Senator Elizabeth Warren Gets Indignant with Banker(s)
In 1998, the gov made it impossible to discharge federal student loans through bankruptcy except upon death, disability, or public service. The gov did provide certain measures to change payments then such as forbearance, economic forbearance (no interest for 3 years), and payment change. In 2005 private student loan originators lobbied to have the same privilege as federal loans of no discharge through bankruptcy. The difference for private student loans was their are no alternative measures. Either you pay or???
Watch and listen to Senator Warren deconstruct a banker.
Though I have donated to Warren; have come to the collusion that its a mistake. We often seeing Sen. Warren pointing out defects in banking laws; where’s the action on correction since leaving white house?
It reminds me of a letter Sen. Markey sent me about his work on the telecommunication bill in the 90’s. When I asked why we had the slowest and most expensive telecommunication system in the world I did not receive further communication from the senator.
beene…and I don’t see Markey changing much. It is a worry with Warren…it is hard to parse.
That’s an easy question to answer. It’s the same answer as to the question, Why hasn’t much of anything been accomplished by this Congress?”
Republicans.
The republicans could have been stopped in the Senate had Harry not failed to follow through with the filibuster rule changes so that the filibuster actually meant debate and had limits and penalties.
I don’t get your claim about Warren, Beene. Warren has drafted and formally proposed legislation on banking reform, as well as legislation specifically on student loans (loans for current students and, especially for loans for past students), and has co-sponsored (formally added her support to other senators’ proposals–including, I believe, a return to Glass-Steagall. And I believe she’s formally proposed amending the bankruptcy statute to remove the exemption for student loans.
So, what exactly is your complaint? That she hasn’t been able to force Congress to enact the legislation she ha proposed or supported?
Beverly, true she is working on student loans, and banking reform. Her proposal is a not Glass-Steagall; but a version of said bill. This inspite of Warren own words that Glass-Steagall held the banks in check for 30 or 40 year.
I am of the opinion the democratic party has and is crowding the republican’s positions, and has for the past 40 plus years. Since we have almost no hope of beating either party we can stop voting for a party that does not support the middle class or the poor. This is the only way I see too force change in democratic party. The down side is the pain we will have to endure for some time. The more of us who will take this position the sooner the elite will no longer find a need to give them money; then they will hopefully have to return to the people with real change…….not BS promises.
beene:
Elizabeth Warren ≠ the policies of the Democratic Party. Mostly her positions evolved long before she ran for office as evidenced by “The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class.” Her efforts goes long before her ascension to public office. “America’s middle class is getting hammered and Washington is rigged to work for the big guy.”
http://www.biography.com/people/elizabeth-warren-20670753#political-career
Her stance is one of a populist.
Beene
I understand your view about the Democrats in general being a kind of false foe to the Republicans… giving the illusion of democracy while turning the country over to the rich… maybe not even much new there.
But I don’t see much hope in not voting for them… though I have stopped voting myself. I used to believe in voting for the guy whose lies you like best.
I think it is entirely possible that even dishonest politicians will note what lies work best and will feel some pressure to deliver on those lies from time to time. I also think it is entirely possible that if you vote for Democrats there is always a chance of a new FDR showing up who actually delivers a good deal for working people.
I have seen no possibility of any of the “left” parties ever doing anything but talking to themselves.
You could… but you won’t… work on organizing one of those left parties into a serious political force. Meanwhile I’d recommend taking Warren at her word and seeing where it goes.
Oh, i think the failure of my “vote for the lies you like best” plan may simply be that there weren’t enough people who liked the same lies I liked. Politicians are, after all, politicians. They do what it takes to get themselves elected… taking money from the rich and telling most of the people what they want to hear.
It may be that most of the people SHOULD want to hear about policies that protect them from the malefactors of great wealth, but usually they can be stiimulated if not satisfied with all of the …. usual political garbage. I try to point out from time to time how the Left alienates “most of the people” but I just get shouted at.
Run, I do not know any other way to attack the leadership. Till this is done we have zero hope of change. The position of voting for the least worsted option is not doing anything positive for change or the majority of Americans.
