I have no idea why there is push-back against Liz Warren throwing her hat in the ring for president. Oh wait. I do. The Hillary people don’t like it. Well ya know what? Too effin’ bad.
Liz Warren has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. She doesn’t give up her Senate seat and gets to take her one woman act on the road where she’ll sing a solo to her opponents tired old chorus at debate after debate after debate. Her message will stand out and get positive feedback causing the other jamokes to move in her direction.
The 2016 Presidential Election is most timely for Lis Warren and her game-leveling agenda.
Watch as the country slowly tunes in. A short video montage showing her grilling powerful big shots using questions and facts material to the issues will stick in people’s heads. Not the usual self-flattering demagoguery we are accustomed to. You know, like Ed Markey.
Anyway, what are the reasons again for her not to to run? Whatr’s that? She’ll lose and then she will have to suffer the consequences?
Wrong Harold Stasson breath.
She will be a force to reckon with. If Hillary wins the primary and then gets elected she will have to deal with Liz, not the other way around. There will be a Liz faction out there, whether they voted for her or not, who will influence Hillary’s policies and appointments.
Except for the Mary Queen of Scotts people, I mean the Hillary people, few see her as the rightful heir to the presidency. And really, let’s be candid here. This isn’t about Liz; it’s about, shhhh, anyone listening? It’s about upsetting Hillary. Shhhh. If they hear us talking like this it will be worse than what Boston College did to those poor souls in Belfast who foolishly trusted them.
Screw Hillary. If she is the impediment to Liz running then two things are called for. 1. Laugh hysterically; and 2. Tell the Hillary people to Scaaaaa Roooooo!
Wouldn’t that be a mirror of the just-completed governor’s race?
Picture this: Romney 2.0 runs on the GOP side. Instead of talking about the “47%”, he speaks about “improving the efficiency of government”, “running it like a business”. He embraces a few Democratic positions – maybe Green Energy, gay marriage, maybe even mass transit.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren runs as a progressive, gets the support of all the progressives, but loses in the primary to Hillary Clinton.
Clinton then runs a largely uninspiring campaign, doesn’t touch on any of the issues that Warren does.
Romney 2.0 wins, just like Baker 2.0.
Only Martha Coakley and Scott Brown could pull off epic parallel pathetic double losses to different opponents in different elections.
AND,
Clinton running an “uninspiring campaign” against Romney would simply be redundant.
The man has made the mistake of becoming a caricature, which is what happens when one sells ones soul. He believes in nothing and in doing do, has amassed a fortune in material wealth. Let him run in 2016. As for Hillary, she still have an opportunity to stand for something apart from wanting to win the office for herself but I agree with eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii in that she will have to be pushed to that precipice by a candidate who is willing to do so, someone like Senator Warren.
As best I can tell, Warren has never said a word about Edward Snowden. Our nation’s most important whistleblower is living in Russian exile, and Warren has nothing to say about the situation.
I’m with HRC either way, but I’m pretty sure the point of any Warren candidacy is to restore liberal populism to the Democratic Party. If she were to run (though she has said repeatedly that she won’t) she might be expected to comment, but this has never been her focus and I’m not surprised she hasn’t commented. I hope any comment she or anyone else makes is that he should come home and face charges like a man and that the government had better not cut any corners on due process.
Which is why her silence on Snowden is so puzzling and disappointing.
Even if her focus is only on corporate transparency — if we can’t protect Snowden, one of the most consequential whistleblowers in our history, then why should anyone feel safe in blowing the whistle on corporate malfeasance?
“. . . come home and face charges like a man.” That’s a good one.
Your suggestion that “[Edward Snowden] should come home and face charges like a man” is laughably disconnected from the reality of today’s world, today’s federal government, and common sense.
I can’t think of anyone alive today who is better able to comment on this specific question than Daniel Ellsberg.
I hope that both you and Elizabeth Warren will familiarize yourselves with reality (and few know more about that reality than Mr. Ellberg) before making foolish jingoistic comments like this.
