Elizabeth Warren Stumps all the Federal Bank Supervisors

Sure, but she has build support for it first.
Why do you think she won't follow through?

She then scolded them, ...
Pretty good for her first month on the job!

Because I was responding to the OP that seems ecstatic that she flayed them with words.

The majority of this type of hearing is posturing and never amounts to anything. I have no reason to think that Elizabeth Warren is any different so I'm withholding judgement until she follows it up. Until then she's just another politician.

Exactly. It's best not to get your hopes up with politicians. Look at Obama. People thought he was going to change the world (and Washington). Then he turned out to be just another politician.

For those wondering, she is currently not a co-sponsor of Rand Paul's Audit the Fed 2013 bill [loc.gov].

While she's talked tough against big banks, when it comes to the biggest, she's remarkably timid.

For those wondering, she is currently not a co-sponsor of Rand Paul's Audit the Fed 2013 bill [loc.gov].

While she's talked tough against big banks, when it comes to the biggest, she's remarkably timid.

If one goes, they all go. Can you imagine what just Cozine has on all of these of the farkers; Ben, Timmy, Barry, Jamie, etc?

*Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.*

What I find hilarious is that they've managed to spin the Plutocracy and fraud to "Wall Street" as though it's some stock brokers or financial firms that are to blame.

Ever heard of CDOs? They are in bed together.

No doubt. But it's not "Wall Street" that is at the epicenter of the klepotocracy, it's like 5 hours south in DC.

And it's not the lack of "regulation," either.

It's a fundamental break down in the Rule of Law. TBTF? No, Too Big To Save.

The issue is whether regulators achieve regulatory goals, not whether there is a show trial. Lost in the hurrahs for Warren was the reasonableness of the regulators’ answers (via HuffPo):

“We do not have to bring people to trial,� Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, assured Warren, declaring that his agency had secured a large number of “consent orders,� or settlements.

“I appreciate that you say you don’t have to bring them to trial. My question is, when did you bring them to trial?� she responded.

“We have not had to do it as a practical matter to achieve our supervisory goals,� Curry offered.

But again, what would be the purpose of taking to trial an investment bank or brokerage firm as an entity which already consented to relief the government deemed sufficient to achieve the regulatory purpose?

When it comes to criminal charges, there is a reason the government focuses on individuals rather than entities. The mere bringing of criminal charges against an entity often is enough to put the entity out of business. Are our regulators there to strengthen the system, or obtain a headline which ends up damaging the system?

Elizabeth Warren understands all this. Whatever she is, she’s no dummy.

But she saw an opportunity to score a cheap demagogic point by asking an irrelevant question to witnesses who did not anticipate the question because the question is of importance only to politicians seeking headlines, not to people truly interested in financial reform and enforcement.

One top exec emailed: “While Senator Warren had every right to ask pointed questions at today’s Senate Banking Committee hearing, her claim that ‘nobody believes’ that bank books are honest is just plain wrong. As Federal Reserve Governor Tarullo explained in response to her question, the low valuations are more likely due to continued economic uncertainty and concerns on the part of investors regarding the impact on banks' profitability due to the hundreds of new regulations, higher levels of required capital, and significant activity restrictions.

“It is for these very important reasons that the financial services industry has urged regulators to get implementation right — that is, to carry out the instructions and intentions of Congress in a manner that produces a safe and sound, competitive and innovative industry. That's what today's hearing was supposed to be about — not some shameless grandstanding. Perhaps someone ought to remind the Senator that the campaign is over and she should act accordingly if she wants to be taken seriously.�

I don't know what this ^ means.

Regulation could have prevented naked CDS.

Maybe now, but when the economy was collapsing, that's not the time to destroy all the banks.

Meaning it's the morons in DC and the power structure that will not, by any means, prosecute the banks because that would show the emporor has no clothes.

You cannot be serious.

Right, because the best time to destroy all the banks is when?

If you say never, then I think you're onto something because that would me one thing: the government would have to give up power. Ain't gonna happen.