Elizabeth Warren for President

[Fewnix]

Elizabeth Warren for President

But it also hints at the rising power of what has been called the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party: leftwing Democrats appalled at measures to weaken Wall Street reforms, with the president apparently willing to turn a blind eye.

Warren has hitherto insisted she is not running for president herself, but spoke out passionately against the “cromnibus” and presents a growing challenge to what her supporters dismissively call the Wall Street wing of the party and its figurehead: Hillary Clinton.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans side with White House after dramatic revolt by Democrats over Wall Street’s influence
Dan Roberts in Washington

Friday 12 December 2014

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: How many Wall Street bankers have been prosecuted?

theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... nding-bill

----

Republicans formed an unlikely alliance with the White House in a late-night scramble to pass a $1.1tn federal budget over the objections of House Democrats, who claim it has been hijacked by Wall Street lobbyists and campaign finance interests.

In dramatic scenes that mirrored the lead-up to the government shutdown of October 2013, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough spent three hours locked in talks with the House Democratic caucus on Thursday night trying to persuade its members to drop their opposition to the so-called “cromnibus” and pleading with them that it was the best deal available.

Eventually, with less than three hours to go until another government shutdown, House speaker John Boehner decide to gamble on receiving sufficient support from Democrats to overcome a rebellion on the right of his own party and called a final vote.

“Thank you and Merry Christmas,” said Boehner as he secured 219 votes, one more than he needed to guarantee passage and including support from 57 Democrats.


....

Many Democrats are furious that the 1,600-page omnibus bill included two unrelated concessions to financial interest groups: a tenfold increase in campaign limits for donations to political parties and candidates, and a reversal of the Dodd-Frank banking reforms that will allow public bailouts of banks taking risky derivatives bets.


The fact that so many Democrats, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi, were willing to defy the White House suggests waning influence of Obama over the party after its heavy midterms defeat.

But it also hints at the rising power of what has been called the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party: leftwing Democrats appalled at measures to weaken Wall Street reforms, with the president apparently willing to turn a blind eye.

Warren has hitherto insisted she is not running for president herself, but spoke out passionately against the “cromnibus” and presents a growing challenge to what her supporters dismissively call the Wall Street wing of the party and its figurehead: Hillary Clinton.
-----------------------------------------------------------


and see this video, my new sweetie asks: Who does Congress work for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H20Dhc8 ... e=youtu.be


and one of my faves of her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHz6HWhOuI

[BigBallinStalin]

"The x-politicians suck because they side with rent-seeking group x. Instead, I support the y-politicians (who side with the rent-seeking group y)."

When will this tired romantic view of saintly politicians end? The amount of democratic fundamentalism is too damn high!

[Fewnix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... gsN7ilcWL4

Who do you work for. BBS


http://wonkette.com/568972/elizabeth-wa ... igroup-duh

Elizabeth Warren Hell-Raising On Senate Floor: ‘Who Do You Work For?’ (Citigroup, Duh)

Share463 Tweet159 Share1.4K
by Doktor Zoom
Dec 11 4:01 pm 2014

Elizabeth Warren did a bit of outreach to Republicans today, urging them to remove from the omnibus budget bill that rollback of part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law that we covered earlier today. If you really oppose government bailouts, she said, then why on earth would you vote for this measure that would allow FDIC insurance to bail out banks that lose money on derivatives trades — those risky little gambles that crashed the world economy back in 2008? She notes that, on this one at least, she’s in agreement with such radical commies as David Vitter and even Redstate, where a front page post today admitted,

So help me God, I have no way to refute the basic point that the Democrats are making about the CRomnibus fight right now. In fact, I might even go so far as to say they are right … what possible good faith reason can the Republicans have for threatening to gum up the whole works over doing a favor to Wall Street?

This is some prime Elizabeth Warren:

If big Wall Street banks want to gamble with their own money, so be it. Let them take their risks with their own money and let them live with the consequences of those risks. That’s how markets are supposed to work. But they shouldn’t get to gamble with government-insured money.

