Skip to main content

WASHINGTON -- Wall Street lobbyists are trying to secure taxpayer backing for many derivatives trades as part of budget talks to avert a government shutdown.

According to multiple Democratic sources, banks are pushing hard to include the controversial provision in funding legislation that would keep the government operating after Dec. 11. Top negotiators in the House are taking the derivatives provision seriously, and may include it in the final bill, the sources said.

The bank perks are not a traditional budget item. They would allow financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by the risky contracts. Big Wall Street banks had typically traded derivatives from these FDIC-backed units, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law required them to move many of the transactions to other subsidiaries that are not insured by taxpayers.

 

Taxpayer insurance helps banks secure higher credit ratings for their derivatives, since taxpayers assume some of the risk, which in turn makes the banks more profitable.

 

Last year, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) introduced the same provision under debate in the current budget talks. The legislative text waswritten by a Citigroup lobbyist, according to The New York Times. The bill passed the House by a vote of 292 to 122 in October 2013, 122 Democrats opposed, and 70 in favor. All but three House Republicans supported the bill.

 

Himes was passed over for leadership positions after the 2014 midterm elections, which he said he interpreted as unrest within the Democratic Party over his strong ties to financial elites.

 

"My guess is, it was a factor, which is disappointing because I think the criticism is way off base," said Himes, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs.

 

It wasn't clear whether the derivatives perk will survive negotiations in the House, or if the Senate will include it in its version of the bill. With Democrats voting nearly 2-to-1 against the bill in the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) never brought the bill up for a vote in the Senate. President Barack Obama opposed the bill ahead of the House vote, as did former FDIC Chair Shiela Bair, former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), currently the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It is amazing to me that this issue is being considered after what happened in 2008. But what is so arrogant about this is before private insurance like AIG was used to back bank gambling in derivatives but this time banks want taxpayers directly on the hook when derivatives fail.  

 

This is so wrong, this is so fascist its beyond crooked and evil because banks will not have to pay for their losses in derivative gambling. But taxpayers are on the hook when they lose and banks keep the profits when they win. Banks only keep the winnings while taxpayers cover their losses.

 

And to listen to these Republicans talk about how they hate socialism and sickening when they are so strongly behind this obscenity. They whine and stomp their feet if one penny is added to the safety net that support common Americans but they will put the taxpayer on the hook for trillions when banks lose gambling in derivatives, it is obscene. Clearly Republicans believe in socialism but only for banks, corporations, oligarchs, the rich and those who get paid farm subsidies for doing no farming, getting a check every month for doing no work.

 

This is what our representatives are working so hard doing, the ambitions and carrying out crimes for the banks and the rich, people should be so outraged about this. This is crime being made into law.

 

Once Republicans take over the banks will get this. If it ever gets passed the Senate the only hurdle will be the President's veto. 

Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Wow! And the working class whites have just emboldened congress to roll over and get unlubricated action bcz the repubs will roll over for this no matter how hard Elizabeth Warren go after em. I could say some words about Obama here but what good would it do?

You know one of the last acts of Bill Clinton before the ending of his last term was killing the Glass Steagall Act that greatly deregulated banks and it only took 8 years for the banks to meltdown the economy. Clinton received 10's of millions in speaking fees sponsored by Wall Street and sweet investment deals. I wonder if President Obama can resist that kind of bribery?

 

I wonder if Obama will do something like that before he exits his last term? You and I both know what is going to happen. 

Originally Posted by Momentum:

WASHINGTON -- Wall Street lobbyists are trying to secure taxpayer backing for many derivatives trades as part of budget talks to avert a government shutdown.

According to multiple Democratic sources, banks are pushing hard to include the controversial provision in funding legislation that would keep the government operating after Dec. 11. Top negotiators in the House are taking the derivatives provision seriously, and may include it in the final bill, the sources said.

The bank perks are not a traditional budget item. They would allow financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by the risky contracts. Big Wall Street banks had typically traded derivatives from these FDIC-backed units, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law required them to move many of the transactions to other subsidiaries that are not insured by taxpayers.

 

Taxpayer insurance helps banks secure higher credit ratings for their derivatives, since taxpayers assume some of the risk, which in turn makes the banks more profitable.

 

Last year, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) introduced the same provision under debate in the current budget talks. The legislative text waswritten by a Citigroup lobbyist, according to The New York Times. The bill passed the House by a vote of 292 to 122 in October 2013, 122 Democrats opposed, and 70 in favor. All but three House Republicans supported the bill.

