Hillary Folks: Sen Sanders wants to Break up Big Banks. Where does Sec Clinton Stand on this Issue?

[grahamhgreen]

This is a policy discussion only. What is her position?

Sanders Files Bill to Break Up Big Banks

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

WASHINGTON, May 6 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation to break up the nation’s biggest banks in order to safeguard the economy and prevent another costly taxpayer bailout. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) proposed a companion bill in the House.

The 2008 financial crisis had a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. It cost as much as $14 trillion, the Dallas Federal Reserve calculated. The Government Accountability Office pegged the cost at $13 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the crisis nearly doubled the national debt and cost more than the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

The six largest U.S. financial institutions today have assets of some $10 trillion, an amount equal to almost 60 percent of gross domestic product. They handle more than two-thirds of all credit card purchases, control nearly 50 percent of all bank deposits, and control over 95 percent of the $240 trillion in derivatives held by commercial banks.

The Sanders and Sherman legislation would give banking regulators 90 days to identify commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and other entities whose “failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial government assistance.”

The list would have to include Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo. These eight institutions already have been deemed “systemically important banks” by the Financial Stability Board, the international body which monitors the global financial system. Under the legislation, the U.S. Treasury Department would be required to break up those and any other institutions deemed too big to fail by the treasury secretary. Any entity on the too-big-to-fail list would no longer be eligible for a taxpayer bailout from the Federal Reserve and could not use their customers’ bank deposits to speculate on derivatives or other risky financial activities.

To read the bill and a summary click here and here. LINK: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-files-bill-to-break-up-big-banks

What is Sec Clinton's position on this important issue? FOR OR AGAINST?

[bvar22]

1. If you have to ask,

you can't afford her.

[grahamhgreen]

2. lol. You'd think one of her think tank members could step up to the plate with an answer. If they

do I imagine it will be something along the lines of a 'nuanced approach'.

[HFRN]

151. why step up to the plate, when you have a stone wall? nt

[rbnyc]

60. Can I use that?

Brilliant line.

[HFRN]

150. ^^ LOL!!! nt

[hootinholler]

3. 45 minutes of crickets

I hear they're due out in 10 days or so after the focus groups are concluded.

[MissDeeds]

7. Yeah, and that team of advisors

which is what, two hundred? How would that work as president?

[LittleBlue]

4. You know Hillary, she always stands with average people like us

[2banon]

5. Excellent Effort grahamhgreen. So sad they can't respond.

OTH, it's exactly what I would expect from them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Not breaking up big banks I guess?

I haven't heard any views on this

[George II]

8. I suggest you ask her.

[Ed Suspicious]

10. She is running, right? You guys care about her policy

positions, right?

[George II]

14. Yes she's running, and I'm pretty sure no members of DU are running or are on her campaign...

...staff, so why are you posing that question in such a confrontational way here?

[grahamhgreen]

39. I'm asking you. Do you know where she stands on this issue?

[rbnyc]

62. So we can't talk about non-issues...

...and we can't talk about issues?

Awesome.

[Man of Distinction]

11. I thought all the Clinton supporters should know where she stands!

You know, she's been running for President since 1994!

[JaneyVee]

9. Sanders waited until May 2015 to start "breaking up banks"?

In a House and Senate it has no chance of passing, during a year in which he decides to run for president?

[Ed Suspicious]

12. Maybe he had to evolve on the issue.

Or maybe he thought it important enough to commit to a position so that we can actually compare candidates.

[AgingAmerican]

54. He introduced legislation in 2009 to break up the banks

Back then he called it, "Too big to fail"

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/too-big-to-fail-too-big-to-exist

[George II]

77. And it failed, even with Democratic majorities in both houses. So what is different today...

....that will enable him to get almost identical legislation passed in 2015?

[bvar22]

116. I've never heard it stated so clearly. Thanks.

Clearly,we need MORE "Sanders", and fewer Wall Street Lap Dogs in the Democratic Party.
Thanks for the diagnosis of what is holding the Party and our Nation back...Conservative Democrats!

[Springslips]

129. A huge....

Plus one!