[_sabotage_]

Does she got some change we can believe in?

I like that change more than the other kind. Elizabeth Warren is not going to happen, and if she does happen, nothing is going to change.

The derivatives crash will end America as we know it regardless of passing the law. And the gov will leave the taxpayer on the hook one way or the other.

[patches70]

Haha, Elizabeth Warren. Not only is she a proven liar, she's also incompetent. I know it was a long time ago but she was in charge of the TARP program and she sat with her bald face showing in front of a Congressional inquiry and when she was asked what happened to the money she said she had no idea where it went. And she was in charge of distributing the money!

Hey, I guess everyone needs something to believe in, though I question the wisdom of people who put their trust into politicians.

But, whatever.

[Metsfanmax]

Unfortunately I have to side with patches here. I sympathize with the populist view she's trying to espouse, but the few times I've heard people ask her direct financial questions, she seems to be unable to say anything other than "Wall Street has no regulation -- let's get those fat cats!" If she's going to get my primary vote in 2016, she'll need to do a lot better job establishing the fact that she actually understands the modern economy. (I have confessed multiple times on this forum to having no fucking clue how finance works, so if a Presidential candidate can't convince me that she understands it better than I do, that's a problem.)

[degaston]

Haha, Elizabeth Warren. Not only is she a proven liar, she's also incompetent. I know it was a long time ago but she was in charge of the TARP program and she sat with her bald face showing in front of a Congressional inquiry and when she was asked what happened to the money she said she had no idea where it went. And she was in charge of distributing the money!

[degaston]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

[Metsfanmax]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

At any rate, given that Warren has repeatedly said that she is not running in 2016, this seems like a moot point. If she's good at oversight, I'm glad she's staying in Congress to do that.

[BigBallinStalin]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

How? "Taking a skeptical approach" doesn't explain anything.

(I'd be pretty surprised if a political scientist subtracted the costs from the benefits in order to determine how much was actually saved).

1. Elizabeth Warren singlehandedly saved a billion dollars. True or false? Seems false. She passes around information gleaned from people more knowledgeable than her.

2. Then what was her role?

3. Is the Fuente paper claiming that the warrants "saved" $1bn? If so, how? (Is that $1bn 'saved' actually a transfer? How were the purchases of the firms' shares funded in the first place? Etc.).

[Metsfanmax]

BBS' post sparked me to examine the original article (may be behind a paywall, I have access through my university). As usual, the masters of clickbait seem to make things up. They say

“With $8.97 billion in warrant deals having been completed between May 2009 and March 2011, that the COP helped Treasury get 10 percent more after publishing its report is non-trivial.”

and it is implied that this is part of Puente's paper, but that quote does not appear in his paper. He does say that before the oversight panel's 2009 report, the Treasury discounted deals made on those warrants. On the other hand, he says

Despite the close connections between the administration and Goldman Sachs, Treasury did not exhibit any favoritism in evaluating the company's bids for its warrants. Treasury declined Goldman's first two offers of $600 million and $900 million, despite the latter amount being just below Treasury's estimate of the warrants' value of $902 million. Treasury ultimately accepted a bid of $1.1 billion, an amount far above its estimate of fair market value as well as that of the third party. The COP's estimated deviant payment amount for this deal of 0.975 is still above the 75th percentile of deals.

so if by "saving taxpayer dollars" we mean stealing money from banks, then yes, that seems to be what Treasury did after Warren stepped in ;-P

[degaston]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

How? "Taking a skeptical approach" doesn't explain anything.

(I'd be pretty surprised if a political scientist subtracted the costs from the benefits in order to determine how much was actually saved).

1. Elizabeth Warren singlehandedly saved a billion dollars. True or false? Seems false. She passes around information gleaned from people more knowledgeable than her.