 

Himes was passed over for leadership positions after the 2014 midterm elections, which he said he interpreted as unrest within the Democratic Party over his strong ties to financial elites.

 

"My guess is, it was a factor, which is disappointing because I think the criticism is way off base," said Himes, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs.

 

It wasn't clear whether the derivatives perk will survive negotiations in the House, or if the Senate will include it in its version of the bill. With Democrats voting nearly 2-to-1 against the bill in the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) never brought the bill up for a vote in the Senate. President Barack Obama opposed the bill ahead of the House vote, as did former FDIC Chair Shiela Bair, former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), currently the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

The citizen-slaves shall serve. Makes perfect sense.  We had the largest wealth transfer (tax) from the poor to the rich during the “Bailout”. The job of the Supreme Court and the government in general, aside from dropping some crumbs and empty promises, is to keep those funds flowing to the super-rich and to destroy 98% of the democracy by allowing dark money to place advertisements and influence elections. Corporations are legally considered as persons. Makes perfect sense.  Lobbying is institutionalized bribery by corporation/persons.  Flesh and blood citizen-slaves, are peasants, slaves, 3rd world factory workers, no different. That’s democracy ruled by greed-economics. Makes perfect sense.  The slaves shall serve. This applies worldwide. The real key here is to create your own business and economy,  otherwise…

"Derivatives: The Unregulated Global Casino for Banks

 

THE SHORT STORY:

 

Pick something of value, make bets on the future value of "something", add contract & you have a derivative. 


Banks make massive profits on derivatives, and when the bubble bursts chances are the tax payer will end up with the bill. 


This visualizes the total coverage for derivatives (notional). Similar to insurance company's total coverage for all cars."

 

"LONG STORY: A derivative is a legal bet (contract) that derives its value from another asset, such as the future or current value of oil, government bonds or anything else.

 

Ex- A derivative buys you the option (but not obligation) to buy oil in 6 months for today's price/any agreed price, hoping that oil will cost more in future. (I'll bet you it'll cost more in 6 months).

 

Derivative can also be used as insurance, betting that a loan will or won't default before a given date. So its a big betting system, like a Casino, but instead of betting on cards and roulette, you bet on future values and performance of practically anything that holds value.

 

The system is not regulated what-so-ever, and you can buy a derivative on an existing derivative. 


Most large banks try to prevent smaller investors from gaining access to the derivative market on the basis of there being too much risk.

 

Deriv. market has blown a galactic bubble, just like the real estate bubble or stock market bubble (that's going on right now).

 

Since there is literally no economist in the world that knows exactly how the derivative money flows or how the system works, while derivatives are traded in microseconds by computers, we really don't know what will trigger the crash, or when it will happen, but considering the global financial crisis this system is in for tough times, that will be catastrophic for the world financial system since the 9 largest banks shown below hold a total of $228.72 trillion in Derivatives - Approximately 3 times the entire world economy.

 

No government in world has money for this bailout. Lets take a look at what banks have the biggest Derivative Exposures and what scandals they've been lately involved in."

 

Derivative Data Source: ZeroHedge.

Are the politicians crazy?  I can remember around 2007-2009 or so how news caster types were on national tv literally blaming the mortgage crisis on minorities and saying "people who didn't deserve home loans got them and couldn't pay them" I remember they had panel discussions on CNN with that bald guy named Ari about how it was unfair to ask the gov't to intervene and bail out "people who got loans they couldn't afford/didn't deserve" I remember being really shocked that the news would be pushing this meme associating the mortgage problems and ensuing global credit crunch WITH MINORITIES, not doing investigative reporting on what actually led to the problems.

I noticed this was repeated in articles and radio discussions even on NPR. Nobody was saying hey wait a minute blacks rent more than they own and blacks + Hispanics are the most unbanked people. Why would they be responsible for GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH?  So then we get policy based on the people NOT deserving to be bailed out and allowed to remain in their homes and maintain equity and THE BANKS GOT BAILED OUT and foreclosed on the people anyway at record levels.

Candidate Clinton said she would try to halt the foreclosure epidemic. Candidate Obama made no such promises. Newly elected president Obama began to put former Goldman Sachs employees in key financial policy positions, saying no laws had been broken and the foreclosures needed to be processed through the courts, not halted.  Only half assed measures were made to help homeowners stay in their homes. I noticed all this and I'm no financial wiz beyond my own checkbook...Why weren't economic experts all on tv and on the radio contradicting the phoney narrative???

