Her questions to the bankers are so bizarre that they don't know what to do. Ken Lewis looks like a deer in the headlights as Waters asks her about offshore loss mitigation efforts. He can't even figure out what she's talking about, and neither can I. She also asks the bankers, few of whom are in the credit card business, how many of them have cut credit limits to people on the basis of where they shop. It's like watching your crazy aunt challenge your boyfriend to prove that fairies aren't real.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I have always wanted to be called to testify before Congress expressly for the purpose of making up crazy answers to idiotic questions and seeing if our esteemed representatives could tell what was going on.
This is one of the many reasons why I will never be a CEO.
She's a bit nutty and her delivery sucks, no doubt. I don't care for the woman and I do wish that someone more sensible was in her place.
But you yourself went to great lengths to defend those at AmEx who allegedly "cut credit limits to people on the basis of where they shop." So questioning whether these banks are indulging in the same practices looks like fair game.
Similarly, it would not be at all surprising if the large banks routed workout-related calls to call centers abroad, given the extent to which large institutions use overseas BPO's to handle their other retail customer service matters. Consumers have raised a lot of the complaints about the difficulty in getting someone on the phone who can actually address their workout-related issues. If the lenders are going to boast about their track records of doing loan mods, it might be nice to know who exactly is dealing with these matters and how they are dealing with them, as their testimony contradicts a lot of the anecdotes and data available elsewhere.
So if you can point out how she was wrong to challenge either point, I'd like to see it. She handled it poorly, to be sure, and she's not a particularly articulate spokeswomen for the cause, but the issues that she raised were logical ones for the panel to address.
Remember, these are the people who just passed a bill to spend 10% of GDP.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
"Ken Lewis looks like a deer in the headlights as Waters asks her about offshore loss mitigation efforts."
Ken Lewis is a woman?
Seriously though -- this is representative democracy in action. Maxine Waters represents America. Very few members of Congress have any more understanding than she does anyway. They just put a bit more effort into faking it.
It's like watching your crazy aunt challenge your boyfriend to prove that fairies aren't real.
Except my crazy aunt doesn't have substantial influence over whether my boyfriend lives or dies, based on his answers.
What we need is enlightened rule by libertarian philosopher-kings, who because they are libertarians will be uniquely able to resist human degradation and corruption unlike kings before them.
...or will recognize that corruption is inherent, and seek to limit the powers given to the corrupt.
Honestly, modgen, have you done any reading at all about the philosophies behind limited government?
Yes, modgen, the philosopher-king or rule by technocratic meritocracy is the best. But because you can't ensure that a king is not a despot, we're stuck with the worst form of government aside from all the others (i.e., democracy).
Watch [crazy] Maxine Waters Grill Bank CEOs
Of course if one of the CEOs was black, she would defend him to the hilt.
Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines. [Raines would barely avoid prosecution for fraud.]
As for "They just put a bit more effort into faking it."
Maxine Waters is not smart enough to fake it.
Anyone have a link to a video and/or transcript?
Maxine reminds me of Aunt Esther from "Sanford and Son."
Just because democracy is imperfect, and our representatives are often idiots, is no reason not to point out, as often as necessary, that they are idiots. Maxine Walters may be one of the stupidest, but trust me, there are plenty of others in that camp.
In any event, she's a lot less dangerous to the health of the republic than a smart cookie like Speaker Pelosi or Sen. Schumer. It's easy to dismiss anything Waters says because she's a dope, and an ineffective one at that. Alas, that's not the case with the Democratic leadership.
The best is the dude saying "I don't know what you're talking about."
Waters is actually my rep. She is atrocious, but a political institution in south Dallas. She was a state representative for years before she was elected to Congress after redistricting, and was almost always selected as the worst politican in Texas. The famous line from Texas Monthly regarding her election: "Texas' gain is Washington's loss."
PL:
Last I checked, Maxine Waters represented a CA district, not Texas. Are you thinking of Shelia Jackson Lee?
Maxine Waters is from CA. She did a lot of damage in the statehouse before moving on to Washington.
