Same thing happened with the Democrats boycotting Bibi's speech. She skipped it last minute. And her reason was that she was "deeply concerned" about the prospect of a nuclear Iran but said Speaker Boehner's actions "have made Tuesday’s event more political."

So where does she stand? Not in the limelight on this issue, that is certain.

Hopefully she'll come out against this like Biden, Sanders, and Clinton have done.

I won't hold my breath for anything as strongly stated as the aforementioned.

She didn't speak out on income inequality until others did, didn't spearhead the creation of a new government agency, didn't call out chained CPI for what it is, ...

Right?

And spearheaded the only agency in the entire administrative structure of the United States that can be vetoed by other agencies. Quite unheard of. The Administrative Procedure Act got trampled on there. So much for fighting for, you know, every right that every administrative agency in the federal government has, and that is the right to make rules and regulations that aren't impeded by other administrations. Talk about leadership, at her CPFB speech she said that "oversight" was "needed." Yeesh.

Chained CPI was never going anywhere, but Obama said "everything is on the table" and people voted for him, but that's really a non-starter.

Thanks in advance.

You do know what oversight means, right?

If you want a criticism of her TARP oversight, it's that she wound up justifying it and saying it was necessary, while failing to show how the banks should've been broken up. It was actually rather mediocre of a report, if you care to read it.

TARP could not fail because it was a blank check. And Warren oversaw it.

Instead, you moved on to the quality of the report produced by the bipartisan *group* she was a member of, who could do nothing *but* report.

More rocket-propelled goalposts from you.

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

She did not do anything under TARP oversight that showed any leadership at all, she didn't step on toes, she didn't rattle cages. She followed policy in place, did the rudimentary calculations, and in the end, said TARP was necessary.

On which particular planet?

Certainly not on Earth.

She was the head chair until she resigned in 2010 to head the CPFB.

Maybe you'll be interested in reading in reading the monthly reports with her name at the top?

On my phone, you knew what I meant.

Went back and fixed it, you'll note the body of the post was not edited as I was clearly referring to TARP oversight.

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Given your posting history, with claims ranging from Obama's chained-CPI proposal being a net benefit to some seniors (LOL), to my being the owner of Conservative Cave (!!!), readers can judge for themselves.

I'll finish with Elizabeth Warren not stepping on toes and not rattling cages as head of COP (per your claim):

Have a good evening.

Not ad homs you love to trump up whenever you know you're losing an argument. Also, diverting to other topics, such as Obama's C-CPI proposal, which had a poverty exemption, which would have saved 4 million seniors from poverty. I know 4 million seniors in poverty is a laughing matter to you (to quote your post, "LOL&quot .

Geithner had a lot to say about Warren's TARP oversight (oh, wait, I thought she wasn't the head of TARP oversight? It's cute that you changed on that topic, she was just the "member" of a "group," right?).

Compare what Warren said at the hearings to what Warren did in the reports, and it's pure demagoguery. Warren had $20 million at her disposal and access to every receipt, but her reports consisted of "X money was given to Y."

No itemized reports of the actual buyouts. Every damn buyout was rendered irrelevant under "conversations with Panel staff." None of those "conversations" exist, you cannot find them anywhere.

A leader would've broke down every buyout, would've insisted that they be in TARP, and it would've shown how utterly insane TARP was. No leader would've said TARP was "necessary" a leader would've said TARP was a big money grab by Wall Street. And would've used the oversight report itself to prove that, irrevocably.

She's still finding her footing.

While people here have imagined her as a presidential candidate, she hasn't indicated she will be one, in fact she has said the opposite. Therefore it isn't her responsibility to speak out on various issues in the media. Senators do not typically make a point of going in front of the cameras to give their views on all the current issues. They have their jobs to do.

and while I agree with your comments, Warren as been bandied about in this forum as a presidential hopeful. I know nothing about her foreign policy and before I could possible get on board with her as a potential candidate, I would need to know how she feels.

She hasn't asked you to get behind her as a Presidential candidate. She is accountable to the voters of MA. No one else.

Don't mistake DUers' wishful thinking for an actual presidential candidacy. If she declares, you'll hear about it. If she forms an exploratory committee, you'll hear about it. Until then, there is no reason to get behind her as a presidential candidate or to expect her to behave like one.

Looks to me like Clinton and O'Malley will run, but only time will tell.

Warren has pretty much done that with regards to the bankers and Wall Street. I think the point of the OP is that this must not be a terribly important issue for her to address. It's quite possible she just hasn't been asked about it yet by a mainstream news source (time commitments, bureaucracy, etc, getting in the way).

yes, but not about everything. And I imagine you're right that she simply hasn't been asked yet. My point was just because some people on DU want her to be a Presidential candidate doesn't mean she's required to act like one, especially since she has repeatedly said she isn't running.