Run did look up and view the title you listed on youtube.
Coberly, like you feel voting is almost a waste of time. But, if we do not vote we leave the choice to the extremes with no hope of influencing change.
Sometimes I think this is the real pan of both parties; keep the piety bickering going so no real issues have to be addressed.
Beene, Coberly et al
At this stage, the iron discipline imposed by the Tea Party, Grover Norquist and Boehner’s embrace of the “Hastert Rule” means there is no such thing as a good Republican. No matter how decent or moderate they may be as individuals, they will always, on any vote that really matters, vote Republican. Job One right now, at this stage in our history, is to get as many Republicans as possible out of office.
There is only one kind of vote that can accomplish that in any race is a vote for the Democratic candidate. No matter how tightly you need to hold your nose to vote for the Democrat, any other vote or not voting is aiding the goals of the right wing billionaires.
Massive increases in turnout are the only way this will be accomplished. All politicians need two things: money and votes. The fewer the votes, the more money controls the politician. But if it’s the votes that do the trick — which will only be accomplished by progressives working for the candidate — then the voters’ influence and the sound ideas of progressives has to grow. Money will always have seats at the table, but at least they won’t have all the seats. Huge turnout increases also will finally put the threat of being primaried into serious play if the sound ideas of progressives (which happen to jibe almost perfectly with the preferences of the majority of Americans) are ignored or rejected.
Don’t forget, either, that there are certain good things only a Democrat in office will support — like higher minimum wage and a new health insurance law that guarantees anyone can be covered and helps people with lower income buy it — so a positive + a negative is better than all negatives.
I thought in this case — even though I am totally on her side substantively, her jumping on the witness before he could finish what he was saying was rude and less effective. Elizabeth Warren will be a lot more effective if she is always polite to witnesses she believes she can skewer. Her points — the same ones — would have been more powerful if she had let the witness finish demonstrating his stupidity. By jumping in you demonstrate that you are less interested in what the witness actually says and have a pre-determined agenda of your own. If that’s the case, then why ask for testimony from a witness? Using the witness as a mere prop is disrespectful and looks bad.
As a lawyer, too, she should know the power of doing nothing but asking questions and making the witness go where she wants him to go. It’s called preparation.
“Don’t forget, either, that there are certain good things only a Democrat in office will support — like higher minimum wage and a new health insurance law that guarantees anyone can be covered and helps people with lower income buy it — so a positive + a negative is better than all negatives.”
Obama bill is just an expansion of a republican bill and does not address the major problem with private insurance which is bankruptcy. The only upside is its harder for insurers to drop peoples insurance or refuse to insure because of previous issues. But today since both people work; should either loose there job which is highly likely today they will not be able to afford to keep paying the insurance if its a serious health issue.
Your above quote of voting for the lest worse option is how we now have democratic positions today that are further right than past republican positions.
In particular, who will not be able to afford PPACA healthcare insurance?
“The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class.”
The above quote which is a lot of information that Warren researched would suggest almost any two family income.
Beene:
And since the passage of the PPACA, you believe bankruptcy to be as big an issue as before its passage?
The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class with Elizabeth Warren
“And since the passage of the PPACA, you believe bankruptcy to be as big an issue as before its passage?”
Since it a copy of the one in MA. which did not affect bankruptcy my guess would be no change. But as Lampert in NC posted today we really do not have any data available at this time.
But for all the bad news, there was a great chuckle at the end of the article.
beene:
So you believe everything Lambert tells you?
Both Maggie Mahar and I write about the PPACA and have done so since 2010 for myself and before 2010 for Maggie. Pre-PPACA, you could easily go bankrupt and after the PPACA there were limits established as to how much you would pay out of pocket sans premiums. Are you aware of the limits?
Lambert can chuckle all he wants; but, I have not seen anything better emerge yet and the PPAca is driving health care costs downward.
Run, I have not said its not an improvement; just that it did not address the major issue which is paying premiums when a major health issue occurs or job loss.
