Skip to main content

View Diary: Elizabeth Warren Demands Big Bankers Face Same Prosecution/Jail As All Citizens (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I applaud Senator Warren. but without DoJ/SEC/ (15+ / 0-)

    Treasury support, what does it amount to but a shout in the wilderness?

    In 2008-2009 people were ready to set up guillotines on Bowling Green and the government did nit about banking crimes, a policy that continues as aggressively as ever. Warren could conceivable gin up significant public support, but that makes little difference when the institutions in questions don't care and don't have to care.

    How is the Senator's call supposed to get any traction?

    A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

    by MrJayTee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:31:04 AM PDT

    •  By doing what she has always done - (11+ / 0-)

      educate, educate, educate, thereby getting the word out.

      It's up to the American people to change how things are done. We have an appalling number of eligible voters who do not vote and the vast majority of them would vote Democratic if they did so.

      We need to work hard on registering those voters and getting them to the voting booth.

      That is how we change our institutions to those that represent us and not monied interests.

      People like Senators Warren and Sanders are perfect examples of why votes do matter and how we can affect that change.

      At least that is the way I see it.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

      by Onomastic on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:14:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Our politicians simply refuse to honor the (12+ / 0-)

        promises they make on the campaign trail.

        The problem is not the voters.  They turned out in droves and overwhelmingly voted for Politicians who promised them progressive policies.

        Those promises were broken.  

        It's not fair to blame the voters for being the victims of fraud, and it's just flatly fucking goofy to blame them for not willingly falling for the same fraud repeatedly.

        When you figure out a way to change that, and stop dedicating yourself to defending those who drove away the voters we need, let me know.

        "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

        by JesseCW on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:33:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly so. Since money will always favor (8+ / 0-)

          The Establishment Dem, we'd need a huge number of successful primary challengers to supremely financed Establishment candidates, challengers who will *then turn away from the cash machine* they need to have in order to stave off still another hugely financed establishment candidate.

          I understand the desire to be optimistic (and I'd go a bit easier on Onomastic, who means well), but you're entirely correct that the problem is not the voters, it's the system they vote in, and Senator Warren, excellent as she is, is no match for that machine.

          Short a revolution of conscience within the party, I don't see anything changing without massive, massive civil disobedience.

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:42:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Taking $$ out of Washington isn't a priority here. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splintersawry, blueoasis

            If it were we'd see daily diaries challenging every Dem in office to take a public stand on the issue and tell us what they'd do to make publicly funded elections that compete against private money the law of the land. Or where they stand on full disclosure of every dollar over the first 500 spent by anyone. On taking away personhood from corporations and lawfully establishing that money isn't free speech.

            But no, all we get is lip service and some support for the somewhat dubious Move To Amend. DKos is not trying to make campaign reform a front and center issue for our leaders or the country. Sadly, mostly I hear nothing but crickets on that issue.

        •  For one, I'm not blaming voters. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          goodpractice

          What I attempted to say was I'd like to see eligible non-voters claim their right to get involved, and yes, that can include voting on all levels, and change the system.

          There are reasons for that including that I'd like to see younger people with a larger voice and more power.

          More than a third (36%) of nonvoters are younger than 30, compared with just 13% of likely voters.
          You want progressive ideas to become law, then these are the people we need to get involved.
          Far more nonvoters than voters favor activist government. About half of nonvoters (52%) say the government should do more to solve problems, while 40% say the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. The balance of opinion is reversed among likely voters: 56% say the government is doing too much, while 39% say the government should do more to solve problems.
          And here's the biggy-
          Nonvoters are numerous; in 2008, they constituted about 43% of the voting age population.
          http://www.people-press.org/...

          We need all of them involved in one way or another if we're to turn this country around.

          And that is just what is happening in Texas. People are working and organizing from the ground up to turn the state purple and then blue.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

          by Onomastic on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:23:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Blaming the voters--reminds me of the narrative (5+ / 0-)

          Van Jones told at his Rebuild the Dream conference in 2011--that the reason we were disappointed in the results of the 2008 election is that we elected Barack Obama and then sat back and ate popcorn and became political voyeurs, expecting him to do everything to save us.

          Nice story, except it isn't true. We did not let up the pressure and the mobilization around health care, for instance, was broader and stronger than any I've seen. And we got screwed.  We had no seat at the table.

          The main problem is--other than the problem of big money guys holding an axe over the heads of the pols--that we have no way of making politicians give us anything in exchange for what we give them:  our votes, our money, our unpaid labor.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:25:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Voting is important but not enough. We need to be (0+ / 0-)

          organizing outside the parties, to push them.

          Why should they change things otherwise, and how could they anyway given the financial & corporate resources arrayed against them?

          Business as usual needs to be more painful for them than change.  Voting won't do that.  

          Only large-scale in-their-face activism can make a difference now, imo.  Maybe not even that.  But what do we have to lose?

          Hilary sure won't change things.  Status quo supreme.

      •  You don't need to educate the American people (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wood Dragon, blueoasis

        about these issues. They have very sensible views. What they don't have is a way to influence politicians that's comparable with the massive amounts of money the FIRE sector can pour into the process.  Even when we put good politicians in, they can get no traction, because you would need massive numbers of politicians who have the courage of heroes to stand up against both the bribe attempts and the blackmail--  not only personal blackmail but economic threats against Congresscritters' own districts--that constantly circulate on the Hill. In addition, these new legislators would have to be willing to sometimes fight their own parties, which are currently filled with people who don't have the courage of heroes and are either afraid to stand up against the blackmail--or don't even make it that far morally, because they fall for the graft.

        So, while I am not despairing over our government, I don't see the way forward. Certainly ramping up GOTV and turnout numbers is an insufficient answer to the problem of why Elizabeth Warren doesn't have enough power to accomplish something as traditional and basic as the law applying to both rich and poor (though penalties have always been much MUCH worse on the poor than the rich, we've rarely been as brazen as this, with the Attorney General of the United States admitting to the Senate that he can't prosecute people on Wall St because the bankers would have a hissy fit in response that would wreck our economy.)

        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:21:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  My guess is that Warren would clean house (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      praenomen, elwior, Barton Funk

      and get rid of all the Plutocrat puppets that populate the current government.

      Yeah, I know he said Change. But c'mon, Cuts to Social Security?! This is not the Change I was looking for.

      by CitizenOfEarth on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:25:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site