Bernie Sanders Delivers A Body Blow To Wall St With New Bill To Break Up The Big Banks

[babylonsister]

Go, Bernie!


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/06/bernie-sanders-takes-wall-street-bill-break-big-banks.html

Bernie Sanders Delivers A Body Blow To Wall St With New Bill To Break Up The Big Banks
By: Jason Easley
Wednesday, May, 6th, 2015, 1:50 pm


Sen. Bernie Sanders is taking on Wall Street directly with a new bill that would break up the nation’s “too big to fail” banks.

At a press conference announcing the bill, Sen. Sanders said:

No single financial institution should be so large that its failure would cause catastrophic risk to millions of Americans or to our nation’s economic well-being. No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure would send the world economy into crisis. If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist and that is the bottom line.

…..

If the American people are wondering why tens of millions of Americans are being charged interest rates of more than 20 percent on their credit cards, while big banks can receive virtually zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve, the lack of competition in the banking industry is a major reason for that.

If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, do you know what he would say? He would say break ’em up. And he would be right.

And that’s exactly why we are here today.

The bill that I am introducing today with Congressman Brad Sherman would require regulators at the Financial Stability Oversight Council to establish “Too Big To Fail” list of financial institutions and other huge entities whose failure would pose a catastrophic risk on the United States economy without a taxpayer bailout.

This list must include, but is not limited to JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley.

….

Importantly, under this bill, none of the institutions on the “Too Big to Fail list” would be able to receive a taxpayer bailout from the Federal Reserve; nor could they gamble with the federally insured bank deposits of the American people while they are on this list.

….

The function of banking should be to provide affordable loans to small businesses to create jobs in the productive economy. The function of banking should be to provide affordable loans to Americans to purchase homes and cars. Wall Street cannot be an island onto itself.

It is an exciting time on the left. Hillary Clinton has taken a bold and very liberal position on immigration reform while her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has filed legislation that will break up the Big Banks. While Republicans are trying to avoid any of the discussions that matter to a vast majority of Americans, the candidates for the Democratic nomination are making it clear what they think the future of the country should look like.

Sen. Sanders has already taken on the Koch brothers; now he is going after Congress’s other sacred big fish, Wall Street.

The left is on the march, and the billionaires and corporations are in for a fight.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I'm ready. I'm ready for some hot debates. I'm ready for Bernie Sanders!!!

[madokie]

141. Yup

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. When will the Republican Senate vote on it?

They won't.

This is a symbolic gesture.

When Democrats control the Senate, this can be tried again.

And it still would not pass if the House does not pass the bill.

The House is controlled by Republicans.

I do not get excited over symbolic gestures.

[babylonsister]

4. I don't know. I think at some point they will

have to do something in the public's best interests. One can hope.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. It is election year posturing to grab headlnes and excite the base.

Mitch McConnell will never allow it to come to a vote. If he did and it passed, the Orange One would never pass a bill in the House.

The House and Senate must pass the same bill for it to get to the President's desk.

If Democrats get control of the House and the Senate, a bill like this at least has a chance.

Republicans control the legislative agenda until January of 2017. Until then, I expect increases in defense spending, four or five attempts to repeal the ACA (aka Obamacare), tax breaks for the wealthy, investigations of Hillary Clinton. and similar drek.

Nothing substantive will come out of Washington.

This is headline material that gives Bernie Sanders good publicity. That is all it is.

[think]

9. It also puts the GOP on record as against it /nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

14. The GOP will never vote on this. They will vote on repealing the ACA to excite their base.

[NewJeffCT]

159. Unfortunately

you are correct. The GOP won't even let it get out of committee. At least with the ACA, they can point to actual votes to repeal.

[daleanime]

15. Only unsubstantial if you think it's not worth talking about.....

I would love to see candidates explaining to their supporters why they didn't support this.

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. He did this in 2014, 2013, and 2009. It went nowhere.

It is not a Body blow, if it doesn't leave a mark.

Every Senator and Congressman up for election writes these bills just so they can excite their voters. Republicans outlaw abortions, repeal the ACA, and legislate against women. They are meaningless because they will be passed into law. It is posturing.

Without the ability to even get a vote in the Senate, it is a meaningless gesture.

[daleanime]

17. So you don't think it's worth talking about....

and his opponents will be willing discuss it freely with out embarrassment?


Sorry, don't share your view.

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. I think talking about a policy statement is good. Not as a meaningless stunt.

We need to look at what politicians do, even the ones we like, and know when they are pulling a stunt.

