• 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

Careful what you wish for. Warren would break Hillary in the primaries, just like Obama did. Then you basically have President Warren, because Republicans can't beat her.

While I think she certainly could win a primary against Hillary...many Democrats are shifting more and more to the left...I don't think she would ever be elected President because she IS so far left. The Republicans and a very sizable portion of the Independents will see to that.

Heck, I really do hope the Democrats nominate this far-left nut-job as their Presidential candidate.
 
Someone had a suggestion last week, that maybe politicians should have to ware body cameras,
with the content available for public viewing.
If it is good for the cops, why not the politicians?

i think they should be required to wear NASCAR driver attire, sporting the names of all of the corporations that are throwing money their way
 
To borrow from their playbook, this must mean they're scared of her.

The GOP led by Rep. Hensarling is obviously carrying Wall Street's water, willing to go back to Pre-Bush regulations that caused the Great Recession.

And the GOP messaging war has been unrelenting against Warren since she was elected .
 
I find this quite amusing, hypocritical and downright pathetic.

1. "closed door negotiations"...that wasn't a problem back in 2009, but it is now, eh?
2. The Party that constantly called for "compromise", that never actually compromised unless they were forced to it kicking and screaming, STILL can't bring themselves to compromise. Just who do they think they are?
3. Warren plays a very dangerous game and I suspect her own Party is going to shut her down. They certainly can't afford to be labeled as the Party that shuts down the government and the more they oppose Congress in the next two years the worse things will be for them in 2016.
4. If Warren drags the ultra-leftwing loonies along with her...effectively creating a kind of lefty Tea Party...she will do irreparable damage to the Democratic Party. I hope she goes for it.

1 - I don't care. What's bring proposed is straight up BS. You bringing that up is nothing more than an effort to distract.
2 - I don't care. What's bring proposed is straight up BS. You bringing that up is nothing more than an effort to distract.
3 - I don't care. What's bring proposed is straight up BS. You bringing that up is nothing more than an effort to distract.
4 - I don't care. What's bring proposed is straight up BS. You bringing that up is nothing more than an effort to distract.

Nothing you've posted has anything to do with what was proposed. It's just more left vs right **** throwing.

Would prefer to have this crap get approved?!
 
Those are "deal killers"??

LOL!!

Any politician who votes against the budget bill because of any of these items is not only a stupid ass, willing to shut down the government for these things that SHOULD be there, but prove themselves to be total douchebags.

yes. bank deregulation, neoprohibitionism, opening the floodgates on donations from those who buy our government, and spending more money on war when we already spend more than everyone else combined are deal killers. most of the above have no place in a spending bill whatsoever. politicians should not be allowed to poison a spending bill with this kind of unrelated stuff.
 
yes. bank deregulation, neoprohibitionism, opening the floodgates on donations from those who buy our government, and spending more money on war when we already spend more than everyone else combined are deal killers. most of the above have no place in a spending bill whatsoever. politicians should not be allowed to poison a spending bill with this kind of unrelated stuff.

Politicians should not be able to do this to ANY bill but they do, all the time. Those in this thread screaming about it being done - where were they when the ACA was being done which was even worse. Perhaps the Senate will modify the bill or Obama will veto it.

:popcorn2:
 
Politicians should not be able to do this to ANY bill but they do, all the time. Those in this thread screaming about it being done - where were they when the ACA was being done which was even worse. Perhaps the Senate will modify the bill or Obama will veto it.

:popcorn2:

this particular poster was hoping that Obama would veto that one, too, but mostly because there was no public option. however, i agree with you. tying unrelated legislation to a necessary bill should not be allowed. i'd go so far as supporting a constitutional amendment to end the practice. it hurts our country.
 
Right, haha, the Indian thing. Lulz.

You guys have nothing substantive against her.


Sure we do. All she is a walking talking Left wing narrative and her hypocrisy appeals to people just like her. Low information ideologues.

Do know who was the primary consumer of Securities backed by Subprime loans ? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Do you know who CREATED or guaranteed the majority of those MBSs ? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Do you know who deregulated CDSs ?

