Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Elizabeth Warren: Time For Wall Street CEOs To 'Earn Back' America's Trust
Bailout watchdog and Middle Class advocate Elizabeth Warren has accused Wall Street CEOs of abusing consumer trust and challenged them to step up and support financial reform -- for the nation's benefit as well as their own.
Bailout watchdog and Middle Class advocate Elizabeth Warren has accused Wall Street CEOs of abusing consumer trust and challenged them to step up and support financial reform -- for the nation's benefit as well as their own. (File) In an opinion piece to be published in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Warren writes:
For years, Wall Street CEOs have thrown away customer trust like so much worthless trash.Banks and brokers have sold deceptive mortgages for more than a decade. Financial wizards made billions by packaging and repackaging those loans into securities. And federal regulators played the role of lookout at a bank robbery, holding back anyone who tried to stop the massive looting from middle-class families. When they weren't selling deceptive mortgages, Wall Street invented new credit card tricks and clever overdraft fees.
The Harvard Law professor and TARP overseer added that the bankers "squandered what little trust was left" when they took taxpayer bailouts.
The piece, titled "Wall Street's Race to the Bottom," explains how bankers can reclaim that trust: by supporting a strong consumer protection agency designed to root out the kinds of abuses that helped lead to the financial crisis. Long supported by Warren, this new agency would protect borrowers from abusive lenders by policing mortgages, credit cards and personal loans.
President Barack Obama proposed the agency last year as part of a set of comprehensive financial reforms. The House of Representatives passed a bill in December to create it.
Bankers, however, argue that the agency will add another layer of bureaucracy to government and increase costs, which would ultimately be passed on to consumers seeking credit. Simply put, banks -- especially the big ones -- despise the very idea of such an agency.
As proposed by Warren and Obama, the agency could protect consumers by writing and enforcing robust rules. Right now, that authority is split among seven regulators that also are charged with overseeing the health of individual banks and the broader financial system.
Those dueling missions -- bank profitability and consumer protection -- are exemplified by overdraft fees. Consumer advocates charge that the fees are excessive and structured in a way to maximize the potential hit to the customer. Banks see it as a profitable practice that reaps billions of dollars.
Warren shreds the banks' arguments against such an agency:
So far, Wall Street CEOs seem determined to stop any kind of watchdog. They seem to think that they can run their businesses forever without our trust. This is a bad calculation.It's a bad calculation because shareholders suffer enormously from the long-term cost of the boom-and-bust cycles that accompany a poorly regulated market. J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently explained this brave new world, saying that crises should be expected 'every five to seven years.'
He is wrong.
Warren contends that the agency is actually in line with the banks' long-term interest. "It will stabilize the industry, rebuild confidence in the securitization market, and leave more money in the pockets of families," she writes.
Warren says Wall Street's reputation is going up in flames as the lack of strong consumer rules has set off a competition to see which firm can make the most profits by tricking consumers.
But Wall Street CEOs can reverse that trend, she argues.
When the history of the Great Recession is written, they can be singled out as the bonus babies who were so short-sighted that they put the economy at risk and contributed to the destruction of their own companies. Or they can acknowledge how Americans' trust has been lost and take the first steps to earn it back.
- Posted in
74 Comments so far
Show AllHee hee hee. They will always be "short-sighted that they put the economy at risk and contributed to the destruction of their own companies." That is their nature. That is the nature of the powerful positions they hold. They are nearsighted and feeding from a delicious trough. Such creatures rarely have an "Amazing Grace" moment.
I am disappointed that Elizabeth Warren's statement implies that she is waiting for the execs to reform themselves. It will never happen. Everything is working fine for them.
They have to be driven off and penned in. The watchdog has to have teeth.
Joe
"Their companies" are only "their companies" as long as they are profitable. After they run "their companies" into the ground, the toxic remains become our companies now that Obama, Bernanke and Congress have institutionalized unlimited bailouts funded by you and I. Banksters don't want "stabilized banks" that have finite limits of profitability. Banksters gain unprecedented wealth by creating boom and bust cycles that cost the rest of us dearly.
