Big Wall St. Banks Angry with Elizabeth Warren, May Affect Campaign Donations

SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
Wall St. banks are very angry with Elizabeth Warren, more here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/elizabeth-warren-campaign-donations_n_6953858.html


NEW YORK, March 27 (Reuters) - Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.

Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.

Bank officials said the idea of withholding donations was not discussed at a meeting of the four banks in Washington but it has been raised in one-on-one conversations between representatives of some of them. However, there was no agreement on coordinating any action, and each bank is making its own decision, they said.

The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material

Moreover, banks' hostility toward Warren, who is not a presidential candidate, will not have a direct impact on the presumed Democratic front runner in the White House race, Hillary Clinton. That's because their fund-raising groups focus on congressional races rather than the presidential election

Still, political strategists say Clinton could struggle to raise money among Wall Street financiers who worry that Democrats are becoming less business friendly.

The tensions are a sign that the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis - the bank bailouts and the fights over financial reforms to rein in Wall Street - are still a factor in the 2016 elections.

Citigroup has decided to withhold donations for now to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over concerns that Senate Democrats could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power, sources inside the bank told Reuters.

The Massachusetts senator's economic populism and take-no-prisoners approach has won her a strong following among liberals who raised 300,000 signatures for a petition urging her to run for the White House in 2016.
Click to expand...
 

Yes, I read about this......here is Senator Warren's reply..

[h=1]Elizabeth Warren To Wall Street: Drop Dead[/h]The too-big-to-fail banks think they’re going to teach Professor Elizabeth Warren and the rest of her progressive rebel scum a lesson about saying mean things about them. As we just learned, the heads of the five families from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America have been talking amongst themselves about how to get Warren to pipe down with all her talk about how corrupt they are and how they caused the financial crisis in 2008 that almost broke the country. Their bright ideas include withholding $15,000 per bank in “campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest,” or possibly leaving a horse’s head in Sen. Warren’s bed.


Like a typical liberal, Sen. Warren has responded with a blog post:

In 2008, the financial sector collapsed and nearly brought down our whole economy. What were the ingredients behind that crash? Recklessness on Wall Street and a willingness in Washington to play along with whatever the big banks wanted.

Years have passed since the crisis and the bailout, but the big banks still swagger around town. And when Citigroup and the others don’t quite get their way or Washington doesn’t feel quite cozy enough, they quickly move to loud, public threats. Their latest move is a stunner.


Read more at http://wonkette.com/581104/elizabeth-warren-to-wall-street-drop-dead#odgPOTtRED22u6Dm.99
 
Let us see how things were prior to the money problems that nearly took our country to the poor house. There were two Democrats that had the responsibility to see that we were not lending too much money to folks for buying houses and properties. Dodd and Franks were their names. Fortunate for them they did manage to retire shortly after the economy turned sour. They had been warned and questioned in Congress about allowing folks with no money buy into houses. Many, if not most, of them were the ones that ended up not paying for their loans and leading lenders and banks to the edge of bankruptcy. Yep, sure were some bad days there near the end of Bush's term and during Obama's first couple years. In many areas of this country there still is no real recovery from those financial crash days. Housing had nearly stopped in many areas and is still stopped in some areas. Like parts of Colorado and Arizona. Homes still empty, builders shut down, resales of homes at half their original sale price. All this has hurt lenders, original buyers, and communities that had expanded for the rise in population that has now never happened.
 
Don M, your thoughts are exactly how mine are going. We need someone other than just an in house magnet for even more incorrect attitudes and ideas. We need someone who can support individual efforts to develop industries or shops without ever more gross and unnecessary federal paperwork and regulations. It does not matter to me if one party or the other, just start doing things that are good for the people of the US. That mostly means less government intervention in our lives every day.
 
With regard to this nations economy, and the governments "management" of it, I compare it to someone driving down the road with his left foot riding the brakes...and wondering why he is getting such poor fuel mileage. It's to the point where a person cannot sneeze without violating some agency rule or regulation. There are certainly some things that require a strong central government...national defense, for example....but there are agencies spending tax dollars on studying the mating habits of hummingbirds. I've felt, for a long time, that at least 1/3rd of every tax dollar we send to Washington is wasted on things that benefit only a very few select special interests. There are over 75,000 pages in our IRS Tax Codes...and all that 74,900 of those pages do is give the cheats a green light to avoid paying their fair share. The more that government tries to "fix" things, the more they botch it up. But then, when you have a bunch of politicians who owe their souls to a small handful of the ultra rich, it's no wonder that we are quickly becoming a Democracy, in name only.
 
