Some hot Sen. Warren on Wells Fargo CEO action...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
He doesn't give a damn what she thinks or says. He will make more money this quarter than she will make in a life time. Just an annoying insect buzzing around.

Which is one of the major problems these days to begin with.

He can screw people up the butt without having to worry about it, and buy off politicians.

Is one of the reasons the political system in the US is currently so screwed up.

They get government bailouts even if they screw the pooch, and still come out on top and continue to rig the system while offshoring for tax breaks.
 
Last edited:

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
He cares but not in the way you think. She's useful in defusing the anger away about this. Warren gives him a few minutes of verbal abuse, the leftist proles cheer like he's actually been punished somehow and he goes back to life as before pretending to be chastened, "oh Ole Elizabeth got me good." The WF board makes appropriate tuttering noises of disapproval and then give him a few more million stock options in 2 months when this is ancient history.


He had to put with all that and for only a lousy ~$200 million. Excuse me for a moment I need to go get a crying towel. How will he ever get over that tongue lashing? I imagine he is so upset he'll toss and turn for 1 or 2 seconds before he goes to sleep tonight.


.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,452
6,878
136
It's an absolute shame that Warren is one of the very few legislators that are looking out for the people's interests over those of Big Corp. USA.

Every single one of our legislators are supposed to be lined up behind her espousing the same views that Warren had expressed in her remarks.

Alas, due to our largely corrupt Congress, we won't ever see that happening.

I can see pardons already being written up just in case some of those execs get convicted of "those harmless crimes".
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
Since Warren was brought up I thought I'd post another little thing she is doing right now.

I don't know if anyone remembers but after the market crash in 2008 a commission was setup to investigate the banks to see if any crimes were committed. As we all remember the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) investigation didn't result in any charges.

Well the documents of those investigations have now been released and Warren and her staff went through them and found out that the FCIC did find evidence of wrong doing and presented its findings to the FBI.

Since the FBI has now released information pertaining to a case that did not lead to any charges being made (aka hillarys email), which was unprecedented, Warren is asking the DOJ and the FBI to do the same with regards to the FCIC's findings.

Good stuff!

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/15...to-explain-why-doj-didnt-prosecute-banksters/
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,560
136
He cares but not in the way you think. She's useful in defusing the anger away about this. Warren gives him a few minutes of verbal abuse, the leftist proles cheer like he's actually been punished somehow and he goes back to life as before pretending to be chastened, "oh Ole Elizabeth got me good." The WF board makes appropriate tuttering noises of disapproval and then give him a few more million stock options in 2 months when this is ancient history.
As opposed to Republicans who do nothing except remove regulations. I don't see any of them stepping up with ideas.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,629
2,355
126
Senator Sanders is like this. And I think Elizabeth Warren would make a great President.
I've always liked Bernie Sanders somewhat, but you have to realize he has been nearly totally ineffective as a Senator in the decades he has been there. Heck if it wasn't for the fact that he was needed to give the Dems a voting majority (for a while) 99% of the country wouldn't have known about him at all.

Warren OTOH is both a heavy ideas person and an action person. I'd equate her to Paul Ryan on the right. And yes, we need more of this caliber in office and a few less ineffective blowhards.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
He doesn't give a damn what she thinks or says. He will make more money this quarter than she will make in a life time. Just an annoying insect buzzing around.
You know why he makes much more money than Warren? Because more people want to be U.S. Senators than want to be bank CEO's. When you are a high-level bank executive, a large part of your job is to absorb abuse from everyone who hates you simply for the job you hold. It takes a crap-ton of money to convince someone who is qualified for the job to want to stay in the position.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Senator Sanders is like this. And I think Elizabeth Warren would make a great President.
Except Sanders had absolutely no clue about the inner-workings of the financial industry. He just "knew" he didn't like the financial industry and knew it was popular to be loud and angry against them. But when it came to actually talking about what he would do to "reign in Wall Street", trust me, he was as clueless as clueless gets.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
As opposed to Republicans who do nothing except remove regulations. I don't see any of them stepping up with ideas.

There's already regulations about opening up financial accounts without permission from the person named as account owner. People can rightfully complain that the WF compliance department didn't catch this earlier and that controls to prevent this sort of behavior needed to be substantially more robust. But there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of cross-selling and it actually does create a net benefit for some customers to consolidate accounts although obviously you can't cross legal or ethical boundaries to "help" this process along.

Also, complaining about the proper level of regulation when the existing regulation didn't really help very much seems to be the wrong argument. The amount of regulation seems to be a secondary concern to how we go about enforcing and penalizing violations of the regulations. If you want to advocate for a Navy type standard where anytime something bad happens in an organization the top leader is held accountable for it no matter what, then I'm open to that idea.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,451
15,661
136
I've always liked Bernie Sanders somewhat, but you have to realize he has been nearly totally ineffective as a Senator in the decades he has been there. Heck if it wasn't for the fact that he was needed to give the Dems a voting majority (for a while) 99% of the country wouldn't have known about him at all.