I suggest that PL's confusion explains both women's presence in high office.
DB Cooper:
No where near as much as the clowns running CA presently are.
Maxine had nothing on Cynthia McKinney when she was representing a Northeast Metro Atlanta district. That woman was certifiable. Neal Boortz used to call that Georgia Congressional District "The Unrepresented District".
Good ol' Maxine. Does everyone remember the "CIA is selling crack in Watts" crusade she went on about ten years ago? Even after the San Jose Mercury News admitted the story was bogus she wouldn't let it go.
I always wonder with people like her. Is she really that crazy or is it just that she knows what her constituents want to see?
I thought the best part was the beginning, when she mixed up her terms, addressing the bankers as "Captains of the Universe."
While I certainly disagree with her politically - I missed where TARP was supposed to prevent credit card companies from raising interest rates - I understand what her offshore loss mitigation comments are about - evidently she tried to get loans modified for some of her constituents, and she wasn't impressed with their service. Evidently, she blames it on outsourcing.
She also doesn't like that they won't modify mortgage terms unless the person has already missed a few payments - but it makes sense, otherwise everyone would try to get their loans modified. Loss mitigation only makes sense if there is likely to be a loss to mitigate.
"questioning whether these banks are indulging in the same practices looks like fair game."
RW - I don't think Megan was arguing that Waters shouldn't ask the question even when it's appropriate. But why ask about the credit card policies of banks that don't issue credit cards?
Total mental lapse. I was thinking of Edie Bernice Johnson. Obviously, I should stop trying to work and internet surf and focus on the surfing.
Another great bit was Rep. Waters' referring to the CEO not by name but by institution: "Bank of America, did you do this?"
This is part of their punishment. What's the prblem?
I think my favorite part was the one about the banks paying themselves fees to take the TARP money and even when Vikram Pandit tried to explain that the banks were paying _other_ banks fees to underwrite the debt issuance, she didn't understand it.
What a dope. Citigroup needs to issue preferred shares to give to the government and goes to Morgan Stanley to do the underwriting. Morgan Stanley, a TARP recipient themselves, earns fees on the underwriting done for Citi. She thinks that MS getting the underwriting fees is paying themselves for accepting their own portion for TARP. Moron.
Rich in PA: This is part of their punishment. What's the problem?
Yeah, having to deal with Waters is part of the price of taking government money. Sort of neutralizes the moral hazard, doesn't it?
But you yourself went to great lengths to defend those at AmEx who allegedly "cut credit limits to people on the basis of where they shop." So questioning whether these banks are indulging in the same practices looks like fair game.
Then when she's done, she can call in the CEOs of McDonalds and Burger King and ask them the same question. It would make as much sense as grilling the CEOs of companies that aren't in the credit card business and have no Earthly way of knowing where their borrowers shop.
Yeah, having to deal with Waters is part of the price of taking government money. Sort of neutralizes the moral hazard, doesn't it?
I'd rather go to Guantanamo.
But why ask about the credit card policies of banks that don't issue credit cards?
B of A, Citicorp and Wells all have credit card operations. Should the question not be posed at all because not all of the institutions being represented don't offer them?
The criticism offered has been ad hominem -- mocking the questions because the questioner is wacky. I take no issue with mocking Waters, but in this case, she raised a couple of fair questions, and she deserves to have them answered.
Then when she's done, she can call in the CEOs of McDonalds and Burger King and ask them the same question. It would make as much sense as grilling the CEOs of companies that aren't in the credit card business and have no Earthly way of knowing where their borrowers shop.
Surely you jest. The question was whether the institutions have such a policy. The question shouldn't have been surprising, with the AmEx issue that you yourself defended having just been all over the news.
If the CEO doesn't know what the risk management people in his own company are up to, then that would appear to be a tremendous oversight, and more than a bit ironic in light of recent events that show that these institutions have not been particularly good at managing risk. If the CEO of a lender is that disconnected from the risk management process, then one should question why he holds that position in the first place.
Gene2-
"Citigroup needs to issue preferred shares to give to the government and goes to Morgan Stanley to do the underwriting."