From 1776-1932 the banksters' ancestors created serial bubbles and busts each decade that made them immensely wealthy while impoverishing working Americans. FDR's New Deal financial industry regulations kept the banksters under control until 1980 when Ronny Raygun (and his successors)dismantled the New Deal and restored the banksters' ability to accrue unprecedented wealth while impoverishing the rest of us.
The banksters will NEVER voluntarily give up one ounce of their control or one penny of their wealth. Until New Deal regulations are restored, the banksters will keep getting wealthier while the rest of us keep getting poorer.
The only difference between the banksters of today and those of yesteryear? During the good old days...carpet bags were still manufactured in the United States. Now all they can get are plastic Chinese briefcases to tote all their loot.
Do we still need large commercial banks? Maybe we should consider that they've outlived their usefullness, and in their decline, they've predictably turned predatory. Like health insurance companies, where the media largely argues for their importance, as if these corporations alone provide health care. We sent people to jail after the S&L crisis. Victims need to wait for their assailants to become more trustworthy? Bring back Glass-Steagall first.
Yes, we need large banks with up to $100 billion in assets to undertake big projects.
The banks that are too big to fail, however, have 20 times that much in assets and they are growing rapidly with no end in sight. The only purpose they serve is to take high risks, knowing that if they bet wrong, the US taxpayer will bail them out.
Glass-Steagall needs to be restored to prevent any one bank from being both an investment bank, taking high risks and a commercial bank that is insured by the US Gov.
Trust is a brittle thing, but it can be rebuilt in about seven generations.
Ms. Warren is the token progressive thrown in for public image and without any power as usual.
Although Warren appeared to be pushing real reform a few months ago, she obviously drank the Kool-Aid if she is now joining Obama in the "reform yourselves" theatrics.
Sadly true.
Warren is similar to Dawn Johnsen-- a highly regarded reform-spirited professional touted as just the badly-needed breath of fresh air needed to rescue appallingly corrupt institutions.
Both are fated to remain on the outside looking in.
Johnsen, Obama's "yet"-unconfirmed nominee to head the OLC case, has been left to twist slowly in the wind for a year.
I assume that Team Obama has asked her not to withdraw her nomination, even though it is responsible for her embarrassment. Johnsen's reputation and prestige has been so thoroughly undermined by institutional "freezer burn" that it is utterly inconceivable that she will accomplish anything even if some deal is cut to belatedly approve her nomination.
Warren can't be deluded enough to agree to being similarly set up to fail.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Bailout watchdog and Middle Class advocate...
I stopped reading it there.
What about the poor? I'm middle class - an upper 5 digits salary and secure job. I need no help. It if the welfare of thge increasingly desperate poor people in the neighborhoods just to my north who I worry about. Who is advocating for them?
And, if I did lose my job, use up my savings and get foreclosed. I would no longer be middle class, wouldn't I? I would be poor.
The "defense of the "middle class" is just defense of privilege.
The banksters' goal is to turn the US into a third world nation...a few uber wealthy and hundreds of million poor people who at one time were middle class.
The US middle class was a 20th century phenomenon that occurred only because Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts and regulated business, and Franklin Roosevelt refined those actions. Ronny Raygun and his successors are systematically dismantling the US middle class.
The 2008 economic meltdown did not result in just another recession. It is the first in a series of meltdowns orchestrated by the banksters that is creating a huge paradigm change...the demise of the US middle class.
Right on the mark.
Pjd412, it is good to hear your are doing well. Honestly!!! And you seem to understand that you can lose what you have very unexpectedly. I did. I was in a similar position and an injury took everything away overnight. I had health insurance, but not enough savings to live very long with the cost of living in today's society. This seems to be a point that so called conservatives miss. They believe that they have theirs and always will have theirs. Those who don't are just too lazy to work for success!
Sorry. Got off on a tangent. But those who advocate for capitalism while damning any type of socialism or regulation are cutting their own throat, whether they care to believe it or not.
You completely missed my point. i wasn't talking about myself. I was talking about others much less fortunate than me that, here in the rust belt, I see every day.
