Upset By Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Banks Debate Halting Some Campaign Donations

Upset By Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Banks Debate Halting Some Campaign Donations

by Reuters | huffingtonpost.com | Posted: 03/27/2015 9:59 am EDT
Excerpts:

By Emily Flitter

NEW YORK, March 27 (Reuters)- "Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.

Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.

........

"The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material. Moreover, banks' hostility toward Warren, who is not a presidential candidate, will not have a direct impact on the presumed Democratic front runner in the White House race, Hillary Clinton.

In a Dec. 12 speech, Warren mentioned Citigroup several times as an example of a bank that had grown too large, saying it should have been broken apart by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. In January, Warren angered Wall Street when she successfully blocked the nomination of a banker Antonio Weiss to a top post at the Treasury Department. She argued that as a regulator he would likely be too deferential to his former Wall Street colleagues."

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/elizabeth-warren-campaign-donations_n_6953858.html
........

IMO: Elizabeth Warren is a strong woman that tells it like it is, and will not be stopped by any threats by the Wall Street Gang, the most corrupt entity of our time. Since the 2008 financial melt down and resulting bailouts in which Wall Street emerged unscathed., they have been acting like it wasn't their fault, but Senator Warren and others, including the American public understands that the banks should have been broken up by the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Law.

In a December 12 speech Senator Warren mentioned Citigroup several time as a bank that needed to be broken apart, and in January she angered Wall Street when she successfully blocked the nomination of a banker Antonio Weiss to a top post at the Treasury Department arguing that he would apt to be 'too deferential to his former Wall Street colleagues.'

Senator Warren has accused big banks and other financial firms of unfair dealings that harm the middle class and help the rich grow richer, which is certainly true; their greed is insurmountable and their preying on the middle class for bailouts, unfair and burdensome interest rates, and making the American citizens liable for all their risky business ventures.

The Dodd-Frank Reform Law would have divested Wall Street of much of it's power and the American people would be free from liability of any of Wall Street's risky and sometimes illegal adventures.

 

"The Dodd-Frank Reform Law would have divested Wall Street of much of it's power and the American people would be free from liability of any of Wall Street's risky and sometimes illegal adventures."

Elizabeth Warren Fires Back After Wall Street Threats

The Huffington Post | By Lydia O'Connor | Posted: 03/28/2015 10:59 am EDT
Excerpts:

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)has a blunt message for the big Wall Street banks that may withhold campaign donations to Senate Democrats in hopes of quieting her calls to break up the banks. "It will not work," Warren said in a statement emailed to The Huffington Post.

Warren has been a vocal advocate for reining in big banks that she says wield too much power in Washington after their recklessness triggered the 2008 financial meltdown. Only Citigroup -- a frequent target of Warren's criticism -- so far is publicly withholding money from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. 'Cutting donations,' Warren said, 'won't end her demands.'

.......

"They want a showy way to tell Democrats across the country to be scared of speaking out, to be timid about standing up, and to stay away from fighting for what's right," Warren wrote. "I'm not going to stop talking about the unprecedented grasp that Citigroup has on our government's economic policy-making apparatus.

And I'm not going to pretend the work of financial reform is done, when the so-called 'too big to fail' banks are even bigger now than they were in 2008."

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...59228.html?cps=gravity_2425_88675222138472901
......

IMO: If Congress wasn't so corrupt, the Dodd-Frank Finance Bill would give them all the ammunition they need to straighten Wall Street in short order. Again it is the republican legislators that did nothing to get the job done and now the work is harder and is still preying on young college kids, minority families wanting to buy homes at a reasonable interest rate. And look at our own interests' rates that are practically zero, while Wall Street tycoons get richer by the day.

While the middle class sees very little profits from their work, the banks are glutted with cash and they are bigger, stronger today than after the middle class bailed them out during the Wall Street Meltdown.. Good for Warren who stands up and shouts to the nation of the corruption in Congress and Wall Street which are two of the most responsible for today's problems.