Bill Clinton when he signed the Futures Modernization act.
But not peep out of her about the two most corrupt Financial Agencies involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis and not one peep out of her about who deregulated derivatives in the first place

She's a glaring hypocrite
 
wall street, in backroom negotiations, tells our lawmakers to again allow the taxpayers to underwrite the gamble with derivatives
a resumption of privatizing the potentially massive profits and socializing the massive potential losses
this illustrates why Elizabeth Warren (and Bernie Sanders) should be the on democratic ticket in 2016
otherwise we will continue to have the best government money can buy

Oh please, run that ticket. A guarantee of a republican POTUS in 2016. On second hand, considering the republicans thinking of running, don't. We may not want a republican POTUS in 2016.
 
Obama will NOT veto whatever gets sent to him for the simple fact that HE doesn't want to be responsible for shutting down the government.

So you liberals/progressives/Democrats can cry and whine all you want about those mean Republicans. Work out a deal with them...or shut down the government.

Your choice.
 
Sure we do. All she is a walking talking Left wing narrative and her hypocrisy appeals to people just like her. Low information ideologues.

Do know who was the primary consumer of Securities backed by Subprime loans ? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Do you know who CREATED or guaranteed the majority of those MBSs ? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Do you know who deregulated CDSs ?

Bill Clinton when he signed the Futures Modernization act.
But not peep out of her about the two most corrupt Financial Agencies involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis and not one peep out of her about who deregulated derivatives in the first place

She's a glaring hypocrite
thread detour ahead. apologies but i could not allow that above misinformation to stand without rebuttal:

subprime mortgage is another expression for the term NONCONFORMING loan
the NONCONFORMING parts describes that the mortgage loan does NOT meet the qualifying criteria imposed upon those who sought to sell their mortgages to the secondary market operated by fannie mae/freddie mac
because it was NONCONFORMING - because it was "subprime" - such a mortgage had to be sold to another investor simply because one or more aspects of that mortgage loan failed to comply with the requirements established by fannie mae/freddie mac
and that should explain why so many investors were devastated during the great recession, because they, instead of freddie mae/freddie mac, purchased such nonconforming/subprime mortgages as investments

i now return the reader to the thread topic, how corporation have bought and paid for politicians to agree in back rooms to transfer investment risk to the taxpayer
 
Obama will NOT veto whatever gets sent to him for the simple fact that HE doesn't want to be responsible for shutting down the government.

So you liberals/progressives/Democrats can cry and whine all you want about those mean Republicans. Work out a deal with them...or shut down the government.

Your choice.

Shut it down. Liberals don't negotiate with terrorists. ;)
 
thread detour ahead. apologies but i could not allow that above misinformation to stand without rebuttal:

subprime mortgage is another expression for the term NONCONFORMING loan
the NONCONFORMING parts describes that the mortgage loan does NOT meet the qualifying criteria imposed upon those who sought to sell their mortgages to the secondary market operated by fannie mae/freddie mac
because it was NONCONFORMING - because it was "subprime" - such a mortgage had to be sold to another investor simply because one or more aspects of that mortgage loan failed to comply with the requirements established by fannie mae/freddie mac
and that should explain why so many investors were devastated during the great recession, because they, instead of freddie mae/freddie mac, purchased such nonconforming/subprime mortgages as investments

i now return the reader to the thread topic, how corporation have bought and paid for politicians to agree in back rooms to transfer investment risk to the taxpayer

Fannie & Freddie held almost half of the subprime loans before 2004. After 2006, they held one quarter of them.

They shouldn't have held any of them.
 
Shut it down. Liberals don't negotiate with terrorists. ;)

LOL!!

Yeah...Republicans are "terrorists".

Don't try to Gruber me, dude. It didn't work with Obamacare...it won't work now.
 
Elizabeth Warren, a woman whose entire career entailed ensuring that consumers can screw creditors out of money legally owed to them through easy bankruptcy. Only in America can someone like her be considered positive for the economy or consumers. I don't know what you people think happens to the charged off balances, but FYI, they get passed on to us.