Did they really? A company needs someone else to issue their own shares? Underwriting makes sense into a diverse market, in which case the underwriter is actually (somewhat) risking some of their own cash, and performing a service. In this case it's one class of stock going to one buyer, who is paying up front. Citi could have easily handled this themselves... but then Morgan Stanley wouldn't be getting their paws on some loot.
In this case, it looks like another "good ol boy" thing - fees being paid for an artificial service, with the expectation that the same "courtesy" will be extended in the opposite direction in the future.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's not legal to underwrite your own share issuance . . . someone else has to do the due diligence.
Of course, Congress could have waived this . . . but if they didn't, it's hardly the fault of the banks.
Surely you jest. The question was whether the institutions have such a policy.
So like I said, why not interrogate the CEOs of McDonalds and Burger King, too? Don't you and Waters care if those corporations cut credit to people based on where they shop?
The point, which you've missed and Maxine wasn't bright enough to understand in the first place, is that she was asking the question of people for whom the answer is quite obviously "no, we don't have such a policy, because we aren't in the credit card business, you silly bitch". If she had directed her question specifically at the handful of people present who were in that business, her question would simply have been completely off-topic and irrelevant to the hearings. But she asked it of everybody, thus revealing that she doesn't understand what any of the people she was interrogating actually DO for a living.
I don't care if Congress holds hearings to determine if Amex is lending money intelligently or simply using your preferred method of handing it out to anyone who asks. They can hold hearings about anything they like. What makes this incident worthy of comment isn't that Maxine was being mean to the poor helpless multimillionaire bankers, but simply that Maxine revealed her own ignorance.
The second Maxine stepped up to the microphone I knew it would be entertaining. My roommates and I sat watching the insanity as she spoke way too close to the microphone, beginning with "Captains of the Universe." And you have to love how Maxine addressed Lewis as "Bank of America." Come on, I mean the guy has a name tag right in front of him. There should really be some system where you can kick people out of office. This is just ridiculous. There is no way this lady is even remotely capable of comparing to Lewis and Pandit.
"no, we don't have such a policy, because we aren't in the credit card business, you silly bitch"
That would have made liars of those representing B of A, Citi, and Wells, all of which have credit card operations.
If she had directed her question specifically at the handful of people present who were in that business, her question would simply have been completely off-topic and irrelevant to the hearings.
It's on topic, because the topic du jour is the credit crunch and what is being done to resolve it.
I don't care if Congress holds hearings to determine if Amex is lending money intelligently or simply using your preferred method of handing it out to anyone who asks.
Yet once again, you resort to strawmaning, as you have no substantive rebuttal to the question being raised, namely whether cardholders are being blacklisted based upon where they use their cards.
You apparently believe that maintenance of some sort of secret blacklist of merchants would be an acceptable way of doing business, while I believe in transparency. You believe that credit is some form of entrapment, while I see its value as a form of liquidity in the market that should be extended or refused based upon reasonable and clear criteria.
There are a few basic answers that could have been provided by those who operate credit card businesses: "yes", "no", or "I don't know." (I suppose that taking the Fifth Amendment would have provided a fourth option, but in this case, that would have likely fallen under the "yes" category.)
Just so long as you maintain a dysfunctional view of the role of credit in the market, you will continue to get it wrong.
That would have made liars of those representing B of A, Citi, and Wells, all of which have credit card operations.
But she didn't just ask them, now did she. That's the point you've missed. Three times, now.
It's on topic, because the topic du jour is the credit crunch and what is being done to resolve it.
The only thing credit cards have in common with the credit crunch is the similarity in name. Whatever problems credit card issuers and credit card consumers might be having, TARP isn't there to solve them.
you have no substantive rebuttal to the question being raised, namely whether cardholders are being blacklisted based upon where they use their cards.
I couldn't possibly have been more clear: I don't give a shit if American Express "blacklists" you or anybody else. It is their money, and they can lend it to whomever they please in whatever quantity they please, whether that's $1,000,000 or $1. And if you don't like it, tough cookies. Refusing to lend money to Wal-Mart shoppers is completely legal.
