I suppose it was inevitable that Elizabeth Warren, the defacto head of the new consumer protection agency in the government, would get attacked by Republicans. What I'm trying to figure out is why. Since I know many of you hate her immediately and the very idea of the CPFB, I am curious as to what I know will be your firm and unyielding convictions.
Now, I am already aware that some of you feel that she is going to come to your homes, take away your guns, and forcibly take the fruits of your labors to fund brown shirt factories and reeducation camps. No need to go over that point. What is perplexing me is this: after all that has come out about the massive amount of fraud that led directly to the 2008 financial crisis, why would you not want the government to regulate these guys? More importantly, why on earth would you vote for a republican (nose holding or not) like Patrick McHenry who seeks to continue this fraud? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
The whole point of the CPFB is to streamline the regulatory process. It's the first step in undoing the Wall Street government that we currently have. It has to happen because we can't keep going through this cycle every few years. This is the global economy we are talking about not a fucking casino.
19 comments:
Aren't there already laws against "fraud"?
I don't understand.
Are you saying that those people that committed "fraud" aren't in jail?
What this country needs is more laws!
Now, I am already aware that some of you feel that she is...
You are once again addressing the voices in your head and not any of the people that actually comment here, right?
Agree 100% Juris. Not sure who he is talking to but it sure isn't me.
I've never heard of Elizabeth Warren or Patrick McHenry.
A political appointee being attacked by the other party? That's, like, totally something new in politics!
Since I've never heard of her, I don't think I hate her. Post her qualifications (or even a link to them), then I can figure out if I think she'll be an asset to the country or a liability.
Add another "WTF?" from me. This is the first I've heard of the lady and I've no idea why I need to be hatin' on her. Perhaps Mark can tell me since he's so adept at the whole Amazing Kreskin act?
I mean, I really hate missing out on a good hate, don'cha know? Why wasn't I notified earlier?
You would think that writing something so foolish, the author might be inclined to either apologize, modify, or even defend what he wrote. I mean leaving it up for all to see, with the comments that have come in - well, it is an interesting mind/personality that can just ignore all of that. As though neither anything silly was said originally, or that it was called out as such.
I'm a conservative and I hated her immediately!
There you go Mark. Sleep easy tonight.
Thanks for posting her qualifications. I'll sleep better knowing that she is the one who will be regulating wall street.
Any reason why you can't go look them up yourself?
I did look them up.
Wanted to see if folks here had an opinion of their own on her or if they were just going to automatically insert her into the asset column for the country. Can't get opinions out of most of you.
Apparently we have an answer as to who really is down on Liz - and it ain't "us" (whoever exactly "us" is, but presumably including the voices in M's head).
Tool is the only word that comes to mind. Although I suppose you could substitute an "f" in there and it would still work.
I still hate her Mark!
I'm a Conservative, and I'm full of hate!
Women are stupid!
================
Is that the comment you were hoping to get?
Hmmm... It would seem none of your conservative "friends" post here.
Whoa! Even TNR has some Liz problems. Them crazed righties in M's head are popping up all over the liberal/left media - but apparently nowhere in the right-wing blogosphere! Maybe you need to listen a little more closely M to make sure it is your right ear and not the left one that they are whispering into.
I think it is so cool that you are immune to cognitive dissonance.
Mark, you've really got to try and stop blogging anything close to real time events. The subsequently revealed facts are rarely on your side.
Why is that, do you suppose?
Hmm. A whole series of comments that make no sense, insult Mark personally, and offer no explanation for the-what is it again, Mark?-Goebbels like tactics used on who would surely be an excellent addition to our government. Liz Warren is bright, very capable and has exactly the right ideas on how to regulate the financial sector. That means she's a communist.
Exactly what every person on here said, Santa! Well.... what they would have said if they were being honest with themselves...
All your conservative friends really hated Liz did they? Since no one here seems to have heard of her, I guess you must be right then.
Thanks for the help Santa! Always a treat for you to add to the conversation!
"...has exactly the right ideas on how to regulate the financial sector."
I'd ask you to explain why you think that but I'm sure me doing that would be considered childish and trying to win the argument.
I'll just accept it as unquestioned fact for now.
I can't speak for Santa (wow, that sound hilarious) but I think Elizabeth Warren epitomizes where we need to be regarding the compartmentalization of the financial sector of this country. Recall Manzi's words on a streamlined FDR type of system of regulation which puts barriers up between the far too connected pieces between banks, investment firms, and insurance agencies. This is more or less where she stands.
One specific example would be not allowing firms to use investor money on high risk products. Owners of the firms would have to use their own money as capital.
Well, well, M finally decides to enter a comment - with not a peep about his first contention.
And of course Santa made his usual (drooling) contribution.
Yep, nothing to see here, move along.
Post a Comment