[Man of Distinction]

13. I think he started much earlier than that..

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/too-big-to-fail-too-big-to-exist

2009 is when he started work. Soon after the economic shit that Bush unleashed upon us.

[George II]

16. You're correct. But if he introduced that legislation in 2009 when the Democrats....

...had the majority in both houses AND occupied the White House, I'd say it's a sad commentary on his effectiveness if six years later he again has to introduce virtually the same legislation.

[MrMickeysMom]

26. What makes it sad?…

Is it because his duty after the bill included getting the majority in congress to pass it?

Tell us how that was to have worked…

[George II]

33. If he couldn't get legislation passed while IN the congress....

.....how is going to get it passed on the outside looking in?

[zeemike]

37. So being president is on the outside then.

And that explains why Obama could not get anything done...and maybe he should have stayed a senator to get things done.
Funny though that only applies to Dems...Bush got a lot done as president and with Dems support too.

But I can tell you President Sanders will get things done...he will use the power of the office the way it was meant to be used to get things done...not just take it off the table to appease the right.

[MrMickeysMom]

47. There are three branches of United States Government...

Please stop me if you've heard this before.

How old are you?

[AgingAmerican]

55. HE couldn't get it past a right wing Democratic party

He didn't have the bully pulpit.

[virtualobserver]

57. His plan is also to retake the House and Senate.....

...as part of the grass roots revolution

He will use the bully pulpit like no President in recent memory

[Arkana]

70. And then he'll fly to the moon on gossamer wings.

The Bernie Sanders campaign isn't doing jack for downticket races right now, and unless they start, the revolution is going to be short-lived.

[virtualobserver]

73. get back with me after he wins the nomination

he has all the time in the world

[George II]

76. The Democratic Party and Democratic Representatives/Senators were "right wing" in 2009?

Sorry, that's just too bizarre.

[George II]

75. We're being told that he is has "leadership qualities", and people are now touting this 2015....

...legislation that he's introducing. But he introduced virtually the same legislation six years ago but didn't demonstrate the leadership qualities back then to rally the votes to get it passed.

I'm not here to bash Sanders, I like him, but I just don't think he would make an effective President, and I'm not going to sit by and watch people make stuff up about him. This isn't a football rally, it's a Presidential election, and I want the person who is best able to perform as President and, not unimportantly, CAN WIN THE ELECTION. I think in those two areas Hillary Clinton is the better choice.

[Luminous Animal]

34. It is a sad commentary on the most of the rest of the Dems in Congress. It was a sensible bill

for those who are not beholden to bankers donations.

[2banon]

69. Conversely, I think it's a sad commentary on the Party we're supporting.

Actually, I think it's a disgusting, revolting, commentary on the party we support.

But the denial is far, far worse.

[grahamhgreen]

40. WHERE DOES HILLARY STAND ON THIS ISSUE?

[nc4bo]

67. How can anyone comparison shop if we can't inspect the product?

[Dustlawyer]

15. While your at it, ask them where she stands on Publicly Funded Elections vs. Super Pacs and

Campaign donations; busting up the media oligopoly, big tax increases for the ones who are pulling in 99% of all of the growth in the economy, and dramatically cutting the Pentagon's budget to help fund education and infrastructure.
Ironic that anytime we gripe about income inequality and want to tax big corporations and the very wealthy more, or raise the minimum wage they holler "Class Warfare." The sad reality is that they have already won the war over the last 30 years, we just weren't fighting back!

[George II]

35. Does she believe in Motherhood and a chicken in every pot?

[bvar22]

113. If you need to know that, ask her.

I believe you just FAILED to trivialize this discussion.

[Indepatriot]

17. She stands with both hands out at the corner of Wall Street and Third Way Way

[OnyxCollie]

18. MISOGYNIST!

[MisterP]

48. brocialist! 93% the same!

[Eatacig]

19. Bernie

Yeah!! Bernie, a chicken in every pot

[Ed Suspicious]

29. Are you seriously comparing Bernie to Herbert Hoover or am I missing something here?

[bvar22]

120. "a chicken in every pot" was Huey Long's famous slogan for his election to Governor.

Huey could "get things done", and wasn't afraid of a War with the RICH,
In fact, he won....so they killed him.

#!

