Skip to main content

At a Senate Banking Committee hearing this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) slammed JPMorgan Chase and government regulators for the huge payout the bank made to CEO Jamie Diamond. She pointed out that Dimon got a $17 billion $20 million payout  "for activities that were illegal that he presided over," after she rattled off the long list of JPMorgan's activities.
"In 2013 alone, JP Morgan spent nearly $13 billion to settle claims with the federal government. Claims relating to its sale of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities, its illegal foreclosure practices like robo-signing, its manipulation of energy markets in California and the midwest, and its handling of the disastrous London Whale Trade," Warren said. "You might think that presiding over activities that led to payouts for illegal conduct would hurt your case for a fat pay bump." [...]

"I think this raises questions over whether our enforcement strategy is working or whether it's actually so bad that we're making it more likely for big banks to break the law," Warren said, adding that it is now a common belief in the banking industry to make money by any means necessary because the government fines will never reach the level of profits potentially made through questionable and illegal practices.

"Does anyone on this panel seriously think the government's current enforcement system for financial crimes is actually working in the sense of deterring future lawbreaking?" Warren asked the regulators.

The regulators weren't able to provide an adequate answer. Daniel Turollo, a member of the board of governors for the Federal Reserve, basically admitted that the Fed is more interested in financial companies' fiscal fitness than how they conduct their business or whether their CEOs are rewarded for malfeasance. Clearly, this Fed board member doesn't think the Fed should be in charge of creating deterrents and enforcing them. Clearly, Sen. Warren feels otherwise.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 01:50 PM PST.

Also republished by Massachusetts Kosmopolitans, Ready for Warren, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  She rules (26+ / 0-)

    How do we keep getting Senator Warren into higher positions of power in DC? It bums me out that she's already 64, so keeping her around for a 50 year career isn't happening. I would desperately want to see her as Senate Majority Leader the next time we have control of the White House, HOR, and Senate.

    •  Here's how: (29+ / 0-)

      Warren 2016

      (Image stolen from Kossack Shockwave.)

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 02:31:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Works for me. (11+ / 0-)

        "It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." - Archie Bunker

        by Banach MacAmbrais on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 02:41:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  We NEED for this to happen. (17+ / 0-)

        We need for a President Warren to come in with an agenda aimed at putting an end to this bullshit because our Nation can't afford to go down the path we're currently on.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 02:44:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  For a long time, a lot of us have been (9+ / 0-)

          saying this about the Obama administration's unwillingness to prosecute bankers and Wall Street insiders:

          "I think this raises questions over whether our enforcement strategy is working or whether it's actually so bad that we're making it more likely for big banks to break the law."
          The record of the current Justice Department has been abysmal when it comes to prosecuting white collar crime.

          Meteor Blades current article about the anemic fine leveled against Citgo is a good example of how inneffective our current judicial system has become.

          Unless we nominate a populist candidate like Elizabeth Warren in 2016, the Democratic Party is going to start losing a lot of elections. All of this administration's pro-corporate, pro-big energy, pro-white collar criminal policies are going to bite us in the butt in upcoming elections.

          •  Yes the Democratic Party is going to (5+ / 0-)

            Lose.

            Its positions on everything from marijuana legalization to prosecuting the real criminals on Wall Street are so anemic and very unpopular compared with what actual citizens want. Combine all that with criminals currently in charge of the selection process of who gets to run as a Democrat and who doesn't, and it is easy to see why progressives like Marianne Williamson do not even go hat in hand to Her Fuehrer-ness  in Power, Di Fi Feinstein to ask to run on the "D" ticket. (Williamson is planning a third party campaign to unseat House of Rep Waxman.)

            BTW, Feinstein threw not one but two gubernatorial campaigns to the Republicans, so how is she even allowed to be a Democrat?

            •  Waxman is retiring. Williamson sought to... (5+ / 0-)

              ...unseat one of the most productive and progressive incumbents in the U.S. House before he announced his retirement.

