has been much discussion today about a variety of issues, but I’d like to focus on one in particular.
Where are we now on the “Too Big to Fail” problem? Where are we on making sure that the behemoth institutions on Wall Street can’t bring down the economy with a wild gamble? Where are we in ending a system that lets investors and CEOs scoop up all the profits in good times, but forces taxpayers to cover the losses in bad times?
After the crisis, there was a lot of discussion about how Too Big to Fail distorted the marketplace, creating lower borrowing costs for the largest institutions and competitive disadvantages for smaller ones. There was talk about moral hazard and the dangers of big banks getting a free, unwritten, government-guaranteed insurance policy.
Sure, there was talk, but look at what happened: Today, the four biggest banks are 30% larger than they were five years ago. And the five largest banks now hold more than half of the total banking assets in the country. One study earlier this year showed that the Too Big to Fail status is giving the 10 biggest US banks an annual taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion.
Wow. Who would have thought five years ago, after we witnessed firsthand the dangers of an overly concentrated financial system, that the Too Big to Fail problem would only have gotten worse?
There are many who say, “Sure, Too Big to Fail isn’t over yet, but Congress should wait to act further because the agencies still have to issue a bunch of Dodd-Frank’s required rules.” True, there are rules left to be written, but that’s because the agencies have missed more than 60 percent of Dodd-Frank’s rulemaking deadlines.
I don’t understand the logic. Since when does Congress set deadlines, watch regulators miss most of them, and then take that failure as a reason not to act? I thought that if the regulators failed, it was time for Congress to step in. That’s what oversight means. And that’s certainly a principle that would have served our country well prior to the crisis.
Wow. Who would have thought five years ago, after we witnessed firsthand the dangers of an overly concentrated financial system, that the Too Big to Fail problem would only have gotten worse?
There are many who say, “Sure, Too Big to Fail isn’t over yet, but Congress should wait to act further because the agencies still have to issue a bunch of Dodd-Frank’s required rules.” True, there are rules left to be written, but that’s because the agencies have missed more than 60 percent of Dodd-Frank’s rulemaking deadlines.
I don’t understand the logic. Since when does Congress set deadlines, watch regulators miss most of them, and then take that failure as a reason not to act? I thought that if the regulators failed, it was time for Congress to step in. That’s what oversight means. And that’s certainly a principle that would have served our country well prior to the crisis. So let’s put the pieces together:
- It has been three years since Dodd-Frank was passed, the biggest banks are bigger than ever, the risk to the system has grown, and the market distortions have continued.
- While the CFPB has met every single statutory deadline – so we know it’s possible to get the job done – the other regulators have missed their deadlines and haven’t given us much reason for confidence.
- The result is that the Too Big to Fail problem remains. I add that up, and it’s clear to me: it’s time to act. The last thing we should do is wait for more crises – for another London Whale or LIBOR disgrace or robo-signing scandal – before we take action.
By separating traditional depository banks from riskier financial institutions, the 1933 version of Glass-Steagall laid the groundwork for half a century of financial stability. During that time, we built a robust and thriving middle class. But throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, Congress and regulators chipped away at Glass-Steagall’s protections, encouraging growth of the megabanks and a sharp increase in systemic risk. They finally finished the task in 1999 with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated Glass-Steagall’s protections altogether.
The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act would reinstate many of the protections found in the original Glass-Steagall Act. It would wall off depository institutions from riskier activities like investment banking, swaps dealing, and private equity activities. It would force some of the biggest financial institutions to break apart and eliminate their ability to rely on federal depository insurance as a backstop for high-risk activities.
In other words, the new Glass-Steagall Act would attack both “too big” and “to fail.” It would reduce failures of the big banks by making banking boring, protecting deposits and providing stability to the system even in bad times. And it would reduce “too big” by dismantling the behemoths, so that big banks would still be big – but not too big to fail or, for that matter, too big to manage, too big to regulate, too big for trial, or too big for jail .
Big banks would once again have understandable balance sheets, and with that would come greater market discipline. Now sure, the lobbyists for Wall Street say the sky will fall if they can’t use deposits in checking accounts to fund their high-risk activities. But they said that in the 1930’s too. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. The Glass-Steagall Act would restore the stability to the financial system that began to disappear in the 1980’s and 1990’s .
This is one way to deal with Too Big to Fail. I think it would work, and I’m very grateful for AFR’s continued push to make it into a reality. But there are other approaches too. So what I want to know is this: how much longer should Congress wait for regulators to fix this problem? Another three months? Another three years? Until the next big bank comes crashing down? Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently said that if “Too Big to Fail” is still a problem at the end of the year, it might be time to consider other options. I applaud Secretary Lew for laying out a timeline, and I’d like to see other Administration officials and regulators follow suit. If Dodd- Frank gives the regulators the tools to end Too Big to Fail, great—end Too Big to Fail. But if the regulators won’t end Too Big to Fail, then Congress must act to protect our economy and prevent future crises .