[Ed Suspicious]

122. Then he likely appropriated the phrase from the 1928 Hoover campaign. Thanks for clearing that up

for me. I love me some Huey Long. http://www.presidentsusa.net/1928slogan.html

[sabrina 1]

20. I absolutely agree with Bernie on this. It should have been done long ago but especially after they

crashed the world's economies.

I don't know where Hillary stands on this.

[CTBlueboy]

21. How Dare You !!

Question the Duchess of Goldman former archduchess of Walmart

You must pay a sum 250k in order for her answer such question

[restorefreedom]

22. good article here on bernie/hillary voting differences

one pertinent tidbit


Financial Crisis
Mrs. Clinton parted ways with Mr. Sanders over his opposition to the bank bailout bill a month before the November 2008 election. He also voted to deny the Treasury Department the ability to spend the remaining $350 billion in the troubled assets purchase program at the start of the next Congress, while she favored it.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

[abelenkpe]

23. Maybe a reporter will ask this question?

[ismnotwasm]

24. Interesting

Haven't heard from Hillary of this but I have heard from a few free market libertarians, as well as a fascinating series of pro and con debates from this site

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/education/item/983-break-up-the-big-banks

[Maedhros]

119. Reining in run-away capitalism is now a libertarian plot! [n/t]

[wilsonbooks]

25. Poor hillary

She never met a banker she didn't want to give a speech to.

[pa28]

27. She should take a clear stand on the issue. Yes or No.

Breaking up the big banks is not just a left or right issue. The conservative American Enterprise Institute supports the idea and of course we know exactly where Bernie stands (as usual).

[PatrickforO]

31. LOL - those big banks are clogging up the plumbing!

[SusanCalvin]

43. This makes me smile. nt

[Darb]

64. No, she shouldn't. She is running for President of the USA,

not President of the socialist side of DU.

Goddamn you guys are jumping the shark. If you do not clue in you are going to get another President Bush.

[ljm2002]

68. She shouldn't take a clear stand?

Taking a clear stand on an issue would mean she is pandering to the "socialist side of DU"? Really?

[pa28]

82. A majority of Americans support breaking up the big banks.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/only-23-of-americans-opposed-to-breaking-up-big-banks.html

It's not a radical position, it's good policy supported by politicians and economists from all points on the political spectrum. No deposits are going to vanish, nobody is being wiped out. It only means that banks capable of crashing the financial system are broken up into smaller units. It means separating commercial banks and investment banks.

Instead of doing what the majority of Americans want our president has signed bills allowing customer deposits to be used as collateral on derivative bets. He's also signed a bill making bailouts of derivative losses for TBTF banks the law. It seems to me THAT is jumping the shark.

The total value of derivative bets and degree of leverage has already grown beyond the point we saw before the crash of 2008. Why shouldn't we ask Hillary Clinton to take a position on breaking up the banks?

Yes or No. Simple as that.

[grahamhgreen]

104. Where does she stand on this issue?

[Ed Suspicious]

123. You aren't allowed to know. If you did it would risk her election chances - so says the poster a

couple replies above me.

[grahamhgreen]

137. And they think she can get elected on a platform of vapor.

[rateyes]

28. She was the Senator from New York, and

The home of Wall Street, and her top contributors to her campaign are on the list of banks that would be broken up. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where she stands on the issue.

She is a DLC, Third Way, owned by Wall Street candidate.

[PatrickforO]

30. Well, here's a happy little article on Common Dreams that might shed some light on your question:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/03/30/theres-reason-big-banks-arent-mad-Hillary

Be warned, it isn't for the faint of heart...

[bobbobbins01]

36. That sums up my feelings nicely

And after her "help the working class by giving businesses incentives" campaign kick off speech, it became very apparent that she's playing both sides(and we all know what side she'll fall on if elected). No thanks.

[Progressive dog]

32. Chase is largest US bank but only 7th in the world

The "list" would have to include only US banks. US law can't be used to regulate non-US banks.
I hope Hillary is AGAINST. This is an international problem and can't be fixed by the US acting alone.

[zeemike]

42. What does the world have to do with OUR banking system?

No one wants to break up the world's banks...let the world do it or face the same problem we have.