He faced charges which were eventually dismissed. You sound like you are ready to give up on American rule of law. I am not ready to believe that out justice system is a lost cause. Has somebody made a statement to the effect that Snowden would be treated as an enemy combatant rather than given his day in court? I suspect it would be politically risky to say the least to not give him due process, not to mention judges and lawyers who I fully expect to do their jobs.
I think it would be a splendid idea.
Charges will only be dropped if there’s enough political pressure for that to happen. And it’s hard to see that materializing if the left wing of the Democratic Party sits on its hands.
If Snowden did get his day of court, the jury would not be allowed to consider the public benefits that come from his actions. Nor would they be allowed to consider that Snowden’s actions exposed perjured Congressional testimony by James Clapper (or the fact that no criminal charges have been brought against Mr. Clapper).
What I am expecting is a constitutionally valid and fair trial, and I think this case is ripe for jury nullification. If the only question really is did he or did he not leak classified information I think it is clear the answer is yes, but this case has had enough publicity that I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the jury said too bad. He would also in this scenario be sentenced appropriately if found guilty rather than being disappeared in a manner worthy of Pinochet. It was the cynical conspiracy theory that seemed to suggest the latter that I was viscerally reacting to.
Of course it’s possible that Snowden could face a military tribunal. And with US citizens getting “droned,” and Snowden being called a terrorist by some in the intelligence community, I don’t think it would be paranoid to say that Snowden should watch his back while traveling abroad.
Regarding jury nullification — federal courts do not consider it a legitimate part of due process and will do everything they can to prevent it. The courts could easily prevent nullification, by finding a jury that’s never hear of Edward Snowden and preventing the jurors from ever learning the about why Snowden would commit such acts of “espionage.”
Public pressure is the only way to protect whistleblowers. And that’s not going to happen with people like Rand Paul saying that Snowden should get prison time and Elizabeth Warren saying nothing at all.
That would be a tall order methinks. If a jury finds him not guilty there is really nothing a judge can do about it. Also, he’s a civilian citizen so I’m pretty sure there can’t be a tribunal.
And there’s plenty of soft supporters who would defer to the judge’s instructions on the matter. You’re right, a jury that’s never heard of him would be unlikely (though very doable, I think) but a jury of people with little knowledge of the matter would be simple.
He addresses this question multiple times.
I have provided a citation to Mr. Ellsberg responses to these questions. I’m not willing to digest them for you (and invite more exchanges about whether I’ve done so accurately).
Our exchanges might perhaps be more constructive if you included experiences and analyses from whistleblowers like Mr. Ellsberg in your opinion about what should or should not happen.
In my view, you too easily jump to your foregone dismissal of Mr. Snowden.
…how much I hate being accused of not reading material, especially when you hand it to me via a link, just because I come to a different conclusion. The link you provided has a part where he specifically says the US is not a police state, and while his message basically comes down to eternal vigilance is the price of liberty it seems he of all people can understand how the system ultimately can work the way it is supposed to. Besides, you did see I hope on my first comment on this subthread that my statement had two parts – that Snowden should come home and face charges AND that the government had better not cut corners on due process. Not quite sure what you mean by a foregone dismissal of Snowden. I’m not dismissing him nor am I expecting the charges to be.
Ellsberg responded to exactly that talking point (as advanced by SOS John Kerry). In part, Snowden
(Worth reading the whole thing for context.)
What Ellsberg says is not holy writ, of course, and you are entitled to your own opinion. But you started by holding Ellsberg up as a paragon because he did not flee the country after leaking the Pentagon papers. It’s instructive to hear what he says about Snowden in that respect.
You don’t just disagree with Tom’s conclusion, you disagree with Ellsberg’s too.
…he can and should be a little more optimistic about Snowden’s chances. Besides, if Secretary Kerry is the one advancing the “talking point” isn’t he also in one of the better positions to make sure that such in fact comes to pass? I still don’t see why either Ellsburg or Wizner assume the worst. The article, which I’ll note is not itself exactly neutral, mentions that SCOTUS has never ruled on the Espionage Act, but they will never get their chance without a test case such as this.
You presume to assert what Mr. Ellsberg “should” feel, based on YOUR assessment of his experiences? That strikes me as arrogant to say the least.