 

How many things has he left done to help the middle class? All they ever say is that they want to help the middle class - well I'm in the middle class and they're not helping me. In fact, everything the left has done for me "for my own good because I'm too stupid to know" has failed and made things worse. Why in the world would I trust a far left radical liberal with the futures of me and my family?

 

hello there, shes not like by banks solely because shes for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

another lawyer thats all we need as president PLZ NO!

 

Predatory banking practices are only the most glaringly apparent issues with the banking community. Their entry into other area of finance are even more problematic.

 

Why don't you ground that opinion, instead of relying on demagoguery from Warren to head-bob to? IMO, you likely know next to nothing about the law or what it does. So without running to wiki, why don't you tell us all what is in it that you believe grounds the above? Then I will offer more facts grounding my opinion.

 

No they most certainly aren't, and no it certainly isn't. The LW, notably Warren, "speak with forked tongue" on "predatory lending." Back in the 90s, what the LW rabble machine calls predatory lending today was called "equal credit opportunity." It's laughable how they fool proles both ways with dumbed-down rhetoric and the banking industry is perfectly in the right in becoming angry over it. They can't win, were told for 30 years to "lend to more people and we will take care of it," now after the debacle are told, "shame on you for your 'predatory lending.'" Transparent horsesht and the most blatant kind of blame shifting from a government, half of which deserves to be IN JAIL for its actions leading up to 2008. "Hey, over there, there he is, that faceless greedy Wall Street banker! He did it! He did it!" How anyone of any ideological bent could fall for this is astonishing in light of the clear, historical record of GOVERNMENT abuses in the mortgage industry for decades.

Turning to banks engaging in other lines of business, that's been going on for eons with little consequence. It went on during Glass Steagall and it went on under GLB. Engaging in other lines of business has nothing whatsoever to do with what caused the mortgage collapse, GOVERNMENT meddling in the mortgage markets forever, GOVERNMENT jawboning and encouraging lower credit standards and the rise of subprime, GOVERNMENT flouting the antitrust laws, mostly during the 90s, and allowing MASSIVE, unwise horizontal, not vertical, consolidation of the plain old "deposit and lend" banking industry. No amount of private sector regulation can address this kind of GOVERNMENT malfeasance, and in fact, the EXACT SAME issues that led to the crash remain in place due to the mortgage industry being such a sweet GOVERNMENT honeypot of illicit Fed policy, illicit economic stimulus, outright graft and illicit campaign contributions. That's right, Dodd Frank doesn't even address the REAL issues!! Here's the TRUTH from a man who knows far more about it than anyone here, self included:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGmDSXN9N5Q

FNMA political contribution GRAFT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkO21C2ar2E (starting at 1:20)

Discount Hannity in the following if you like, but don't discount the documented FACTS within it re James Johnson, Franklin Rains, Jamie Gorelick, and Obama's damning record of graft receipts:

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

Here's a reasonable, nonpartisan blogger explaining the actual LENDING issues, not derivatives, not securitizations, LENDING ITSELF (and not the weasel term "predatory lending" just good old fashioned regular old lending), in crystal clarity... skip to the second half if impatient:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frances...nks-is-pointless-but-it-will-go-ahead-anyway/

But sure, go ahead and buy into LW DEFLECTION of their Complex responsibility for the problems in the banking industry, bob heads to Warren's demagoguery, which amounts to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k

Look familiar? Sure does to me! It's the same old BS wealth resentment song and dance that Warren peddles today. You buying it? I sure as hell don't. Warren is either 1 a know-nothing dupe of the corrupt government consumer banking machine, or 2. a complicit, knowing participant in it... those are the only two options, and neither is good.

But sure, buy all their Dodd Frank "evil Wall Street" deflections. If you do, you deserve exactly what you will get in exchange for that blind, partisan faith, another severe mortgage bubble sometime in the next decade, where hundreds of GOVERNMENT, not private sector, cronies run away with taxpayer money. They did it once, they will do it again. BANK ON IT.

 

She scares the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them! Make no mistake. Unfortunately, lawmakers on both sides are a helluva lot more scared of WALL STREET!