              Williamson is not running a third-party campaign; she is running as an independent.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:02:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure who you are saying is so very (0+ / 0-)

                progressive. Waxman is feared by many of us who want access to supplements and vitamins. He is firmly controlled by the Puppet Masters at Big Pharma; he is not at all who I think of when I think of a person being progressive. (Although, of course, to each his or her own.)

                And in my book, if you don't run as either being on the Democratic or Republican ticket, you're third party. (Although, again, of course, to each his or her own.)

            •  Yes, I think the dems (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              praenomen, imchange, EliseMattu

              are going to lose badly.

              The dems have done so little to ameliorate the problems of the depression that it's a perfectly reasonable question for people to ask, well, what have you done for the last 6 years.

              Even Mitt Romney's job talk was gaining traction, since the dems have done so little in this area.

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:41:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  At least a primary run, because she'll open (3+ / 0-)

          the discussion. And I think once opened, it's not going to go away.

          She's not going to be easy to shut up or to sidetrack. The Media won't be able to hide Warren, unless they never play a soundbyte of her. And the vids will go viral anyway.


          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:01:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Better in Congress writing the laws (10+ / 0-)

        not as exec in charge of enforcing laws with no teeth.

        I would much rather her be Majority Leader, writing and bringing bills up for actual votes.  

        Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

        by PsychoSavannah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 02:59:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can't settle for second best. (16+ / 0-)

          If the Dems don't run our strongest candidate for Prez, then it won't matter what happens in the Senate, because anything halfway progressive that it might pass will be vetoed by President Rand Paul.

          Warren is our strongest Prez candidate. She has the knack for explaining complex things simply, appealingly, forcefully. She would be an absolute steamroller on the Prez campaign trail.

          I don't have anything against Hillary, and if she's the nominee I will gladly support her. But come November 2016, she'll be a weaker candidate than Warren would be.

          And:

          * If Warren gives up her Mass. Senate seat to become Prez, the Dems will almost certainly retain that seat. Scott Brown's taking it was a fluke, and he couldn't hold it.

          * Warren's Senate term isn't up till 2018, so--I think--she doesn't have to give up the seat to run for Prez. (I believe this is governed by state law, and IIRC I saw somewhere that's the law in Mass.)

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 04:01:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Between gerrymandered House seats & Citizens (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HeyMikey, apimomfan2, bryduck

            United, even in the unlikely event that the Dems would put forth a progressive for Prez, the possibilities for change we could believe in would be slim to none. While It is almost impossible for Republicans to win the White House, they don't need to to maintain and further the status quo.

            It would be great to have anther FDR in the White House if only as a powerful grassroots organizing force. I had hopes that Obama might have become such a force but he he certainly hasn't.

            Warren might become another Bernie Sanders, no more no less. Not a bad thing but not great either.

            The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

            by Wolf10 on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 04:41:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know... (6+ / 0-)

              I know, I feel like Charlie Brown debating whether to try to kick the football again. But...

              We were so close in 2009-10. With a little bolder leadership, we could have changed the filibuster rule, then the Al Franken delay and the Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd illnesses would not have mattered so much. Then we would not have had to water down every damn initiative to attract GOP or Blue Dog votes.

              Yeah, I know, I'm making the case for bolder leadership in the Senate, not the White House. But it's not one or the other--it has to be both. Which is more likely:

              (1) President Warren muscles Senate majority leader Reid into doing what has to be done to move good legislation in the Senate, including changing the filibuster rule if necessary; or

              (2) Senate majority leader Warren muscles President Rand Paul into signing progressive legislation.

              The more likely scenario is (1).

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 04:56:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Republicans cannot attract enough minority and (2+ / 0-)

                women voters to win nationally. This fact should embolden Democrats to move to the left on issues of class and awaken the previously apathetic potential voters.

                Given the wasted political opportunities presented by the fiancial crisis, I am not optimistic.