Which is another indication that she is not running. She is doing good and happy where she is at.

When she says something, it'll be appropriate.

That'll be when her mild state of shock wears off.....too many harsh words will not improve the situation..

felt about Supply Side, anti choice policy, racism, homophobia, George Bush, Gulf War One, Panama, Grenada, the AIDS pandemic (7 years her Party thought that one over, 7 years of inaction and silence as tens of thousands of actual human Americans died. Humans. Your neighbors and hers.) and so on and so forth. She sure as fuck mulled that over for what I'd call a generous period of time.

and she gets all wrapped up in rage over these guys...remember Citibank and her outrage a couple of weeks ago??

She had to think that out and be sure of her facts. (maybe)

bill allowed. Not one word. She was 'outraged' about Citibank, yes. She's a 1%er, she wants safety for her investments.

And what about all those years as a right wing Republican? Thinking it out, was she? 'Hmmmm, a pandemic poised to kill tens of millions, it's killed tens of thousands already at home...should we do anything about it? Let's think it over for 6 or 7 years....'

I'm just curious, what did the SEIU -the second-largest union in America, IIRC -think of the Omnibus provision that you refer to?

Since your MO is to not answer when your wild rhetoric is demonstrated to be... well, wild rhetoric, I'll look it up for you...

Wow! The SEIU was in favor of it!

Maybe the provision was more complicated than just "cutting pensions" (hint: it was) and maybe things aren't so cut and dry.

And I'm still waiting for you to apologize for your horrific and demonstrably wrong accusations against me: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6193133

Fighting on the side of workers, the middle class and the 99%.

She has no need to weigh in on every foreign policy issue that comes up.

extended negative campaigning against other Democrats who are also not announced candidates? Is it fair to aggressively promote a person, attack others and then when your touted figure is asked a simple question, demand that they are NOT a candidate and thus must never be questioned?
Isn't that the very double standard that is the basis for inequalities of all kinds? How can I believe that folks who play with two sets of rules really give a shit about fair play and equity? If every tactic one uses is furtive, deceptive and judged according to situational standards, and one is harping about 'equality' one's rhetoric and actions do not match up.

e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6193133

THE PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT COLOR SHE THINKS THE DRESS IS

There is a theory. When your enemy is making an ass of himself, get out of his way. While many Democrats are quick to rush to the cameras and get on record shouting treason, betrayal, logan act, and all of that. A few are smart enough to stand back and let the enemy destroy themselves.

Any time now, the question will stop being about the 47 Senators, and start being about how the Democratic Party is trying to turn this into a political ploy to shore up a Hillary Candidacy regardless of whatever transparency issues there are. The letter will be forgotten, and the Democrats who bring it up will sound like broken records or morons with a half track mind.

Doubt me? OK, tell me how every single Democratic Candidate running around screaming War on Women every time someone asked them what time it was helped attract more voters in 2014?

Tell me how every Democrat running around shouting 95% of the people want Background checks and gun control got anything done after the Sandy Hook Massacre?

Singing in chorus may be what you want to see, but the people get sick of it in no time flat. Plenty of evidence for that by the way. So perhaps, just perhaps, Elizabeth Warren is smarter than the rest of you and knows that adding her voice to the chorus will actually diminish the message. Perhaps, just perhaps Elizabeth is smart enough to keep out of the light, and leave the spotlight on the Republicans in the hopes that they continue to self destruct.

Nah, that's not what she's supposed to do. She's supposed to help the "leaders" slaughter our side by beating a message to death, and then to dust, and then pound the dust into the ground.

It's way better to steal the spotlight from the Republicans and spend every moment possible shouting about how awful the Republicans are. Or spend hours positing how the Republicans should all be thrown in jail for three years. This way people tire of the story even faster, and decide the folks doing the screaming are just as bad as those being screamed about.

Look. Let's say you live next door to a Klan member. You step outside and see the man cutting down a tree branch. Only he's cutting it between himself, and the tree. In other words, he's sitting on the part that will soon fall. You could speak up and warn him, but he won't appreciate your warning. It's far better to step back, lean casually against your house, start your phone to recording, and enjoy the show. Elizabeth almost certainly knows this. Too many on our side would start shouting. "You stupid racist fuck, you're going to get killed doing that you stupid bigoted jackass." Me, I'm going to break out the camera, and watch the video later while munching some popcorn.

Then let us know.

I will rise above the angry crowd and only tout the candidates I like while eschewing criticism of candidates others like, unless they are Republicans.