But she didn't just ask them, now did she.
Obviously, those with credit card operations could have answered the questions. Nothing precluded those particular individuals from answering.
The only thing credit cards have in common with the credit crunch is the similarity in name.
With credit limits being reduced, credit cards are obviously linked to the overall trend of less credit being made available. If you miss that obvious point, then it's no wonder that such a basic query bewilders you.
I don't give a shit if American Express "blacklists" you or anybody else..
Then it's a wonderful thing that you aren't an elected official. Your willingness to defend the indefensible doesn't distinguish you for a career in public service.
Not that Ms. Waters is exactly the best proponent, but in this instance, she raised a fair question, albeit not very well. I'd like to know the answer; feel free to cover your ears if you don't wish to hear the answer.
She is a certifiable idiot. Period. Spin all you want about her dumb ass questions. Keep her talking and 2010 will be a good year for Republicans.
With credit limits being reduced, credit cards are obviously linked to the overall trend of less credit being made available.
TARP doesn't exist to solve some semi-mythical reduction in available consumer credit. The problem TARP exists to solve relates to the credit banks are extending (or rather, aren't extending) to one another, to businesses, and to governments -- the things used to make payrolls, to acquire upgrades to factories, and to acquire capital which is THEN lent to consumers.
If all that was happening was that consumers were having a harder time borrowing money, there wouldn't be any problem here for Congress to solve. The economy doesn't depend on the ability of Billy Bob Smith to charge a flat-screen on his Visa -- if he has the money he can just write a check, and if he doesn't then he's going to default on the loan anyway.
Then it's a wonderful thing that you aren't an elected official.
I already said that I don't care if elected officials berate American Express. Talk's cheap. No law's going to come of it. Whine all you like.
"in this instance, she raised a fair question, albeit not very well. I'd like to know the answer; feel free to cover your ears if you don't wish to hear the answer."
Well, RW, I'd like to know why you haven't answered this question yet, regarding your credit card policies. Have you ever reduced someone's credit line based on where they shop? Isn't it rather suspicious that, in all your postings, you haven't yet answered this very fair question? Perhaps we should all be forced to answer this question, since it's fair, and that's what counts.
I'd like to know why you haven't answered this question yet, regarding your credit card policies.
Since I'm the one paying for this TARP party, it's my right to demand accountability from the beneficiaries of my beneficence. The money is flowing in one direction, which makes this strictly a one-way street, and I demand a trail of invoices in exchange for my cash.
They took my money on the basis of adding liquidity to the financial system. Instead, they're using it to increase their own capital, the end result of their own sloppy management practices. That wasn't the deal that we cut.
A person receiving unemployment benefits is supposed to show that he is worthy of receiving the benefits, accounting for his efforts to get off of the dole. The bankers who received tens and hundreds of millions of dollars are being held less accountable than your average grunt receiving a few hundred bucks a week. As usual, we are getting things exactly backwards, punishing the weak while giving a pass to those who need it least.
TARP doesn't exist to solve some semi-mythical reduction in available consumer credit.
Perhaps in a supply sider's Fantasyland -- the same theme park that created this problem in the first place -- that might be true.
But in the economy of the country in which we actually reside, which has a GDP that is driven by consumer spending, retail credit is going to be the key to recovery. Helping the banks was meant to be a means to our ends, not theirs.
Frankly, having seen people being grilled on all matter of subjects by puffed-up, glory-hound Congressman and Senators, my response to them would have been ES&D. I would have been found in contempt of Congress but 99% of Americans would have been like the people in the movie Network and cheered.
Here's the video link to her rambling. It's even worse than I imagined, and that right there is enough to frighten me. In a city loaded with imbeciles Maxine Waters has to be in the first two rows. "Captains of the Universe"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylufIKArbfk
Her rambling, disconnected, unhinged squawking reminds me of a startled magpie. It doesn't know what's happening, it's words mean absolutely nothing, but it's determined to make as much noise as possible.
So for this week, Rep. Waters earns the "Startled Magpie" award.