Elizabeth Warren whose overburdensome regulations on community banks and credit unions is going to drive most of your local banks out of business, which will result in the big banks getting even bigger, and credit becoming harder to get for small businesses and consumers.

Yes, she's wonderful.
 
Careful what you wish for. Warren would break Hillary in the primaries, just like Obama did. Then you basically have President Warren, because Republicans can't beat her.

Do you have some sort of Polling on that? Or are you guestimating again?
 
thread detour ahead. apologies but i could not allow that above misinformation to stand without rebuttal:

subprime mortgage is another expression for the term NONCONFORMING loan
the NONCONFORMING parts describes that the mortgage loan does NOT meet the qualifying criteria imposed upon those who sought to sell their mortgages to the secondary market operated by fannie mae/freddie mac
because it was NONCONFORMING - because it was "subprime" - such a mortgage had to be sold to another investor simply because one or more aspects of that mortgage loan failed to comply with the requirements established by fannie mae/freddie mac
and that should explain why so many investors were devastated during the great recession, because they, instead of freddie mae/freddie mac, purchased such nonconforming/subprime mortgages as investments

i now return the reader to the thread topic, how corporation have bought and paid for politicians to agree in back rooms to transfer investment risk to the taxpayer



How is it a detour ? She's a Hack and a liar and a hypocritie and my post proves it.

Not ONE word out of her when it comes to the unprecedented securities fraud and corruption that came out of the GSEs.

And Fannie Mae was the largest consumer of " Non-conforming " loans.

They were Country Wides favorite and PRIMARY customer.
 
Obama will NOT veto whatever gets sent to him for the simple fact that HE doesn't want to be responsible for shutting down the government.

So you liberals/progressives/Democrats can cry and whine all you want about those mean Republicans. Work out a deal with them...or shut down the government.

Your choice.



You're Right about that Mycroft.


Obama Bails Out Boehner On Spending Bill.....


The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy today in favor of the 1,600 omnibus spending bill that funds the entire federal government through September except for the Department of Homeland Security which is only funded through the end of February.

Specifically, the White House objects to two policy riders attached to the bill. One, which modifies the Dodd-Frank law making it easier for banks to buy and sell certain financial products, and a second which increased the amount of money individuals are allowed to give to parties for national conventions.

A procedural vote on the spending bill narrowly passed this afternoon by a 214-212 vote without any Democratic support. If no Democrat votes for final passage this afternoon, it is very likely the bill will fail. Republican leaders hope this White House statement will help them get some Democrats to vote for final passage.....snip~

Obama Bails Out Boehner On Spending Bill - Conn Carroll
 
Do you have some sort of Polling on that? Or are you guestimating again?

I'm basing it on the fact that Warren is a far better debater and can articulate and defend progressive policies better than Clinton, that progressives turn out and vote for true progressives (which Clinton is not), and that Republicans weed out viable candidates in the primaries (like they did Huntsman).
 
I posted the bill and the contents of the bill from the Washington post on page two.
It doesn't say what she says it says.

There is simply an expansion of some of the derivatives that can be used. it does not totally get rid of dodd frank all together.
and these are derivatives that all banks have wanted to allow back in to begin with.

According to Warren:

“This was a provision added by CitiGroup lobbyists,” Warren told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. “I mean, they literally wrote it. They took it back, re-edited it and made sure it said exactly what they wanted it to say.”

The provision, which Warren said was added by surprise, would eliminate a requirement under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that banks trade financial derivatives separately from regular bank accounts, which are protected through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

“This was a provision added by CitiGroup lobbyists,” Warren told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. “I mean, they literally wrote it. They took it back, re-edited it and made sure it said exactly what they wanted it to say.”

The provision, which Warren said was added by surprise, would eliminate a requirement under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that banks trade financial derivatives separately from regular bank accounts, which are protected through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: GOP did bankers’ bidding with surprise change to ‘cromnibus’ spending bill
 
Back
Top Bottom