Best
102 Comments
Post
  • #13
    !
    To solve any problem, one must first identify and or acknowledge the problem. While I'm sure that we all can agree that there is a problem in enforcing the laws regulating the banking industry. Does anyone really believe government will move forward in the problem solving process? I for one will be floored if the first super thief is prosecuted and brought to justice.
  • #12
    !
    What should happen is make lobbying illegal. Get rid of the professional political. Get corporations out of the political equation (they are not people). Send the financial crooks to jail and confiscate their money. Make an an example out of them. No. Wait. That's an episode of the Twilight Zone. Sorry. Never mind.
  • #40
    !
    What should happen is to take anyone implicated in the subprime fiasco to jail. Hold em without bail till trial. Everyone one of em serves time that way. Never happen, but its what should happen.
  • #73
    !
    @PoliticalSpice I don't think Reno and Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter would like Jail.

    President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

    Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

    Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

    "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

    It's pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.
  • #77
    !
    @drpeeper more nonsense from the propaganda king. Bush passed tarp to bail out the banks. His sec did nothing to stop this. His justice department did just as much as obamas justice dept. only thing you got right was clintons roll in repealing glass seagull. But then repubs don't beleive in regulation do they?
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    One can safely say that just because she asked the question the Pubs will do anything they can to block her from doing much of anything. I'll call her a flash in the pan. Attention grabbing start and downhill from there.
  • #15
    !
    @justapirate One of the power party members main benefits is the financial opportunities given to political operatives after holding office. This is a major motivating factor for all professional politicians to get into the business to start with. To try and make this a partisan issue is naive at best.
  • #17
    !
    @FollowTheMoney Oh, I agree in the long run. In the short run, take a look at what happens every time someone challenges big banks or big business. It's the Pubs to the rescue.
  • #5
    !
    @justapirate well for 1 thing 1 regulator said that he didn't need to take anyone to court to accomplish his goal... and so the story goes on that she ignored that and continued with the same ridiculous question over and over ... simply to make a sound bite for the idiot left media to regurgitate onto a platter for the low information a voter to consume.
  • #6
    !
    @bsking I guess I see what her point was. With so much illegality performed by banks not one single person was held accountable. No one. And the citizens of the country merely easy prey for both big bank activity and prosecutorial conduct. Her question was valid and, as usual, not answered.
  • #9
    !
    @bsking - Nothing for her to ignore, King. That was a response to her question, not a question itself. Her next question for him should have been, "Do you deem that an adequate means of oversight to achieve fairness across the board to establish rules of conduct"?. I have to keep in mind that in some professions self oversight would also be considered 'conflict of interest'. Clearly, I think you and I know something is out of whack; what it is and where it is is up for debate.
  • #10
    !
    @justapirate maybe so but the bigger point is that it was the Congress that constructed how the banks would act specifically... now after the fact the Congress goes on a witch hunt and ask these types of questions for the television cameras... it's exactly the same is asking someone have you stopped beating your wife?

    and of course under every Administration including Bush and Obama you can see the cronyism between all the big banking institutions and the White House. my point is she's up there asking the repetitive question for the television cameras only and Congress has no intention of , and really no knowledge of how to correct practices.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    I was thinking the same thing...she must have left her feathers at home, Gee, I'd love to see her dressed in her 'Native Attire'. That would be a real pow wow. lol
  • #31
    !
    It's probably been a lot longer than the last time you made a racist statement - about 10 minutes.

    "And on his farm he had a pig EIEIO"
  • #26
    !
    I'm pleased, but I'd even more pleased when the Leftist media started asking the
    Obama administration some 'serious questions'...I have never witnessed that and
    it will never happen...they've been protecting him since 2007, he's their Guru.
  • #30
    !
    How do you know? Do you watch leftist media frequently? Do you scour the web for Obama news reports from leftist media? How do you know leftist media has never asked Obama any serious questions? And what would you consider a "serious question"?
  • #32
    !
    @DogLady_1 Tell me ONE serious question the left media has asked Obama?...
    The left won't ask him serious questions, they won't put him on the spot. There are
    many questions that have never been answered, but, the one that comes to my mind pretty quickly, is why he has never been asked to fully explain why security
    was not given to the Ambassador and the three others who were killed in Benghazi.
    We still don't know, he has skirted around it, blamed everyone else and waited it out.
    As he usually does...because if you wait long enough, people will forget and that's
    what he counts on. Dems can go on forever and make fun of Rubio taking a sip
    of water and the News media will pound that to death...but , Benghazi and the economy, foreign relations, unemployment, etc.. It's all hush, hush... I guess they
    all still have that "thrill" up their leg. Please!
  • #37
    !
    @mimi57 The left could care less about an imperialist ambassador. Indeed, your example of left is a tv station owned by one oof the largest corporations in the country. The left opposes corporations, and they certianly don't run any telivision stations. Maybe some periodicals or newspapers... The left, incidently, is not happy with obama.
  • #38
    !
    @mimi57 - "Tell me ONE serious question the left media has asked Obama?..." I dunno... I don't watch leftist media... don't watch right-wing media either. In WH press conferences where some serious questions are asked, and I see lies of omission, evasion and deflection, but that is not unique to one party or the other... so after watching, I go check it out myself... I usually get info from a media interview from any source, then do my own investigation. For instance, I looked at the actual transcripts, testimony and documents of the Benghazi massacre and found that news media was very biased in both directions in its reporting... No one has skirted anything about Benghazi, except the media... they have skirted telling us the truth in favor of getting as much drama and entertainment out of the incident.
  • #60
    !
    @DogLady_1 You must have a lot of spare time, I work, and am on here too much
    anyway...but to 'investigate' all news yourself..Wow, that's time consuming! Do you
    work for the local newspaper?.. Just curious.
  • R Load more replies

  • #33
    !
    @Realthinker you have a problem with criticizing obama appointees? You think she should criticize just republicans? Why is that? I would think anyone not going after these banks merits criticism, or is it just you don't want her going after the banks?
  • #36
    !
    @PoliticalSpice The Democrats do not criticize their own, no. Obama put those people there for his benefit. Privately she is going to hear about it.
  • #59
    !
    @PoliticalSpice No I am not. The people she wants the Senate to go after are Obama appointees. He doesn't want them investigated.
  • R Load more replies

  • #97
    !
    Sadly, most Americans don't even realize why some people are even mad at the bankers to begin with. But still a good start, I guess.
  • #90
    !
    Kudos to Elizabeth Warren!! It's about time someone spoke up about ordinary citizens being squeezed in court. It's time to hold these big Wall Street banks responsible for breaking the law. Each time she asked the same question all that was said was that they litigated and took the settlement instead of taking it to trial. Taking these banks that are still doing illegal things to trial would take these secrets the banks have and set them free so every one would know exactly what these banks have been/are doing! Now I pray Elizabeth Warren follows through and does take these banks use of illegal practices to trial! Go after them!! Sic em Elizabeth!!
  • #84
    !
    If I were king, I'd develop a plan for the orderly liquidation of any bank that became insolvent or assumed excessive risk.

    Then I'd publish the plan so that there was no doubt about what would happen in the next liquidity crisis.
  • R Load more comments...
Post