I understand. I'm just saying you could be in the same boat overnight...as could everyone. This isn't only the rust belt, it's everywhere. Happens every day. I tried to stress that this wasn't about you. You seem to understand that you could be where those in the rust belt (or sunbelt or any belt) and could be subject to the same financial pain, though not necessarily through layoff. I was simply trying to point out that nobody (except for a very limited minority)is immune.
pjd412
I find your concern for the poor commendable and appologize for being such a jerk all the time because you naively believe that nuclear is a good answer to our problems. Let's not debate it now, let's just savor this moment where I like what you said.
This article is laughable. Like the CEOs making hundreds or thousands of times what an average peasant makes give a flying crap about how they are harming the peasantry. What a joke. If we won't buy their crap willingly, they will foist it upon us or just steal right from our pocketrs. United States of America is dead. The Fascist States of America has risen from the debris only to disintigrate before 2025. Our epitaph has already been written. Articles like these are nothing but ridiculous bromides for the literate, hurting, peasants.
I'm sorry, but nobody that works on Wall Street ever has, or ever will have my trust. Thats like saying the government needs to earn back our trust!
Trying to mend the broken trust is like trying to reclaim virginity - impossible.
The greed and insidious nature of these banks is truly onerous.
In case anyone missed it:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html
SPIEGEL ONLINE
02/08/2010 06:55 PM
Greek Debt Crisis
How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt
By Beat Balzli
Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government to mask the true extent of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. At some point the so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and swell the country's already bloated deficit.
Greeks aren't very welcome in the Rue Alphones Weicker in Luxembourg. It's home to Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office. The number crunchers there are deeply annoyed with Athens. Investigative reports state that important data "cannot be confirmed" or has been requested but "not received."
Creative accounting took priority when it came to totting up government debt.Since 1999, the Maastricht rules threaten to slap hefty fines on euro member countries that exceed the budget deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic product. Total government debt mustn't exceed 60 percent.
The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics. One time, gigantic military expenditures were left out, and another time billions in hospital debt. After recalculating the figures, the experts at Eurostat consistently came up with the same results: In truth, the deficit each year has been far greater than the three percent limit. In 2009, it exploded to over 12 percent.
Now, though, it looks like the Greek figure jugglers have been even more brazen than was previously thought. "Around 2002 in particular, various investment banks offered complex financial products with which governments could push part of their liabilities into the future," one insider recalled, adding that Mediterranean countries had snapped up such products.
Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a certain period -- to be exchanged back into the original currencies at a later date.
Fictional Exchange Rates
Such transactions are part of normal government refinancing. Europe's governments obtain funds from investors around the world by issuing bonds in yen, dollar or Swiss francs. But they need euros to pay their daily bills. Years later the bonds are repaid in the original foreign denominations.
But in the Greek case the US bankers devised a special kind of swap with fictional exchange rates. That enabled Greece to receive a far higher sum than the actual euro market value of 10 billion dollars or yen. In that way Goldman Sachs secretly arranged additional credit of up to $1 billion for the Greeks.
This credit disguised as a swap didn't show up in the Greek debt statistics. Eurostat's reporting rules don't comprehensively record transactions involving financial derivatives. "The Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through swaps," says a German derivatives dealer.
In previous years, Italy used a similar trick to mask its true debt with the help of a different US bank. In 2002 the Greek deficit amounted to 1.2 percent of GDP. After Eurostat reviewed the data in September 2004, the ratio had to be revised up to 3.7 percent. According to today's records, it stands at 5.2 percent.
At some point Greece will have to pay up for its swap transactions, and that will impact its deficit. The bond maturities range between 10 and 15 years. Goldman Sachs charged a hefty commission for the deal and sold the swaps on to a Greek bank in 2005.
The bank declined to comment on the controversial deal. The Greek Finance Ministry did not respond to a written request for comment.