We should not accept a financial system that allows the biggest banks to emerge from a crisis in record-setting shape while working Americans continue to struggle. And we should not accept a regulatory system that is so besieged by lobbyists for the big banks that it takes years to deliver rules and then the rules that are delivered are often watered-down and ineffective .
What we need is a system that puts an end to the boom and bust cycle. A system that recognizes we don’t grow this country from the financial sector; we grow this country from the middle class .
Powerful interests will fight to hang on to every benefit and subsidy they now enjoy. Even after exploiting consumers, larding their books with excessive risk, and making bad bets that brought down the economy and forced taxpayer bailouts, the big Wall Street banks are not chastened .
They have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform, and they will continue to fight every inch of the way .
That’s the battlefield. That’s what we’re up against. But David beat Goliath with the establishment of CFPB and, just a few months ago, with the confirmation of Rich Cordray .
David beat Goliath with the passage of Dodd-Frank. We did that together – Americans for Financial Reform, the Roosevelt Institute, and so many of you in this room. I am confident David can beat Goliath on Too Big to Fail. We just have to pick up the slingshot again .
Thank you .
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I applaud Sen Warren for continuing to shine a spotlight on the matter, though. That will make it a little tougher for the next POTUS to be a Wall St puppet.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)A few individuals will and they are our only source of truth and integrity.
nikto
(3,284 posts)It is hard to imagine any Clinton with the cojones to run against Wall Street.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...we'll have to suffer through the last gasps of the DLC/Third Way. Fortunately, we have some bright emerging stars....Sen Warren, Wendy Davis, the Castro Bros. We jist have to make sure Obama and Clinton don't destroy the Party before they take over.
Sheri
(310 posts)you go, girl!
SDjack
(1,448 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I really am; but isn’t it the job of the Legislature to write the laws that would break up the “TBTF”s?
Legislative action is far more lasting and Democratic than regulatory action.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... is on record as saying the banks can't be prosecuted for their criminal actions or else we'd lose trust in them, as if we had any. And the Prez continues to support Holder.
What's that tell you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you either did not read the OP, re: Elizabeth Warren and that you have very little experience/knowledge with respect to what goes into prosecurial decision making.
I say the first, because the article has Warren calling for more to be done to brak up the TBTFs; prosecuting the banksters, would not accomplish, or even affect that. I say the latter because similar decisions are made everyday ... the discussion rarely ends with whether a law was broken or not; but weighs a whole lot more.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)So you attack me, then try to split hairs on what Warren said and join Holder in excusing the criminal misconduct.
Lame. Very lame.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)
How was my stating you either didn't read the article ( since EW didn't talk about prosecuting the TBTFs) or you haven't the faintist idea how prosecutorial decisions are made (which is abundantly clear) an attack.?
Okay ... whatever! You know alot about "Lame"
{ETA: Further noted that two words you DID NOT use to describe my response are "Inaccurate" or "Wrong."}
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Will you now argue that U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff doesn't know how anything about the topic either?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I will argue that Rakoff, as a Judge, is not involved in the issues related to prosecutorial decision making.
nikto
(3,284 posts)achieved by purely executive act or decree.
Your original statement was muddled, and needed clarity.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
RainDog
(28,784 posts)AmBlue
(3,111 posts)...senators just like her? My but she just doesn't waste a word. I absolutely ADORE Elizabeth Warren and hope with every fiber of my being that she decides to run for the Big Cheese in 2016. She's just amazing... so courageous. There aren't enough words...
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)and a 300-135 split in the house...not much is ever going to happen that benefits the public.
The country (thanks to 4 decades of propaganda) is perceived to have a republican default setting..and even though they are a minority (and have been for a good long while) they are truly mice that roar...and they run things, even when out of power. They KNOW that when they have a president and the dems control the rest, the dems can always be counted on to "play nice" in order to get things done.. They are of NO inclination to reciprocate when they are out of power.. They rule either way..and we let them
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Unfortunately, that is not enough when Corporate Dems ally with Republicans on economic issues.
treestar
(82,383 posts)By the use of what laws?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)"Wall Street financial backing for Clinton" yea and I get a hidden message for saying F the clintons. I am finding that DU is no longer a good place to gather with real Dems. I expect to see a lot of members leave or hibernate over the corporate control of dino 3rd way centrists.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Lives on in Elizabeth Warren!
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I'd vote for her.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Obama wasn't interested in 2008 very early either. Its challenging as a freshman Senator to appear too eager too soon (in fact, there is some decent quotes from Obama regarding this while he was still denying his interest to run about a year prior to the race).
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)she has a year- at most. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Obama wasn't interested in 2008 "early on". He expressed interest in running in 2006- over 2 years before the election.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/22/obama.presidency/
Warpy
(111,266 posts)The country has turned into an ugly place without it.
Titonwan
(785 posts)This woman is as tough as a bag of battle axes and I say that in a lethal (effective) way.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Has an excellent ring to it, with actual Democratic values behind it instead of stale, dried up, Turd Way, Republican Lite Corporate Slime.
