• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren to Dems: Kill the bill

Amadeus said:
Sure it matters. You've called Warren a liar who appeals to low-information voters. Knowing who you (and people like you) support will give us a glimpse into lofty conservative standards.

But if you're afraid to say, I understand.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren is lying. Either that, or clueless. I don't think she is clueless, because she is on the Senate Banking committee and she played a role in implementing Dodd Frank.

So I'm guessing she is lying.
 
Cardinal said:
Or as is infinitely more likely from the wording of your post, you don't know.
Click to expand...

I don't know if she is clueless or lying. I know what she is saying isn't correct, but my guess she is not being clear with all the facts.

If she is clueless, you probably wouldn't want her has your candidate. If she is lying, then she is playing you. It's really nothing new when it comes to politics, but hey, that's the nature of the business.
 
Cardinal said:
No, you've lobbed vague insults, but nothing substantive.
Click to expand...


* sigh *.....

Warrens charges of Bank and Wall street corruption as she supposedly represents the poor and disenfranchised makes her one of the biggest hypocrites out there.

She relies on her supporters naivete and their refusal to look past their narrow minded ideology to get the traction she needs to make a complete fool out of himself on a regular basis.

Since the 2008 Financial crisis she hasn't once criticized the two most corrupt and influential Financial entities involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis.

Fannie and Freddie were exempt from SEC reporting requirements all the way up to 2006. They were also exempt from State and Local and Federal taxes.

That was when the 2004 SEC investigation ended exposing the massive amount of corruption at the two GSEs.

Fannie Mae was fined 400 Million dollars and finnaly agreed to start submitting their quarterly financial statements. ( All publicly traded companies have to submit quarterly statements to the SEC )

In 2011 the SEC started a new investigation into Fannie and Freddies corruption stating that the two GSEs with held from their SEC quarterly filings 90 percent of their worthless debt

Fannie and Freddie were using their 4 Billion dollar line of cheap credit from the US Treasury, credit that no Bank had access to, to buy up hundreds of Billions of dollars of Securities backed by Subprime loans.

Their decision to withhold this information and their massive amount of purchases influenced investors and created demand for a product that was toxic and that was distributed throughout the Worlds Capital markets.

Thats officially unprecendeted Securities fraud

Not one person has been thrown in jail, brought up on charges and Pocahontas Warren hasn't said one word about it.

So she targets Wall street and the Banks and people like you eat it up.

Not me, I see right through her selective outrage.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
I don't know if she is clueless or lying. I know what she is saying isn't correct, but my guess she is not being clear with all the facts.

If she is clueless, you probably wouldn't want her has your candidate. If she is lying, then she is playing you. It's really nothing new when it comes to politics, but hey, that's the nature of the business.
Click to expand...
what is incorrect about what she is saying? please point it out
 
67 Republicans voted no and 57 Democrats voted yes----219 to 206..
Let's have more future bailouts .
 
danarhea said:
Dems will kill the bill, and they have some strange bedfellows in doing it..... The Tea Party, who also want to kill the bill, albeit for different reasons. It's why Boehner pulled the bill off the floor today. He doesn't have the votes to pass it.
Click to expand...

You spoke too soon, dude.

News from The Associated Press
 
TEAparty Republicans and Liberal Democrats hate the campaign finance changes and Wall Street giveaways at the last moment.
Strange bedfellows indeed.

On the DEM side, Warren and Pelosi versus Hoyer, Reid and Obama .

Amadeus said:
Sure it matters. You've called Warren a liar who appeals to low-information voters. Knowing who you (and people like you) support will give us a glimpse into lofty conservative standards.

But if you're afraid to say, I understand.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
TEAparty Republicans and Liberal Democrats hate the campaign finance changes and Wall Street giveaways at the last moment.
Strange bedfellows indeed.

On the DEM side, Warren and Pelosi versus Hoyer, Reid and Obama .
Click to expand...

It will be interesting when Hillary is asked what she thinks.
 
Cardinal said:
So you admit you don't know anything about the subprime loan quote of hers. Now please, wow us with your knowledge of this so-called lie regarding the manufactured Native American story.
Click to expand...
I concede nothing, wait til morning when I'm on my comp.
 
NIMBY said:
67 Republicans voted no and 57 Democrats voted yes----219 to 206..
Let's have more future bailouts .
Click to expand...


You don't have a problem with the 5 Trillion dollars of GSE debt that was shifted over the the Treasuries balance sheets when Fannie and Freddie were declared insolvent ?