It's like saying pollution is a world problem so must be against a solution until the world solves it.

[Progressive dog]

49. So just US banks get broken up since

"no one wants to break up the world's banks." US citizens can move their investments to these large foreign banks, many of which do business in the US. This sounds like a plan to move lots of banking jobs overseas.
We actually are trying to get the world to solve both CO2 emissions and bank problems. We've been working with other nations for a long time through groups such as the UN, WTO, G20, G7.

[zeemike]

56. That's nonsense the dollar is the reserve currency of the world.

You are just making the case that big banks are too big to fail and too big to be split up.
But investors have been moving their money out of the country for a long time...braking up the big banks won't have any effect on that or the economy.

It is banking monopoly that IS the problem...and monopoly is not good for any economy.

[Sancho]

72. hmmm, you are aware there's more money in Caribbean banks than in NYC?

The actual $'s are hard to track, but breaking up US Banks won't make sense unless you include all the offshore depositories. Does Bernie plan to invade Bermuda, Switzerland, and Samoa?

http://nomadcapitalist.com/2013/11/17/top-5-offshore-tax-havens-bank-secrecy/

Again, Bernie has all these superficial economic ideas that won't pass and won't work. Welcome to the modern world.

[zeemike]

90. So with moniplistic big banks in the US we have more off shore money.

So obviously it is not working for us.
And you have yet to explain how breaking up the monopoly will effect that in any way.

It is like the communist argument that communism will not work until all capitalism is destroyed everywhere...the ultimate excuse for it's failure.

As long as there are big banks out there in the world we dare not do anything about ours.
But Iceland did it and they are doing better than the world at large...but I already know the excuse, they are small.

[Sancho]

91. You need international agreements to get a handle on the big banks...

right now, that's impossible. Maybe a Democratic President could get some cooperation if a Democratic Congress went along. Then they would have to get other big banking countries to work together. The real issue is that big banks collude with each other to manipulate just about everything they can.

There is no way easy to "break up" the banks. It might be possible to create regulations to prevent some problems, and it might be possible to create a climate where banks found it profitable to divide voluntarily into smaller corporations. For example, if banks were not allowed to also "invest" and investment companies could not exist as "banks"; then they may break themselves up into affiliated independent organizations.

It would be nice to close loopholes so that moving money in and out of the US was more difficult or taxed to the point that it was not favorable. Taxing capital gains is one method. This is where we need experts like Warren to deal with the complexities.

It might be nice if Post Offices were also highly regulated community banks (like non-profit credit unions) so that every corner branch was not a part of a national mega-chain. That might protect the mainstream folks from speculation and get millions of American's dollars into a safe place.

Who knows all the answers, but it will be hard to "regulate" the banks to be smaller. They will simply find a way to get around the rules as long as the really big banks are international conglomerates out of control of any one government.

Some of Obama's picks have been disappointing in terms of regulating banks, but Warren was a good find!

[bvar22]

121. You need international agreements to get a handle on the big banks?

Iceland didn't.

[Sancho]

130. Yep...and Iceland didn't have piles of private and corporate dollars in Samoa...

and Iceland had a government that was unified.

If we elect a Democratic President, Senate, and House - and appoint a few new SC justices/ US Attorneys - well, then with a few years after reigning in the international banks - some new regulations like Iceland would be fine!!

What happened when Whitewater, Enron, etc. executives went to jail? NOTHING. The bad guys just moved the money around and went right on manipulating!

Some of the worst took the money, moved out of the country, and are living high. Heck, we should hire the Icelandic PM tomorrow as Fed Chair or something if it would help, but it won't.

It's going to take a strong Democratic majority a decade to unwind the mess that Reagan and the Bushes have created. Without a strong Democratic Congress and President, there's no hope to do more than pick away a few small things here and there.

We could turn half a dozen red states blue tomorrow with a path to citizenship. No new taxes, nothing the GOP could do about it. Just 20-30 million new voters over the next decade who vote 80% Democratic. Think about the possibility.

[bvar22]

132. The MOST imprtant component of your plan...

...is electing Democrats who have the willingness to "Welcome their hatred" (of the 1%)


Bernie fills that bill.
His opposition does not have that willingness.

