Elizabeth Warren: Dropping the hammer!!!!

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, December 15th, 2014 8:03am PST - promote requested by eric3579.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by kulpims.

She would certainly be better than Hilary...
But this speech sounds an awful lot like Obama's campaign style,
which as we all know means nothing once they actually win.

Obama was a cleverly created product.
made solely to appeal to a disenfranchised and apathetic voter base.
and it succeeded brilliantly.
obama was a corporate owned subsidiary from day one and if anyone had paid attention to his campaign speeches they would have known and not been so shocked when he acted,politically,exactly how he said he was going to act.

instead they focused on the emotional and inspirational rhetoric because the american people were incredibly desperate for that kind of message (8 yrs of bush will do that to ya).

warren,unlike obama,has been speaking this language for twenty years,and while i cannot begin to guess what kind of president she would be,or if even that is her desire (though many are trying to compel her),i will say she has been relentless in regards to wall street and big finance.her senate record is pretty consistent with her message.

but i get your reference "absolute power corrupts blah blah....."
you are probably right.

Vote with your wallet.
If you have an account with any Citygroup company, close it.
Same thing goes for B of A.
Small, local banks serve you better and don't lobby congress for bailouts and immunity.
If you give them your money but hate how they use it, take your money back. That simple.
If you like bailouts, wall street immunity, and the status quo of being under the thumb of big banking, keep your money where it is and vote republican.

EDIT:One might also lobby their congressman/woman for a constitutional amendment stating clearly that corporations are barred from government and are NOT citizens, so can't vote, lobby, make political 'statements' (as in commercial campaigns), or donate to political campaigns. I've written many a letter suggesting the same.

@newtboy nice plan ! Like +1

I absolutely agree. When people I know talk about how the government is unfairly influenced by 'Wall Street' I usually ask what bank they're with. Their answers rarely surprise me.

Warren is a smart woman who was HATED by the bankers she tried telling for 10 years that trouble was brewing; then she was right.
They hated her more.

Behind all this is a serious question: how does any institution that takes short term deposits (a bank) handle its long term obligations (loans) when the deposits (your money) has the right to leave at any time?

No one has really solved that one yet, as far as I can tell...Maybe she has a smart answer. Smarter than letting the banks trade meaningless swaps, which is what she opposes in this speech...

It's obvious. Your ratio of loans (risk) to deposit (resource) needs to be capped at a sane ratio.
Additionally banks should never be allowed to gamble on derivatives with depositor money.

I agree she'd probably be better than Hilary, and probably more electable too as the right (especially the Tea Party) hate's Hilary and Bill so much they'd pull out all the stops to make sure Hilary lost. They'd probably come out in force against Warren as well, but the loss wouldn't be as big. I'd say the progressive's best hope lies with Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich (oh to dream) or some other high end member of the CPC. Bernie has explored the option, but unless he's willing to run on the Democrat ticket, I'd think it'd end up hurting the progressive cause due to the first past the post voting system we're stuck using here. Ralph Nader would be another good option, but again, he'd have to run the Democrat ticket, which is unlikely. I could see Sanders coming to the Democrat ticket if they'd put him on the main post, with Warren as VP perhaps...

Unfortunately, small local banks partner with big banks.

When you deposit money into a local bank, within minutes it's been shoveled off to god knows where. It changes hands every few minutes. There's a frenzy going on in the background. Nothing stands still.

Pretty much have to go cash and be debt free to actually be rid of them.

-scheherazade

Not all do that by far.
Local credit unions don't do that. They allow their members to determine where and if they 'invest' deposits, and often specifically disallow investment outside a small area or with other large banks.
You just have to do a little research, you don't have to go totally bank/credit free to be rid of them (but debt free is always a good decision when ever possible).

The end of this video seemed abrupt. Is there more?

Actually the NeoCons love Hilary.

If Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren as VP, and they somehow collided with McCain / Palin, I'm pretty sure it would rip a hole in the space time continuum.


edit...also, yeah, credit unions are great. Most people probably have access to one and don't even know about it.

The way a bank is supposed to operate is that it matches the terms of its loans and its deposits. A 5 year mortgage is funded by 5 year term deposits or bonds or whatever. This is what a bank that wants to make a safe reasonable profit does. Of course the big American banks aren't really banks any more. They're gamblers and what's worse they are the kind of gambler's that think they can recoup their losses by gambling more.

Should have tied it more to Obama and republicans and democrats who want to hate and/or get away from him. Name some republicans by name--and say they voted hand and hand with Obama. That is a true slap. At least to them.

I'm fairly sure she did that on Wed and Thurs when she talked to democrats and republicans about the bill.

Warren is a "Champion" against Corporatism, and yet she supports the Ex-Im Bank that gives $8.3 billion to Boeing and $2.6 billion to GE (Mercatus Scholars on the Export-Import Bank). Because, y'know.. logic and consistency. "The people's" support of Warren is support for all of those entities that make her employment as a politician possible. In other words, "the people's" support of Warren (regardless of her rhetoric or polemical attempts at persuading a disenfranchised Left) is, in fact, support for all of those entities which make her career as a politician possible (i.e., the very corporatist relationships she rails against, while simultaneously supporting with favorable legislation). Despite all the rhetoric, make no mistake that Warren knows exactly where her bread gets buttered.

(While this is fairly basic stuff for most if not all of politics-as-usual, it's just so deliciously blatant with someone like Warren that it's too satisfying to resist pointing out.)

Contrary to what they would have you believe, this is NOT an academic group of scholars, but is actually a right wing political organization that has a home at George Mason University (but is not affiliated with or supported by Mason) dedicated to showing how a 'free market economy can solve any problem'.

From their web page: As the name implies, Mercatus (market in Latin) research focuses on how markets solve problems.

EDIT: Nice, I like the downvote for shining a light on your source with information from their own website. Keeping it classy!

And that somehow negates Warren's support of the Ex-Im Bank how, exactly?

But fine. You don't like Mercatus' take on Ex-Im, how about Rolling Stone's very own Wall St. lefty, Matt Taibbi's, take on the Ex-Im Bank which he describes as "A federal slush fund that gives away massive low-interest loans to companies that a) don't need the money and b) have repeatedly made gigantic contributions to the right people."

Yup, sounds like something any true "Champion" against Corportatism would want to support. <eyeroll>

EDIT: Why would you even argue the point? Are you that naive??

No, that negates them as a source of 'information' on the subject.
(facepalm)

EDIT: By now, I think you know the difference between scientific organizations and political ones masquerading as scientific organizations. You have a habit of listening to, and quoting political organizations as if they were not propaganda machines. it has been pointed out to you over and over again.
I think you also know the difference between someone pointing out your source is not credible and someone saying your point is wrong. When your source is not credible, it's likely your point is wrong, but often I don't even deal with that until you get the facts right, then I'll move on to conclusions. When you consistently want to listen to, and quote those who have the facts wrong, because they come from organizations not interested in fact but interested in furthering their own pre-conceived notions (one's they are paid to hold), there's little point in discussing your conclusions before debunking your 'facts' and sources.
If you could start with non-politically skewed 'facts' we could move on to your conclusions about them.

Looks like the communist party really wants Warren to run.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Sift of the week.