A speech on policy is honest. A bill that will never even come the floor of the senate is not an honest statement.

Watching endless Republicans stunts, such as repealing the ACA, or their pointless attempts to pass a budget they know will not pass so their elected members can say on the stump the proposed a bill is one of the uglier and wasteful parts of our democratic process.

I have no patience for Republican stunts or Democratic stunts.

[daleanime]

20. Talk without action is never honest....

to say 'this is what I believe but I'll never get it...' might be honest for some, but I'll never support it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. An action that is meaningless is dishonest.

What this stunt did for me is show that Bernie Sanders is a politician as usual. That moves him down a notch, because in that category he is no different than Hillary Clinton or the entire Clown Convoy of Republicans.

[daleanime]

28. By definition for there to be an action....

some thing has happen. Sorry little things don't meet your standards. Have a great day.

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. Well then, you don't want to change the clown convoy, do you? You want upright men

to remain unelectable at all costs, to keep their impolitic, political purity 100%.

[Agnosticsherbet]

137. I want politicians to be honest rathern than mank meaningless actions for publicity.

In that, Sanders is no different than any Democrat or Republican.

It was his reputation for honesty that attracted me as much as his other messages.

I am not a single issue voter. In my menal tally sheet when I compare personality, and policies he has lost a bit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

155. Politics is said to be 'the art of the possible'. I haven't paid much attention to

US politics lately, other than the Republicans - for amusement purposes - but the impression I have is that he's a Wellstone type, head and possibly shoulders above the rest, in terms of his personal integrity.

[padfun]

53. So you only vote for those who dont do anything at all?

What you showed me is that probably shouldn't vote.

[Agnosticsherbet]

157. I have anumber of criteria that I use when deciding who I vote for.

Honesty is one of them, and there is little of that among politicians. Bernie now joins that rank of average politicians in that regard.

Had Bernie given a speech and said he intended to use the authority given him as President to break up the big banks because they, in his opinion, violate the Sherman anti-trust act, and because their size makes them a danger to economy that we all rely on, that would have been fine. He could state that initiating bill in this Congress would never pass because Republicans are beholden to the big banks. That would have been honest.

He did what Republicans do; write a bill that has no chance of passing as a stunt to get publicity and accolades form his constituents. Worse, the article called it a "Body Blow" to big banks, which is an outright lie by the institution that published the article. Politics USA lied with the headline of their article. If Bernie were the honest person I thought he was, he would tell them to change it. I won't hold my breath.

I condemn Republicans and other Democrats for their pointless publicity stunts that serve only to pander to their constituents.

I condemn Bernie for a pointless publicity stunt that serves only to pander to his constituents.

Since he announced, I have learned enough about Bernie to change my vote from support to wait and see how he compares to everyone else. That is a good place to be before the first vote has been passed in a primary.

[LanternWaste]

71. More accurately, meaning without action rather than action without meaning...

More accurately, meaning without action rather than action without meaning. Two wholly separate concepts.

[MADem]

79. He's not at all dishonest. He's just not acting very effectively.

It's All Shout, No Clout. It's political posturing. Everybody does it. It's a way of saying "See? I am taking a stand on this matter by writing it down!!"

He knows the GOP Senate won't move this forward. I'm astounded that anyone would be so naive to think this has a hope in hell of going anywhere.

It's not really a "stunt" because he does believe what he's saying. He is sincere in that regard. He knows, though, that nothing will come of it.

I think MOST people (maybe not those who support him here, though) also are astute enough to know this is going nowhere--it's simply a device to call attention to an issue.

It's not a "body blow" at all. It's just a bit of huff-and-puff.

[salib]

132. Dishonest

Please consider using a dictionary on that one.

I believe you just called Sen Sanders dishonest. You are demonstrably wrong.

[bvar22]

38. It does one BIG thing.

It shows that Bernie is consistent and persistent,
and not undergoing some last minute Populist conversion.
I find him believable,
and trust he won't forget these once in the Oval Office.

[Roy Rolling]

49. John Lennon

John Lennon famously said (paraphrased) "peace is possible because people first imagined there could be peace" or something like that. Action starts with an idea, not the other way around, that after a bunch of action a good idea will develop.

Bernie is right, he gets it. What's he supposed to do? Shut up and pander?

I totally support his legislation; nobody ever thought AT&T would be broken up, but in 1984 it was broken up into "baby bells".

[bvar22]

68. ThankYou!

Conservatives down thread are attempting to float the argument that he won't be able to get it passed....... so I guess we shouldn't try.