2. Then what was her role?

3. Is the Fuente paper claiming that the warrants "saved" $1bn? If so, how? (Is that $1bn 'saved' actually a transfer? How were the purchases of the firms' shares funded in the first place? Etc.).

I can't see the original paper, so I can only go by what others are reporting on it. A summary from another source says:

Here's what happened: During the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury invested in shares of bank stocks. As part of the deal, the government got warrants, or the right to buy bank stock at a set price. Warren was the one person on the Congressional Oversight Panel who realized Treasury was selling off those warrants too cheap. Once she called the Treasury Department out on it, the warrants were sold for a better price -- for taxpayers.

http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-elizabeth-warren-got-tough-on-bank.html

If Mets wants to describe this as the mean old taxpayers stealing money from the poor widdle banks, all I can say is...

[Metsfanmax]

If Mets wants to describe this as the mean old taxpayers stealing money from the poor widdle banks, all I can say is...

This is why I fucking hate being on the left sometimes. Almost everyone I know is super passionate about justice, except if people they don't like are treated unjustly.

[degaston]

This is why I fucking hate being on the left sometimes. Almost everyone I know is super passionate about justice, except if people they don't like are treated unjustly.

Are you saying that the price the banks previously got was the fair one, and the new price ripped them off? If so, what is that based on? Did the banks even have to buy these warrants back if they thought the price was unfair?

My totally uninformed opinion is that both prices were probably sweet deals for the banks - the latter just less-so.

[Metsfanmax]

This is why I fucking hate being on the left sometimes. Almost everyone I know is super passionate about justice, except if people they don't like are treated unjustly.

Are you saying that the price the banks previously got was the fair one, and the new price ripped them off? If so, what is that based on? Did the banks even have to buy these warrants back if they thought the price was unfair?

My totally uninformed opinion is that both prices were probably sweet deals for the banks - the latter just less-so.

Not sure. It is clear from the text (if certain members of CC wanted copies of the text of the article, they might want to PM people who are talking about it) that before the oversight panel, there were some cases of deals that were clearly discounts for the banks -- the government was getting ripped off (well, ripping itself off). The only specific example given in the text for the later period was the Goldman one I cited, in which the Treasury refused an offer at the level they agreed was the fair market value, and only accepted one 20% higher. Averaged over the total payout of the program, it seems like something close to a fair deal was made between the government and the banks, collectively. Insofar as we can trust the causal mechanism offered by the author, the real conclusion we should draw is most likely that Warren et al. stopped the government from throwing away that billion dollars (which they would have done by continuing to allow the banks to buy back the warrants at lower prices than fair market value).

The point I was making is that while $200 million taken from Goldman Sachs is not business-breaking in their world, liberals lose a lot of credibility with those who think a lot about markets when they condone practices like buying above fair market value while condemning buying below fair market value. It makes us look like we just straight out hate the banks. (Likely many of us do, but let's keep our cards closer to the table, eh?)

[rishaed]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

3. Is the Fuente paper claiming that the warrants "saved" $1bn? If so, how? (Is that $1bn 'saved' actually a transfer? How were the purchases of the firms' shares funded in the first place? Etc.).

I didn't see an adequate response to the third point here. Simply put if the $1bn "saved" was just turned around and used by politicians (Highly Probable) on something practically worthless, or to line own selves pockets, then Taxpayers haven't saved anything.... Also $1bn is a drop in the bucket compared to the national DEBT (not deficit they are two different monsters. Deficit being fed into DEBT.) I keep waiting for this crappy lets run away from the debt scheme to finally catch up with the government... It seems it won't be too long now.

[degaston]

The point I was making is that while $200 million taken from Goldman Sachs is not business-breaking in their world, liberals lose a lot of credibility with those who think a lot about markets when they condone practices like buying above fair market value while condemning buying below fair market value. It makes us look like we just straight out hate the banks. (Likely many of us do, but let's keep our cards closer to the table, eh?)