Blacks are always the convenient scapegoats even when logically it makes no sense.

The Levee Breaks: Democrats Rage Against Obama Over Wall Street Giveaway

 

Posted: 12/12/2014 7:12 pm EST Updated: 12/12/2014 7:59 pm EST
ELIZABETH WARREN
 

WASHINGTON -- Less than a month after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) landed a new Senate leadership position, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and President Barack Obama risked a fight with her over government subsidies for risky Wall Street derivatives trading.

They won the near-term policy fight: After a bruising bicameral battle, the House of Representatives narrowly approved an annual spending bill that granted taxpayer support for the risky financial contracts at the heart of the 2008 meltdown.

 

But the bitter feud left Reid and Obama politically embarrassed, while consolidating a burgeoning populist movement within the Democratic Party that highlighted Warren's influence in wings of the Capitol far removed from her perch on the Senate Banking Committee. It also forced Obama and a host of Democratic leaders into the crosshairs of a critique Warren typically levels at Republicans: that powerful people in Washington are rigging the system to help Wall Street at the expense of the middle class.

 

Hours after declaring White House support for the package, Obama was forced to send Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to the Hill to round up votes -- a public admission that the president's party wasn't taking marching orders from him. By the end of the night, Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of the nation's largest bank, JPMorgan Chase, were all whipping members to support the package -- a tremendously damaging scenario for Obama's stature with the Democratic electoral base. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her allies, meanwhile, played the role of underdog, digging in for a Tim Howard-esque performance that emboldened progressives, even in defeat.

 

"I'm proud that I voted no," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told HuffPost. "The fight was clearly good for morale."

 

Democrats were unhappy with several aspects of the funding bill. The legislation cuts Pell Grant funding for low-income college students, legalizes benefit cuts for pensioners who used to work for the government, attempts to curb access to abortion, and defunds the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.

Those are all familiar issues for political junkies. And as with most political issues, you probably could predict how a card-carrying Democrat almost anywhere in the country would feel about them.

 

But House Democrats didn't fight on the obvious stuff. They made their stand on a complex Wall Street regulation that most of the Beltway political media had never heard of before Warren started holding press conferences on Tuesday.

And the same week, a host of Senate Democrats voiced their opposition to Obama Treasury nominee Antonio Weiss -- a Wall Street merger expert who helped orchestrate the Burger King deal with Canadian restaurant chain Tim Horton's that would help Burger King duck U.S. taxes. Warren has been campaigning against the Weiss nomination, arguing that elite financiers already exercise too much influence over the administration's economic policy decisions.

 

The banking slugfest isn't a run-of-the-mill policy dispute for Democrats. The central policy struggle within the Democratic Party over the last four years has been about its relationship with Wall Street. President Bill Clinton made nice with the financial industry by slashing capital gains taxes, shattering the Glass-Steagall separation between traditional lending and risky securities trading and, of course, deregulating derivatives. And for years, the party was happy to take Wall Street campaign cash and use it to implement other policy priorities.

The financial crisis of 2008 changed all of that (it also created the tea party and empowered the GOP's anti-crony capitalist movement). The wreckage the Great Recession inflicted on American families -- particularly Democratic constituencies like the young, the poor and people of color -- forced many to question the price of their faustian bargain.

 

Obama's generally Wall Street-friendly economic team and the necessities of campaign finance politics in the Citizens United era obscured the unrest for a long time. Well into 2014, a common tactic for otherwise hardline progressives was to go easy on big banks. As HuffPost reported this summer in a joint project with The New Republic, even left-wing stalwarts like Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) were routinelypartnering with big banks to roll back parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

 

Those days appear to be gone. Moore was whipping "no" votes with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) late into Thursday evening in an impromptu war room Waters set up in her own office. Leading members of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus crammed for space, making calls and counting votes.

 

"We agreed with the Leader and Rep. Waters," said Moore spokesman Eric Harris. "We had a very large presence in a very crowded room."

Both Harris and Ellison cited broad discontent with the bill. But Ellison emphasized that many members might have signed off on GOP cuts to Democratic programs if they were better than what his caucus could expect next year under a Republican-controlled Senate and a broader House GOP majority. But they weren't willing to subsidize Wall Street in the same package.