Mr. Ellberg has been engaged in these issues for a lifetime. I am willing to accept that Mr. Ellsberg knows more than you about what is likely to happen to Mr. Snowden — even if you’re not.
Your naive optimism about this ignores the behavior of this federal government and this administration. It ignores the treatment of Private Manning. It ignores the wholesale kidnapping and detention of whomever this government decided was an “enemy”. It ignores the treatment of Julian Asange and Wikileaks.
This is a government and an administration that has demonstrated its eagerness to shred constitutional protections when it comes to matters like this — and you cite your “optimism” (based on ZERO experience) to dismiss the very different opinions of Mr. Ellsberg.
What civilian citizen has been thrown in a hole without trial? I just looked up more about Manning and while there are disturbing elements it wasn’t nearly as bad as some have made it out to be (“wholesale kidnapping and detention – really – where’s the evidence?). There was process and Manning was actually acquitted of a few counts. Assange has been investigated, but never been prosecuted either. Maybe we can dial back the hyperbole just a bit. You make it sound as though even investigations and prosecutions are out of line, but we need to process to play out to truly understand the legal position. If the system failed Ellsburg then I would completely understand his concern, but that is not the case and I stand by my comments, “arrogance” notwithstanding.
First, a few links.
While Mr. Obama retired the term “enemy combatant”, he most certainly did NOT retire the policy (emphasis mine):
Regarding civilians being “thrown in a hole without trial”, here is just one current example (emphasis mine):
With all due respect, the evidence of the shredding of our constitutional protections — including by the Obama administration — is all around us. Do you require live video to believe that it is taking place?
Julian Assange was hounded into hiding by an administration intent on punishing him for revealing the truth. Of COURSE he hasn’t been prosecuted — he wisely fled before the trumped-up nonsense landed him in jail in solitary like Private Manning. He has been pursued by foreign governments who our government retained to do our government’s dirty work for it — just like we hired foreign governments to do our torturing for us.
The system did NOT fail Mr. Ellsberg. The system that properly exonerated Mr. Ellsberg failed the right-wing zealots who did all in their power to dismantle the system that exonerated Mr. Ellsberg and replace it with the hollow shell that has been pursuing witch-hunts since 9/11.
Mr. Ellsberg recognizes this. You, apparently, do not.
…which is why I think he could afford to be a bit more optimistic, but keep in mind in my first comment on this subthread I said that Snowden should come home AND get full due process. i’m pretty sure Assange is not an American and I’m fine with his own government trying him, but again if we do try him who is to say that we won’t do it correctly? The Supreme Court will never have a chance to rule on the constitutionality of these things if they never get a test case, which will never happen if defendents run from our justice system.
Sophie’s situation in Texas, while horrible and completely unjustifiable is also I think a completely different issue, namely corporatizing government functions and revictimization. Sophie is not accused of crimes against the state. What about a person against whom the “broad right” you mention has been used, which mentions “around the globe” as opposed to domestically. For now it appears that my search for a civilian citizen being denied due process on account of national security matters continues:(
3 NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower: We told you so
…who are speculating as to what might happen, but aside from being made to feel like Cassandra warning Troy that the Greeks were about to attack from within and nobody believing her I don’t see here what I’m looking for. I did not see in the article where they had been tortured, kidnapped, etc. and it looks to me like they are living as free men.
Counting Ellsberg, that’s four people who are well-versed and intimately involved in what happens to whistle-blowers in the Age of Obama. They’re saying one thing, and you’re saying they’re wrong, based on …. what? Your preference for believing the system is fair and will deliver due process? It is not fair. Four experts are telling you it will not deliver due process. You’re obviously going to go on believing what you want to believe, because it makes you feel comfortable, or something. This makes you an enabler, and part of the problem.
…but I’m still looking for actual victims/precedent. The closest anybody has come is Private Manning, but that’s a military scenario. What about threats from government officials to treat Snowden the way some people assume he will be? The only comment I have seen was the one by Secretary Kerry referred to on this thread and he’s saying it won’t happen. If I have to go on assumptions or guesses then I always assume the best – that’s just my way. It’s a basic Golden Rule thing; I want people to assume the best about me. The burden is on those who think something bad will happen. So I ask again, what other civilian citizen has blown the whistle on constitutional violations in a way that one could argue breach national security and has been denied due process?