URL:
* http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html
RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS:
* Interview with German Government Economic Adviser: Euro Zone 'Could Cope with Greek Bankruptcy' (02/05/2010)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,676157,00.html
* Europe's Lehman Brothers: Brussels Intervenes to Slow Greece's Plunge (02/04/2010)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675912,00.html
* Pressure to Reform: European Union Puts Greece under Financial Surveillance (02/03/2010)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675793,00.html
* Betting on Default: Hedge Funds Speculate on Greek Debt (02/01/2010)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675196,00.html
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
But I could be wrong !
They're all con-men and crooks looking to buy time to steal even more money by blowing bigger bubbles with their worthless derivatives.
Those swaps aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Yes, watchdog should have teeth, and its owner, a big gun or pen that means 'for real'.
Here's some CEO facts: INCOME FACTS THAT IS.....
United Health Group – CEO: William W McGuire – $124,800,000 per year
Forest Labs – CEO: Howard Solomon – $92,100,000 per year
Caremark Rx – CEO: Edwin M Crawford – $77,900,000 per year
Merck – CEO: Raymond Gilmartin – $37,800,000 per year
Abbott Lab – CEO: Miles White – $26,200,000 per year
Hmmmm
Let me start by saying that I actually like Elizabeth Warren.
However:
"They seem to think that they can run their businesses forever without our trust... It's a bad calculation because shareholders suffer enormously from the long-term cost of the boom-and-bust cycles that accompany a poorly regulated market."
Bullshit. The shareholders (parasites) don't suffer at all. They make tons of money during the boom and rip off the taxpayer after the bust.
"Warren contends that the agency is actually in line with the banks' long-term interest."
Bullshit. Banks have no long-term interests. They live from one quarter to the next, seeking only to maximize shareholder profits for that quarter.
I'm pretty sick of hearing about the tender concern for "shareholders" while workers go without jobs or health care. Shareholders are idle rich parasites. Wealth is created by actual work, not idle ownership.
I wonder how many shareholders are shareholders because their pension funds are invested in the banks. In that case, they certainly are not rich parasites.
The rich parasites are those with their own money in the hedge funds, not those whose money is in pension funds.
The top 1% in income own 50% of the wealth. If you consider the top 10%, they own more like 90%.
As for people of modest means who have pension investments, it shouldn't be a problem to compensate them with money confiscated from the Wall St. crooks.
The problem with calling people 'parasites' is that there's a direct route from that to a bullet in the back of the head. Who has the right to decide, using a political 'limit' gauge, to decide who is a parasite and who is not? Based on what criteria? These folks pass: take the others outside and shoot them.Why not just shoot them because they belong to the wrong class? Or 'objectively' belong to the wrong class, whatever that means? That would certainly be quicker and more efficient, and you wouldn't even need a 'limit gauge'.
Nobody is shooting anybody. People who take vast amounts of wealth from others without producing anything of value ARE parasites. They leave us weakened. They should be stopped. We could use laws like Glass-Steagall, enforcements like RICO, or other constraints for the public good. For instance, there are laws in Europe that regulate lending to prevent reckless loans. That's a good idea.
Who has the right to decide? Theoretically the people do. We have gotten out of the habit of demanding and exercising our rights. So now it is all droit de seigneur.
Joe
Of course no one is shooting anybody.I was just trying to point out the inherent danger in demonizing anybody-should the social structure break down.Calling some one a 'parasite' does not advance your agenda-which is a good one, I think.Tougher regulation all around, an updated version of Glass-Steagall, and, I might add, the re-introduction of the anti-usury laws that were on the books prior to 1978,would go a long way to readjusting the ballance in favor of the people.I reacted-maybe a little emotionally-to the use of the term 'parasite' because it was one of the terms used by the Soviets to justify offing their 'class enemies'.Some of the people who were shot certainly deserved hard time, but not death.It wouldn't be a bad thing to send the banksters off to 'political re-education' camp to ponder the evil of their ways, were such a thing even remotely possible.
"The problem with calling people 'parasites' is that there's a direct route from that to a bullet in the back of the head."
Maybe this should read: "The problem with BEING a 'parasite' is that there's a direct route from that to a bullet in the back of the head."
Q: "Who has the right to decide, using a political 'limit' gauge, to decide who is a parasite and who is not?"
