I’m running!
Today, I am launching my campaign to represent the people of Massachusetts in the United States Senate. After listening to people all across our state who know that we can do better, folks who are frustrated like I am that Washington just doesn’t get it, I’m running for the Senate so I can fight every day for Massachusetts families.
I hope you’ll take a minute to watch this short video:
www.elizabethwarren.com/announcement
Washington gives some of the biggest corporations in the world special loopholes and tax breaks, while middle-class families and small businesses struggle.
That is wrong. Our hard-working families deserve someone who believes in them, someone who is going to stand up and fight for their interests.
That’s why I’m running for the United States Senate.
I’ve fought all my life for working families, and I’ve stood up to some pretty powerful interests. Now those interests are sure to line up against our campaign — and that’s why I’m asking you to help me build the grassroots support we need to beat them.
Please click here to watch my announcement video — and while you’re there, be sure to sign up to join our campaign.
Then I hope you’ll share my announcement video on Facebook or Twitter.
We have a chance to help rebuild America’s middle class. We have a chance to put Washington on the side of families.
We can do this — together.
this from the Broadway T stop this morning.
I love that she went to Southie, a part of Boston featured in Brownie’s ads last go-round.
Yeah yeah, social media, Internet polls, blah blah blah.
Click on the “YouTube” logo at the bottom right of the video. It will bring up the video in a new screen. Then, click on the thumbs up to like it. Or, not. Whatever.
with WBUR is available at this link.
Elizabeth Warren appeared on my TV screen one evening a few years back. Right at the point where I start cursing at the poor TV. She was talking about the economy, the economy. It was an unusual exhilaration of hope, that somebody was finally saying what needed to be said with a clear, concise explanation. She was raising the alarm to do something about the decimation of the middle-class. She then set to work in Washington, actually having the nerve to confront Tim Geithner on the poor decisions in the TARP program. Why did uninsured banking investments deserve or need 100% bail out, when the same was not available to investments that would keep or create real middle-class jobs!
Elizabeth Warren continued speaking truth to power, social justice and economic sanity wherever she went, on health care, jobs and taxes.
When we were constantly being told that any real progress was impossible in todays political climate, Elizabeth made it happen with the Consumer Protection Agency.
She has been one of the most effective Democrats in Washington. We need to send Elizabeth Warren back to Washington!
No disagreement on Warren’s record on consumer protection. But many believe the consumer protection bureau has weakened the business models of the very financial institutions that employ middle class workers. For example, Bank of America is laying of 30,000 in their retail division.
Who believes this?
Many believe BOA’s problems are related to bad mortgages, purchase of Merrill Lynch and even more disastrous decision to but Countrywide or excessive executive payouts.
The reality is that small business was a beneficiary of the consumer protection regulations that Elizabeth Warren promoted. We are all aware that small business is the largest job creator.
The following is one source that supports the concept that Dodd-Frank is to blame for the BofA layoffs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904353504576566853929772700.html?KEYWORDS=dodd-frank+layoffs
Logically speaking, if the Government reduces the profit from a business unit it’s only rational that the business unit would shrink. Afterall, BofA didn’t announce layoffs to their wealth management division or some other division not directly related to the average consumer.
I imagine if the Consumer Protection Agency was meant to protect businesses (large or small) it would be called the Business Protection Agency. Can you give a source of how it protects small businesses?
I think you can do better than that, what about a study for Freedom Works?
BOA’s CEO really had the temerity to make that absurd assertion.
Here’s a differing opinion of an independent expert from Institutional Risk Analytics:
and another:
Some of Bank of America’s legal issues include:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/bank-america-job-cuts_n_959314.html
Bank of America is a classic illustration for more regulation, not less.
PS Small business has been hit hard by many of the unfair lending and credit card practices. A bank that makes profit by cannibalizing small business and the rest of the community is stifling the economy.
if you see an argument on the WSJ editorial page, you can pretty much assume it’s a stupid argument. 😉
It’s the brain trust for Fox, which pretty much says it all.
The failure of Bank of America has absolutely nothing to do with with consumer protection or any other government regulation. It has everything to do with their making bad business decisions. Using that as an example totally ruins the point you are trying to make.
sharing how great it will be to have her in the Senate.
If you succeed, I hope that you manage to get onto the Judiciary Committee and can somehow get 11 USC 1322(b)(2) fixed, which would likely help the economy more than any stimulus package.
Good luck with that, though.
Ok, I’ve read 11 USC 1322(b)(2) several times…
This is a section in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy law… the specific section say that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan may modify: the rights of holders of “secured claims” unless the claim is secured by the holder’s primary residence; the rights of holders of unsecured claims, or may leave the rights of a class of holders unaffected.
