2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break up the Banks
(among other things)
Dont bother Bernie Sanders with the details on bank reform.
For the Vermont Senator, the matter of just how we should break up the banks, is far less important than the obvious fact that it should be done.
This philosophy was again on display Tuesday when the New York Daily News published a transcript of an interview conducted between the papers editorial board and the democratic presidential candidate. The paper questioned Sanders on his promise to break up the nations largest banks, which he has argued must be done because large, Wall Street banks were too-big-to-fail following the crisis, and they are bigger today.
While that argument for why the banks should be broken up is simple, Sanders has been unable to describe how he would get this done. In the Daily News interview, Sanders says you can break up the banks by passing legislation to do so. But, as Sanders seems to acknowledge, a law like that, given how hard it was to pass the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, is unlikely to get through Congress. As an alternative, Sanders says that the Treasury Department could break up a big bank, which Sanders says it has the authority, under Dodd-Frank, to do if the bank is determined to be a danger to the economy.
Pressed on whether he believes the Fed has the authority to do this under Dodd-Frank, Sanders said, Well, I dont know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
In the past, Sanders has said that he would require the Treasury Department to draw up a list too-Big-To-Fail financial firms, and then use the Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank law to break them up.
And so it goes...
http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/bernie-sanders-big-banks/
He reminds me of Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley: when pressed to provide an answer his mantra was: "I love Chicago."
Who cares about details, never mind that the president is the Chief Executive. And executives are expected to make decisions.
As former Obama Administration economist Austan Goolsbee put it Tuesday morning on Twitter:
have you read the transcript of the Sanders interview with NY Daily News http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306?cid=bitly
?The guy seems clueless on his own #1 issue
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Hillary's motto of "no we can't" does not attract voters.
Just because something is difficult to do doesnt mean we shouldnt try and just placate to republicans and roll over to their will. That is the problem with Hillary and Obama theu just give in and give up instead of pushing for real change. and my only conclusion is they do not want real change they prefer the status quo where more people get poor and the rich get richer and the banks and corporations run our government
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)Just let the repugs do whatever they want since democrats are so powerless to change anything.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)You were dangerously close to criticizing Republicans there. Wouldn't want you to lose your BernieFan street cred.
Best case is significant reform under the current structure. Nobody is breaking up any banks. But you probably knew that already.
question everything
(47,534 posts)If the senator had flubbed a question or two, struggling with details on obscure areas outside his wheelhouse, it wouldnt have made much of a ripple. But as Jonathan Capehart noted, this happened more than once or twice in this interview. Asked about breaking up the big banks, Sanders wasnt sure about the Feds authority, or the administrations. Asked about court fights over too-big-to-fail measures, Sanders conceded, Its something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
There were a few too many similar answers. On negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, Sanders said, Youre asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer. Asked whether the Obama administration is pursuing the right policy towards ISIS, he responded, I dont know the answer to that. Asked about interrogations of ISIS leaders, Sanders said, Actually I havent thought about it a whole lot.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rough-interview-raises-awkward-questions-sanders-campaign
WDIM
(1,662 posts)No we cant change a thing..
mythology
(9,527 posts)Doing something for the sake of doing something has unintended consequences. If Sanders doesn't have an actual plan for how to accomplish his goals, then he hasn't done enough research to know the consequences.
It reminds me of the Sarah Palin answer that she read all the papers. She knew enough to know she needed to say that she read newspapers, but didn't know enough to name them. Sanders knows he needs to say break up the banks, but doesn't have a ready answer for why or how.
I wouldn't let a doctor operate on me if they couldn't tell me what they were going to do and how it was going to go.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)investment & banking now didn't they?
If he gets the Presidency and the Senate I'm sure the finest minds in the country would be able to right quick separate investment from banking.
WTF do you think Presidents lead in a vacuum?
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)I'm sorry.
I'll watch "my tone"... Better not upset Hillary who has far bigger problems than that. 7
Wonder when media is going to be both neutral, independent, truthful and objective rather than throwing rocks at nothing?
basselope
(2,565 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Unlike Clinton who is in their fucking pocket.
So where are those transcripts?
Red Oak
(697 posts)Healthcare meme
Now the big bank meme
What's next? Income inequality?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)don't just parrot talking points. . . or is that all ya got?