A: A jury.
Q: Based on what criteria? These folks pass: take the others outside and shoot
A: The law.
Q: Why not just shoot them because they belong to the wrong class?
A: Because their crime is stealing, not just belonging to the wrong class.
Just because dipensing justice requires judgement, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried.
So it would appear from your first statement that you believe "parasites" should be shot. When the situation reaches the point where a person can be "tried" for being a "parasite", and then shot, it's clear that the rule of law has already broken down-because a revolution has taken place.It's pretty unlikely that this scenario could play out in a 'normal', non- revolutionary context.During the Russian Revolution, any number of "parasites" and "class-enemies" were shot after being tried by Extraordinary Commissions, Revolutionary Tribunals, and soldiers' and sailors' Committees.This was revolutionary justice, and was perfectly, legal, of course.Some bankers and members of the upper bourgeoisie died that way, but also a lot of poets, musicians,railroad conductors, telephone operators and soldiers and sailors. The net was wide and undiscriminating.This was not justice-it was equal opportunity murder.This is probably not what you have in mind.In the US, the best we could hope for would be the reincarnation of Raymond Pecora, and a Congressional Committe with real power to go after the bankers.Not calling them "parasites" might be a good idea too.
"Of course no one is shooting anybody.I was just trying to point out the inherent danger in demonizing anybody-should the social structure break down."
This is what happened during he French Revolution, except rather than using guns they used guillotines. If there is a break down in social structure, I really don't think it will matter whether you call them parasites or bankers. The workers already know who is responsible for their demise.
I have heard fascists say: we know who the enemy is, we should just deal with them.Well, that enemy might be you.During the Russian Revolution, scads of innocent people were shot by the 'workers', who in many cases, were not workers at all, but unscrupulous creeps pretending to represent the 'workers'.The Bolsheviks didn't just go after the 'class enemy': they went after everyone else on the left who did not sign on to their version of revolution.In the thirties, Stalin turned on the Old Bolsheviks-his contemporaries-and murdered them.More innocent people were killed, and many went to their deaths not having the slightest idea of why the party to which they had given their all, was now turning on them.The verdict on bloody revolution has been in for some time, and no, I don't believe that the workers now (and those who would represent them) are any cleverer about discerning who is to blame for the shitty situation they find themselves in.Not being on the side of the executioners is where I'd like to be.
I agree with your premise and yes, I would like to think any revolution that happened to take place in this country would be just. The population at large, when angry and hungry, doesn't think about justice, they think about revenge. This country is no different. The "teabaggers" for example, would probably take their anger out on those of us who actually preach the solution, but they have been programmed by the MSM (the only source of information for the masses)to blame "liberals" for their troubles. Actually, I wouldn't be surprized if any revolution that did take place was directed at leftists. The corporate media will point the uneducated masses in that direction.
It would be a sweet feeling to have a bankster at personal disposal. But, personally, as much of a mental wet dream as it may be...I very seriously doubt I could pull a trigger against anyone unless it were a life or death situation. I agree with you about the reality of it all.
my retirement money is in a pension fund...how I wish it weren't...
I have several years before I can get it out...will it still be there? doubtful...
will it go slowly, over several years, or in a quick drop? will I?
does this woman know her role?
Let me say I totally agree with you.
"Rules" are made to be broken. What needs to be broken are the banks. Want to make huge speculative investments with other people's money? Then eat it when you're wrong--no FDIC etc.
Show me a Wall Street libertarian and I'll show you a shameless hypocrite.
Yeah, like all those middle class 'parasites' whose money is invested in retirement plans that invest in stocks and mutual funds.They make out like bandits.They have recently really made out! And now they're afloat in their own dollars and laughing all the way to the bank.You're reasoning is seriously out of date.It's not 1922,and GOSPLAN is not in charge.Re: your other point.Banks do have long term interests-to stay in business,and to continue to make money.Even though they are largely to blame for crashing the system, I doubt if part of their business plan was to put themeselves out of business-which they almost succeeded in doing.Elizabeth Warren wants to regulate them like public untilities, for their own good, and for the good of the rest of us.