It is unclear to this layperson just how that section is broken, what the “fix” would be, and how it would help the economy–especially how it would help more than any stimulus package. That’s a pretty big claim. Care to lay it out?
The candidate is a scholar of the bankruptcy system, which is why I hope that if she is successful she is placed on that committee.
So, here goes: When anyone, or any thing borrows money, the lending is (simplified) done on either an unsecured or a secured basis. Secured lending means that there is collateral that the creditor can take and sell if you don’t pay the debt.
When a business borrows money on a secured basis, and the collateral declines in value, or was never worth the value of the debt in the first place, then the borrower can, in a bankruptcy, “strip” the underwater portion of the loan. In essence, it restructures the loan so that it pays as if it borrowed the actual value of the collateral, but still keeps and uses the collateral. The underwater portion of the debt becomes unsecured, and gets a nominal payment.
This is the essence of business reorganizations in bankruptcy: debtor pays in accordance with the actual value of the collateral, not necessarily what the debtor borrowed. It doesn’t require creditor agreement, consent, or cooperation.
Indeed, every kind of secured loan, save one, can be restructured in this way. What is the one? Secured loans that are secured by the borrowers primary residence. That be the statute I pointed out.
For three years now, we have been suffering from declining housing prices. Vast numbers of people are frozen in place because their home is underwater, and they can’t sell them for enough to pay the mortgage.
For three years, we have seen cockamamie proposals for “loan modification” programs. They have been a dismal failure. For one, they require the lender to consent. Because the loans were securitized, in a lot of circumstances there isn’t anyone (or thing) that has the authority to consent to the modification, and even if there is, why should they? They have to make the programs hard to get into, so that people who can pay their existing mortgage don’t try for a free lunch.
All that need be done is to remove that “unless” from the statute. There is a barrier to people who can really pay: bankruptcy is far to painful and unpleasant for people to submit to it on a lark. Creditor consent is a non-issue. So, if changed, people who are drowning in an underwater mortgage have a means of getting the lender what the lender would get in a foreclosure anyway, without losing their house.
Clearing away bad mortgage debt in this way doesn’t cost the lender anything, because they can’t get blood from a stone (they lose the debt that exceeds the value of the collateral, which they would lose anyway). They get the foreclosure value of the house. Meanwhile, cutting the mortgage payment keeps people in their house with enough money to feed themselves, spend on other things, and gives them the ability to sell if they need to, which means that there will be liquidity in the housing market.
And frankly, all of the stupid stimulus packages, tax cuts, or jobs bills are useless until the housing sector reaches its bottom and starts to grow again. What the politicians have done for the last 3 years is to take measures to p r o l o n g the instability in the housing market– and have therefore extended the duration of the poor economy.
You should run for something, too.
Just what this race needed, in my opinion.
I will continue to support Tom Conroy, the most progressive candidate in the race.
As a State Representative, he is the only candidate in this race who has legislative experience.
He is also the only candidate who has shown that he can defeat an entrenched Republican.
He is a strong speaker and debater.
He has reached out to voters by walking town to town for over 600 miles.
In addition, he has a far broader range of experience and qualifications (foreign policy, economic expertise, constituent service) than any other candidate.
His will not be a negative campaign that criticizes other Democrats.
Brian McGrory just stated on WBUR that for many candidates of public office, their best day is the day before they announce that they are in the race. (this happened to Wesley Clark, whom I supported in 2004).
Michael Bate
I understand that you already have a favorite candidate, but I believe there’s only one candidate in the race who already has experience dealing with the smears that the national Republican Party will throw at them. It’s going to be a significantly different scale than facing a state rep in Wayland.
In addition, Elizabeth Warren has the most experience dealing with the issue that is at the root of so many other problems in this country: the influence of big money. Fix that and a lot of the rest of the progressive agenda will have a much better chance.
In any case, let’s hope that it’s a good, positive primary and the winner is well positioned to take on Scott Brown.
I’m still waiting to see what she feels on the 95% of Senate issues that don’t affect consumer protection.
I’m vitally interested in education issues. Not a one-issue voter…but other issues tend to come in second…or worse. I am also a STRONG union supporter; worker voices are right up there in importance with middle class protection.
I am very interested and await more information.
After a closer look at the video. Nice unexpected and punchy start. Good message. Juicy sound bites. But the confusing window pattern in the background could have been better managed, in MHO.
But this is a small matter: nothing to even approach Charlie Baker’s disastrous “hands” commercial: a marker for that botched campaign to this day.
Looking forward to the debates already…
We will have a primary and that will decide this, but consider this detail. Elizabeth Warren got the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau through Congress. Scott Brown filibustered his own bill. (note: yes Scott Brown voted for Dodd-Frank, but only after he saved the big banks billions for their small investment of half a million).