I wonder if Hillary will break up the Big Banks?

[tomp]

152. pass or not pass....

the discussion around the issue is extremely important. It will seriously shift the zeitgeist.

it will also be interesting/telling to see who gets behind it and who doesn't.

[TM99]

139. Was Sanders running for office in 2009, 2013, & 2014?

No.

Then it is not posturing for him to do it again now. This is consistent with his policies and positions regardless of whether a GOP controlled Senate will vote on it or not.

Using your logic, no Democratic Senator should ever put forth a bill unless their is complete control of the Senate by Democrats and no chance of it failing.

[treestar]

22. True. Wall Street does not get the

Described body blow until the bill is law.

[Agnosticsherbet]

25. Elect a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate.

Have someone in the House and Senate who will propose a new version of this bill.

(At this point I will feel some excitement.)

Get it passed in the House and Senate.

Get that Democratic President to sign it.

Replace at least one of the current conservatives Justices on the Supreme Court so the inevitable challenges have a chance of being beaten.

(At that point, I will likely cream my jeans.)

[BrotherIvan]

125. We already did that

How did that go?

[Octafish]

180. Funny how fast the agenda for change disappeared.

... and Larry Summers and Time Geithner popped up.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. "Body Blow" ...

more like a "feather jab."

[stevenleser]

64. Even a feather jab is overstating it. This is entertainment for the day for the Repubs in the

committee that will kill it.

[jmowreader]

86. Four or five?

You mean "per month," right?

[bread_and_roses]

119. It puts him on record. Let's see HRC & any others do the same

Going on record with such clear, detailed language is neither meaningless nor insignificant. If the other candidates do same, that will also be significant. Just as it will be significant if they don't - and "don't" includes meaningless platitudes and catch-phrases instead of a clear, unequivocal statement.

[freshwest]

151. The GOP? They do everything in favor of their paymasters, mostly the Koches. Bigger than the oil and

tobacco lobbies. These folks are not there to serve the public, their allegiance is to private entities. They are dismantling the federal and state governments because their salary and duties are of no consequence.

That's why they shut down and work so few days, there are not enough to vote anything, or they don't vote at all. Their home office is not in Washington or the states that elect them. They spend more time at Koch get togethers getting their marching orders than they do making legislation.

What legislation they have is written by private entities and they are just robo signers. It aggravates them to be bothered with the public and voters, which is why they are conducting more government business in private venues where one must pay to be involved.They've got their futures laid out and it ain't with us.

And both parties are not the same and Bernie knows it!

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. But then, unless there is a filibuster proof Senate ...

it'll be posturing, too, because ...

[freshwest]

150. Well, and there was the fabled 2 year majority we keep hearing about:

About that fillibuster proof majority myth. A link from Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority

Those of us who followed this daily at the time saw what was happening. But if the solution as most who despise the Democratic Party as much as the GOP does, is not to vote at all, or put any of them in, why even mention it?

Other than to depress the votes of those who want to change things in the government with a majority than cannot be filibustered, after dealing with nearly a score of GOP dominance.

How did not voting in 2010 help progressives?

If it doesn't make any difference, why do the GOP suppress Democratic voters at every oppotunity while putting out dog whistle to their voting block?

As far as this issue is concerned, I don't waste time talking to people who are not going to vote, or are determined to make the Democrats the bad guys in all of this. And it doesn't matter which part of the Democratic Party they loathe, the GOP voters will vote for their man no matter who it is.

Because they do believe voting matters and they have proven it at every single election as they have voted in a GOP majority in state houses, governor mansions, the US Congress and most of the Senate.

It is really no use talking to those who continually denigrate all Democrats. Their minds are made up, just as surely as GOP voters, only the memes are different. The results are exactly the same.

SSDD!

[FiveGoodMen]

30. Could you suggest a better course?

[neverforget]

143. Well duh. Talk about it and do nothing is more effective than talking about it, introducing

a bill and trying to get a vote. It should be obvious. sheesh

[Bill USA]

35. IF Bernie 'gets through' to some people (not in Congress, in the country) so that they see what some

of the real problems are - in particular that WS Banksters have fucked up the economy AND the Government ... then it is not a 'symbolic gesture' but a wake up call, to citizens that they better see what needs to be done and get involved to see that it get's done.

We also need to outlaw naked Credit Default Swaps. There is no economic rationale for them. They are just a vehicle for WS Banksters to gamble with depositors money and then get bailed out, when they inevitably put the economy in jeopardy with their inevitable huge losses/bankruptcies.