 

"The last election, the problem is that voters believe we're all in on this cabal together, and nobody's thinking about their families," Ellison said. "The minimum wage is winning all over the country at state and municipal levels but Democrats still got shellacked in the midterms. People have separated Dems from the minimum wage. [Members of Congress] won't let [themselves] be painted in a way that is pro-Wall Street and anti-middle class."

Warren's influence over the fight obscures her office's initial fumbling of the issue. After HuffPost first reported last week that the swaps issue was taking a central role in talks, Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) organized a letter to Reid and Boehner objecting to the provision, and Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) signed on. Noticeably absent: Warren, Brown's Banking Committee colleague.

 

The swaps provision was still included in the package by Tuesday, and when Warren jumped into the fray, progressive bedlam broke out within the House caucus.

 

"The two people who led us most clearly were two great women, Maxine Waters and Sen. Elizabeth Warren," Ellison said. "They had a lot of support."

Pelosi gave Waters political cover by decrying the White House position on the House floor -- she called it Wall Street "blackmail" -- but the main whip effort was actually a Waters operation, with help from Warren. Pelosi did not formally demand that her caucus vote against the spending package, opting instead for the softer organizational route of publicly trashing Obama and the bill while allowing her colleagues to vote as they chose.

 

They almost pulled off an upset, but Waters said the joint efforts of Obama and Dimon peeled off enough of her supporters to pass the bill.

"I think we got hurt when Jamie Dimon and the president started to whip," Waterstold reporters Thursday night, according to The Hill. "That's when I think we lost some votes."

Its this kind of shit that makes me mad at Obama, its makes me hot! He is nothing but a gaddam okie doke, I have ZERO faith in him. And I mean it!

 

I had a stronger phrase but I edit that out. LOL.

 

What does President Obama stands for? What?! I am just so so disappointed with him, he ran on supporting and expanding the middle class, okie doke! He can't stuff his head deep enough in the ass's of Wall Street oligarchs, what a gaddam shame, I feel shame for him. 

Last edited by Momentum
Originally Posted by DennisKalita:

The job of the slaves is to serve to rich.POTUS agrees too. Otherwise he would have made more noise. This is simply another bail-out for the super-rich in case they lose money while investing. This is the economic environment we live in. That's why folks have to create their own businesses for some kind of fighting chance

But what is so sad about this, The Obama Administration whip up votes to pass this spending bill, he went against the heart of the Democratic Party and what it is suppose to stand for. This is so revealing what President Obama is really about. He favors Wall Street Oligarchy. He is not liberal in any kind of fashion, ZERO. He is nothing but a house boy for Wall Street, that's it. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Momentum:

Its this kind of shit that makes me mad at Obama, its makes me hot! He is nothing but a gaddam okie doke, I have ZERO faith in him. And I mean it!

 

I had a stronger phrase but I edit that out. LOL.

 

What does President Obama stands for? What?! I am just so so disappointed with him, he ran on supporting and expanding the middle class, okie doke! He can't stuff his dead deep enough in the ass's of Wall Street oligarchs, what a gaddam shame, I feel shame for him. 

Obama was the symbol of a great man but not the substance.  People from Africa to Europe applauded the symbol but he has never been a true visionary leader. He coldly serves power beyond the call of duty.  Billionaire-owned Fox News and others complain about social programs. That’s because they take $ away from the super-rich – the rulers! This is to be versed in the way of this world and I mean all over this puny ass selfish greedy world.

 

Bush started the bail-out and Obama continued it when he got into office. Benefit of the doubt, I thought maybe Obama was caught in-between on that and had to keep going. But now I know, that wasn’t true. He could have easily raised his voice and branded the  GOP on this! It was just yesterday a great cause. He went along to get along with the rulers.

 

Change will not come from Satanic politicians whose job is to kiss the devil’s ass to make a pact. Compassion cannot be legislated into capitalism in countries where people are looked down upon as slaves and rabble. This can come from human beings who are successful in their own businesses and then do good for others.

 

ASS KISSING THE DEVIL TO SHOW YOUR LOYALTYASS KISSING THE DEVIL TO SHOW YOUR LOYALTY

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by DennisKalita:
Originally Posted by Momentum:

Its this kind of shit that makes me mad at Obama, its makes me hot! He is nothing but a gaddam okie doke, I have ZERO faith in him. And I mean it!

 

I had a stronger phrase but I edit that out. LOL.

 

What does President Obama stands for? What?! I am just so so disappointed with him, he ran on supporting and expanding the middle class, okie doke! He can't stuff his dead deep enough in the ass's of Wall Street oligarchs, what a gaddam shame, I feel shame for him. 

Obama was the symbol of a great man but not the substance.  People from Africa to Europe applauded the symbol but he has never been a true visionary leader. He coldly serves power beyond the call of duty.  Billionaire-owned Fox News and others complain about social programs. That’s because they take $ away from the super-rich – the rulers! This is to be versed in the way of this world and I mean all over this puny ass selfish greedy world.

 

Bush started the bail-out and Obama continued it when he got into office. Benefit of the doubt, I thought maybe Obama was caught in-between on that and had to keep going. But now I know, that wasn’t true. He could have easily raised his voice and branded the  GOP on this! It was just yesterday a great cause. He went along to get along with the rulers.

 

Change will not come from Satanic politicians whose job is to kiss the devil’s ass to make a pact. Compassion cannot be legislated into capitalism in countries where people are looked down upon as slaves and rabble. This can come from human beings who are successful in their own businesses and then do good for others.

 

ASS KISSING THE DEVIL TO SHOW YOUR LOYALTYASS KISSING THE DEVIL TO SHOW YOUR LOYALTY

 

 

 

 

 

I mistype dead for head when I said  "He can't stuff his dead deep enough in the ass's of Wall Street oligarchs,"

 

Hillary absolutely can not follow Obama because she will be worst than Obama as a lapdog for Wall Street Oligarchs, these people are drunk with power. If Elizabeth Warren is not the next nominee for President of the Democratic Party then it has no soul. 

"Democrats were unhappy with several aspects of the funding bill. The legislation cuts Pell Grant funding for low-income college students, legalizes benefit cuts for pensioners who used to work for the government, attempts to curb access to abortion, and defunds the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.
Those are all familiar issues for political junkies. And as with most political issues, you probably could predict how a card-carrying Democrat almost anywhere in the country would feel about them.

But House Democrats didn't fight on the obvious stuff. They made their stand on a complex Wall Street regulation that most of the Beltway political media had never heard of before Warren started holding press conferences on Tuesday."

A long time ago, I pointed out that Obama was padding his administration with former Goldman Sachs executives instead of young energetic policy wonks representative of the people who worked so hard to get him elected.  I was called a hater suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Why would he support a bill that is clearly harmful to so many segments of the American populace?  Why does this writer feel the banking issue is an obscure one? It has been discussed for years since the great recession. Dems still hold the Senate majority and couldn't stop this?  It's official. Welcome to Oligarchy.
Last edited by NSpirit
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
"Democrats were unhappy with several aspects of the funding bill. The legislation cuts Pell Grant funding for low-income college students, legalizes benefit cuts for pensioners who used to work for the government, attempts to curb access to abortion, and defunds the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.
Those are all familiar issues for political junkies. And as with most political issues, you probably could predict how a card-carrying Democrat almost anywhere in the country would feel about them.

But House Democrats didn't fight on the obvious stuff. They made their stand on a complex Wall Street regulation that most of the Beltway political media had never heard of before Warren started holding press conferences on Tuesday."

A long time ago, I pointed out that Obama was padding his administration with former Goldman Sachs executives instead of young energetic policy wonks representative of the people who worked so hard to get him elected.  I was called a hater suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Why would he support a bill that is clearly harmful to so many segments of the American populace?  Why does this writer feel the banking issue is an obscure one? It has been discussed for years since the great recession. Dems still hold the Senate majority and couldn't stop this?  It's official. Welcome to Oligarchy.

Barack Obama betrayed all those who supported him and bought that bullshit Hope and Change, like me. He is only thinking of HIMSELF and the Gigantic Parachute of 100 to 200 million and sweet deals he will get from his Wall Street MASTERS.

 

Just like Bill Clinton betrayed all Americans when he repealed Glass Steagall during the last few months of his last term. It frightens me what Barack Obama will do in his last months. 

 

But you can bet on this, it will be what the Oligarchy wants and it will not favor common, regular people.

 

Even his health plan, ACA, is a give away to insurance companies, yes it makes health insurance more affordable but many still are not able to afford it and penalized those who are not covered. ACA is also a transfer of taxpayer money to the rich who run insurance companies that subsidizes ACA. OKIE DOKE..... it is still better than what this country had. 

