Pelosi: No consensus with Warren's view on Wall St. regulation

[Red Oak]

I think that when it comes to money, there is currently little difference between the parties. Both sides are bought and paid for. The TAA/TPP vote/political charade was an excellent example. Here is another, from the CNBC website today:

[link:http://www.cnbc.com/id/102799389|

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102799389

Opposing the White House on trade is one thing. But don't expect Nancy Pelosi to line up behind Elizabeth Warren and demand President Barack Obama get tougher on Wall Street.

"There may have been a couple of people who say that, but that is not the consensus in our party," Pelosi said in a 45-minute interview. On the charge that the administration has been "too soft" on Wall Street, she added: "The financial industry doesn't agree with that."

more at link

[PoliticAverse]

1. And "the financial industry" wouldn't be wrong about that, right? n/t

[ananda]

2. I think the great majority of American people have consensus..

Warren's view is exactly right.

[djean111]

3. And the entire Fast Track thing was choreographed.

I don't think Pelosi was opposed to Fast Track for one second.
Wall Street? They get their money's worth, every time.

[Divernan]

17. Wall St. will get its $$$$ worth re supreme court nominations, for sure!

In fact, Wall Street doesn't just get its money worth, it gets big fat dividends on $$$ they invest in political candidates, elected officials, spouses of same, and businesses of same.

Wall Street and the One Percenters don't give a flying f*** (in deference to pearl clutchers everywhere) about the "soft" social issues, like abortion or gay rights, because those issues don't effect the quarterly dividends or bottom line. They do care VERY MUCH that any nominee to the Supreme Court comes from a corporate friendly background. Corporations (as opposed to non-profit corporations) are required by their own Articles of Incorporation/Corporate Charter to make a profit, not to donate to charities. Moneys are to be spent with an expectation of a profitable, i.e,. substantive return. We know this as purchasing political influence. No where is that influence more substantive than in the right of approval of a president's nominations to the Supreme Court. Because if Citizens United was overturned, that would be just horrifying to Wall Street.

[Red Oak]

4. We need more politicians that work for the people and that are not bought off

We need politicians that will take a stand for the people and that are not bought off. It is so hard to find politicians like this. It is so hard to sort through the pre-election lies. Maybe the best we can do is look at any voting records that exist and see what the candidates have actually done throughout their lives in support of their stated positions.

Politicians that are not bought are very hard to find, but vitally important for the survival of our democracy. Our nation will survive, but it is not clear if our democracy will survive as a form of government. Maybe, with effort and education, we can resurrect it.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Here's my problem with that framing. To claim 'pre election lies' on TPA voters, you have to first

admit that of the 13 Democratic Senators who voted for TPA, 6 of them have been in Congress long enough to have voted for NAFTA and for CAFTA. Many DU posters affected a great deal of surprised that Wyden or Murray voted for this, some claimed they'd been 'stabbed in the back' but fact is, those 6 were known entities who have been repeatedly reelected standing upon public records of voting for every free trad deal to come in front of them. Wyden has been in Congress since 1981.

Being aware of these voting records and both voting and advocating with that knowledge in mind is probably better than working without knowledge of voting records.

[Red Oak]

15. You are right. Knowledge of voting records is key.

But there are also lies like the Obama "get my comfortable walking shoes" statement.

I wish there were a way to more immediately make an office holder more accountable for what what they do vs what they said they were going to do.

[daleanime]

21. The entire system needs a overhaul......

that's what we're working on.

[DonCoquixote]

5. did anyone expect anything different

from the person who said "impeachment was off the table?"

many so called demcorats, even the ones with a Halo of "liberal" were people who were enjoying the idea of getting paid to do nothing, and the last thing they want are people telling them that they might actually have to work.

[1939]

8. Of course impeachment was off the table

Pelosi learned from the attempt to impeach President Clinton.

1. Majority of Democrats in the House vote to impeach.

2. Impeachment fails of getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate for conviction.

3. Bush and his cabinet hold a "victory" celebration in the Rose Garden.

4. House Democrats get hammered in the next election.

If i were her, i wouldn't have gone for impeachment either.

[jalan48]

16. Impeachment was about more than just getting Bush.

It was about exposing the crimes committed by Bush instead of simply sweeping them under the table.

[onecaliberal]

28. Oh please. Clinton impeachment was over a BJ.

We're talking war crimes and lying to go to war among many other things. To compare these two things is a joke. Bush actually committed impeachable offenses, Clinton never did. The fact that bush, Cheney and the rest of them are allowed to walk free after what they did should be a national embarrassment. What the hell are people thinking?!?

[Triana]

6. OF COURSE "the financial industry" doesn't agree. They prefer NO regulation or oversight!

Next question a decent interviewer SHOULD have asked is: "..and the financial industry is who you primarily represent?"

. . . .

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF AMERICA? You know, the America that Wall St. DESTROYED and will DESTROY again with their gambling? So Pelosi et al ONLY CARE what the financial industry thinks? NO ONE ELSE'S OPINION MATTERS?

Anyone ask US what WE think?

Why NOT?

Well, obviously because NO ONE REPRESENTS US. NO ONE.

That is what Pelosi said when she said "The financial industry doesn't agree with that." <---- THAT IS WHO SHE EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTS. As does most everyone else in Washington DC. She just SAID it. She SHOULD have been called on it.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson are the THREE reps who speak for the American PEOPLE. This is THE difference between the "consensus in the party" and those three:

The "consensus" works for Wall St. - - - Warren, Sanders, Grayson work for the American PEOPLE.

Here is the evidence. Clear as day.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

7. Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

Fingers to the wind.

[merrily]

14. Fingers to the wind, or follow the money?

[Fuddnik]

33. Need you ask?

They're following the money.