But TARP was a problem for you ?
Most of TARP was payed back.

Fannie and Freddies debt is being shifted over to the FEDs balance sheet and will continue to have detrimental repercussions for years to come.

This is why Warren outside of Liberal circles is a laughing stock.
 
NIMBY said:
TEAparty Republicans and Liberal Democrats hate the campaign finance changes and Wall Street giveaways at the last moment.
Strange bedfellows indeed.

On the DEM side, Warren and Pelosi versus Hoyer, Reid and Obama .
Click to expand...

Can you explain what the wall street giveaway in the bill is? The democratic congressman who sponsered it does not think it is a giveaway.
 
justabubba said:
what is incorrect about what she is saying? please point it out
Click to expand...

I'll just focus on the quote because I really don't feel like listening to her voice.

“Now, the House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful,” she continued. “The House is about to vote on a budget deal, a deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.”
Click to expand...

She's referring to Section 716 of Dodd Frank, which would require banks to book their derivatives in subsidiaries that are not their insured depository institutions and pushes these financial instruments outside of their banking operations. Reading her statements and listening to her words, she asserts (wrongly) that after this bill is passed, any financial institution will again be able to use any derivatives within their banking operations. However, 95% of derivatives are already not governed by Section 716 of Dodd Frank, which includes FOREX swaps, Cleared CDS and the more popular interest rate swaps. The only swaps you cannot used are equity/commodity derivatives and uncleared CDS.

Also, forcing depository institutions not to use derivatives doesn't make the problem go away. The banks that heavily used derivatives, by notional amount, held 0 deposits at all, such as AIG, Lehman Brother, Goldman Sachs, just to name a few. Sure, if a bank like Citigroup (who lobbied for the provision) uses explodes using CDS, that hurts everyone, but that is going to happen whether this section 716 is on the books or not.

And, I'm fairly certain Elizabeth Warren knows this. She was interviewed in the Documentary 'Inside Job' saying that she doesn't remember a single provision implemented in Dodd Frank that would actually help prevent another financial crisis. If I find the clip I'll show it, but she helped implement Dodd Frank. She must have known that it didn't completely eliminate swap trading, and she probably doesn't realise that swaps were mostly ultilised by investment banks and insurance companies, not depository institutions. So she is either clueless, or lying.
 
NIMBY said:
67 Republicans voted no and 57 Democrats voted yes----219 to 206..
Let's have more future bailouts .
Click to expand...

This bill does nothing to prevent future bailouts. If anything, the first bailout insures banks that you will always bail them out...
 
WallStreetVixen said:
This bill does nothing to prevent future bailouts.
Click to expand...
My point exactly.
If anything, the first bailout insures banks that you will always bail them out...
Click to expand...
Again, my point exactly.
We are now back to Bush-era policies of risky derivatives backed by the federal government.
Eric Cantor has paid off already as a wise investment for Wall Street .
 
You don't call risky derivatives backed by the federal government a bailout??
As we saw in the 2008 meltdown!!
This used to be a TEAparty issue .

washunut said:
Can you explain what the wall street giveaway in the bill is? The democratic congressman who sponsered it does not think it is a giveaway.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
My point exactly.

Again, my point exactly.
We are now back to Bush-era policies of risky derivatives backed by the federal government.
Eric Cantor has paid off already as a wise investment for Wall Street .
Click to expand...

My instinct tells me that BHO backed this in order to create a terrible political problem for Hillary. If she backs it she may provoke Warren to challenge her. If she condemns it her business backers will be put off.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

There will be no funding for Common Core, which parents and teachers both dislike, no new money for Obamacare, which the majority of citizens dislike, and we can still buy incandescent light bulbs which is great. Anyone trying to read with the sickly light emitted by the new bulbs should give thanks for that! There are some things I question, like giving millions to the Central American countries that dumped 50,000 of their children on us to babysit, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars a year - it seems they should be reimbursing us! - but I'll wait to see what happens. The scary part to me was the $1.1 trillion dollar budget amount! Why are we acting like we have the money to do this? :screwy: Doesn't an $18 trillion dollar, and climbing by $10 million dollars a minute, debt bother anybody in DC? :shock:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

Yeah, debt to the feds just doesn't seem to matter, where as common sense would seem to indicate that a mount of concern should be warranted.