These guys are whistle-blowers, who did what Obama promised he would protect.* Instead, they were arrested and charged with major crimes, threatened with decades in prison, their professional careers ended, their entire lives disrupted. Why should Snowden allow Obama’s DOJ to treat him like that? Do you believe he committed a crime? What crime? Is it more of a crime than the NSA’s wholesale spying on all Americans? Obama hasn’t prosecuted, disciplined, or even rebuked any of the people responsible for that. Why not?
John Kerry does not run the DOJ. Nothing he says has any force WRT what would happen to Snowden if he came home.
*
Ironically, Obama’s plan to let whistle-blowers “have full access to courts and due process” seems to take the form of charging them with anything the DOJ can dream up.
I said he should come home and face the charges. It’s not going to be pleasant, but the case needs to be allowed to play itself out with due process, appeals, etc. Only then can this ultimately be resolved. Your quoting of the President here only seems to bolster MY argument.
This thread really has gone off the rails. It’s an important case, but honestly, not a big priority for the progressive movement at this present time as it seeks to regroup from a devastating midterm loss. Moving our party away from Wall Street is the number 1 priority. And I would argue all other issues would benefit from that first step, including this one.
Warren has failed to call out Snowden because he has documents that reveal her secret past.
…as an example of how there is not enough difference between EW and HRC. I pushed back and offered my two cents and it went downhill from there – mea culpa.
your sunny optimism.
…that case has never struck me as congruous. Does it not matter that Snowden is a civilian rather than military? Snowden broke the law; therefore he should be arrested, charged, and tried by jury in open court. There is no other option. There’s also a whole appeals process. Is there another case of a civilian citizen without trial in a manner worthy of a police state? If not, why assume that would happen here, and if so why have there not been news stories and demonstrations every day demanding “FREE__________”? Forget the Supreme Court – any middle schooler who has read the Constitution and watched a police drama can tell you such is blatantly unconstitutional.
… of things that Elizabeth Warren has ‘never said a word about’. She has been fairly successful –within the broad confines of her expertise, banking and finance– and has been assiduous in maintaining that success without stepping outside of those boundaries. This suggest a temperament fundamentally cautious in nature. Which is fine for her — I prefer that sort of temperament in a Senator, myself — but which leaves an opening for the electorate to raise their hopes. Progressives are nothing if not olympic caliber wishful thinkers… But, at some point, that sheen is going to have to come off.
I actually think that, across the board, Hillary is fundamentally more progressive than Elizabeth Warren. What’ s more both the Senator and the former SecOfState know this and if Elizabeth Warren, or anybody else, thinks the Senator is going to drag the SecOfState to the left, they are mistaken. All it will take is for Hillary Clinton to highlight the less progressive components of the Senator and to take that sheen away in a rather dramatic fashion. Personally, I would hate to see that happen. A President Hillary Clinton and a Senator Warren, working together could accomplish so much more than they could apart.
As progressive as Hillary Clinton is, however, I’d (personally) rather see her entirely freed from the constraints under which she does labor… and for that reason I’d prefer to see her on the Supreme Court. In my dreams Antonin Scalia drops dead and Barack Obama appoints Hillary Clinton in his place: Obama Wan Kenobi returns to full strength and takes her to the Senate with a Republican majority and gets her confirmed. As a reward the electorate gives Joe Biden Obamas third term and in 2020, rested and ready, Deval Patrick gets elected… (Like I says, we progressives are nothing if not olympic caliber wishful thinkers… )
…that Clinton is more progressive than Warren. I would love to see examples and elaboration of that.
… And I would love to see analysis in the other direction. There really hasn’t been all that much. That you are surprised at the notion and that I’m the first to voice it is, perhaps, indication of a dearth of political analysis in this respect…
Anyways, I did say “I think” and not “I know” so what follows is all my speculation.
