How embarrassing:

The shocking ignorance/hilarity demonstrated by the anchors’ inane questions is rife with Fox News Penis Envy.


Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) discusses the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on July 12, 2013. Senator Warren introduced the legislation with Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Angus King (I-ME).

Category: Regulation, Television, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

26 Responses to “Senator Warren Discussing Glass Steagall”

  1. I thought the job of “ball gargling prostitute for Wall Street” was already taken. Apparently, there is fierce competition for the position — even on Squawk Box,

    Best of luck you ball garglers on the interviews!

  2. ByteMe says:

    Didn’t seem like she changed their closed minds.

    She has a nice professorial demeanor, though, which plays well on the split screen.

  3. chartist says:

    Kernan is a joke….Ms. Warren didn’t hide her objectives running for office. She got elected in spite of being pro consumer, I’d say that’s evidence enough that people believe she can accomplish her Glass Steagall goals.

    • MikeNY says:

      Kernan is a buffoon, a Punchinello. He is incapable of thought: he can only parrot the old flyblown, discredited, trickle-down Randian bullshit. I can’t watch him or his wig.

    • krice2001 says:

      I live in Massachusetts and voted for because I thought she’d do what she said. But I always knew it would be an uphill climb and I’m sure she was very well aware of that, too.

  4. Andre says:

    I voted for her in spite of my disgust with both of the legacy parties. I voted for her because there is one attribute which she can articulate very well, and that is that she knows what she’s talking about, and can stopped, as she did here, false information. That’s a good beginning.

  5. stonedwino says:

    And we wonder why CNBC ratings are in the toilet? Who watches that crap anyway? They should scrap the whole channel. Watching “Honey Boo Boo” is just about as inspiring and entertaining…Geez

  6. BennyProfane says:

    Good for her. I hope she’s around long after those idiots on Squawk Box are collecting UE checks.

  7. [...] the Warren-McCain bill to restore Glass Steagall. Earlier this morning, we showed Senator Warren discussing the bill on [...]

  8. constantnormal says:

    … well-argued logic and reason have not won the day in Bananamerica since 1776, when a coalition of brilliant individuals with differing mindsets and opinions argued and struggled with how to structure a new nation … and compromised to bring about something that the rest of the world has tried to recreate/emulate ever since …

    With the perspective that a couple of centuries brings, I think we can safely call that result an aberration, a “lucky accident”, that we have by now largely dismantled, never to be seen again …

  9. VennData says:

    How DARE you deny the fact that Obama and the LIBERALS are the problem in this once-great nation. Every regulation, every tax increase, every food stamp tears at my soul ( which unlike you and your commentators spewing their fellatious talking points is going to heaven!) When Obama socializes your business, ruins your access to credit and makes you marry someone of a different ethical origin, don’t come whyning to me. Because I stick with CNBC. I tape Joe Kernan every AM and re-watch those delightful s’morsings of your LIBERAL hero Warren ‘Raise taxes’ Buffett which I watch on weekends when CNBC does infomercials of stuff I already bought.

  10. 873450 says:

    The ignorance is more willful than shocking. Take note how they begin interrupting and trying to cut Warren off the 2nd time she shoots down their citing the S&L crisis as an example of Glass Steagall failing to prevent a banking crisis. A financial network reporter basically saying, “Everything I’ve read say’s you’re wrong.” is outright insulting to a U.S. Senator invited guest. They don’t dare treat Paul Volker the same way when he appears on broadcasts advocating a similar Glass Steagall reinstatement. Global warming deniers, birthers and black helicopter conspiracy theorists are provided greater respect than Warren, who’s faced down much tougher antagonists than these lightweight ideologues. She remains patient and polite without deviating from a simple, common sense legislative proposal supported by historical fact.

    Obama obediently following Wall Street’s order to withhold the CFPB chair from Warren is backfiring against both if them.

  11. gman says:

    Being a “ball gagger” is one very common and lucrative business model for journalism.

    Barry is attempting another..I wish him well.

  12. hawks5999 says:

    The real issue is brought up by Warren at :47:
    “If you are going to have FDIC insurance…”

    Why is FDIC such an assumed policy? GLBA wasn’t bad because it repealed Glass-Steagall but because it only repealed half of Glass-Steagall. GLBA left FDIC in place while removing the separation requirements. Had GLBA eliminated FDIC as well, the outcome would have been much different. Instead of restoring Glass-Steagall, let’s eliminate FDIC. There’s no reason for the government to prop up depositors who invest (through deposits) in speculative casinos calling themselves banks.

    • To review: Opening a checking account is somehow “engaging in a speculative casino” ?


      • marmot says:

        Can’t they just make FDIC non-compulsory? Have tight regulation for banks that participate, loose regulation and no guarantees for the banks (and depositors) that do not.