Don M. said:
I would Dearly like to see the Democrats putting forth someone other than Hillary Clinton,
Now, I'm kind of back to hoping that some new face...who isn't a career Washington politician...will emerge in 2016.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I'll also include that we also don't need or want another Bush. I find the idea of political dynasties abhorrent and I think both the Clinton and Bush names are relics of the past, and should remain there.
 
DoItMyself said:
Agreed, and I'll also include that we also don't need or want another Bush. I find the idea of political dynasties abhorrent and I think both the Clinton and Bush names are relics of the past, and should remain there.
Click to expand...

The way our government was set up originally, people who were proven leaders would volunteer to serve in the government for a few years, and lend their expertise to the success of the nation...and then move on. Now, it seems we have a cadre of professional politicians who have minimal expertise, but manage to amass millions of campaign dollars so they can BS the public into voting for them...and then once in office, they just pay homage to those who gave them the most money. Anyone who thinks that the Clintons and Bushes will change the "system" are living in a fantasy world.
 
Maybe Wall Street should threaten Democrats more often......

[h=1]Warren has raised over $100,000 since Wall Street threatened to pull $30,000 in contributions[/h]Go Liz Go!

Hello,

When two of the biggest Wall Street banks announced Friday that they might withhold $30,000 in political contributions to Senate Democrats because of me, I asked you to help us match it.

In less than 24 hours, we’d raised the $30,000 – so on Saturday, I asked you to help double it. (I honestly wasn’t sure if we could hit such a ginormous goal, but what the heck – we tried it anyway.)

I have incredible news: Our team didn’t just double down on Wall Street’s threat – we TRIPLED it. In fact, 3825 people have helped us raise more than $100,000 since Citigroup and JPMorgan fired their warning shot a few days ago.

Tomorrow night is the big quarterly fundraising deadline. What do you say we really show them and QUADRUPLE it?

Let’s send Wall Street the loudest possible message that their bullying won’t make us go away. If you can chip in $5 or $10 – or whatever you can afford – you’ll help us reach $120,000 by midnight tomorrow night.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth
 
[h=1]Guess What Happened When JPMorgan's CEO Visited Elizabeth Warren's Office[/h]WASHINGTON -- A meeting between Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jamie Dimon deteriorated almost immediately after the JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO visited the recently elected senator and consumer advocate at her Capitol Hill office in 2013.

In a new afterword for the release of the paperback version of her book A Fighting Chance, Warren recalls that the tenor of the conversation between the two policy adversaries soured when Dimon complained about financial regulations that she has supported:

When the conversation turned to financial regulation and Dimon began complaining about all the burdensome rules his bank had to follow, I finally interrupted. I was polite, but definite. No, I didn’t think the biggest banks were overregulated. In fact, I couldn’t believe he was complaining about regulatory constraints less than a year after his bank had lost billions in the infamous London Whale high-risk trading episode. I said I thought the banks were still taking on too much risk and that they seemed to believe the taxpayers would bail them out -- again -- if something went wrong.
Our exchange heated up quickly. By the time we got to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we weren’t quite shouting, but we were definitely raising our voices. At this point -- early in 2013 -- Rich Cordray was still serving as director of the consumer agency under a recess appointment; he hadn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate, which meant that the agency was vulnerable to legal challenges over its work. Dimon told me what he thought it would take to get Congress to confirm a director, terms that included gutting the agency’s power to regulate banks like his. By this point I was furious. Dodd-Frank had created default provisions that would automatically go into effect if there was no confirmed director, and his bank was almost certainly not in compliance with the those rules. I told him that if that happened, “I think you guys are breaking the law.”
Suddenly Dimon got quiet. He leaned back and slowly smiled. “So hit me with a fine. We can afford it.”

As Warren noted in a 2014 Senate Banking Committee hearing, Dimon was proved correct: Though his bank was forced to pay $20 billion in fines, he still received a significant raise at the end of 2013.

more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...imon_n_6972182.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
 
Don M. said:
I would Dearly like to see the Democrats putting forth someone other than Hillary Clinton, and I have been quite impressed with Elizabeth Warren....and Then, I came across this article.....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-elizabeth-warren-threat-america-081500448.html

Now, I'm kind of back to hoping that some new face...who isn't a career Washington politician...will emerge in 2016.
Click to expand...

Warren is out of the picture whether you like or hate her doesn't matter Don. We have to rally around Clinton no new face can put together a machine that can raise the money or organize like she can. I'm with you but, it's that or no restraints at all on the republicans.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top