[zeemike]

133. I'm sorry but you have not explained just why we cannot break up our big banks.

Do the big banks of the world grab all our money or what?...will investors and depositors rush out and put their money in the world big banks because they just love them soo much?...just what is the threat they pose?

But again, we don't have to break up every big bank in the world just our own, and nothing bad can or will happen but a lot of good will.
Monopolies have been broken up before in this country and the results were all good...and it was not until right wingers came up with the idea that they were a good thing and should be protected that things went to shit.

And we are not helpless against them...they are not kings by divine rule. We have government for the expressed purpose to control them and we seem to have forgotten that.

[Sancho]

134. One reason is that Florida (for example) has 200 billion in employee retirement in those banks.

Unwinding all the funds and investments will mean that state employees will lose savings and retirement. Multiply that by 50 states.

Thats what happened to Enron employees..thousands lost retirement.
Some will retain value, but lots of others will lose. Unions, public employees, and retirees will suffer if you force them to "break up". Other than that, it's a good idea.

You can get the banks to voluntarily divest, diversify, and split off without "breaking them up". That's what happened recently with ING and Voya - mostly because of regulations that retirement funds could not have international risks.

[zeemike]

135. So what you are saying is they hold us hostage.

If we break them up they steal the money and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me.
If banks have that much power then they own us...and the government as well.

[Sancho]

136. No, they don't steal the money...

but there would be winners and losers.

If you want to dissolve a large company with lots of assets - it's better to do it in an organized way.

Fire sales don't do anyone any good.

[zeemike]

145. Well right if someone takes your money they are a winner

And you are a loser. Thieves are winners and victims losers.

And breaking up monopolies is not dissolving a company...it is breaking it up into pieces that do not control markets.
And it is not selling them off at fire sale prices...no one is buying them. It's been done before when we had a government that cared and was not corrupt.

It's not like we have not been their before.

"We have here the problem of bigness. Its lesson should by now have been burned into our memory by Brandeis. The Curse of Bigness shows how size can become a menace--both industrial and social. It can be an industrial menace because it creates gross inequalities against existing or putative competitors. It can be a social menace...In final analysis, size in steel is the measure of the power of a handful of men over our economy...The philosophy of the Sherman Act is that it should not exist...Industrial power should be decentralized. It should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men...That is the philosophy and the command of the Sherman Act. It is founded on a theory of hostility to the concentration in private hands of power so great that only a government of the people should have it." Dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas in United States v. Columbia Steel Co.[5]

[Progressive dog]

146. So you are saying US banks are different

because the US dollar is used by everyone (as a reserve currency)?

[zeemike]

147. Yes obviously they are different.

They operate under US law not the law of other countries...unless we have achieved a one world government that I don't know about.

[Progressive dog]

148. So you just want to get even with US Banks

by making it impossible for them to compete internationally. As a bonus, you get to gloat over all the Americans who will no longer have jobs and the stockholders who will take a bath.

[zeemike]

149. No I want US banks to work for us not the world elite.

And that is bullshit about them being competitive...monopolies are the exact opposite of competitive.
And banks broken up will create more jobs not fewer...the reason for consolidation is to reduce the number of people it takes to run things.

[Progressive dog]

153. There is no bank monopoly,

when someone complains about regulating banks, then obviously there is no monopoly. A monopoly would be about regulating a bank. You are right about monopolies being the exact opposite of competitive.
Breaking up US banks will certainly create more jobs overseas.

[JackInGreen]

38. Don't put em on the spot

Triangulation takes time.

[grahamhgreen]

41. It's why they'll lose. They can't even say if she's for or against it. Sad.

[SusanCalvin]

44. Not can't, won't. nt

[Tommymac]

45. For your enjoyment while we await a response.

[nikto]

46. Just to put this to rest, I will answer it for Hillary ...

Here is Hillary's response:


"The American People need a champion. I intend to be that champion."

Will that do?

[sadoldgirl]

50. And this becomes extremely important, because

from now on there will be no bail-out, instead of that
a bail-in.The Cyprus way, you know?

If you saved for your future, if the banks fail, whatever
cannot be paid by the FDIC, will come by percentages
from your savings.