                The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                by Wolf10 on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:23:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wishful thinking. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wolf10

                  A large % of the electorate will ALWAYS be GLAD to fall for the pitch the GOP has been perfecting since the 1970s:

                  You can have everything you want or need from government AND pay less in taxes to get it, and if it doesn't work out, then it must the fault of the [insert scapegoat du jour: blacks-gays-immigrants-Communists-unions-teachers-teacherunions-terrorists-Muslims-bureaucrats-welfarequeens-disabled-evolutionists-secularhumanists-on-and-on-and-on].
                  In their eagerness to be told that "those people" need to change or be punished, but "we" don't need to do anything different, the great mass of people will gladly overlook all kinds of logical and moral abominations.

                  McCain-PALIN got 46%. On the heels of the BUSH 43 Presidency, in the midst of the worst economic meltdown in 70 years. 46%!

                  It was true when Demosthenes wrote it 2,400 years ago, and it's still true:

                  A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wants to be true he generally believes to be true.
                  So you can take it as a given that Rand Paul (the 2016 GOP nominee; you read it here first) starts with a bedrock of 46%. All he needs to win is to (a) pick a running mate somewhat more cogent than Palin (how hard is that?); (b) avoid any truly stupid gaffes; (c) some combination of occasionally saying something that sounds good at first blush, or having the Dems get a bad break or two.

                  Look, here's Rand Paul actually proposing something that truly would be an improvement on the status quo: http://www.slate.com/...

                  The man is dangerous. We will need to play our best game to beat him.

                  "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                  by HeyMikey on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:45:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Gosh, and yet somehow (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wolf10, imchange

              those teapartiers went for broke and got plenty of their candidates elected.

              Are we really to believe that dems can't do the same for any office?

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:48:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  If she even runs, the conversation in the US is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maverick80229, Chi, HeyMikey

            irrevocably changed. If the media tried to hide her, it wouldn't matter, because people would post vids of her speeches and conversations. And these plain truths she keeps saying are like water to a very very thirsty public.


            Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

            by Jim P on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:05:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The media would LOVE her! (0+ / 0-)

              The media want drama. Conflict is their bread and butter. Warren would be a bonanza for the media.

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:48:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  False choice. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeyMikey, Chi, imchange

          I don't know why people think the executive can't propose/influence the content of legislation, not to mention appealing to the people to pressure Congress [like Reagan did].

          Maybe you've become used to wimpy dem presidents now who don't do much of anything or roll over for the moneyed interests.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:46:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •   I marched with 2 million other people (2+ / 0-)

            against the invasion of Iraq, and Congress did it anyway.  I watched 3/4 of the whole country say NO! to TARP and the Congress passed it anyway.  I watch again and again as tax increases on the wealthy poll in the 80%-range and Congress won't do it.

            "Get the people to pressure Congress" indeed.

            Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

            by PsychoSavannah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:05:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But did you get them to the POLLS? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              imchange

              I am grateful for your diligent effort.

              But the bottom line is that if people don't show up & pull the D lever on election day, all the marching and protesting and opinion-polling don't matter. That's the dot the Occupy movement didn't connect.

              The most dreadful recent example: Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln watered down the stimulus, watered down healthcare reform. The obvious thing to do was replace her with a progressive. Progressive Bill Halter took her to a runoff in 2010...and less than 5% of the population of Arkansas turned out to vote for Halter in that runoff. Lincoln won, then lost the Senate seat to a generic GOPer in November.

              Repeat nationwide and you get the loss of the House and the ongoing inability to break filibusters in the Senate.

              See my other comment on this thread, "Wishful thinking." That explains why no progressive party will ever hold power more than briefly. When we get our chance, like we did for a few months of a 60-vote Senate in 2009-10, we have to make the best of it. We need the leadership to get the Blue Dogs on board by any means necessary, and make the rules changes needed. We didn't do that in 2009-10; we settled for half measures. And then we lost our power to effect change.