Warren OTOH is both a heavy ideas person and an action person. I'd equate her to Paul Ryan on the right. And yes, we need more of this caliber in office and a few less ineffective blowhards.

As much as I appreciate Warren she has been pretty ineffective too, she's too liberal to gain any support from the right.
She has great idea's like why do employers need to check credit for jobs or why does every big settlement from the Gov equal a fine that is accepted almost immediately.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
As much as I appreciate Warren she has been pretty ineffective too, she's too liberal to gain any support from the right.
She has great idea's like why do employers need to check credit for jobs or why does every big settlement from the Gov equal a fine that is accepted almost immediately.

For the same reason they feel they need to conduct drug tests, they feel somehow it helps them eliminate "risky" candidates from consideration. I disagree with the rationale and effectiveness of either and believe both are a waste of time and money and preclude hiring good people. However if you're going to seek to legislatively prohibit these practices you likewise need to include a safe-harbor provision for employers so they don't get hit with "you should have known that you hired an embezzler" lawsuits when they can't use tools like this (poor as they are for the purpose) to try to reduce that risk.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
My respect for her just went up quite a few pegs, that was outstanding work she did there. Every time he tried to spin she would shut him down and pile more evidence on top of him, even using his own words against him.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

For $200M I'd gladly go in front of Congress and take the reaming for him...
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
The guy appeared to be holding back tears. :grinning:

As much as I would really really love that to be the case, it was probably tears from holding in the laughter at the thought of giving back the money he made off the scam or the threat that anything of real consequence is going to be done to him.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,451
15,661
136
For the same reason they feel they need to conduct drug tests, they feel somehow it helps them eliminate "risky" candidates from consideration. I disagree with the rationale and effectiveness of either and believe both are a waste of time and money and preclude hiring good people. However if you're going to seek to legislatively prohibit these practices you likewise need to include a safe-harbor provision for employers so they don't get hit with "you should have known that you hired an embezzler" lawsuits when they can't use tools like this (poor as they are for the purpose) to try to reduce that risk.

I know, funny thing is when she asked some employers about the reasoning almost none had answers other than its what their competitors do.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
You know why he makes much more money than Warren? Because more people want to be U.S. Senators than want to be bank CEO's. When you are a high-level bank executive, a large part of your job is to absorb abuse from everyone who hates you simply for the job you hold. It takes a crap-ton of money to convince someone who is qualified for the job to want to stay in the position.

Are you kidding me? I don't know a single person who wouldn't take all of the crap he gets thrown at him for a tenth of his pay. I'd wager that given the option a huge portion of the people who try to run for office would gladly give up their political ambitions for his job. Not to mention the absurdity of your statement, simply running for a major political office generally requires absorbing a metric fuck ton of abuse.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
You know why he makes much more money than Warren? Because more people want to be U.S. Senators than want to be bank CEO's. When you are a high-level bank executive, a large part of your job is to absorb abuse from everyone who hates you simply for the job you hold. It takes a crap-ton of money to convince someone who is qualified for the job to want to stay in the position.


Lol wut?
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,451
15,661
136
Are you kidding me? I don't know a single person who wouldn't take all of the crap he gets thrown at him for a tenth of his pay. I'd wager that given the option a huge portion of the people who try to run for office would gladly give up their political ambitions for his job. Not to mention the absurdity of your statement, simply running for a major political office generally requires absorbing a metric fuck ton of abuse.

Agreed I'd take that level of crap for 1/1000th his pay
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
As much as I appreciate Warren she has been pretty ineffective too, she's too liberal to gain any support from the right.
She has great idea's like why do employers need to check credit for jobs or why does every big settlement from the Gov equal a fine that is accepted almost immediately.

Lol! She's been ineffective? The person who created the consumer financial protection bureau? That Elizabeth Warren? The Elizabeth Warren who single handedly brought attention to a complex issue and explained it in an easy to understand way that lead to people being awoken to the many financial games big banks are playing? That Elizabeth Warren? What the fuck are you talking about?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,168
136
Even if Wall Street loved Warren, she would have still been a "no go" for the VP because it would have cost the Dems a seat in the Senate and MA is already a safe blue state.
Yeah, but now muppets like 1prophet can use this as "evidence" that Clinton is corrupt.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,168
136
You know why he makes much more money than Warren? Because more people want to be U.S. Senators than want to be bank CEO's. When you are a high-level bank executive, a large part of your job is to absorb abuse from everyone who hates you simply for the job you hold. It takes a crap-ton of money to convince someone who is qualified for the job to want to stay in the position.
Most idiotic post I've read on this forum in a long time. You make TH look like Einstein and Blue Max look like Aristotle.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,481
29,051
146
He cares but not in the way you think. She's useful in defusing the anger away about this. Warren gives him a few minutes of verbal abuse, the leftist proles cheer like he's actually been punished somehow and he goes back to life as before pretending to be chastened, "oh Ole Elizabeth got me good." The WF board makes appropriate tuttering noises of disapproval and then give him a few more million stock options in 2 months when this is ancient history.