[on point]

51. According to CNN interview she has 'her own plan' but ducked th question

Pure useless waffle. Disgusting

[bvar22]

154. ...and Nixon had his own secret plan for ending the VietNam War.

..that should inspire some trust!

[elleng]

52. Prevent another Crash: Reform Wall Street. MARTIN O'MALLEY

We were forced to save our economy by bailing out big banks. Now, we have a responsibility to correct the mistakes of our more recent past to prevent another crash.

To do that, we must acknowledge that — while it addressed inherent flaws in the financial system — the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act did not go far enough.

The most serious structural reform we can make is reinstating the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that kept commercial banks separate from investment banks. Under Glass-Steagall, our country did not see a major financial crisis for nearly 70 years. If that law hadn’t been repealed in 1999, the crash would have been contained.

The largest banks should be broken up into more manageable institutions.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2015/03/20/prevent-another-crash-reform-wall-street/25057735/

[sadoldgirl]

53. Well, that is what Bernie has proposed since 2009

As far as I understand the Glass-Steagall Act is not enough
anymore. We would have to make the derivatives illegal as
well, because they are the banks' pure gambling tools.

[Ichingcarpenter]

58. ''For goodness' sake''

For goodness' sake, you can't be a lawyer if you don't represent banks.”

Hillary Clinton

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/17/us/the-1992-campaign-hillary-clinton-defends-her-conduct-in-law-firm.html


People who were lawyers that didn't represent banks

Teddy Roosevelt
FDR
Robert F Kennedy
Walter Mondale
Paul Wellstone
Bernie Sanders

[raouldukelives]

59. Well, I'd sure like to know.

Hopefully she will come out a little to his left.

[Evergreen Emerald]

61. So, Sanders has been ineffective on this and many other issues.

He has done nothing of substance to fix any of the US problems. He appears to have big talk and little action.

[rbnyc]

65. We have ourselves to blame...

...by thinking we can fix problems just by winning elections. No congressperson, senator or president can challenge the corporate power that we have allowed to take root in our system without a strong, active and massive grassroots movement. And we make it even harder on ourselves by buying into the idea that only corporate-backed candidates are electable.

Government for, of and by the people means that we do more than argue during primary and election season and figure out how to keep our party leaders in the money.

[hootinholler]

71. Maybe.

He's done everything in his power to make the changes we need.

The way I see it is we need to give him more power.

[Sheepshank]

86. oh lordy are you listening to yourself?

this won't fly. You want to give the office of President more power...does Cruz need more power? Can you even imagine if Bush and the puppetmaster Cheney had more power? Wholly Crappinoly.

[hootinholler]

118. No you misunderstood me

I don't want to give the president more power, I want to give Bernie the power of the President.

I also want to give him a compliant congress, but I doubt we can accomplish that until his first mid-term election.

[Sheepshank]

124. oh alrighty then...that I do understand n/t

[grahamhgreen]

102. WHERE DOES HILLARY STAND ON THIS ISSUE?

[Darb]

63. She says no because it is a stupid idea to propose that will lose the election for her.

Fucking duh. Whether or not breaking up the banks has merit or not, running on it is as stupid as it farkin gets. How many Americans bank in those banks. If some candidate says they want to break up your bank, what do you think? You think, "wait a doggone minute, what happens to my money?".

Use that mass of cells inside your fucking skull!!!!!!

[rbnyc]

66. We will fucking see.

I think this is a pretty popular idea actually. Also, breaking up the banks doesn't mean the money disappears, and most voters have about $30 in the bank anyway.

Also, your language sucks. Fucking duh!

[randys1]

79. Obviously Bernie is on the right track with this issue and it is an almost certainty Hillary

is against breaking them up.

So it is another reason TO vote for Bernie in primary season, hoping to have him as our candidate.

But if Bernie is NOT the nominee, and Hillary is, let's not pretend that her position is unique or new.

As far as I can see Bernie is the ONLY candidate on either side presenting this idea, though I am not certain.

I guess Rand Paul could be also, not sure.

But what worries me about these debates is how they will be used once the nominee is chosen.