              Utterly predictably.

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:10:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  We should just cloudfund a fortune to buy them (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PsychoSavannah, imchange

              outright. We should get their price list. How much to be bought for a full Session? Do you do ala carte pricing on legislation, and what are the prices for that?

              Find that stuff out, we have a goal to reach. "Wow, we can get 'Let's Do Good Things for a Change' Law passed for only $8,000 for 230 in Congress: a bargain considering the benefits.

              By the way, if anyone thinks I'm advocating bribery, that is completely wrong: A lot of money is not a lot of money. It's merely a very compelling argument.


              Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

              by Jim P on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:11:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  NO! to Warren for President (0+ / 0-)

        Being on the Senate Banking Committee, where she can devote full time to the banking industry, is exactly where all of us should want her to stay.  

        At this point, I think that Hillary Clinton would make a very good President.   But so would Ben Jealous (NAACP), or Rachel Maddow.

        Elizabeth Warren is a specialist and, additionally, she's just one human being. She is exactly where she needs to be to deliver the greatest knock-down to the out-of-control banking industry.

      •  She has no help (0+ / 0-)

        The other House Members and Senators are in the pockets of the financial institutions including the two California Senators. You will have to get rid of these paid to play legislators. Until then the financial institutions will keep on raping the public because they know they can get away with it.

    •  Hillary would never support Warren. (0+ / 0-)

      This is as high as Elizabeth gets, unless something unexpected happens.

  •  What a woman! (20+ / 0-)

    I hope she has a LOOONG career in public life, and hammers these criminals into pulp!

    One of a very few people in whose motivations, intellect and integrity I trust.

  •  The Federal Reserve (13+ / 0-)

    isn't doing its job.
       It was created to regulate banking. but under Greenspan they decided to completely abandon their job of regulation.
       They still haven't changed, and they won't until they are forced.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:25:10 PM PST

    •  Either the Fed has to re-assume their role of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave, imchange

      regulating banking or a new agency must be formed to take the job on.
        This is far too important a mission to simply go undone.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:58:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The last thing (0+ / 0-)

        we need is a new agency.  There is already the FDIC, the Fed Reserve, the OCC, and OTS, not to mention the state regulatory agencies.

        The regulators already have the power to regulate effectively; they are being stopped by someone.

        Maybe examination of the fed reserve chartered banks could be moved to the FDIC or OCC - but they all guard their regulatory turf.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:52:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OTS got forced into OCC 2.5 yrs ago. (0+ / 0-)

          "radical, ideological wet dream"

          by Scottsdalian on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 09:03:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, didn't know that obviously. (0+ / 0-)

            the idea of combining all of the regulatory agencies has been around for years.

            I'm surprised to learn that one was merged with another.  Then again, aren't thrift institutions becoming much less common now?

            [of course, they were collapsing left and right in the late '80s/early '90s]

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 12:54:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OTS was on everybody's shit list since 80's. (0+ / 0-)

              Shocking they survived as long as they did.

              Savings and Loans now called "thrifts" and "savings banks". Still doing the job they were chartered to do - provide home loan financing for America. Federally-chartered thrifts regulated by OCC, State-Chartered savings banks by the FDIC.

              In her recent book, former FDIC Chairwomen Sheila Barr said something about merging OCC into FDIC some day. You shoulda heard the howls on that one! OCC 150 years old (Abraham Lincoln started in Civil War days), FDIC created in 1932-ish.

              "radical, ideological wet dream"

              by Scottsdalian on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 11:08:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Dodd-Frank: (0+ / 0-)
            OTS got forced into OCC 2.5 yrs ago

            "radical, ideological wet dream"

            by Scottsdalian on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 11:09:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The separationg of enterprise and state is (6+ / 0-)

    entirely bogus. There has never been a time when American business wasn't sucking at the public teat and relying on favorable legislation to grease their way. It's not a matter of regulators having been "captured." The agencies were organized originally to serve the business class. What's being opposed now is the idea that this original arrangement has proved detrimental to the country AND business. After all, it can be argued that legislative privilege has made U.S. enterprise weak, inefficient and not able to compete with the nations of the globe to whom we preach.