The crux of Elizabeth Warrens appeal is, to put it bluntly, “fair is fair”: to the extent that you commit a crime (bankers), you go to jail; to the degree you make use of public goods and services you pay your taxes. It’s really a moderate conservatism resting on notions of law and order and the populism of “give and get”. Don’t mistake me, it’s not wrong in the slightest. It just isn’t particularly progressive either. That some like to see this as progressivism isn’t very heartening actually. Her public persona has shaded into an anti-Republican stance (which I quite enjoy) but which isn’t particularly progressive either: the Republicans have rigged the game and she would like to unrig it back to a straight up game… I think that she’s, improbably enough, at heart a true free market capitalist sorta disgusted that the purity of the game has been disrupted by cheaters. I’m unsure how far she would go in attempting to regulate such a market… Yea, she would go farther than Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, which is a plus, but does she see the markets as inherently untrustworthy (a progressive ideal) or a pure thing occasionally corrupted by bad actors? I dunno. I don’t particularly think that her stance is bad or wrong… certainly in the broad confines of the middle class where there is, and perhaps ought to be, a certain “give and get” it’s fine. But what about the poor? What about poverty and hunger and issues that simply can’t be paid for under a ‘fair is fair’ outlook? What to do about that? I’m not saying, definitively, that EW is this way, only that she hasn’t show it.
Going all the way back to the ’90’s when she declared strongly that “womens rights are human rights” Clinton does have scars from many battles the underlying premise is which is “if you don’t like unfair, too damn bad for you,” most particularly in the area of health care and poverty. The progressive argument for health care is that the healthy pick up the tab for the unhealthy and if “unfairly” gives away money, so be it. Healthy people are more important that corporate profits or even a balanced budget. Same with the social safety net and anti-poverty programs: there is really no immediate return on investment with these programs (that’s the the most basic conservative complaint about them) other than the basic needs of humans being met. In the Senate she worked with Ted Kennedy to insure children and didn’t even bother to gloss it over with any sort of offsets. I know EW has voiced support for single payer but HRC has many more years, and lots of actual battles behind her on this sort of thing. I think HRC’s progressivism is truer and, certainly, more tempered by combat that relies not on a ‘give and get’ but first give then don’t worry so much about get because doing what’s right is important… which is distinctly more progressive… And which is why I’d like to see her on the Supreme Court rather than the Oval Office…
That’s my feeling anyways.
I think she’s willing to go further than you think, but I guess that’s speculation on my part to some extent too. Of course, EW was once a Republican and has even said that she started researching the plight of the middle class decades ago under the assumption that those falling behind were somehow irresponsible. The common knock against HRC is that she is too close to Wall Street (understandable for a NY Senator IMO) and that she is married to the face of DLC centrism. Some thinks she’s too hawkish and will never forgive her for voting to authorize Bush 43 to invade Iraq. I’m with Clinton myself and have speculated that she would fight harder for and ultimately get more progressive results than Obama, but I don’t have a whole lot of patience for more-progressive-than-thou spitting contests.
… that a HRC tactic of ‘set-em-up-to-knock-em-down’ is feasible, I don’t think this is, per se, just a spitting contest. If I’m right then it might be part of the landscape in 2016… which I think would be unfortunate for both EW and HRC.. and for us.
I guess a good analogue is that Warren is more of an incrementalist, even if she is to the left of Clinton on many economic issues, while Clinton favors a more broadly activist government on all fronts, some for the better and some for the worst.
Warren is really trying to use government to restrain the power that Big Business has over all our lives and restore government to the people. A move that is both progressive, but also conservative in the Teddy Roosevelt sense by incrementally taming and reining in the market to make it more fair and also more reliable. ‘Banking should be boring’ is certainly a conservative call for a more restrained and austere monetary policy, even if Warren would favor more stimulus directed to consumers.
She would restore and revive the 1950s consumer driven managerial state model, whereas Clinton would more actively seek to accelerate the modern neoliberal model while ensuring it redistributes more broadly. Maybe if HRC starts talking about full employment, single payer, and basic income I might buy this argument. One could achieve all three without altering the present economy substantially. The goal here would be to make government itself bigger than big business and cover those big business leaves behind without restraining big business since it drive the macroeconomy.