Congratulations, Ms. Waters.
Who is John Galt?
I saw clips of this hearing and was just appalled.
Imagine this bunch of self-interested crooks grilling anybody about mismanagement of anything! What comedy.
Maxine is certifiable, no doubt. But lets all remember that these creatures all have staff both personal and committee. If she is a rambling crazy aunt then what do you call the staff that comes up with the fruitcake recipe she recites?
The real idiocy is asking these sorts of questions after you've already given them the TARP money, and not before!
You don't admit people to college because they are popular, have good hair, or the ability to read a speech well. Demonstrated aptitude through grades, and on aptitude tests such as the SAT, is required. Unfortunately, this has not been true of our elected representatives.
The time has come to change that. We need to develop an aptitude test for representatives. Voters can decide between candidates based on their RAT scores. Perhaps the bigger RATs will do better than the current bunch of bozos.
I find it quite entertaining to watch Congress go after all the rich bankers and Wall-streets who funded President Obama's presidential campaign at twice the rate of the McCain campaign; the Ivy league affluent thought they would be able to bribe the Democrats into bailing out their fraud only to end up the butt of all economic blame.
The swindlers out-swindled the swindlers; this entertainment is better than anything Jon Stewart could ever produce.
All this brilliant Ivy league talk however will do nothing to fix the problem caused by toxic derivatives piled upon bad loans.
What everyone fails to notice is that Waters, if she were smart enough, is in a position to sponsor legislation to limit credit card fees, cap allowable interest rates, and propose other consumer protections. Remember the usury laws of old?
What Waters failed to do, while she was embarrassing herself and her colleagues, was try to ask the guys who did have credit card businesses what reforms they could live with that would benefit consumers. With that sort of problem solving approach, the system might actually start to function, rather than being the massive dysfunction that it is now.
This is just another example of how we as a society need to get our act together quickly. We have been prosperous because we had a stable political system that supported broad and deep capital markets. Yesterday's performance was a disgrace, and Waters wasn't the only one to blame.
"With that sort of problem solving approach, the system might actually start to function"
With that sort of micro-managing by people like Maxine Waters and Barney Frank, we may sink even further down. We got into this overall mess largely through Waters and Frank leaning on Fannie and Freddie and banks overall to make loans that shouldn't have been made. Now you think that the solution is even more central control by the same people?
How anyone could call Speaker Pelosi a "smart cookie" is confounding to me. Her deep-seated ignorance is both breathtaking and unprecedented. She is pathetic to watch as well as tragic, seeing that she is single-handedly shredding our country to pieces...
This is definitely not a brag, PL, but, as others have noted, Maxine W. is from CA. I have the misfortune to live in her district. We, indeed, have no sentient representation in DC.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ---- Shouldn't that end this conversation? (For those trying to silence Talk Radio with the bogus "fairness doctrine" Give me a break!!!"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ---- Shouldn't that end this conversation? (For those trying to silence Talk Radio with the bogus "fairness doctrine" Give me a break!!!)
Typical liberal. Sounded just as stupid as always and just like her leader Nancy Pelosi. This same person helped write the NOSTIMULAS BILL. Worse yet, the members on the Intelligence Committee (I'm still laughing with this one) are just as bad.
This would be funny, but these people are taking our country down.
By the way, since I'm Republican, I'm sure you will call me racist, but that's okay I'm used to it. Personally, this article sounds racist.
Jack is Back said :Maxine is certifiable, no doubt. But lets all remember that these creatures all have staff both personal and committee. If she is a rambling crazy aunt then what do you call the staff that comes up with the fruitcake recipe she recites?
I ask what do you call the people who keep voting her in?
As the packs of human debris roamed Los Angeles killing people and destroying the city, Maxine Waters was celebrating that human debris and yelling "No justice. No peace!!!" She called those acts of murder and the burning of Los Angeles an "uprising". Of course, she then demanded billions of dollars from American taxpayers to rebuild the district that she had just helped destroy. The absolutely most charitable thing that can be said about Waters is that she's a race baiting buffoon. A very, very, very stupid one.