EXCLUSIVE: Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama: “They protected Wall Street......."
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by greatauntoftriplets (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Salon
That’s the question that lies at the heart of whether our democracy will survive. The system is rigged. And now that I’ve been in Washington and seen it up close and personal, I just see new ways in which that happens. But we have to stop and back up, and you have to kind of get the right diagnosis of the problem, to see how it is that—it goes well beyond campaign contributions. That’s a huge part of it. But it’s more than that. It’s the armies of lobbyists and lawyers who are always at the table, who are always there to make sure that in every decision that gets made, their clients’ tender fannies are well protected. And when that happens — not just once, not just twice, but thousands of times a week — the system just gradually tilts further and further. There is no one at the table…I shouldn’t say there’s no one. I don’t want to overstate. You don’t have to go into hyperbole. But there are very few people at the decision-making table to argue for minimum-wage workers. Very few people.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/exclusive_elizabeth_warren_on_barack_obama_they_protected_wall_street_not_families_who_were_losing_their_homes_not_people_who_lost_their_jobs_and_it_happened_over_and_over_and_over/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BumRushDaShow
(129,109 posts)More a column with an interview. 
pbmus
(12,422 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I understand your frustration, Tom and, actually, I talk about this in the book. When I think about the president, for me, it’s about both halves. If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period. I’m completely convinced of that. And I go through the details in the book, and I could tell them to you. But he was the one who refused to throw the agency under the bus and made sure that his team kept the agency alive and on the table. Now there was a lot of other stuff that also had to happen for it to happen. But if he hadn’t been there, we wouldn’t have gotten the agency. At the same time, he picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street.
And in case anyone had not noticed this morning, Obama is not running for President again. This post mortem on what was done in the face of the GOP who still say their first action with a Senate majority will be the immediate dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is a bit odd. But then we are getting used to well coordinated attacks in the media.
We have the power to make the change instead of flogging all that has ever happened. Thinly veiled hit pieces using Warren, who likewise did not fall for the MTP smear job on Obama when she was interviewed, would be moot if the GOP takes over. GOTV and make the government we want, that Sanders and Warren support, even going to the states to fund raise and encourage voters to elect Democrats to make the change. In the article she makes the case for voter involvement and not getting stuck on the negative, as she rehashes her talks with business leaders and then says:
You know, the other side has its advantage, and boy have they played it out for 30 years now - concentrated money and concentrated power. And you can do a lot with concentrated money and concentrated power. But our side - we have our voices and we have our votes. If people get engaged on the issues, the votes are on our side. Seventy-five percent of America wants to raise the minimum wage. That’s where we’ll head.
But he dismisses that:
There’s a lot of issues like that.
And Warren responds:
But that’s the point. Look, there are two ways you can look at that. You can look at that and say, “Well, obviously, democracy doesn’t work.” Or the other way you can look at that is to say, “We have the opportunity. The moment is upon us.” We push back hard enough, we’re pushing for America’s agenda. Not an agenda to help a small group of people, an agenda to build a future for this country. And I believe we win. I believe it.
*This language turns me off. It's irresponsible and unproductive. Tim Wise said this about it:
In short, if you’re still disappointed in Barack Obama, it’s only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place.
The producers of change in 2010 was the astroturf group the Tea Party. It was the most important year in this quarter of a century. In 2009, the Koch brothers threatened Obama with serious consequences if he did not sign onto the Keystone pipeline that Bush agreed to in 2007. They followed through with their threat, and every CR since then had it on the top of the GOP demands to keep the government running. We saw the fallout of the GOP victory in 2010 in 2011 with threats to shut down the government and default in 2011, resulting in the Sequester. He has still not signed onto it as of 2014 and given many speeches as to why it's very bad thing for the USA, even though in many states the voters want it and may get their way and he will have to let them have it. ALEC has done a wonderful job on this and other issues, that Obama cannot control without being a dictator.
Obama counted on the Bush tax cuts sunsetting in December 31st, 2010 and set his infrastructure and other policies around increased funding. It was demagogued and only partially sunsetted, then they fought every one of his stimulus policies, from the auto industry to his alternative energy and they have never stopped.
It was a Census year and their majority in the state houses and in the House gave them the legal right to gerrymander districting on an unprecedented level. They used that majority and those state houses to break public unions, sell off assets, privatize and give deals to the Kochs and their pals, restore Jim Crow, steal the rights of women and minorities and we're still living with the fallout.
And it was preceeded by the same kind of language used in this Salon piece by Tom. I'm tired of this.
Warren isn't running for POTUS, and Obama is not running, either. Just being published at Salon does not make an author worthy of my respect.
That's just my opinion, and all I have to say. It is unpopular this morning. EOM.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)It's an enormous struggle just to not lose ground.
There are unsung heroes that carry the struggle every day, Barack Obama among them.
The ship of state has vast momentum that maintains the status quo. There is inherent stability and continuity in many areas of policy, including foreign policy, banking, and business.
Short of forcing the government into a perpetual state of constitutional crisis, there are limits to what one person, even the president, can accomplish in changing the direction of the country.
I'm proud of what the president has accomplished so far. I think he has added significant momentum to the metaphorical pendulum that leads the country left or right.