[merrily]

34. That would be my guess, given that reading the wind that wrong would be unlikely.

[dmosh42]

10. Wow! Big Surprise!!

[merrily]

11. Opposition = kabuki

Maybe or maybe not on the part of Nancy, but kabuki was involved. Take that to the bank.

Among many other things, how was cloture achieved, especially on Fast Track, if the Senate Democratic Caucus opposed it?

Oh, so close, that vote, so close, such a narrow margin.

They say no one can count votes (in advance) like Harry Reid, and I believe that.

[hughee99]

12. The sad part is, after saying this, she didn't read it and think "What a fucking stupid thing to say

that was!".

The financial industry doesn't think the government has been to soft on it? Can Pelosi name an industry that thinks government regulation on it has been too soft?

[Le Taz Hot]

13. You mean Ms. "impeachment is off the table"

sides with the corporate masters? Quelle surprise.

[DanTex]

18. It's utterly absurd to say that there is little difference between the parties on economic issues.

With the exception of TPP, the Republicans were opposed to every part of Obama's economic program. Dodd-Frank, which was the most significant financial legislation since WW2, passed on party lines. The stimulus, which kept us out of a depression, also passed on party lines. So did ACA. Extended unemployment benefits. Since the GOP got the majority, Obama's proposals for minimum wage, jobs, and infrastructure spending have been blocked by (guess who) the GOP.

Beyond just blocking Obama's progressive initiatives, the GOP wants to privatize social security, cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, and deregulate basically everything.

I have no idea how people come to believe that the parties are remotely close on economic policy.

[daleanime]

22. And yet there's always just enough votes.....

to get it through. Kind of amazing.

[Dustlawyer]

19. This is why Bernie is so important. If he can build a huge ground swell of support from

people who have had enough of all of the corruption, we can force some of these other politicians they better get on board or they will be out of power themselves! This election will be more than a Presidential election, it will be the gauge of how much under control the PTB have the general population.
TPP was a demonstration of their power! The Democrats were allowed to have a temporary victory to give the appearance of a hard fought, Democratic loss when it finally passed.
A victory for Hillary means a victory for the 1%! It means that as a country we are screwed and destined for a slide down to 3rd world wages, cuts in the social safety net, rampant fraud will continue unabated on Wall Street, hard times!
We have this one opportunity to gain back Representative Democracy from the Donor Class if enough of us understand what is happening and are willing to do something about it.

[JDPriestly]

23. Thank you. Excellent explanation.

We all need to support and vote for Bernie.

I would like to see some Bernie supporters run for Congress. How about you?

[Dustlawyer]

30. Candidate recruitment is extremely important!

We have to put pressure on the corrupt SOB's and start building a group that can challenge the corrupt encombants. We will have to fight to take our Party back and gain enough support to throw off the chains the Plutocrats have placed on us! Also, Bernie will not be active in politics forever so we need to be grooming his successors. We will continue the fight until we win! It may take a few more cycles for enough people to realize that Democrats like Hillary, Pelosi and others only fight for us in non-financial matters.
Just so hard to contain my disappointment in my fellow Americans who, though they may even follow politics, still don't "Get it!" Choosing from a corporate pre-approved list of candidates is not Democracy, it's lunacy!

[JDPriestly]

32. Amen!

[Ed Suspicious]

20. And that is the problem with the party. And in this case, Democrats might as well

be Republicans. Is a Democrat who votes like a Republican really a Democrat at all?

[CharlotteVale]

24. Not to me.

[Recursion]

36. For straight white middle class non-disabled males, they may look similar

The trick is to realize that the whole country is not straight white middle class non-disabled males. But even that is kind of a stretch; the fact that nobody here pays attention to what Dodd Frank actually did doesn't mean that it did nothing.

[Punx]

25. Well...

Voting for Corporate Dem's is "Off The Table" for me.

[onecaliberal]

26. Pelosi (Wall Street) What would you expect her to say.

This is everything wrong with America. It doesn't bother this woman that children are starving in America so her rich masters can have even more.
A majority of people agree with warren. Even republican voters think something
Should be done about income inequality. We need to get rid of the corporatists or things will continue to worsen.

[raindaddy]

27. Nancy Pelosi remains clueless as to the growing anger on Main Street

The "consensus" Democrats are living in a DC bubble, as long as the steady flow of Wall Street money continues to insure their seats in congress they're fine with the gradual erosion of the middle class.

We've seen the cost of college education go up 1,200 % in the last thirty years, millions of decent paying jobs shipped overseas. Our standard of living is on a steady decline. Americans are working longer hours for less pay, with less time off than any industrialized nation in the world. Wall Street has become too big to fail while deregulation has open the door to widespread corruption victimizing the middle class..These were once the issues that mattered to Democrats, and you could assume when you elected a Democrat they would be dedicated to fighting for an economic system that insures a healthy middle class.

If Nancy Pelosi actually represented the poor and middle class Americans and gave a shit about the growing financial inequality in this country that glazed over self-satisfied smile would be replaced with the same outrage we see in Elizabeth Warren. Maybe she should follow Bernie around for a couple of weeks in might open her eyes a bit...

[blackspade]

29. "...not the consensus in our party..."

You mean the party in DC.
The rest of us, those who actually pay attention, not so much.

On the charge that the administration has been "too soft" on Wall Street, she added: "The financial industry doesn't agree with that."

Really? An unbelievably myopic statement.

[Autumn]

31. What she really means is that it's not the consensus of most elected democrats.

[hifiguy]

35. Bought and fucking paid for.

[Scuba]

37. Pelosi: "Some of us are still pretending we don't know what's wrong with Wall Street."