Bernie Sanders on How To Break Up The Big Banks (CNN today 4/18/2016)

[Lodestar]

[ViseGrip]

1. YAY BERNIE!!! We trust that you will do just this!

[me b zola]

2. BAM!

[onehandle]

3. 'I’ll go to the big banks, I’ll sit them down and yada yada yada, they’ll be broken up' nt

[retrowire]

6. awww an SNL skit! Cute.

We like to take our politics seriously mkay?

How'd you like that Hillary transforming into Bernie skit? Or are you selective about satire?

[zentrum]

8. Pretty much what

…Hillary said she did, which she framed as "so tough"—when she told them to "cut it out". Now that's a yadda.

I think you have your candidates all mixed up.

And just to state the obvious—the banks are not giving mega thousands to Bernie, but to someone else. Wonder why that can be?

[Perogie]

13. And Hilliary stopped the financial crisis when she was a Senator from NY

[elleng]

4. 'The mechanism currently exists.

I'll do it.' (my words.)

[INdemo]

5. Now for Bill Clinton he would just shoot the Wall St

Execs...the same ones that made hime and his wife wealthy.

[stopbush]

7. Sanders doesn't even understand the basic issue.

This is NOT about banks having too many assets, with those assets allowing them to wield wealth and power.

It's about banks not having enough assets, not having liquidity and becoming insolvent. Banks don't fail because they have too much money. They fail because they don't have the assets to cover heavily leveraged investments, like the derivatives they were offering.

That is what happened when the big financial institutions went under - they weren't solvent. The Feds bailed them out by LOANING them $ to cover their losses, and the banks paid back those loans with interest.

Now, if Sanders is saying that banks should only be allowed to hold so much in assets, that's a different question entirely. Then, you need to say what that number is: $50-billion? $500-billion? A trillion? What is it? He has never addressed that issue, because he is conflating banks going under (because they lack assets) with banks thriving (because they have plenty of assets).

And if the only reason he can offer for breaking up a healthy financial institution is because he fears it will wield too much political or economic power, then that's a pretty poor reason. Lots of entities wield political power. Reigning in their political power is a matter of repealing Citizens United and passing additional laws that limit their ability to fund political initiatives. Such laws would cover ALL banks/financial institutions, rather than just targeting the largest by "breaking them up."

BTW - Dodd/Frank provides that if a bank is about to fail, the Feds take it over, pay creditors what they can and put the bank out of business. Notice that the Feds don't wait for the bank to actually fail. They step in before then to mitigate further losses and bad decisions being made by the people who brought the bank to the brink of insolvency.

Sanders - clueless on what are supposed to be his core issues.

[ejbr]

10. Oh, thank you

random internet person whom we are supposed to believe more so than someone who has been in Congress for decades. It's a good thing most people believe anything they read on the internet or who might trust what you've shared?

[stopbush]

11. I am providing Barney Frank's explanation as he presented it on the Chris Hayes Show

on April 6.

As Frank authored Dodd/Frank, I think he knows what he's talking about.

[ejbr]

12. He's also presently

a corporate "whore", forgive the term, whose opinion on this particular topic is of little relevance to those paying attention

[Loki]

16. Do you like to use the word "whore" when describing Democrats?

You just eliminated any credibility that you had or thought you had.

[ejbr]

30. Really?

Because Democrats can do no wrong. And I'm the one who loses credibility? Yeah, okay

[Loki]

32. When you lie down with dogs,

well you know the rest. Name calling is ignorant and what you resort to when you have nothing else. You have nothing else.

[ejbr]

33. Nothing else?

It is shorthand for corruption. But you know this. You would rather deflect with being indignant over a word. Well, some are indignant that money and not goodwill influences people. Consider yourself fortunate to be indifferent to corruption; at least to the point where my use of a word is more problematic than the detrimental effects of bribes.

[Loki]

34. Yeah right, you're the expert.

[stopbush]

19. What has that got to do with the Dodd-Frank legislation?

The legislation is what it is. It says what it says. He wrote it long before he retired from Congress, before he even had a chance to become a corporate shill.

Are you suggesting he is misrepresenting the very legislation he wrote? Why would he be so stupid as to do that, when the law is available online and any lies he told about it could be slapped down in literal seconds?

Or are you suggesting that he somehow magically was able to get back into the existing law and rewrite sections of the law without anyone noticing? Why would he do that if that was possible? To make Bernie Sanders look bad? Sanders doesn't need any help looking ill-informed, trust me.

[DhhD]

22. Many are trusting Bernie because Dodd-Frank Act is simply not enough to safeguard you and me against

more Wall Street gambling with the economy. I am not for bailing them out again like Dodd Frank will allow now.

Elizabeth Warren on “the Unfinished Business of Financial Reform”
http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/18/elizabeth-warren-speech/


In Fact, Sanders Has a Very Clear Plan on How to Break Up Too-Big-to-Fail Banks
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/06/fact-sanders-has-very-clear-plan-how-break-too-big-fail-banks


The Republican Strategy to Deregulate Wall Street
http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/08/republican-strategy-repeal-dodd-frank/

[ejbr]

31. It's simple

Frank is being PAID to dismiss any further regulations of the banks. So why should anyone trust what he says? Or do you naively believe money doesn't influence people?