While I agree that the CF replacement light bulbs are a sorry excuse for a replacement source of light for incandescent, the real replacement is LED. Lasts for next to forever, uses a fraction of the electricity, which is kinda the point for all this light bulb changing. Downside? Rather than a buck or less, LEDs are around $20 each and don't dim very much when used with a dimmer switch, so you can't replace the light bulbs if you want dim them. Well, at least the properly 'dimmable' will e available a while longer.

Of the budget legislation that was passed today, I believe the most disconcerting is the additional risk and derivatives the banks can once again dive into, while still being insured by the FDIC, so banks gambling with their money, and get in trouble, and will get bail outs. Geez, haven't we learned anything from 2007 - 2008?

Look for the past to repeat in the future, once again.
 
NIMBY said:
My point exactly.

Again, my point exactly.
We are now back to Bush-era policies of risky derivatives backed by the federal government.
Eric Cantor has paid off already as a wise investment for Wall Street .
Click to expand...

I was referring to Section 716 of Dodd frank. The provision that is about to be repealed, doesn't prevent bailouts or risky trading.

And you never left the 'Bush-era policies of risky derivatives backed by the federal government.' Section 716 only prohibits 5% of swap trading. Depository institutions never made risky trades with deposits anyway. Derivatives were vices of companies like AIG and Bear Sterns, which weren't depository institutions.

Senator Warren played you, and it really isn't difficult to understand why. Low information voters are very easy to fool.
 
Fenton said:
Sorry Eric....

Jobs ? Not really. .

The last Jobs numbers showed there were 150 thousand less full time positions, and the Labor participation rate is at a record low as this administration shrinks the unemployment numbers by shrinking the pool of those that it counts as employed.

Foodstamp use is up 40 percent and so are poverty rates. Child poverty in some US Cities is 50 percent.

The Stock market being propped up with unending FED stimulus isn't really a accomplishment.

Forcing investors out of safe fixed yield investments and into the equities markets and falsely inflating the value of assets just drives up costs on everything from food to Housing.

The Stock market is absolutely disconnected from the economic conditions we now have to deal with.

Qe incentivizes speculation, not investment that would lead to real amd substantial Jobs growth.
Click to expand...

Eric? Anyway, stock market shows confidence in economy. If Obama were as bad as some say, it wouldn't be this high. Anyway, what have republicans done to improve the economy? It seem that their main focus has been on obstructing Obama, who's really not as bad as they say, in my opinion.
 
ludin said:
yea republicans aren't happy because it doesn't contain the immigration stoppage that they are looking for, but they are trying to hold that off till the new congress
that is why they limit HLD till feb.
Click to expand...


Heya Ludin :2wave: earlier today when we were talking about this. Right after I left. I heard Jim Jordan and some other Repubs were not going to sign onto this bill.
 
fred68 said:
Eric? Anyway, stock market shows confidence in economy. If Obama were as bad as some say, it wouldn't be this high. Anyway, what have republicans done to improve the economy? It seem that their main focus has been on obstructing Obama, who's really not as bad as they say, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The growth in the stock market shows confidence in the stock market, not in the economy. All-time high in milestones and all-time lows in investor net worth shows that investors are confident that they'll make so much in the stock market that they'll be able to pay their margin debts off. Either this, or they simply believe stock prices will rise forever.

How does this help the average American, who will probably have difficulty purchasing just one share of an S&P stock, that is trading at 27 times earnings?
 
You're purposely ignoring that this is about the swaps-pushout rule, which is now gone.

How Wall St. got its way - Dave Clarke and Kate Davidson and Jon Prior - POLITICO

WallStreetVixen said:
I was referring to Section 716 of Dodd frank. The provision that is about to be repealed, doesn't prevent bailouts or risky trading.

And you never left the 'Bush-era policies of risky derivatives backed by the federal government.' Section 716 only prohibits 5% of swap trading. Depository institutions never made risky trades with deposits anyway. Derivatives were vices of companies like AIG and Bear Sterns, which weren't depository institutions anyway.

Senator Warren played you, and it really isn't difficult to understand why. Low information voters are very easy to fool.
Click to expand...

So here you tell me I was played by Sen. Warren and it isn't difficult to understand why.
As you directly insult me by calling me a low-information voter.

Is this your normal way of posting ??
 
Amadeus said:
A true progressive will steamroll any conservative competition coming out of the primaries. You better pray for Clinton, because she's the closest to the right-wing you're going to get in 2016.
Click to expand...

I doubt it very seriously......the Progressives problem. That lil thing called money. That which they lack and always do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom