patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,365,254 comments by 15,735 users - mell, stereotomy, Tenpoundbass online now
Comments 1 - 2 of 7 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dan8267
@
2011 Dec 7, 12:30pm
From everything I've seen on Elizabeth Warren, she seems like a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. And she actually cares about making the world a better place. That's a very rare combination for someone running for office. Granted, she's entering politics very late in life, but perhaps that's why she's trustworthy.
And as a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, she's way more qualified to be president -- I know she's only running for Senate right now, but 2016... -- than any of the current Republican nominees.
That said, I don't have a lot of hope in the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. It seems to be a largely defanged agency and the banks are still attacking it. Had Warren been the head of this agency, I'd have a bit more hope, but it still needed real power to restructure our financial system.
As for your complaint about her ad being hypocritical, I cannot comment since I haven't seen the ad. Can you post a video link?
Dan8267
@
2011 Dec 7, 12:42pm
If your talking about the ad on her homepage then I say, no, there is nothing hypocritical about that ad.
The ad running 1:35 seems quite reasonable. Here are some things I liked about it.
1. It is not an attack ad.
2. It states why she is running.
3. Her reasons for running are consistent with her behavior.
4. The ad states several general problems she intends to solve.
The only fault in the ad is that although it establishes which problems she intends to address, it does not state what her solutions are or how she will approach the problems. Perhaps that's asking too much though for a one and a half minute ad.
The specific problems she list are:
1. The middle class is being destroyed.
2. Washington is rigged for big corporations with armies of lobbyists.
3. College students are being burdened with too much debt-ridden.
4. Seniors are being forced into poverty.
I have to agree with her analysis of the problems. I also have to agree that the special interests that have opposed her in the past will do anything to tear down her campaign.
In any case, Warren is being sincere in that she believes the problems she stated are the ones that matter, and that she will attempt to solve those problems. In the past she has talked about the cause and effects of those problems.
In conclusion, I don't see your problem with this ad.
Comments 1 - 2 of 7 Next » Last » Search these comments
I understand she makes speeches that make some on the left happy and she has this consumer protection agency that she started.
In Mass we are ALREADY seeing ads on this Senate race even though it is nearly 11 months away! I've never seen political ads this early. Some have dropped out of the democrat primary because they fear the funds that Warren will receive on a nationwide basis.
Her ad is well..it's hypocritical. She fought against big banks (wall st) ok..and says "we got it" about this new Consumer Finance Protection Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Finance_Protection_Agency
Ok and that references a site saying this
"Here is a profile of the new watchdog unit, called for under Wall Street reforms that were written into law in July.
WIDE POWERS
The bureau will write and enforce rules for banks and other firms, aiming to protect consumers from deceptive and abusive loans and other financial products and services.
It will be able to conduct examinations of banks and seek information from other firms about consumer-related business.
It will monitor and report on markets for consumer financial goods and services, ranging from payday loans to check cashing shops, and how consumers interact with them.
It will collect and track consumer complaints about these markets through a toll-free telephone number and a website.
In doing its work, the bureau will consolidate existing consumer protection programs now scattered across several agencies widely criticized for doing a poor job in the past."
Fair enough..pretty simple to understand.
"INDEPENDENT UNIT
The bureau will be an independent unit located inside and funded by the Federal Reserve, the country's central bank. The financial reform law allows the agency to be formed on an interim basis within the U.S. Treasury.
The director must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term.
The bureau will have offices that are in charge of fair lending, financial education, armed services affairs, and financial protection for older Americans, among others."
Um...what? So it is located inside the Federal Reserve...funded by the federal reserve..um..
Member banks elect the directors of the Federal Reserve. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff this is what they say
"CHECKS AND BALANCES
The Financial Stability Oversight Council, an inter-agency group of regulators also set up under the new reforms, will have some power to block new regulations from the bureau.
A six-member board of experts from consumer protection, financial services and other fields - appointed on recommendation from the regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents - will advise the director."
Huh? OK so you mean to tell me that the FSOC has the power to block the CFPA..ok fine...BUT the FSOC like the CFPA is also under the Federal Reserve..ok so who's on this six member board of experts..
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR04173:@@@L&summ2=m&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Stability_Oversight_Council
Um...so the chairman of the Federal Reserve is on the panel for the FSOC which checks against the CFPA which is inside the Federal Reserve and funded by them...
Basically we've created quasi government inside of quasi government.
It can be understandable when there are governmental organizations doing the same thing if it is under different branches (GAO and CBO). But this isn't...
The Fed is exempt from FOIA. It is easier to get information out of the CIA than them. Meetings are not open to the public, or congress or even the president. How is this transparency? How is anyone on these boards accountable to anyone when the decisions making process is not open. The concept of recalling anyone is not laid out. Impeachment is not an option and neither is election/reelection.
This goes beyond putting a fox in a henhouse. This is putting a hen house inside of a mouth of a fox.
#politics