    Any organism, natural or man-made, that takes/exploits without giving anything in exchange is either a parasite or a predator. That humans are preying on their own kind doesn't change the behavior. If the interests of species to survive are predominant, then humans preying on their own kind are less evolved, not more. One has to question whether intelligence is a boon or a flaw.

    http://hannah.smith-family.com

    by hannah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:25:32 PM PST

    •  Separation of Corporation and State. (4+ / 0-)

      Not just Church and State.

      •  Fact is that the state and all its subdivisions (0+ / 0-)

        is a corporation, an artificial body organized to distribute risk. The difference between public and private corporations is that membership in one is by birth and residence and in the other it's by purchase or subscription.
        Risk and liability avoidance are central. However, to insure that result, the operations of the organization are supposed to be outlined and specified ahead of time, as our federal Constitution clearly does. Where our private corporations have failed is that their charters are insufficiently specific and, increasingly, their operations don't conform to their stated objectives.
        Take the NYNJPA for example. That's an organization set up to promote transportation -- i.e. moving people and things around a region. But, what seems to have been the primary focus recently is the acquisition and development of fixed assets (office buildings and warehouses) that have almost nothing to do with transport.

        http://hannah.smith-family.com

        by hannah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 11:43:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is not entirely (0+ / 0-)

      true that the agencies serve the industry.

      The FDIC closed bad banks and banned people from the business.  And I'm sure that other regulatory agencies did the same once upon a time.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:54:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Compare the number of S&L criminal convictions (0+ / 0-)

        during the 80's (OTS era) to the number of banking criminal convictions over the last 5 years. Should take you about 10 seconds to tabulate the banking convictions. S&L convictions exceeded 1,000 (sumthing in range of 1,200 criminal convictions IIRC).

        Criminal convictions are way more effective at reducing crime than banning people from future banking activities.

        "radical, ideological wet dream"

        by Scottsdalian on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 09:09:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, I'm fine with (0+ / 0-)

          any enforcement activity.

          It's a travesty that virtually none has taken place.  The fines levied are such a pittance that they are considered a cost of business.

          If people were being removed from the industry and/or being subject to criminal prosecution, I'm sure they would think a bit more before they screw all of the other participants in the economy.

          And I only mentioned one example of someone being banned from the industry.  My own team leader at the FDIC was banned from the industry when he went into banking after leaving the FDIC.

          Also, I think banning someone might be easier than pursuing criminal charges [I can't recall].  So, at a minimum, Dimon should be banned from the industry now - or yesterday.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 12:49:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And a former OTS examiner went to prison (0+ / 0-)

            for his malfeasance post-OTS. Prison.

            Did FDIC pursue criminal charges for whatever that guy did that got him banned from industry??? I mean, I know the USA or FBI ultimately decides whether to pursue criminal charges.....but did FDIC ask them to at least review carefully??? If not, there's my evidence.

            BTW - I'm not explicitly berating the FDIC frontline folks. I work with them all the time. I'm berating the piss-poor Washington DC government-wide response (non-response) to banking crisis. (((I'm looking at you, Eric.)))

            "radical, ideological wet dream"

            by Scottsdalian on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 10:58:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't (0+ / 0-)

              think he was charged criminally - I think the top executive of the bank was criminally charged.

              The guy probably wasn't involved enough to be criminally charged.

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 01:07:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who decided that? (0+ / 0-)
                The guy probably wasn't involved enough to be criminally charged.
                My point is that the criminal investigators should be deciding what constitutes criminal, not regulators (who are notoriously reluctant to admit possible criminality in ANYTHING).