What happened to people's pensions and 401 Ks is a good argument for regulation. It is very sad that hard working people saw years of planning and sacrifice go down the drain. Who knows what the banks' business plan was. Perhaps it was to recklessly use the money of others to get immediate profits. And then when things went bad to hold out their hands for taxpayer money for themselves only and walk away from all the collateral damage they caused.
My son, an astute observer and clear thinker who worked at the time in law, real estate and finance, realized to his horror what was about to happen and advised us to move our retirement funds to fixed asset about 9 months before the latest crash. (He has since quit that toxic field). I contend that the bankers knew too and just did not care. They knew someone else would take the hit. People I know thought I was being apocalyptic when I told them of the impending collapse of the world financial system. They would not believe things were coming to such an end.
What happened is also a good argument to develop a rational kind of retirement system, one that is more immune to speculators and high rollers. How can each individual be expected to plumb the obscure depths of what is going on beneath the surface in banking and corporate finance in order to manage a 401 K? How can they know if their pension fund managers are using good judgement? Maybe those who are saving for retirement are great teachers or nurses or carpenters, but not forensic accountants.
People say "do your research". What a stupid yuppie cliche! Most of us are not in a position to do research. Too much is hidden. I say that those who know what's going on are not telling, and those who are telling do not know. Most financial advisors did not see the train wreck coming. Most economists were useless. If science is tested by its ability to make accurate predictions, economics is not science.
Joe
Sioux Rose
JOE: When you stated that you moved your retirement funds to a "Fixed asset," do you mean certificate of deposit at a bank? My boyfriend's father uses Vanguard bonds and made 14% last year, but these are NOT federally insured, and they took a bath the year before. I wonder if the U.S. dollar itself will retain viability as money is being printed hot off the presses, while no real industry is being developed to produce actual products here in the "homeland." I paid off my modest mortgage and have very low debt, but I was left some stocks and my broker seems to think everything will be fine. Those inside the system still believe in it. Every financial asset I can think of has terrible risk factors; and I think this is mostly due to America betraying its own fairness doctrine in every form of commerce, in addition to its foreign as well as domestic policies. The center cannot hold, style. If you care to respond/advise, I'd be interested.
Dear SR - I am as lost as the next prole, but within our retirement fund company (TIAA-CREF) there are different investment options such as stocks, real estate etc. Upon advice of our son, we moved our fabulous fortune to a bucket that pays a low but guaranteed interest. Your question about insurance is a good one. I do not know but will ask. The stability of the dollar is another unknown.
I wish there were a Howard Zinn of finance, a people's analyst, one who can look at history and facts and who is not blinded by the complacent market oriented narratives. We need someone who predicted the mega-collapse, someone with fresh eyes. We need an honest broker to advise us about how to better protect our hard earned money in a system that is teetering on speculation and stacked against us. Right now there is another bubble being created in gold. I suspect it may collapse once buyers in China are satisfied. So I would think twice before melting down my earrings!
Perhaps the best investment will turn out to be a garden or big bags of brown rice. And family and friends! Seriously, I think there are no good answers until we start healing our economic foundations, taking care of what we have already built, start producing clean energy, clean food and useful products at decent wages. We need to stop job export and stand up for the rights of factory workers in other countries, both for their good and so they are not such an attractive source of super-profits. We need to stop hemorrhaging financial wealth and debasing spiritual wealth in the name of militarism. We need to stop the upward transfer of wealth. We need to put the GINI back in the bottle. Otherwise it is all bubble and illusion and those on the bottom get crushed.
Meanwhile, it was a good idea to pay off debts. We too did that over the course of 10 years and we do not spend much.