 

"But House Democrats didn't fight on the obvious stuff. They made their stand on a complex Wall Street regulation that most of the Beltway political media had never heard of before Warren started holding press conferences on Tuesday."

 

That is complete BS, its not obscure and the Beltway Media are very familiar regarding this issue. That statement was only made to minimize the betrayal to taxpayers who will be directly on the hook for billions perhaps trillions the next time Wall Street meltdown the economy because of reckless derivative trading, just like they did in 2008. 

 

Obama was only a decoy to further entrench authoritarian Oligarchy and the shame of it is, it is indeed White Supremacy, Obama can be compared to Stephen on the plantation, Candyland.

Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Harry Reid should never have been the Senate majority leader.

To be honest Democrats lost its soul long ago being bought and controlled by the super rich to promote the ambitions of the rich and powerful. This country is way overdue for revolution and structural rearrangement that favors the populace. 

Was out and about this morning and heard Elizabeth Warren being interviewed on NPR. I believe it was Steve Innskeep interviewing her. She stated President Obama didn't want the derivatives provision in the bill but didn't want the government to shut down either. I was struck by how supposedly Liberal NPR was hounding her as if she shouldn't have gone against the president! He told her it was a very complex issue as if she doesn't understand banking. He told her this had been under discussion for a long time so it wasn't new and basically acted as though Elizabeth Warren was being a nuisance for spearheading efforts to stop the bill. I guess he was playing devils advocate but I really got irritated listening to it and I think she did too. He repeatedly asked her if she is running for president and she stated 3 times I am not running for president. He then asked her if she will NEVER run for president, to which she still answered I am not running for president. Then Cokie Roberts old south aged debutante ass came on and tried to say Warren wouldn't have made a big stink about the bill unless she was making points for the future.

I think maybe they don't yet understand Americans for the most part are sick of politics as usual.
Last edited by NSpirit
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Maybe I'm overreacting. It just seems to me the interviewer is trying to minimize the harm of this derivatives bailout thing being slipped into the omnibus Bill. Take a listen for yourself:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal...-her-political-futur

I listen to NPR almost everyday and over the years its become more conservative and very clever conservative speakers are on NPR. They don't expose themselves as assholes but relentless hedge toward policies that support unregulated capitalism free to do whatever it wants, white supremacy and oligarchy.

 

But sometimes its straight up FOXNEWS is on NPR, pure bullshit. Was you listening the other night when NPR was interviewing a conservative racist who supported the killers of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner and Michael Brown, very nice and sweet interview with absolutely no challenge to his asshole racist views. He blamed the media for saying Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman were guilty of murder and should have been at least indicted and convicted on charges. 

 

NPR gets big funding from the Koch Brothers and they are using gradualism, bread crumbs to entice its liberal listeners toward conservative views. These conservative guests can't speak point blank they want to avoid scaring NPR base liberals away. But in small steps NPR will become an ass kissing propaganda machine for the super rich, corporatism and oligarchy. But when I hear white supremacist like that show the other night was vomit.

Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Was out and about this morning and heard Elizabeth Warren being interviewed on NPR. I believe it was Steve Innskeep interviewing her. She stated President Obama didn't want the derivatives provision in the bill but didn't want the government to shut down either. I was struck by how supposedly Liberal NPR was helping her as if she shouldn't have gone against the president! He told her it was a very complex issue as if she doesn't understand banking. He told her this had been under discussion for a long time so it wasn't new and basically acted as though Elizabeth Warren was being a nuisance for spearheading efforts to stop the bill. I guess he was playing devils advocate but I really got irritated listening to it and I think she did too. He repeatedly asked her if she is running for president and she stated 3 times I am not running for president. He then asked her if she will NEVER run for president, to which she still answered I am not running for president. Then Cokie Roberts old south aged debutante ass came on and tried to say Warren wouldn't have made a big stink about the bill unless she was making points for the future.

I think maybe they don't yet understand Americans for the most part are sick of politics as usual.

President Obama didn't want the derivatives provision in the bill but they happen anyway.

 

Same okie doke his whole tenure as president. He says one thing and do another. And always have an excuse for his actions, his words belie his actions. He was a feel good president to mislead liberals into a deeper entrenching of oligarchy. An opposition House of Reps led by Conservatives is Obama's excuse for not doing one gaddam thing that rings liberal. His presidency is nothing but an act. 