I do like Lambert’s articles and like you’re and Maggie’s articles and her blog, as you all reference what you have to say.
beene:
But you are spinning this to make it sound like it is the PPACA’s fault. If the PPACA did not exist, your alternative would be what?
– Buy your own policy off of the market if you were eligible with no pre-existing conditions and pay more than what you would now.
– Take your company’s Cobra plan which is just as expensive as a commercial plan pre-PPACA.
– Do nothing.
You could borrow the money to pay the premiums. You could apply to the exchange and if your income is already low, you would qualify for a subsidy. Paying premiums was always an issue and more of an issue pre-PPACA. The most you will pay is that premium + $6300 as an individual. Previously, you would pay the premium plus whatever your policy did not cover.
“You could borrow the money to pay the premiums. You could apply to the exchange and if your income is already low, you would qualify for a subsidy. Paying premiums was always an issue and more of an issue pre-PPACA. The most you will pay is that premium + $6300 as an individual. Previously, you would pay the premium plus whatever your policy did not cover.”
Run, have you ever tried to borrow money when your broke and not working; let alone sick or injured with little hope of returning to work in the near future.
The simple solution is the program everyone likes and has worked well which is Medicare for all.
beene:
Look, the solution of scrapping PPACA and starting over is incredulous as there is no re-do for the Repubs who want nothing. Have I ever tried to borrow money, help yes when I was unemployed and I worked it off over time. You said you could go bankrupt under the PPACA and I am saying it is not that easy to do so when there are defined limits. If you are permanently indigent; there is also Medicaid which you can also come off of in time.
The most you will pay is that premium + $6300 as an individual as compared to what previously and to which it has been made more difficult to go bankrupt in 2005.
Tell me about Part A and Part B and what it does for you? I explained it once at NC. You tell me about it.
And we’re back to beginning of making an argument for and against any private insurance verses Medicare. I will repeat and close on the stated facts; almost all two family income people will be bankrupted if there is a major illness. This was supported by the article you posted by Warren.
I am on Medicare and have yet to read of anyone going bankrupt. Plus the only reason we probably have Medicare is that private insurance does not want people who actually need medical insurance. Like most insurance its a cost that rarely servers most of the people who bought it.
Even simple home insurance which most people have and believe will replace their lost, rarely does expect for very smart or rich who can afford consultants does it cover the losses incurred.
beene:
No, you are back at the beginning with no solution other than a hope or a dream. Medicare for all is not going to happen in your life time. Which by the way if you are on it, explain it to everyone else like I did at NC. You do not believe someone can go bankrupt on Medicare? My answer was directed to someone who was having issues paying the bill.
Why did they create Medicare in 1965?
“The special economic problem which stimulated the development of Medicare is that health costs increase greatly in old age when, at the same time, income almost always declines. The cost of adequate private health insurance, if paid for in old age, is more than most older persons can afford. Prior to Medicare, only a little over one-half of those aged 65 and over had some type of hospital insurance; few among the insured group had insurance covering any part of their surgical and out-of-hospital physicians’ costs. Also, there were numerous instances where private insurance companies were terminating health policies for aged persons in the high risk category.” http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/lbjmedicare1.html
You still did not explain Medicare. Explain it if you are on it.
Run, forgot Drugs. Yes since the private insurance has been aloud in this part of Medicare it is doing the same thing it always does which is extract till you cannot pay the bill.
Run, do some research and see how many people on SS are trying to live on less than eleven hundred dollars a month. I’m not sure if those on SS are included in the 40 plus million living in poverty today.
“You still did not explain Medicare. Explain it if you are on it.”
I pay the first $147.00 for doctor or emergency room visits and zero after that each year.
I think the deductible for a hospital stay $1,200.00 and zero after that for each year. Never stayed over night in a hospital.
I have not enrolled in the drug program or looked up the cost.
My attitude of the drug program is buy your drugs off the web. Should you get cancer, except the fact that you may extend life for a lot of pain and money if lucky five years. Yes there are the very rare cases of remission.
run, forgot the part B premium deducted from SS which adds another $1,258.80 to annual Medicare bill. So the total medical insurance premium is for Medicare is $1,405.80.