Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

question everything

(47,534 posts)
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:58 PM Apr 2016

Bernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break up the Banks

(among other things)

Don’t 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 paper’s editorial board and the democratic presidential candidate. The paper questioned Sanders on his promise to break up the nation’s 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 don’t 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


14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break up the Banks (Original Post) question everything Apr 2016 OP
Pushing for it to be done is better than saying it cant be done WDIM Apr 2016 #1
At the end of the day the results will be the same CorkySt.Clair Apr 2016 #6
so why even bother at all WDIM Apr 2016 #10
Careful. CorkySt.Clair Apr 2016 #13
From Rachel Maddow (she is your darlng, no?) question everything Apr 2016 #7
and Hillary's response keep it status quo WDIM Apr 2016 #9
I disagree with that strongly mythology Apr 2016 #11
It's explained, and backed up in this thread- Gregorian Apr 2016 #2
They ramped up right quick to consolidate katsy Apr 2016 #3
Debunked... Bohemianwriter Apr 2016 #4
I kinda enjoy that the Clinton campaign has been reduced to debunked talking points. basselope Apr 2016 #5
At least he'll fight like hell th or us. 99Forever Apr 2016 #8
Hill's motto - No, we can't, No we can't Red Oak Apr 2016 #12
According to the Daily News, but the NYT explained it and agreed with Bernie, catcht up pdsimdars Apr 2016 #14

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
1. Pushing for it to be done is better than saying it cant be done
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:06 PM
Apr 2016

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

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
10. so why even bother at all
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:25 PM
Apr 2016

Just let the repugs do whatever they want since democrats are so powerless to change anything.

 

CorkySt.Clair

(1,507 posts)
13. Careful.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:42 PM
Apr 2016

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)
7. From Rachel Maddow (she is your darlng, no?)
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:15 PM
Apr 2016

If the senator had flubbed a question or two, struggling with details on obscure areas outside his wheelhouse, it wouldn’t 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 wasn’t sure about the Fed’s authority, or the administration’s. Asked about court fights over too-big-to-fail measures, Sanders conceded, “It’s 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, “You’re 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 don’t know the answer to that.” Asked about interrogations of ISIS leaders, Sanders said, “Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rough-interview-raises-awkward-questions-sanders-campaign

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
11. I disagree with that strongly
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:27 PM
Apr 2016

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.

katsy

(4,246 posts)
3. They ramped up right quick to consolidate
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:10 PM
Apr 2016

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)
4. Debunked...
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:11 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511663435

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?

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
8. At least he'll fight like hell th or us.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:23 PM
Apr 2016

Unlike Clinton who is in their fucking pocket.

So where are those transcripts?

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
14. According to the Daily News, but the NYT explained it and agreed with Bernie, catcht up
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:46 PM
Apr 2016

don't just parrot talking points. . . or is that all ya got?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie Sanders Can't Expl...