[rbnyc]

80. I'm not worried about that.

I think it will resonate. The candidates who are shying away from controversial positions look like politicians, not public servants. That us no longer playing well.

Although I am reminded of a conversation I had last night with my kid. He asked me what I would do if I were president. I listed a bunch of my top priorities and he said, "And you would run on that platform? I think that would scare the carp out of people."

[grahamhgreen]

105. Link to her position?

[Sancho]

74. Hillary is aware that breaking up US Banks will accomplish nothing.

[azmom]

78. The banks have gotten even bigger than they

Were when we had to bail them out. They pose a danger to our economy.

[Sancho]

81. But the big money is already offshore...

so "breaking up" US banks - not usually the biggest in the world - won't do anything. Only one US bank in the top 10 and it's in 5th place. It will take international agreements to do anything about bank size and manipulation. Bernie's plan won't do a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

1 Steady China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) 3,328.48
2 +1 China China Construction Bank Corporation 2,704.16
3 -1 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings 2,634.14
4 +3 China Agricultural Bank of China 2,579.81
5 +1 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co. 2,573.13
6 -2 France BNP Paribas 2,526.98
7 +2 China Bank of China 2,463.08
8 -3 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group 2,337.04
9 -1 France Crédit Agricole Group 2,143.88
10 +1 United Kingdom Barclays PLC 2,114.13
11 +1 United States Bank of America 2,104.53
12 -2 Germany Deutsche Bank 2,078.13
13 +1 United States Citigroup Inc 1,842.53
14 -1 Japan Japan Post Bank 1,736.34
15 +5 United States Wells Fargo 1,687.16
16 -1 Japan Mizuho Financial Group 1,640.71
17 Steady United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group 1,635.93
18 +5 China China Development Bank 1,614.99
19 -3 France Société Générale 1,591.00
20 -1 Spain Banco Santander 1,540.08

[azmom]

84. Why the hell did we bail them out then?

[Sancho]

85. It was a compromise - and it worked in part.

The bail out prevented an immediate depression from being worse.

We all know that US banks (and banks worldwide) need more regulation. Chances are they all get to big. Moving US banks completely off of the top 20 banks in the world only means that US corporations and $'s would move to banks overseas.

If we broke up all the wall street banks, no US bank would be be in the top anywhere. How would that do us any good?

Getting rid of Citizens United, reform of loopholes where money is moved out of the US, and holding banks accountable for speculation would be useful. International agreements to regulate banks would help. None of that will pass unless we elect a Democratic Congress. The biggest key to a Democratic majority would be to have women vote, a path to citizenship that would put 30 million on the voter rolls, voter rights to register, access to the polls, and getting rid of gerrymandering.

Then, a Democratic Congress might make some progress. Otherwise, breaking up US banks won't help.

[azmom]

87. We bailed them out because they

Were too big too fail. Those motherfuckers tanked our economy with no regards as to what happened to ordinary Americans.

Fuck them and all the politicians that have sold out the middle class.

The corruption has to end and we are going to end it for them.

[grahamhgreen]

106. Would it prevent them from being "too big to fail"? Yes or no.

[stevenleser]

83. What anyone proposes is not an issue, it's what you can deliver. Sanders himself acknowledged this

What does Sanders cite as the constitutional authority for a President unilaterally breaking up the big banks?

If he can't cite it, which Republican members of the House and Senate have signed on to his plan since he would then need congress to sign off on a law allowing him to do this.

Someone running for President can promise a puppy on every lap, a car in every garage, and a chicken in every pot. It would sound great, but the question is how would they do it.

Ahh, here is the answer, he can't do it and he knows it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/06/sanders-would-break-up-big-banks/70895952/

Sanders acknowledged it will be a "tough fight" to win support in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Gee, ya think? In other words this statement means nothing. He can't do it.

[Sheepshank]

88. herein lies the problem with this thread

Sanders knows he can't do it. Sanders is offering campaign rhetoric to get votes from the group that has no idea about the realities of this type of talk (go figure, he IS a politician after all), and the Bernie crowd tries to use this as a stumbling point for other candidates that don't buy into the rhetoric. Bernie's reputation of all talk and little actual accomplishments are getting magnified by the day.