It’s clear FDR did both-made government bigger and helped tame business and make it governable. It’s a legacy inherited by both parties through the Ford administration, and then we got neoliberalism, started by Carter but fully implemented by Reagan.
I have yet to see HRC make that call for a bigger government yet, so I am skeptical of this analysis, but sorta get where it is coming from.
Warren’s the one who has a public position on reigning in the big banks, is against the TPP and Keystone XL, is to the left of Obama on arming Syrian “rebels”, doesn’t fabricate bizarre stories, e.g., the Bosnian sniper attacks, and has actually accomplished things, like the CFPB.
That might give him immunity.
Outside of activist circles, the average American doesn’t care about Snowden or curtailing the security state. The media certainly won’t press any politicians to talk about it. Sadly, our best hope on those issues is a vigorous Paul candidacy in the Republican primary to force the conversation in both primaries-and seeing how he’s been cozying up to Murdoch and Kristol-not sure if that’s even a given anymore . Sanders and Warren rarely discuss national security, civil liberty or foreign policy issues. They voted against the Syria strike, and Warren stands with Obama on ISIL-but you never hear them talk about it with any frequency or ease. The constituency animated by Snowden is much much smaller than the anti-war constituency that Obama took advantage of in the 2008 primary.
I agree with you. But the one respect is important.
I think the nerve that Warren strikes is deeper and more fundamental than simply, She is on our side versus Wall Street. It goes to accountability, and not just for financial misdeeds and bad policy.
Americans are not anti-Wall Street per se, but they are appalled that after a screw up heads do not roll and things are not changed. That the only lessons learned seems to be about how to secure the ability to keep doing the same destructive things. How to be untouchable.
There does not seem to be any error or mendacity in any sphere that must face consequences when things go bad, whether it is the world economy, military invasion and occupation, or unconstitutional acts by the government. Instead, nothing succeeds like failure.
Warren is the only figure in public life who is outspoken about any of that. Yes, she largely confines her criticism to the financial sector. But I am convinced that a large part of her appeal comes form people who say, Finally, someone is speaking the truth and calling for accountability.
I do not think that Warren should run for president, but I believe that accountability is the right issue and the right frame for Democrats, if they can handle it.
and the Tea Party has successfully convinced many that government is at the root of much of the unfair circumstances. Not that I agree but I do understand. The whole “Warren is not Native American” was used to touch a nerve in the mind of the white guy who was passed up on a job because his skin color did not meet the diversity quota and the other guy got the job – all because of government. The welfare queen and 47% are much the same, intent on touching that nerve of the working guy who is told that everyone else is getting free stuff because of the government.
That’s why labor is voting Republican.
Seems to be a good idea for Democrats to take a lesson from Republicans and illustrate (as Senator Warren does so well) how a certain few are getting free stuff from the government and cheating the system.
The problem is how to present this in a way that is not anti-government.
I think Warren is on the right path, I would rephrase the problem though.
“How does the government convince the population that it is not rigging the system so as to favor certain interests?”
Democrat and Republican administrations alike seem to show Wall Street bias with all the hires from there, and the results, Glass Steagaall repeal, less regulation, bailout AIG so they can repay the banks, etc. are evident.
Congress doesn’t help as it is loaded with strong WS backers.
When government takes the little guys side on finance issues it can be quiet good. I think credit card reform was awesome. I think it could go further (how can my bill be due on a Sunday?). I also think Americans have proven conclusively that when it comes to finances they need the nanny state.
That term is part of the “conservative” lexicon and perpetrates the myth of the self made man and the superiority of the free market. I put conservative in quotes, because these people are more accurately described as orthodox capitalists.
We need a brotherhood, a sisterhood state were we all look out for one another.
Is a term that was thrown around a lot by Thaler and Sunstein at my alma mater, and there are certainly limitations to it’s application, but it is generally a good way of approaching social policy. Instead of banning activities outright, find carrots and sticks to encourage and discourage use. Our current cigarette regulatory regime makes a lot more sense and works a lot better than the ham handed one the town of Westminster was considering. Similarly, I think abortion policy would be substantially improved by actively having the government reduce unwanted pregnancy while also adopting substantial family benefits policies that make it a less appealing choice for lower income women.