[LanternWaste]

70. I never thought the AHCA would get voted on

I never thought the AHCA would get voted on, and thought it too, was merely a symbolic gesture entertained to assist elections.


Serves me right for pretending to be a clever little prophet.

[lewebley3]

82. Its nonsense gesture: Bernie cannot strike blow to the Banks!

The only way to go after Banks is to have Dem's get out and vote:

Also, saying out loud before you have the power to go after the is
banks stupid.
It scary not just to the GOP, put millions of American's work for Banks, some of
the would be voters for Dem: the average Bank worker make less than 30,000,
millions more have retirement saving in banks that want to feel safe and assured
before changes are made. (Dem's need every vote they can get and them some)

You are playing in to the hands of the GOP, calling for Blows to the Banks.

What we need to succeed is a plan, Sanders followers act like small children
spinning on their backs.

With Hillary in the white house, Warren in Senate,with great deal of political skill,
and enough votes, then a blow can be struck against the banks.

Sorry! there are not short cuts, symbolic gestures dumb, let got out and get
the Dem's real power to change the banks.

[Scootaloo]

83. So just lay back and think of England, I suppose

[sabrina 1]

127. Every Democrat can vote for it, and you might be surprised that there ARE Republicans who

are not happy about all that money in our electoral system.

When they see Dems having the guts to do this, some of those in the Repub party will be inspired to do the right thing.

What is anyone else doing about this??

It is NOT a symbolic gesture unless Dems behave like it is.

It's up to them now, Bernie has provided them with all they need to begin this process of getting the poisonous money out of our system of elections.

[rhett o rick]

131. I am excited over this "symbolic gesture". He is making it clear to the American people

where he stands on the issue of "too big to fail" banks. His opponent got paid $400,000 to tell the banksters that she thought the rhetoric against Wall Street was foolish. Well Ms. Clinton, I dare you to tell the American peopled that it's foolish to regulate the banks.

And to those here that keep trying to say that Sen Sanders and H. Clinton have similar agendas, here is an issue they are miles apart on.

[loooneranger]

153. Unfortunately a Democratic House and Senate wouldn't pass this either.

They would talk a big game, and then suddenly (surprise, surprise) just be unable to muster the votes.

[staggerleem]

165. "I do not get excited over symbolic gestures."

But during Presidential Campaigns, maybe you SHOULD.

Bernie is very simply teeing one up, here - it's a no-lose situation for him. Of course, if the bill reaches the floor and passes we ALL win (except the Blankfeins, the Dimonds, et al.)

If it doesn't get voted on at all, that will be due to Right-Wing obstruction, and gives Bernie some good fuel for his fiery speechifying - especially if it's filibustered by someone who's riding in the Republican's 2016 clown-car.

The only way this bill CAN reach the floor for a vote will be if the majority knows they can beat it. If the Republicans actually do vote it down, then Sanders can talk about how the Republican Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street. He shoots - he scores!

You say you "don't get excited over symbolic gestures", but I suspect that what you REALLY don't like is POLITICS - and if that's the case, what're you doing HERE?

[OhZone]

182. Agreed.

I can't believe how many people here are in denial about political realities. It's really getting on my nerves. I'm tempted to avoid this place mostly until Bernie's symbolic campaign implodes, which won't be long. Oh well.

[Hoyt]

3. Hasn't he introduced this legislation several times before, with little progress, even when Dems

controlled?

[frazzled]

11. Yes, but you just don't understand.

Even though it has not passed before and has little chance of passing now, it is a "body blow" to the banks. They are clenching their guts because they know that President Bernie will possess the magical powers of instantaneously achieving whatever he wants with a mere flick of his wrist and a word or two, despite Congressional opposition or lassitude. It's the same magical powers that Obama has but REFUSES to use, because he is a puppet of corporate interests.

[treestar]

23. Lol nailed it nt

[stevenleser]

72. With magical thinking anything is possible. Heck, you or I could be President and enact

mandatory living wage legislation, end world hunger and bring peace to the galaxy.

[Number23]

111. You could not have nailed that last sentence harder.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. He did this in December of 2014

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/15/1351830/-Bernie-Sanders-To-Intro-Bill-to-Break-Up-Big-Banks
Again in April of 2013
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/04/09/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-lead-jail-big-fail.html

[bvar22]

60. Yes, The Democrats held large majorities in the Senate & House when the Banks were "bailed out".

It took the Democratic Congress less than a week to deliver nearly a $TRILLION DOLLARS to Wall Street (in a brown paper bag?),
No Strings Attached after receiving the Extortion Note from Paulson.