Joe
Sioux Rose
JOE: Thank you for your considerate, honest answer. I already see that the elites are squeezing what they can out of honest people who still have jobs. From increases on credit card charges, to the same on utility bills, added to vehicle registrations (in my state), I wanted to free myself of all big obligatory expenses. I think the Mass vote is a mixed blessing in that I HATED this extortion cum "health care reform" mandate that would FORCE me to buy my place at the betting table, which is ultimately what health insurance boils down to in an unreguated market that exalts profit over persons. As for the gold, I have some nice jewelry that I never wear, it's in a safety deposit box at the bank. That's always seemed an irony to me, one that matches the closing scene in "Raiders of the Lost Arc." No sooner do they get the bounty so perilously sought after, it ends up in the basement of a bureau of D.C. My diamond bracelet ends up in a bank vault. We humans are odd creatures, and sometimes I think Source wonders if it was a good idea to have guided our place along the evolutionary spirals of life, at all...
What a joke.
How about a serious discussion of reforming our political, legal and economic system instead?
How about putting the f'ers in prison?
Elizabeth Warren is a lovely, irrepressible woman of infinite faith and good will. Unfortunately, she 'appears' not to understand the waters we swim (or sink) in.
It's wrong to dehumanize anyone, even banksters, but they make it sooo difficult. (Even Christ got seriously pissed off at these guys, even pysically violent, and railed against their Churchian Pharisee enablers.) Their behavior and consciousness is genetically akin to cold-blooded sharks or scorpions---cybernetic, compulsive feeders of singular focus, utterly incapable of empathy or ethics.
Thus, like Obama affecting bipartisan spirit in the healthcare debacle, Warren's sincere appeal to the enlightened self-interest of banksters unavoidably reminds us of the parable of the frog and scorpion. Relenting to the persistent pleading of the scorpion to be carried across the river, and its adamant promises not to sting, the reluctant frog finally agrees. But as we know, halfway across, the scorpion inevitably stings the frog after all, who cries out, "why did you do that? Now we'll both die!" Says the scorpion, "I can't help it; it's my nature"
Scorpions spotted in Arizona get a quick and merciful death by heavy heel. But one must be careful with disposal; the stinger twitches and writhes to wreak vengeance even after death.
If Elizabeth Warren doesn't curb her tongue, she's going to find that her bank has reported 'suspicious payments' to the Federal government that will be tied to male prostitutes, or some such sex scandal.
That's how we deal with 'Windmill tilters' in this puritan society that get a little too close to the truth.
it's time to tax these vampires at 90% on any incomes over 3 million a year.......
and tax stock options as regular income......
and we are just supposed to accept a THREAT by Jamie Dimon that these bubbles and bursting will occur every 5-7 years?
vampires with ZERO empathy is more properly defined as sociopaths....
and that's what we have today - socipaths running all secotrs of our society....from the halls of washington dc to wall st....
Goldman and JP Morgan are HEDGE FUNDS, nothing else.
They should've been allowed to die when their gambling losses mounted.
To save the economy money should've been funneled directly to the people via the Fed, as their charter states FULL EMPLOYMENT is one of their primary reasons for being.
I'm sick of hearing Democrats repeat the lie that handing over trillions of dollars to criminal hedge funds was necessary to stop a Great Depression.
goldman sachs is Obama's true Constituency - which is why there are over 25+ of them working in the White House......
and remeber Obamas words - "geitner is the ONLY guy that can do the job"
what job is that? defrauding the federal gov for trillions all the while keeping a straight face....
hannibal Lector could do the same
as well as many other sociopaths running the large fascist corporations controlling the government.....
Don't forget Citibank too.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obama_big_sellout/1
I have never trusted a business person. I have never trusted Barack Obama. Why in the Hell should I start now?
Wow, that covers a lot of territory, Obama aside.I guess that would mean that if I did some work for you-in my small (very) business- that I would be justified in charging you asshole tax.
Anyone who believes that our country will become a workers paradise after banks and bankers become more tightly regulated suffers from a dangerous delusion. The entire capitalist economic structure is responsible for the disaster we are in and not merely the banks and bankers. Let me mention just one issue. If entrepreneurs had paid their workers wages that had kept up or even exceeded the rate of inflation much fewer people would have signed the immoral home mortgages and there would have been much fewer foreclosures. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the squeezing of the last drop of labor out of workers for the lowest possible reward was a greater factor in the economic collapse than the banking scams.