Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama's owners told him to gut Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Agency, so he did

Pravda. Really, is there any doubt now about who owns the government? (Nice timing too, when all eyes are riveted on the Health Insurance Company Bailout Summit). Here's Elizabeth Warren on the CFPA, and what a common sense measure it is, too:

"The credit market is broken."

NOTE Elizabeth Warren for President!

UPDATE Actually, it's hyperbole to say that Golden Sacks owns the government. The classic from Michael Lewis:

Rumor No. 1: “Goldman Sachs controls the U.S. government.”

Every time we hear the phrase “the United States of Goldman Sachs” we shake our heads in wonder. Every ninth-grader knows that the U.S. government consists of three branches. Goldman owns just one of these outright; the second we simply rent, and the third we have no interest in at all. (Note there isn’t a single former Goldman employee on the Supreme Court.)

Indeed.

0
No votes yet

Comments

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

Elizabeth Warren bears no resemblance to Heidi Klum whatsoever. Thus, she cannot run for President.

Or something like that.

;-)

Seriously - she's got my vote. Go, Elizabeth Go!

Maybe we should do a "Draft Elizabeth Warren" on one of them Facebook thingies the young 'uns are always going on about.

tarheel-leftist85's picture
Submitted by tarheel-leftist85 on

Me gusta mucho! Dr. Flowers is also no longer a member of the Democratic Party. That's a start. Wouldn't it be nice to have leaders with a genuine intellect instead of Obama and the creative class' pseudo-intellectual status inflation?

Warren/Flowers 2012!

marcopolo's picture
Submitted by marcopolo on

Hear, hear! (They're going to have to train her to stop fiddling with her hands when she's on camera, though.)

Submitted by gmanedit on

I thought Warren's hands were great. She didn't fiddle, but used them expressively, to amplify her speech.

tarheel-leftist85's picture
Submitted by tarheel-leftist85 on

She comes across as very approachable--in that she's very knowledgeable, but not at all condescending (and she wants us to/believes we can understand economics). Whatever I've been able to watch of Obama, his body language is robotic & choreographed, almost like he's being controlled by corporate masters....oh wait! :)

Nevertheless, no matter what the teebee says, I suspect most people want competence instead of aesthetics. The way that she patiently explains how the median family is going into debt with hard evidence, rather than telling us that "experts" are working on it, I suspect would be refreshing to much of the population.

Submitted by gmanedit on

We can understand what she says and evaluate it. She's not lecturing or using establishment-speak or trying to put one past us. She respects us. Refreshing indeed.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

But she's pretty much a single-issue person right now and we know very little about her more general orientations toward politics. Warren, on the other hand, seems like the second coming of Frances Perkins to me. She's knowledgeable about much more than just consumer protections and could probably make the case for across the board domestic policy expertise. She'd probably need a running mate who looked good on foreign policy.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Who is a self-identified "conservative" but is saner on military and foreign policy issues than almost anyone in the Bush or Obama administrations. I mean, the Village loves bipartisanship, right?

Although something tells me they wouldn't love this version of it. Much too sane.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

But 1) Why would anyone want Heidi Klum for President? And 2) she absolutely wreaks of Presidential charisma. I can't think of anyone in politics who gives a better performance in front of a camera.

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

Tough is oh so much better than stern!

Treasury officials are preparing to send Capitol Hill a toughly worded measure that would bar banks from making certain investments that benefit only the firms' bottom line rather than their customers. But there is little support among either Democratic or Republican lawmakers for this proposal, known as the "Volcker rule," and Senate leaders are now closing ranks around legislation that would leave it to banking regulators, rather than the law, to decide which activities to ban.