 

Oh, make no mistake, even though I despise Warren and those like her, I'd like NOTHING better than to see her as the Democrat nominee in 2016. When she is pressed on broader issues than easy Huey Long rabble-rousing, she will fold up instantly like a $5 lawn chair, mark my words. So by all means DNC, please DO run Fauxca!

 

LOL, you would think she would have some principles but we are talking about a politician aspiring to Washington where you have to sell your soul to join. Charging 400K for a college appearance to complain about the high cost of college. Can the hypocrisy be any more apparent?

 

Anything over 10% interest is usury.

 

I agree, when anything becomes too big to fail, it needs to be broken up into pieces that if one or two fail it is no big thing.

 

Not on topic... at all... from your good ole cutpaste file. This isn't the BUSHDIDIT thread, but the "banks supposedly threatening to reduce campaign contributions to Warren and other Democrats in response to their rabble-rousing" thread with subtopics of the specific DODD FRANK legislation and its purported efficacy. Do you have some cutpastes in your file for Dodd Frank and how great it is? Better dig those up because your normal BUSHDIDIT cutpastes don't apply to THE TOPIC of DODD FRANK versus better banking regulation that addresses the real issues in the mortgage markets... at all. Sorry you missed the bus, do you have anything to add to the actual TOPIC?

- - - Updated - - -

Applicability to usury laws? Why none at all, nada, none whatsoever. Kid gloves are off with respect to off-topic, irrelevant cutpastes from you, your jig is up.

 

FROM A GUY CLAIMING GOV'T FORCED BANKSTERS TO LOAN FOR "SOCIAL" EQUITY" CAUSED THE PROBLEM??? LOL

 

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.

Swiftly and repeatedly many conservatives blamed affordable housing policies—particularly the affordable housing goals in place for the two government sponsored mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that applies to regulated lenders such as banks and thrifts—for the massive financial crisis that occurred. This despite the fact that as recently as 2006 prominent conservatives, including FCIC Republican member and American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Peter Wallison, were arguing that Fannie and Freddie needed to do more lending to low-income communities and minorities.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2010/12/21/8832/politics-most-blatant/



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...sis-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story.html

 

Op's post #1

" IMO: Elizabeth Warren is a strong woman that tells it like it is, and will not be stopped by any threats by the Wall Street Gang, the most corrupt entity of our time. Since the 2008 financial melt down and resulting bailouts in which Wall Street emerged unscathed., they have been acting like it wasn't their fault, but Senator Warren and others, including the American public understands that the banks should have been broken up by the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Law."

NEXT

 

Which brings into question the banking monopolies during Clinton. It appears to me that there is no side when it comes to Washington favoritism. Best argument for the Tea Party yet.

 

She's not liked for good reason, she's better at rabble rousing the mass ignorants into thinking she has done something or really cares. The fact is Dodd Frank is an epic disaster of a bill that has done nothing to contain the big banks and instead has harmed small banks. The share of assets among big banks have grown since Dodd Frank while the share of assets of small banks have sharply decreased. That is because they have gone out of business or been gobbled up by big banks, because only big banks can afford to pay the massive new regulatory expenses that arose after this bill. It has put numerous small banks out of business and she either knows this and is flat out lying to the mass idiots who believe she really cares or is just a grade A idiot whose knowledge of banking doesn't extend past knowing what ATM stands for.

 

Dodd-Frank doesn’t hurt small banks, says Treasury Department



Wolin argues — in the first of a series of blog posts about Dodd-Frank — it’s a “myth” that reforms have hurt small banks.

The law passed last year mostly exempted 7,000 community banks and thrift institutions from tougher capital and liquidity requirements, he noted. Banks were mandated to hold more cash in reserve to protect themselves against market downturns.

Large banks with billions of dollars in assets also have to pay a larger share of the cost of deposit insurance protection, which should lighten the load for their smaller counterparts.