[stopbush]

35. Your proof for that slur against a man who has been

a front-and-center advocate for Democratic principles for decades?

You Sanders supporters are unbelievable. Anyone who says anything that can remotely be seen as against Sanders is a traitor. Real mature.

[ejbr]

36. Yes

It's just a coincidence that he is paid by the people who need more regulation and thinks they are fine with weak regulations. Maturity has nothing to do with it, but common sense does. And one's history does not preclude them from criticism. News flash: he's not God.

[stopbush]

37. News flash: some coincidences are just that.

It's only people who look to blame others for their own failings who imagine that every shadow is a mugger.

[stupidicus]

18. projected cluelessness alrighty

wow, nobody can precisely designate where the "too big to fail line is, so let's abandon the whole concept", oh, and Bernie's diff in opinion means he's clueless... CAn't tell me exactly how many more degrees/how much more ghg makes for an irreversible and catastrophic climate tipping point, screw cutting back on the AGW causes....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj07e6NpZnMAhWDeSYKHaeBA74QFghWMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmiles-mogulescu%2Fi-was-wrong-about-bernie_b_7949910.html&usg=AFQjCNHf-gmDDG0a879WLdMygNhlQRTOCA

[DhhD]

23. Please Reply #22. Thank you. no text

[Loki]

14. Thank you.

The difference between having a viable and functionally sound process and talking about not well thought out political buzz words is the difference between sound economic policy and voodoo economics. I'll wave my requisite magic wand and everything will be better.

[DhhD]

24. That giant sucking sound removing regulation for Wall Street Banks-Parts of Dodd-Frank were removed.

Republicans: we don't need no regulation
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/06/republicans-no-business-regulation


Wall Street Seeks to Tuck Dodd-Frank Changes in Budget Bill
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/wall-street-seeks-to-tuck-dodd-frank-changes-in-budget-bill/?_r=0


Sanders and other Senators have a working Bill to overcome the weakness of the old Dodd-Frank Act. Please see my Reply #15.

[Enthusiast]

9. Kicked and recommended! Yay, Bernie!

[beastie boy]

15. An obvious question: what part(s) of Dodd Frank allow POTUS to step in and

break up the banks?

This is an honest question. I don't know the answer. I hope someone from the cheering section can reassure me this is possible, because what I hear from Bernie is just too vague.

[pnwmom]

17. He says there's a way to "create wealth without Wall Street." What the heck does he mean?

Breaking the big banks into smaller banks won't subtract Wall Street from the equation.

I have no idea what he could have meant by creating wealth without Wall Street. Has he expounded on that theory anywhere else?

[retrowire]

20. fair trade deals, more employment, etc... nt

[DhhD]

21. Banks do not need money to create loans. Please scroll down and there are numerous pages.

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVwyKihVXz60AO6ul87UF;_ylc=X1MDOTU4MTA0NjkEX3IDMgRmcgMEZ3ByaWQDN1FHN1NfdU5TLjJkT1NmUHpYTFoxQQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDMARvcmlnaW4Dc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAM1NARxdWVyeQNCYW5rcyUyMG1ha2UlMjBsb2FucyUyMG5vdCUyMGJhc2VkJTIwb24lMjByZWFsJTIwbW9uZXkEdF9zdG1wAzE0NjEwMjk1MzU-?p=Banks+make+loans+not+based+on+real+money&fr=sfp&fr2=sb-top-search&iscqry=

[DhhD]

26. But the American Taxpayers had to bail them out with REAL Money. What a fabulous deal for them.

There is something called a collateral loan. It is an old fashioned term that kept an honest exchange going between the bank and the person paying on the loan. Scroll down.


https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEV0dllBVXgX8ALhCl87UF;_ylc=X1MDOTU4MTA0NjkEX3IDMgRmcgMEZ3ByaWQDZTV3TG05S3FTX08wVE03aHZqeHBMQQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzEEcHFzdHIDQ29sbGF0ZXJhbCUyMGxvYW4EcHFzdHJsAzE1BHFzdHJsAzE4BHF1ZXJ5A2NvbGxhdGVyYWwlMjBsb2FucwR0X3N0bXADMTQ2MTAzMjA3Mw--?p=collateral+loans&fr=sfp&fr2=sa-gp-search&iscqry=

[Loki]

27. Sounds like you would have preferred the banks fail and take our entire economy down with it.

We once had depositors money protected by regulations that kept the banks from using deposits for investments that carried large amounts of risk, but made them money. We don't have that anymore thanks to the likes of Ronnie Reagan and Alan Greenspan. The housing bubble would never burst lala land, CDSwaps and betting against high risk (supposedly triple A rated) mortgage backed securities like they were in Vegas. Collateral loans are so old fashioned

[pnwmom]

28. And the taxpayers were paid back with real money. n/t

[DhhD]

25. K & R

[DianaForRussFeingold]

29. K&R