I have no objection to banks buying something below fair market value, but I do object to my government selling something below fair market value. (I could allow for exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think the banks are deserving of any special deals in this case.)

I suspect that the government is at a disadvantage most of the time when negotiating these deals, because the republicans seem to feel that banks can do no wrong, and the most financially astute people are more likely to end up with the banks than the government. So I'm glad that there's someone like Elizabeth Warren there, who has always struck me as being smart, sincere, and on our (the taxpayer's) side.

[Fewnix]

Most politicians in the United States, Democrats, Republicans, it's a non- partisan issue , work for the banks, the rich and powerful., they are bought and sold by the banks, the rich and powerful. The banks, the rich and powerful, pump hundreds of millions of dollars into getting their choices elected for the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency. What was before the Senate was a measure, written by Citgroup, that would return the favour with interests. When banks f*ck up again, blow billions or dollars in high risk venture due to incompetence and malfeasance, the government will bail them out,, With tax payers dollars.The only politicians who could possibly vote for that were the ones bought by the banks, bought by the rich and powerful .It carried by one vote. Merry Xmas.


Elizabeth Warren seems to be the lading voice of those standing up to the banks, the rich and powerful.And it seems there are many people in America, and in the Democratic Party, in the Democratic Party that don't llik wHilary Clinton and would go for Elizabeth.

I think Elizabeth Warren could win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency

and that would be good.

a fun vid by the young Turks

This Is Why People Love Elizabeth Warren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3D346BRnSo




\

[_sabotage_]

Fenwick,

The derivatives market is estimated to be between 700 trillion and 1.4 quadrillion. That's between 10-20 times the world's economy. What we'll see in comparison to the last crash is that they are not supported by as much real backing.

If you believe that Warren is going to doing anything about it, you might as well stick your fingers in a crumbling damn. You say the rich and powerful, and yet you use numbers like million and billion.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS' post sparked me to examine the original article (may be behind a paywall, I have access through my university). As usual, the masters of clickbait seem to make things up. They say

“With $8.97 billion in warrant deals having been completed between May 2009 and March 2011, that the COP helped Treasury get 10 percent more after publishing its report is non-trivial.”

and it is implied that this is part of Puente's paper, but that quote does not appear in his paper. He does say that before the oversight panel's 2009 report, the Treasury discounted deals made on those warrants. On the other hand, he says

Despite the close connections between the administration and Goldman Sachs, Treasury did not exhibit any favoritism in evaluating the company's bids for its warrants. Treasury declined Goldman's first two offers of $600 million and $900 million, despite the latter amount being just below Treasury's estimate of the warrants' value of $902 million. Treasury ultimately accepted a bid of $1.1 billion, an amount far above its estimate of fair market value as well as that of the third party. The COP's estimated deviant payment amount for this deal of 0.975 is still above the 75th percentile of deals.

so if by "saving taxpayer dollars" we mean stealing money from banks, then yes, that seems to be what Treasury did after Warren stepped in ;-P

Proper economics focuses on exchange. In any deal with government, triadic exchange occurs. There's two direct parties: the political entity and the market entity, and there's the third party: taxpayers. In order for the political entity to pay for something, wealth must be extracted from taxpayers (taxes), or funding can be appropriated through expansionary monetary policy (selling debt, which indirectly 'taxes' people--especially the poorest who have limited means in reaping returns from investments in order to avoid inflation).

So, Puente forgets this; therefore, his analysis and conclusions are shoddy. The government doesn't make investments magically from nothing. It takes other people's wealth and in this case invests it into particular market entities (TARP = bailouts/subsidies). That expenditure has to be deducted from the allegedly awesome "rate of return" made by government (as stated in the salon.com article).

Furthermore, I'm not as excited about the relevant political entity not selling to Goldman Sachs. To whom did they sell the shares back? Does Puente say? Dumping $1bn of shares in one sale does not stabilize the market value of various firms, so one can "sensibly" see the need for "responsibly" coordinating with the "proper" buyers.