Your bemused reaction over this frankly honest reality seems to be couched in the sense that Warren gains nothing out of this beyond empty catharsis, while the criminal here gets away and is rewardedjust as we expect him to. Why does it amuse you that Warren and "leftist proles" get no justice more than the criminal not actually getting justice? This is bizarre.

Sucks that you have become so jaded about the system in general and so quick to accrue happy points when the "other team" makes a real effort to initiate justice, but will inevitably fail in the end. Strange that an adult would feel satisfaction in this way. ...but I guess this is what happens when "your team" of "rightest proles" has been so effectively neutered by the moneyed interest and is so thoroughly despised by the public that you really have no other recourse but to feel satisfied when the "others" still lose despite actually trying.

Hey, you know--maybe if you actually grew some fucking balls and voted for real legislators that actually gave a damn like Sen's Warren and Sanders and stopped littering our government with incompetent flatearth fuckfaces like the teabagger proles from 2010 and on?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,481
29,051
146
You know why he makes much more money than Warren? Because more people want to be U.S. Senators than want to be bank CEO's. When you are a high-level bank executive, a large part of your job is to absorb abuse from everyone who hates you simply for the job you hold. It takes a crap-ton of money to convince someone who is qualified for the job to want to stay in the position.

The only proper response to this comment has been said before, so I will just post it in gif form:

ZYE0kme.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheik Yerbouti

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Your bemused reaction over this frankly honest reality seems to be couched in the sense that Warren gains nothing out of this beyond empty catharsis, while the criminal here gets away and is rewardedjust as we expect him to. Why does it amuse you that Warren and "leftist proles" get no justice more than the criminal not actually getting justice? This is bizarre.

Sucks that you have become so jaded about the system in general and so quick to accrue happy points when the "other team" makes a real effort to initiate justice, but will inevitably fail in the end. Strange that an adult would feel satisfaction in this way. ...but I guess this is what happens when "your team" of "rightest proles" has been so effectively neutered by the moneyed interest and is so thoroughly despised by the public that you really have no other recourse but to feel satisfied when the "others" still lose despite actually trying.

Hey, you know--maybe if you actually grew some fucking balls and voted for real legislators that actually gave a damn like Sen's Warren and Sanders and stopped littering our government with incompetent flatearth fuckfaces like the teabagger proles from 2010 and on?

I have a better idea, atop voting for blowhards who just want to have a 10 second sound clip for the voters back home in a sham "hearing. If you had some balls you'd demand more than just Warren saying some pretty words to have a 10 second sound bite for the voters back home. You could vote for a Republican if that's all you want. When / if she or anyone else writes serious legislation holding executives directly and personally responsible for the actions of their employees then I'll take you and her seriously. Until then it's just one more hearing so politicians can hear themselves talk. It's not like she advanced that idea when CFPB was created and I would love seeing some New York (or in this case San Fran) bank executives do a perp walk. Until then I'll presume this hearing is just because you want to shake him and the company down for some more campaign donations.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article102745572.html
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
I have a better idea, atop voting for blowhards who just want to have a 10 second sound clip for the voters back home in a sham "hearing. If you had some balls you'd demand more than just Warren saying some pretty words to have a 10 second sound bite for the voters back home. You could vote for a Republican if that's all you want. When / if she or anyone else writes serious legislation holding executives directly and personally responsible for the actions of their employees then I'll take you and her seriously. Until then it's just one more hearing so politicians can hear themselves talk. It's not like she advanced that idea when CFPB was created and I would love seeing some New York (or in this case San Fran) bank executives do a perp walk. Until then I'll presume this hearing is just because you want to shake him and the company down for some more campaign donations.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article102745572.html

I see you are back to stupid again.

Literally in this very same thread:

Since Warren was brought up I thought I'd post another little thing she is doing right now.

I don't know if anyone remembers but after the market crash in 2008 a commission was setup to investigate the banks to see if any crimes were committed. As we all remember the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) investigation didn't result in any charges.

Well the documents of those investigations have now been released and Warren and her staff went through them and found out that the FCIC did find evidence of wrong doing and presented its findings to the FBI.

Since the FBI has now released information pertaining to a case that did not lead to any charges being made (aka hillarys email), which was unprecedented, Warren is asking the DOJ and the FBI to do the same with regards to the FCIC's findings.

Good stuff!

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/15...to-explain-why-doj-didnt-prosecute-banksters/
 
Last edited:

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,367
4,415
136
He cares but not in the way you think. She's useful in defusing the anger away about this. Warren gives him a few minutes of verbal abuse, the leftist proles cheer like he's actually been punished somehow and he goes back to life as before pretending to be chastened, "oh Ole Elizabeth got me good." The WF board makes appropriate tuttering noises of disapproval and then give him a few more million stock options in 2 months when this is ancient history.


Jesus wept; you are one sorry cynical old coot.