 

Nothing has really changed from the conservative trajectory of the country.

The fact there is wider income and wealth disparity is not by accident. 

Last edited by Momentum
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Maybe I'm overreacting. It just seems to me the interviewer is trying to minimize the harm of this derivatives bailout thing being slipped into the omnibus Bill. Take a listen for yourself:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal...-her-political-futur

 

The media in America works for corporate America.  Even on liberal shows, stations, networks, there's always some right-wing 'collabarateur' who has infiltrated to keep the right-wing propaganda machine oiled.  

Originally Posted by Momentum:

       
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Maybe I'm overreacting. It just seems to me the interviewer is trying to minimize the harm of this derivatives bailout thing being slipped into the omnibus Bill. Take a listen for yourself:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal...-her-political-futur
I listen to NPR almost everyday and over the years its become more conservative and very clever conservative speakers are on NPR. They don't expose themselves as assholes but relentless hedge toward policies that support unregulated capitalism free to do whatever it wants, white supremacy and oligarchy.

But sometimes its straight up FOXNEWS is on NPR, pure bullshit. Was you listening the other night when NPR was interviewing a conservative racist who supported the killers of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner and Michael Brown, very nice and sweet interview with absolutely no challenge to his asshole racist views. He blamed the media for saying Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman were guilty of murder and should have been at least indicted and convicted on charges.

NPR gets big funding from the Koch Brothers and they are using gradualism, bread crumbs to entice its liberal listeners toward conservative views. These conservative guests can't speak point blank they want to avoid scaring NPR base liberals away. But in small steps NPR will become an ass kissing propaganda machine for the super rich, corporatism and oligarchy. But when I hear white supremacist like that show the other night was vomit.

       


No I didn't hear it. Which show was it on? I'd like to listen to it. The Diane Rhiem show and Fresh Air with Terri Gross are the most consistently fair IMHO. It's amazing how someone from the heritage foundation, a conservative think tank, always gets the opportunity to spew nonsense on NPR.
Last edited by NSpirit
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Originally Posted by Momentum:

       
Originally Posted by NSpirit:
Maybe I'm overreacting. It just seems to me the interviewer is trying to minimize the harm of this derivatives bailout thing being slipped into the omnibus Bill. Take a listen for yourself:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal...-her-political-futur
I listen to NPR almost everyday and over the years its become more conservative and very clever conservative speakers are on NPR. They don't expose themselves as assholes but relentless hedge toward policies that support unregulated capitalism free to do whatever it wants, white supremacy and oligarchy.

But sometimes its straight up FOXNEWS is on NPR, pure bullshit. Was you listening the other night when NPR was interviewing a conservative racist who supported the killers of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner and Michael Brown, very nice and sweet interview with absolutely no challenge to his asshole racist views. He blamed the media for saying Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman were guilty of murder and should have been at least indicted and convicted on charges.

NPR gets big funding from the Koch Brothers and they are using gradualism, bread crumbs to entice its liberal listeners toward conservative views. These conservative guests can't speak point blank they want to avoid scaring NPR base liberals away. But in small steps NPR will become an ass kissing propaganda machine for the super rich, corporatism and oligarchy. But when I hear white supremacist like that show the other night was vomit.

       


No I didn't hear it. Which show was it on? I'd like to listen to it. The Diane Rhiem show and Fresh Air with Terri Gross are the most consistently fair IMHO. It's amazing how someone from the heritage foundation, a conservative think tank, always gets the opportunity to spew nonsense on NPR.

I think is was Sunday or Saturday evening...... PBS gets funding from the Koch brothers too. And conservative gradualism is apparent on that network too. In fact I can't remember the details but something was aired on PBS and the Koch brothers threatened to pull their funding and PBS apologized or capitulated somehow to appease them.

 

Republicans over the years have cut funding to NPR and PBS over the years that made them vulnerable to private contributions from assholes like the Kochs. 

 

The Speech That Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next President of the United States

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ident_b_6319142.html

 

Early Friday evening Sen. Elizabeth Warren took to the Senate floor and gave a plain-spoken, barn-burning speech that could make history and put her into serious contention to be the next President of the United States.

There are only a handful of political speeches that have such historic impact. Barack Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention comes readily to mind. It's what catapulted an obscure Illinois state Senator into the national limelight and put him on the path to becoming President.

Warren's Senate speech was different, but just as electrifying.