                "radical, ideological wet dream"

                by Scottsdalian on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 01:57:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Warren for President, 2024! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm thinking long-term. :-)

    I hope she has fun, serving in DC.  :-)

  •  "Thank you, Mr. Chairman." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maverick80229

    No, thank YOU Madame Senator.

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 05:15:19 PM PST

  •  Elizabeth ROCKS, but (6+ / 0-)

    Dimon's raise was 20 million, not the 17 billion stated in the diary.  17 billion is what JP Morgan spent in fines for criminal behavior.  20 million was Dimons reward for overseeing that criminal behavior.

    If I have any spit left after I've licked my own wounds, I'll be glad to consider licking yours. Peace.

    by nancyjones on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 05:23:28 PM PST

  •  And Hillary says what about these banks? (6+ / 0-)

    Still waiting...

    I'm in the Henry Wallace part of the Democratic Party.

    by CTDemoFarmer on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 05:30:38 PM PST

  •  Jamie the Destroyer Dimon got a 17 billion raise ? (0+ / 0-)
  •  So let's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maverick80229

    expand Rich Cordray's job to include the banks and their day to day malfeasance. Wouldn't this fall under consumer protection? Also give him the power to prosecute all these rotten bastards...

    6% of scientists are republican. Scientists have no explanation why that number is so high.

    by fugwb on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:17:12 PM PST

  •  Dimon and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, White Buffalo

    the rest of the crooks need to be banned from the finance/banking industry, just like Neil Bush.

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:26:50 PM PST

  •  No margin in ending banker/gv'mnt corruption. (0+ / 0-)

    The only people not making out on the deal is the general populace: we've clearly been written off by the dominent Political and Financial Castes.

    We're useful for some things, but otherwise just an annoyance. Their hope rests on the vision that there'll be robots and genetic advances to fix that.


    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

    by Jim P on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:57:14 PM PST

  •  Warren for President 2016 (0+ / 0-)

    C'mon. Hillary and Bill Clinton took $100 million in bribes the past 16 years -we call it speech money. That's how they became 1%ers, by taking bribes from 1%ets.

    Hillary Clinton is wrong for these times. She is as corporate crony democrat as they come. A Presidential candidate Warren will be good for our souls and karma.

    Hillary Clinton and her supporters will use the Trojan horse of first female candidate to bring in many ideas that are toxic to progressives, such as protection for the 1% from the 99% and national security state overreach.

    The greedy wing o the Democratic Party has defeated us. $Clinton$ 2016.

    by HopefullyAnonymous on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 05:32:25 AM PST

  •  Cannabis (0+ / 0-)

    From an email that I recieved,I believe,Ms Warren is against re-leagalizing, Cannabis for use. That puts her in my NO vote area. I voted for Ms Warren when she ran for Con gress, NO MORE> BAH!
    I tryed to point her in the right direction and to get more new info about the medical use and recreational use also,too. BUT she still holds onto the wrong "reefer Madness" way of thinking,sigh.
    If anyone can speak w/her,it may help if she does some more research. Help UMass get a grant for more info.
    Peace.

  •  Dimon Gets Raise (0+ / 0-)

    Because he did a good job keeping them from going to court, and negotiating down fines.

    If they would fund this agency with a percentage of the fines collected I bet we would see much more aggressiveness.

  •  Basic Math (0+ / 0-)

    Ratios were one of those things we had to learn
    Savings and Loan mess had 1000 -2000 people prosecuted and jailed.
    Savings and loan was a couple of Billion (maybe)

    The Bank Collapse in 2005-6-7 was between 800 Billion and we have around 100 people working on prosecutions and investigations. We put ZERO people in jail. We took ZERO assets away from anyone.

    Lets see $2 Billion is to $800 Billion as 1000 in jail is to X? (I think there should be around 400,000 people should be in jail if ratios count) OR we should have around 40,000 people investigating and prosecuting.
    Maybe I have my math wrong... But zero is zero and we have zero going for us.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site