Am I satisfied or pleased with each and every action of the administration? Of course not. Change is a process and I won't give up, ever.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Andy823
(11,495 posts)It always amazes me how when the whole statement comes out, not just bits and pieces picketed out to fit the idea she is bashing the president, it always looks much different. Selective editing works for some, but I am glad you posted the "rest of the story", even if many here will ignore it, and instead just listen to what fits their agenda.
Thank you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He has done some good things. But his appointments to a number of posts and in particular Geithner, Bernanke and his economic and financial and banking crew were an absolute disaster. They did not approach dealing with the banking crisis, the so-called mortgage crises (which was actually an ethical and above all a moral crisis in the banking, lending, financial sector) was shameful. Just disastrous for the middle class. Many, many Americans in their 40s, 50s and 60s lost their futures, lost their hope for retirement. Many, many young people now, educated people, are working for minimum wage and trying to repay student loans.
President Obama could have selected appointees in the financial and economic sectors who would have viewed the crisis with more balance, who would have considered what the effect of their decisions would be on America's middle class, and thus on the future of the country.
But, no. The banks were to be protected at all costs.
And in the end, I suspect we may learn ten to 15 years down the road that by shielding the banks and making ordinary borrowers fair game, we didn't protect either the banks or the borrowers.
Those appointments were a very big deal. Sadly, they were a very big, bad deal.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Good for her! Not sure what those who are campaigning for her and are Obamabots are going to say but it will be interesting to hear.
K&R 
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)But your reply!! Filled with creativity! Beautiful!!
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Because there's nothing original or worthwhile in a post that leads with a tired, worn out insult -- and make no mistake about it -- Obamabot is without question an insult, being as it is an automatic charge that the subject lacks credulity, intellectual integrity, and is incapable of thinking independently to arrive at conclusions which are their own.
For me however, the insult says more about the person making it.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I find it hilarious that you just said all that, considering your first reply to me.
I find anyone that follows someone blindly, lacking in intellectual integrity and incapable of thinking independently.
I don't think people who like Obama are Obamabots. I find those who cannot admit that President Obama has made mistakes an Obamabot. He's made some pretty bad ones that have nothing to do with Congress.
I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours. That's what so great about this country.
Enjoy your evening.
George II
(67,782 posts)
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....WHEN is she going to present solutions to the problems - solutions that can be implemented?
When I was in college and then in my working life, I was told that it's okay for me to find fault with something, but I'd better be prepared to do something to change it.
She's not a college professor any more, she's a UNITED STATES SENATOR. Time to stop complaining and start doing something about it.
marym625
(17,997 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)Read the whole article. As for the "Obamabot" carp, well just because some of us look at the whole picture, and understand what she was really saying after reading freshwest's post, does not mean we are some kind of mindless robots that don't get it. Sure things could have been better, but try paying attention to Elizabeth Warren when she points out how the gerrymandering in 2010 made it impossible to get things done, and having to "compromise" on some issues to get things that we needed, like extensions for those about to lose their unemployment, need to be done. Also the fact that congress has to act to change things and they really haven't done their job. All republicans want to do is stop any polices that would help fix this country.
If Warren were to run, and win, do you really think she could do any better if congress refused to work with her?
marym625
(17,997 posts)To answer you question first, yes.
To the rest, I read the entire article. I understand how things work. I understand what she said and what she meant. I am commenting on the "the whole picture."
What I find funny is people here on DU taking offense at the "'Obamabot' crap'" since I never said, nor implied, I was talking about anyone on DU. Certainly didn't mention any names.
I do appreciate you commentary. Truly.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)it is time to send some folks to prison. Obama did what he believe he had to do with the information he had and we didn't.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Just wait until the people who are now in their 50s and 60s, who lost their homes,, their businesses and/or their retirement savings and still can't get jobs in this computerized economy retire. Somebody will have to pay their way. They aren't putting large sums into their retirement savings. They aren't even putting a whole lot in for their Social Security benefits.
A lot of people will suffer. The way that the Obama administration shielded the big banks and let the middle class pay the price was really not very smart. The pain should have been shared. The hedge-fund class should have paid a bigger, much bigger price for the mistakes of the banks and Wall Street. They have gained. The middle class has lost. That did not have to happen.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)Plenty of people knew how to fix the corrupt bank problem, the same way FDR did in the 1930s, kick every banker out of government. Obama couldn't do that to the people who bought his election for him and that's not my opinion, that's the way history will view him as it's the way it is.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Belong in prison.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I understand your frustration, Tom and, actually, I talk about this in the book. When I think about the president, for me, it’s about both halves. If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period. I’m completely convinced of that. And I go through the details in the book, and I could tell them to you. But he was the one who refused to throw the agency under the bus and made sure that his team kept the agency alive and on the table. Now there was a lot of other stuff that also had to happen for it to happen. But if he hadn’t been there, we wouldn’t have gotten the agency. At the same time, he picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street.
You might say, “always.” Just about every time they had to compromise, they compromised in the direction of Wall Street.
That’s right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)All they have found so far is the pits.
Response to Paolo123 (Original post)
bluesbassman This message was self-deleted by its author.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)Please feel free to re-post in General Discussion or Good Reads.