“The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the ability to examine regularly nonbank financial services providers — like payday lenders, debt collectors and independent mortgage brokers — and to prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive acts or practices that hurt small banks and Americans across the country,” Wolin wrote.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66178.html#ixzz3VpCToWef


Warren: Community banks thriving under Dodd-Frank


"If as you claim community banks were particularly hard hit by Dodd-Frank's new rules, why are they making more money since the rules went into effect and doing better than big banks?" Warren asked Blanton.

"There's not a direct correlation between [the rules] passing and the success of the banks," Blanton answered.

Warren fired back, charging, "their profitability seems to suggest they're doing better than ever after the regulations went into effect."



Most regulators define small banks as having $10 billion in assets, among other criteria. The definition allows those banks to be exempt from certain Dodd-Frank regulations.


http://thehill.com/policy/finance/b...37-warren-community-banks-thriving-under-dodd

 

Well, if she doesn't watch it, she will be found dead, from a suicide, or will have a heart attack. There probably are no Gen. Smedley Butler's left in our gov't, who as you know probably saved FDR's life, when he busted the conspiracy to have him assassinated by banking and corporate elites, and the big money boys.

That we still tolerate these too big to fail institutions, is hard evidence that the banksters own this gov't. These institutions would already have been broken up in past times, before both parties were bought in the market by the elites. Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama are all in cahoots with the banksters, and anyone who might run from the dems or the repubs in 16 is one of these bought and paid for politicians. There may be a scant few dems in congress that would break up these too big to fail banks, but probably zero repubs that would ever do it.

Bank deregulation turned a sound banking system into a casino, everyone with a brain knows it, but none of these bastards in DC will do a thing about it. Yet most people here, will vote the same two parties back in next time, when if you were really concerned about the majority, who are average americans, you would vote 3rd party, and keep voting it until you totally cleaned out the cesspool that is DC. For now, the People still has the power to change things, to clean up that cesspool, but besides myself, hardly anyone will do it. Is this utter stupidity, or what? WHY are we so damned stupid?

 

Wait a minute; I thought the other guy said government formed banksters were responsible for the financial crisis? Lol! And where is the other guys link proving yours is wrong? Lol!

 

Once again, off topic. The topic of this thread is 1. whether banks are threatening to withhold campaign funds from Democrats due to rabble-rousing, and 2. WHETHER DODD FRANK IS EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION THAT WILL PREVENT ANOTHER MORTGAGE COLLAPSE. Nothing about "hurting small banks" in there at all, not topical in the least. Keep googling.

You don't even know what Dodd Frank does. Hint, read the link to Coppola's blog in my post. She is an excellent banking commentator, spells out the inadequacies of Dodd Frank very clearly. Start there and educate yourself before posting more off-topic nonsense.

 

You gotta admit, when the big banks are too big to fail, we got us a problem. That they can't fail due to size and holdings is the smallest of the problems. Competition is gone, market economics is gone, and America could easily be gone.

 

well, i see the fawning over warren has begun.. Val jarret dealt a blow to hilary, & now the propaganda for the 'heir apparent' hope & change 2.0 has begun! She will deliver us! She will destroy the evil capitalists with flames from her eyes! She is a goddess, & is even more brilliant than obama!

I mean, i expect this in liberal facebook pages, but i thought this forum was a little more discerning..

 

I am going to break from my conservative friends here.

I would vote Warren, as opposed to Jeb. I am more anti-banker than pro-republican dynasty.

However IF Warren warranted my vote, she will be destroyed by the Clinton dynasty... not Bush. I think that the machine will destroy her long before the "conservative" party will. You will call her names over her faux Indian heritage... but I know a lot of people who claim more Indian than they are. This includes my family as a result of some guilt I expect. However I watch a lot of film. I watch a lot of politics. I read a lot of statements.

I was involved in the broadcast aspects of OWS, though I was not a supporter of the sad liberal (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)baggery.

My conservative friends will recoil at my post, but unless I miss my guess... Warren will not be on the ballot. However despite her being a "liberal" she is somewhat obsessed with the fundamental issues which are devastating this country. Her effectiveness is hers alone to dictate... but until the banks are reigned in... no bank supported "conservative" will be conservative.

Hillary will kill her. Mark my words.