Certainly for finances though, a purely paternalistic policy needs to be in place. One that both slaps the wrist hard against predatory lenders and also lovingly limits what the individual can do, since many of them don’t know what they are doing in this regard.
the American people cannot be trusted with their own finances. When I read stories of people refinancing fixed rate mortgages with crazy variable rate ones with balloon payments, people who had mortgages that were 50% of their gross income, taking out equity loans to pay for fancy trips, the list goes on and on. It used to be the banks made it hard for the irresponsible to actually borrow money. When that constraint was removed, there became no limit on craziness. My credit cards still offer ridiculous minimum payments and every used car dealer can give anyone financing.
PS Besides bailing out Wall Street banks, there’s also the borrower side to this. While some story portray honest people caught in a bind losing their home to a predatory lender, there is also plenty of stories about idiots, fraudsters, and out and out crooks. The system needs to guard against these people as well.
… you do realize that a goodly portion of the loans were modified, not by banks, but by “mortgage brokers” who often used white out. So the unsophisticated guy who wanted a loan on a house that would have been a more manageable 10% of his income, found himself on the hook for a loan modified to that aforementioned 50% because the mortgage broker used white out to modify the loans terms over the guys signatures and then sold the loan up the food chain for more money. Yeah. That really happened. It happened much more than unsophisticated guy deliberately asking for a loan that was 50% of his income. That was done by a mortgage broker who decided that the unsophisticated borrower couldn’t be trusted to know what his own loan terms were, so he didn’t tell him. Of course, the company that came calling for the bigger loan was three or for purchases and a CDO or two away from the original mortgage broker who’d long since up and vanished like a fart in the wind.
I realize that you just want to contradict everything I say. There is is absolutely no evidence supporting that your “white-out” scenario was pervasive. People signed the documents without understanding them. Underwriters approved them knowing the borrowers couldn’t pay. No forgery was necessary.
Mortgage brokers move mortgages for lender (banks). Hair splitting for most people.
I realize that you want to create your own little fantasy world where honest, decent people are victimized by big bad businesses but that’s not how things work. I could paste any number of links if you want
here’s the Wikipedia quote:
I don’t want to contradict everything you say. Only when you are wrong. So far, that’s been about everything you say, but I have hope that, when all is said and done, you’ll have said something with which I don’t take issue.
As for forgery, it may not have been necessary, but it was done. A lot. Pervasively so. Very few legitimate lenders ever gave out a loan that represented 50% of the borrowers income.
But as you said earlier, you don’t care what people think about you so I suppose you don’t care whether you’re right or not either.
…caring about whether someone likes me or not is exactly the same as caring whether or not I’ve got my facts straight. I guess I would just vanish into a contradiction of nullity if somebody were to dislike me only and precisely because I was right…
One of the things that has happened since the Great Recession is that banks and credit card companies have learned how to make handsome profits by opening accounts with and lending money to high-risk people who are highly likely to get into trouble.
Since bankruptcy is now much harder to accomplish, these companies have learned how to use exorbitant fees to scrape even more money from those least able to afford it. A typical retail bank package today costs $10-20/month for those who cannot keep the required minimum balance in the account to avoid service charges. The same bank works very hard to impose the “convenience” of overdraft protection, so that they immediately take money (at $35-40 a whack) for the overdrafts that they KNOW are going to happen in this demographic. The credit card companies do the same with late payment fees and escalating interest rates.
The result is the largest portion of the handsome new profits being reported by banks like BankAmerica is coming from the very poor.
I make no claim that this demographic is more pure than any other. It is, however, far more desperate, has far fewer choices (have you looked at the interest rates of “payday loans”?), and is far less able to fight back against predatory practices by Wall Street favorites.
As someone who worked as a paralegal and client liaison at a bankruptcy firm for three years, all of this reality is true, it’s ugly-and encountering it really is what attracted me to Warren in the first place. She’s the only politician my old boss still respects.
…that if “tea partiers” were genuine in some their concerns, they would be with us.