("Despite the close connections between the administration and Goldman Sachs, Treasury did not exhibit any favoritism in evaluating the company's bids for its warrants" (Puente). Somehow, that becomes "ARP and Federal Reserve lending were correlated with political connections. But with the disposal of warrants, what Puente found is that political connections did not play a role in the valuations Treasury got when the government decided to auction them off" (salon.com). .... because "Goldman Sachs" = "all market entities with political connections"? It doesn't make sense).

It's not like Goldman Sachs is the only market entity rent-seeking with colluding government officials. ).

[BigBallinStalin]

The point I was making is that while $200 million taken from Goldman Sachs is not business-breaking in their world, liberals lose a lot of credibility with those who think a lot about markets when they condone practices like buying above fair market value while condemning buying below fair market value. It makes us look like we just straight out hate the banks. (Likely many of us do, but let's keep our cards closer to the table, eh?)

I have no objection to banks buying something below fair market value, but I do object to my government selling something below fair market value. (I could allow for exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think the banks are deserving of any special deals in this case.)

I suspect that the government is at a disadvantage most of the time when negotiating these deals, because the republicans seem to feel that banks can do no wrong, and the most financially astute people are more likely to end up with the banks than the government. So I'm glad that there's someone like Elizabeth Warren there, who has always struck me as being smart, sincere, and on our (the taxpayer's) side.

There's big problems with the salon.com article and Puente's paper about $1bn saved. See my response to Mets for further explanation.

The cheerleading about "taxpayers magically stealing from banks" is not sound.

If you check opensecrets.org, you'll see that both Republicans and Democrats receive funding from banks. Once again, another voter has fallen victim to the following reasoning: "The x-politicians suck because they side with rent-seeking group x. Instead, I support the y-politicians (who side with the rent-seeking group y)." (In this case, rent-seeking groups x and y are the same. When you talked about Imagined Republicans v. Imagined Democrats, did you bother to verify your claims? No, because the impact of your vote is essentially zero. The electoral process is nothing but rhetoric, pandering to emotions, and voters cheering).

Finally, define: "fair" market value. I'll give you a hint. It's like defining "god." It's doesn't exist until it's arbitrarily defined into 'existence.' You've fallen victim to a very old rhetorical tactic. "Fair" market value is a concept that only appeals to your emotions. Simply because someone says that they'll sell X at 'fair' market value, it does not follow that X is actually sold at fair market value. Fair market value does not exist. It depends on the institutional arrangement under which the exchange is made. In the case of government with its closed-door dealings with major market entities and its lonnngg history of colluding with those major market entities, it would be gullible to believe that government sells X at 'fair' market value.

[BigBallinStalin]

Most politicians in the United States, Democrats, Republicans, it's a non- partisan issue , work for the banks, the rich and powerful., they are bought and sold by the banks, the rich and powerful. The banks, the rich and powerful, pump hundreds of millions of dollars into getting their choices elected for the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency. What was before the Senate was a measure, written by Citgroup, that would return the favour with interests. When banks f*ck up again, blow billions or dollars in high risk venture due to incompetence and malfeasance, the government will bail them out,, With tax payers dollars.The only politicians who could possibly vote for that were the ones bought by the banks, bought by the rich and powerful .It carried by one vote. Merry Xmas.


Elizabeth Warren seems to be the lading voice of those standing up to the banks, the rich and powerful.And it seems there are many people in America, and in the Democratic Party, in the Democratic Party that don't llik wHilary Clinton and would go for Elizabeth.

I think Elizabeth Warren could win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency

and that would be good.

a fun vid by the young Turks

This Is Why People Love Elizabeth Warren
\

Let me disabuse you of the notion of saintly politicians. They're no different than ordinary human beings. Politicians act in their own self-interest whenever they go to the grocery store. They don't magically become publicly interested when they sit in their congressional office. Politicians can get away with a lot--contrary to their supporters' interests (mostly their targeted voters' interest because voters rarely bother with gathering pertinent information about the policies at hand (e.g. finance and regulation), nor do they bother with separating the politicians' rhetoric from actual means and outcomes).