[aspirant]

93. Pure rhetoric silliness.

[Sheepshank]

94. I see you're still around.

[aspirant]

96. If you listen closely

you can even hear me.

[stevenleser]

97. LOL, exactly.

[grahamhgreen]

108. Where does Hillary stand on this issue? For or against, it ain't rocket science.

[still_one]

111. Where is Bernie on Israel, and on the Israeli boycott, I haven't heard him say anything so I assume

that he is ____________________

fill in your strawman bias

[aspirant]

126. Deviate much

[still_one]

131. no different then this OP, setting up a sound bite so if Hillary doesn't comment immediately on

anything, the worst is always assumed.

[grahamhgreen]

139. No, I'd like to know her position. For, against, none, which one?

[still_one]

142. It hasn't been asked as far as I am aware

[stevenleser]

112. the same place she stands on giving everyone a diamond mine. It doesnt matter because it cannot

be done.

[aspirant]

127. Deviate much?

[grahamhgreen]

140. Yes, we can.

[still_one]

109. Absolutely. Also, it is an excuse to setup a straw man argument against Hillary. I could do the

same thing. Where does Bernie stand on boycotting Israel? Hmmm, I haven't heard him say anything, therefore he must be "for or against it", whichever follows the narrative or bias of the poster

Bernie has also said he wants 4 year college tuition paid for those who want to go to college, and single payer. All good, but there are several issues involved. For one thing it takes Congress, and with the gerrymandered house, it isn't going to happen soon. The second issue is they will need some mechanism to pay for it. Increase tax and cut something else, no other way to do it, but specifics have not been laid out, and whether something is workable or not depends on those details. Interestingly Vermont was not able to get single payer going because of those details

[ibegurpard]

89. it sure as hell IS an issue

Saying it needs to happen and acknowledging it will be tough is not the same as promising to do it. The contempt of the political consultant class for voters and their underestimating of voters' basic knowledge of what they need and what's important to them is what fuels the revolts against establishment candidates like HRC.

[aspirant]

92. What do you "deliver," not "propose"

as a guest on Fox Propaganda

[stevenleser]

95. In other words, you can refute what I said and raise that canard instead. LOL.

Just admit it next time. Trust me, you can do it.

[aspirant]

98. "in other words"

no, I prefer my words.

[stevenleser]

99. I translated your words perfectly. Raising canard = you gave up. nt

[aspirant]

101. Are you a translator too?

Again, what do you "deliver" as a Fox propaganda guest?

[stevenleser]

103. Yup. You make it easy when you deviate from the topic to attack me personally. It means

you've got nothing.

[aspirant]

115. Deviations aren't one of your specialities,

even at Fox propaganda?

[Bobbie Jo]

143. What does that even mean?

[grahamhgreen]

107. Where does she stand on this issue? It's not a difficult question.

[stevenleser]

110. On what issue? What Bernie can't deliver? How about making everyone be able to fly?

If Bernie proposes that do we need Hillary to comment on where she stands on that too?

He cannot deliver this. It's a shiny piece of metal to waive around that otherwise means nothing.

[aspirant]

117. Deviate much?

[grahamhgreen]

141. Is that her position? Link?

[grahamhgreen]

144. Does she think that having banks that are too big to fail are good or bad for America?

[libdem4life]

100. Purely rhetorical question.

[Sheepshank]

125. lol...and the responses where all rhetoric, too

couldn't resist. Sorry.

[libdem4life]

128. Pretty much.

[grahamhgreen]

138. I'd like to know where she stands on this important issue.

[PoliticAverse]

152. Here's what she has on the issue on her website...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-four-fights/economy-of-tomorrow/

Just seven years ago, our country was rocked by a crisis on Wall Street. Through no fault of their own, families lost jobs, homes, and dreams. Yet the financial lobby and Republicans in Congress have shown that they are committed to unraveling the key reforms the Dodd-Frank Act put in place to protect consumers and keep a crisis like this from happening again. We will defend Dodd-Frank against attacks and take additional steps to rein in banks that are still too big and too risky.

[grahamhgreen]

156. Any specifics on her additional steps?

[HFRN]

155. she stands on the tarmac, next to their jets

that's where she stands