      • Ben Dover says:

        BR, I read his comment differently. I think he is saying why are TBTF banks able to access the FDIC insured deposits to use as funding in part for risky trading operations, -as opposed to the actual opening of a demand or time deposit account being labeled ‘speculative’.
        FDIC insurance or no, I partially agree with the OP. If you want to be a commercial bank fine, take deposits and use FDIC, and if you want to be a trading bank then be a partnership and risk your own capital, or non-insured depositors capital.

      • I think thats right

    • Gatsby says:

      The talking heads are setting a new standard for self-interested, douchery. What demographic is CNBC trying to chase with this crap? Seriously?

      hawks5999, Here is some simple banking 101 which I will word as simply as possible because you clearly need me to do so. People deposit money in bank. Banks lend deposits to borrowers. Borrowers buy things or start a business. This is good for the economy. Capitalism hinges on access to capital (hence the name).

      Now if you want to see what happens when you remove FDIC take a look at rural China, where people keep their money under their mattress (or whatever the hell it is they sleep on). No deposits, no loans, no capitalism.

    • DeDude says:

      Society needs a stable banking system that will not blow up every time greed wins and speculative bobbles burst. The consequences of a failed banking system are too severe to be allowed in a modern capitalist economy (where everything including good healthy businesses run on credit). That is why the gamblers don’t want their gambling separated from actual banking – they know that no matter what, society cannot allow the banking system in the worlds largest economy (holding the world reserve currency) to go under. So as long as their gambling is connected to the banking system they know it will be backstopped.

      Why do we have to have FDIC insurance and associated regulations and oversights? Because without it, way to much capital would leave the banks and be placed in gold, land and other non-productive assets, perceived by regular savers as being more “safe”. The government backed FDIC allow savers to consider bank savings to be as safe as those “real assets” and as a result that capital becomes available to be borrowed by individuals and businesses – to grow the economy.

    • Iamthe50percent says:

      Do you want people to go back to saving their money in their mattresses?

  13. BennyProfane says:

    “There’s no reason for the government to prop up depositors who invest (through deposits) in speculative casinos calling themselves banks.’

    You need to read a little history, specifically about what the world was like before FDIC insurance. Or, even better, look what happened in Cyprus. The EURO banking system still has no deposit insurance to speak of, and, there are millions of depositors flapping in the wind, who could lose everything in a heartbeat, like depositors in a lot of American banks during the depression.

  14. S Brennan says:

    I gotta disagree here Barry, Hawks5999 has an excellent point about deregulating practices that may seem dangerous to those who have not been schooled in ECONOMICS 101. Almost all people after being indoctrinated by ECONOMICS 101 agree [if they want to pass the course that is] that the market should be the final arbitrator of peoples behavior. NOT THE US GOVERNMENT

    For example, is it governments place to regulate the refinement of highly enriched uranium? Let the market decide!!! I think anybody who has been indoctrinated by ECONOMICS 101 agrees any mistakes will be corrected by the market.

    Is it governments place to regulate the distribution of weapons to violent offenders recently released from prison? Hell No I say, let the market decide!!! Anybody who has been indoctrinated by ECONOMICS 101 agrees any mistakes will be corrected by the market.

    Is it really governments place to regulate the manufacture of Sarin….

    The point I am making here Hawks5999, in case you don’t get it…is anything that has been proven destructive should fall under government “regulation”. Bank failures have ruined many more lives than Sarin gas.

    FDR implemented a regime that worked so well, that for 50 years, the United States saw unparalleled stability & prosperity. If we wish to return to wealth generating activities, we must return to the policies that produce it.

  15. intlacct says:

    This may explain CNBC’s declining ratings… ;)

  16. intlacct says:

    “Can’t they just make FDIC non-compulsory? Have tight regulation for banks that participate, loose regulation and no guarantees for the banks (and depositors) that do not.”

    In short: No. Humans in general but Americans particularly can’t handle more than one choice. Especially on BIG stuff (retirement, health care, funding college). Of course, part of the problem is that those offering ‘choices’ purposely obfuscate choices 2 thru 20,000 (in the case of mutual funds). To imagine Americans are rational on this micro siht (choosing a suitably insured bank and eschewing evanescent higher yields) is beyond silly (See Old Court Savings and Loan debacle).

    In addition, Americans in particular think they can handle the vicissitudes of life. They are wannabe ‘gunslingers’. They are sadly mistaken in the vast majority of cases. Which brings up this thought: I wish Social Security and Health Care were sold as insurance. Not an investment with a return (unless the return is peace of mind and non-penury/health).

    FInally, a significant, moronic class of Americans denigrate the programs that have worked, in the vast majority of other laboratories and in some cases for 130 years.

    To recap: incapable of choosing wisely, ludicrously overconfident, adolescently obtuse. Not a winning combo.