What is Warren's voting record for various bills? Do you know? If not, then you can't conclude that "she's magically for the people." Most voters do not care about voting records of legislators because it's too costly to research. Instead, they rely on the politicians' rhetoric and cute stories about how politician X did action Y which saved a billion dollars. Few voters will bother with verifying that claim because it already reinforces their faith in that politician ("banks are the bad guys, politicians Y are the bad guys, oh, but my politician is the good guy. Hooray!). Of course, all other politicians are bad, but your particular politician is magically good.

This is ridiculous.

[BigBallinStalin]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

3. Is the Fuente paper claiming that the warrants "saved" $1bn? If so, how? (Is that $1bn 'saved' actually a transfer? How were the purchases of the firms' shares funded in the first place? Etc.).

I didn't see an adequate response to the third point here. Simply put if the $1bn "saved" was just turned around and used by politicians (Highly Probable) on something practically worthless, or to line own selves pockets, then Taxpayers haven't saved anything.... Also $1bn is a drop in the bucket compared to the national DEBT (not deficit they are two different monsters. Deficit being fed into DEBT.) I keep waiting for this crappy lets run away from the debt scheme to finally catch up with the government... It seems it won't be too long now.

Hey, great points, but the uninformed voters are too busy cheerleading about non-existent Ideal Politicians and Magical Policies that save the "little man" from the evil banksters.

[BigBallinStalin]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

How? "Taking a skeptical approach" doesn't explain anything.

(I'd be pretty surprised if a political scientist subtracted the costs from the benefits in order to determine how much was actually saved).

1. Elizabeth Warren singlehandedly saved a billion dollars. True or false? Seems false. She passes around information gleaned from people more knowledgeable than her.

2. Then what was her role?

3. Is the Fuente paper claiming that the warrants "saved" $1bn? If so, how? (Is that $1bn 'saved' actually a transfer? How were the purchases of the firms' shares funded in the first place? Etc.).

I can't see the original paper, so I can only go by what others are reporting on it. A summary from another source says:

Here's what happened: During the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury invested in shares of bank stocks. As part of the deal, the government got warrants, or the right to buy bank stock at a set price. Warren was the one person on the Congressional Oversight Panel who realized Treasury was selling off those warrants too cheap. Once she called the Treasury Department out on it, the warrants were sold for a better price -- for taxpayers.

http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-elizabeth-warren-got-tough-on-bank.html

If Mets wants to describe this as the mean old taxpayers stealing money from the poor widdle banks, all I can say is...

In short, sample size = 1; therefore, WARREN IS FOR THE PEOPLE!! HOORAYYY!! HOOORAYYYY!!! Forget all other colluding parties that fund her campaigns and make underground deals with her! HOORAYY!! Forget any instance of Warren logrolling votes in the mutual back-scratching game of legislation! HOOORAYYY!! Forget about how that government revenue was obtained in order to make those exchanges! Forget about WHO was actually sold those shares FROM WHOM! Whatever! Politician X is AWESOME!


Sorry for sounding like an ass, but I'm so fuckin' tired of 90+% of all voters. They unwittingly contribute to the rent-seeking. They unwittingly support so many politicians who implement and reinforce policies conducive for further rent-seeking by the entrenched businesses. They are the cause of this country's path to democratic oligarchy (a.k.a. crony capitalism, political capitalism, etc.). These voters are responsible for the harmful outcomes, yet they don't ever bother criticizing themselves or being skeptical about their favorite politicians and the outcomes from those favored politicians.