Obama's rhetoric was lofty, high-minded, and general, with a feel-good unifying message that there's no blue America or red America but only the United States of America.

Warren's rhetoric is more down to earth, substantive, and frankly, angrier, unafraid of calling out by name the institutions--the big banks and Citigroup in particular--which tanked the economy, cost millions of Americans their jobs and homes, were bailed out with half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, and then used their fortunes to buy Congress and make it more likely they'll be bailed out again. Moreover, she was unafraid to take on the President of her own party, and the numerous members of his administration drawn from Citigroup and other big banks through the endless revolving door between Washington and Wall Street.

Here's the heart of Warren's speech:

Democrats don't like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don't like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts

And yet here we are, five years after Dodd-Frank with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for the middle class, do nothing for community banks, do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again...

So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi[group]. I agree with you Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces!

If this Congress is going to open up Dodd-Frank in the months ahead, then let's open it up to get tougher, not to create more bailout opportunities. If we're going to open up Dodd-Frank, let's open it up so that once and for all we end too big to fail and I mean really end it, not just say that we did.

Instead of passing laws that create new bailout opportunities for too big to fail banks, let's pass... something... that would help break up these giant banks.

A century ago Teddy Roosevelt was America's Trust-Buster. He went after the giant trusts and monopolies in this country, and a lot of people talk about how those trust deserved to be broken up because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatens the very foundations of our democratic system.

And now we're watching as Congress passes yet another provision that was written by lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of this country. And its attached to a bill that needs to pass or else the entire federal government will grind to a halt.

Think about that kind of power. If a financial institution has become so big and so powerful that it can hold the entire country hostage. That alone is reason enough to break them up.

Enough is enough.

Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism that we have seen in the executive branch. Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but everybody will come to regret. Enough is enough

Washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists.

But what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citigroup bet big on derivatives and lost? What about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail out Citi just 6 years ago?

We were sent here to fight for those families. It is time, it is past time, for Washington to start working for them!

 
 

Please take less than 10 minutes of your time to watch the speech below. Like Obama's 2004 Convention speech, it was an historic speech, a potentially game changing speech. It catapulted Warren from a potential nuisance to Hillary Clinton's coronation as the Democratic nominee to someone who could foreseeably win the nomination and even the Presidency.

It transformed the conventional wisdom about American politics that the main divide is between left, right, and center, when it is really between pro-corporate and anti-corporate. Her declaration that neither Democrats nor Republicans (meaning the voters, not the Washington politicians) don't like bank bailouts rings loud and true. Tea party supporters don't like bailouts and crony capitalism any more that progressives do.

The conventional wisdom is that to win white working and middle class voters, politicians need to move towards the center, meaning towards a more corporate approach. But in a world of growing inequality, stagnating wages, and a fading belief that with hard work your children can have a better life than you had, that may no longer be true.

Hillary Clinton represents the old politics of the status quo and accommodation to Wall Street's power. Her husband's Treasury Secretary was former Goldman Sachs exec Robert Rubin. After leading Pres. Clinton's effort to dismantle the half-century old Glass-Steagel prohibition on government-insured commercial banks engaging in risky speculative bets which enabled the creation of financial megaliths like Citigroup, he went on to earn $126 million as a senior executive for Citigroup and brokered Citigroup's ½ Trillion Dollar bailout. His protégé, Timothy Geithner became Barack Obama's Treasury Secretary where he opposed breaking up the big banks who had cratered the economy.

Elizabeth Warren represents a new politics in which, by challenging the power of the oligarchy, she has the potential of reclaiming the white working class for Democrats and uniting them with the coalition of professionals, single women, gays and minorities who elected Obama. She is the first major national politician in decades who is willing to openly challenge the power of the Wall Street oligarchy, in the manner of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who declared, "They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."

With the increasingly dominant power of big money in politics, could Warren defeat Clinton, Inc. and then go on to defeat what is likely to be the near unanimous support of the Wall Street and corporate elite for her Republican opponent? It's hard to say. But the nation is in too much trouble to settle for a Democratic or Republican candidate of the corporatist status quo. If there's any hope, it's that once in a while the power of organized people can defeat the power of organized money. Elizabeth Warren represents that hope and it's the only thing worth hoping for.

Watch Warren's 9:43 second speech below. If you're fed up with the power of Wall Street and the big banks, it will inspire you. And even if you aren't, watch it for its importance as a model of historically transformative political rhetoric.

 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×