There's no costless path to prosperity through politicians. There's no such thing as "more government oversight and regulation" fixing the problems caused initially by colluding politicians, chief bureaucrats, and particular market entities. Look at the systematic problems. Look at the policing incidents. Look at how the major politicians are dodging the CIA Torture Report. Look at that history of 50+ years of CIA torture programs and how politicians have continuously failed to address the issue. Consider the effects of the FDIC on promoting MORE moral hazard for banks. They're guaranteed a 'lender of last resort' no matter how risky the investment. In fact, they receive bailouts, and people like you cheer about $1bn of roughly trillions being magically saved. Look at how whistleblowers of government-business collusion are treated (Seggara, Snowden, Manning, and on and on). You're one of many cultists with a faith in benevolent government and (your) saintly politicians. Stop it. For the love of all that is good in this world, stop contributing to the problem.

[Dukasaur]

also...

a new paper by Stanford political scientist Lucas Puente published in PS. Political Science and Politics shows that Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Congressional Oversight Panel was highly advantageous to the taxpayer, saving over a billion dollars money by taking a skeptical approach towards the Treasury Department’s bailout plans.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/how_elizabeth_warren_saved_taxpayers_1_billion/

How? "Taking a skeptical approach" doesn't explain anything.

(I'd be pretty surprised if a political scientist subtracted the costs from the benefits in order to determine how much was actually saved).

1. Elizabeth Warren singlehandedly saved a billion dollars. True or false? Seems false. She passes around information gleaned from people more knowledgeable than her.

2. Then what was her role?

3. Is the Fuente paper claiming that the warrants "saved" $1bn? If so, how? (Is that $1bn 'saved' actually a transfer? How were the purchases of the firms' shares funded in the first place? Etc.).

I can't see the original paper, so I can only go by what others are reporting on it. A summary from another source says:

Here's what happened: During the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury invested in shares of bank stocks. As part of the deal, the government got warrants, or the right to buy bank stock at a set price. Warren was the one person on the Congressional Oversight Panel who realized Treasury was selling off those warrants too cheap. Once she called the Treasury Department out on it, the warrants were sold for a better price -- for taxpayers.

http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-elizabeth-warren-got-tough-on-bank.html

If Mets wants to describe this as the mean old taxpayers stealing money from the poor widdle banks, all I can say is...

In short, sample size = 1; therefore, WARREN IS FOR THE PEOPLE!! HOORAYYY!! HOOORAYYYY!!! Forget all other colluding parties that fund her campaigns and make underground deals with her! HOORAYY!! Forget any instance of Warren logrolling votes in the mutual back-scratching game of legislation! HOOORAYYY!! Forget about how that government revenue was obtained in order to make those exchanges! Forget about WHO was actually sold those shares FROM WHOM! Whatever! Politician X is AWESOME!


Sorry for sounding like an ass, but I'm so fuckin' tired of 90+% of all voters. They unwittingly contribute to the rent-seeking. They unwittingly support so many politicians who implement and reinforce policies conducive for further rent-seeking by the entrenched businesses. They are the cause of this country's path to democratic oligarchy (a.k.a. crony capitalism, political capitalism, etc.). These voters are responsible for the harmful outcomes, yet they don't ever bother criticizing themselves or being skeptical about their favorite politicians and the outcomes from those favored politicians.

There's no costless path to prosperity through politicians. There's no such thing as "more government oversight and regulation" fixing the problems caused initially by colluding politicians, chief bureaucrats, and particular market entities. Look at the systematic problems. Look at the policing incidents. Look at how the major politicians are dodging the CIA Torture Report. Look at that history of 50+ years of CIA torture programs and how politicians have continuously failed to address the issue. Consider the effects of the FDIC on promoting MORE moral hazard for banks. They're guaranteed a 'lender of last resort' no matter how risky the investment. In fact, they receive bailouts, and people like you cheer about $1bn of roughly trillions being magically saved. Look at how whistleblowers of government-business collusion are treated (Seggara, Snowden, Manning, and on and on). You're one of many cultists with a faith in benevolent government and (your) saintly politicians. Stop it. For the love of all that is good in this world, stop contributing to the problem.