[font color=white]........................[/font][font size=3]Paulson with Co-Conspirators[/font]

[font color=white]......................[/font][font size=3]Now THIS is bi-partisanship!
[font color=white]......................[/font][font size=3]Hahahahahahahahaha!
[/font][/font]


Bernie will have to fight more than the Republicans,........
but he may be the man to do it.

I wish he had some help from guys like Wellstone, Feingold, Kucinich, and a few others.

[deutsey]

62. +1

[Hoyt]

85. If I'm not mistaken, most of that money has been repaid. I think it was probably a good

investment/decision at the time. Not sure it had to happen, but the consequences could have been very bad, including a lot more lost jobs and a much longer worldwide recession/depression.

I do agree, more help should have gone to individuals hurt.

Even if the banks were broken up, most of the problem would have occurred, just a bunch of smaller failures that add up to a serious problem. Might even have been more difficult to mitigate.

Fact is, it's easy to look back now when most of us have survived, or see some light at the end of the tunnel, and say -- none of that had to be done.

Do we need change, you bet you. But, I don't think Sanders can do much besides yell about the problem (which is important too).

[bvar22]

94. "lot more lost jobs and a much longer worldwide recession/depression."

Well, that is their Cover Story anyway.

They claim to have "Saved the Economy",
which is STILL debatable.
What is NOT debatable is that they saved their investment portfolios from taking a Quarterly Loss,
and saved the jobs of some of their good friends.......


But "Saved the Economy"???
The Economy is much, MUCH more than Wall Street.
Had Congress used the same system (still in place) to handle Wall Street
as they did the Savings and Loans back in the 80s, at least we would see some crooks in jail.


As far as "repaying the money",
give me a $BILLION at ZERO% interest for 1 year,
and I'll gladly give your Billion back.

[Hoyt]

104. A financial meltdown would have affected everyone worse, especially the poor and those in

low pay jobs.

It was more than just Wall Street bailed out.

And, I think the treasury actually charged interest, and collected dividends, and made profits on some stock sales. Sorry to spoil your little story.

[bvar22]

112. Sorry to spoil your little story,

...but had those funds gone to the People in need with restructured mortgages and a host of other stimulative programs that put money in the hands of people that need it instead of already wealthy Wall Street Bankers, we would have experienced an Economic BOOM instead of stagflation and dropping wages.

How ironic that you have an avatar of Woody Guthrie.
I'm sure the irony is not lost among most DUers.

[Hoyt]

118. I'm sure WG would be for anything that preserved jobs around the world.

I think the bailout did that, and was the right move at the time. Again, should have done more for individuals, but that doesn't make bailout wrong.

[bvar22]

120. I disagree.

The only jobs that "The Bailout" saved were those working at crooked investment banks.
Everybody else got The Finger from the Big Banks AFTER they had our money.

[Hoyt]

121. Lots of Democrats disagree. Even unions supported the bailout.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/10/3042101/auto-bailout-jobs/

You can read articles from the time, and even Krugman felt things would be a lot worse without the bank bailout. Although we all agree, I think, that more should have been spent for individuals.

[Initech]

5. We've had enough, and they're out of excuses.

What happens if another teabagger like Jeb, Cruz, or Scott Walker gets in? The banks will get bigger and they'll pull off a heist that will completely dwarf what happened in 2008. We can't allow that to happen. It will be 10x worse than even the great depression. I hope Bernie lays the smack down on these criminal scumbags.

[JaneyVee]

6. This would have been great in 2009.

[deutsey]

8. Well, he did try...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/06/financial-regulation-breakup-idUSN0618960720091106

Nov. 6, 2009:

WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - An independent U.S. senator on Friday introduced a bill that would give the government the power to identify and break up financial firms that are "too big to fail," an idea that is catching on.

"If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," said Senator Bernie Sanders in a statement.

"We should break them up so they are no longer in a position to bring down the entire economy," he said.

[stevenleser]

10. An excellent way to judge his leadership capabilities. If he can get this bill passed, he might be

worth a look.

If he can't get bills passed that reflect his beliefs, what's the reason for voting for him again?

[arcane1]

29. Like Obama successfully gets his ideal legislation passed?

Would Clinton have better luck?

Sanders tried to get this bill passed when Dems had the majority. The question is, why do we keep voting for them?

[smokey nj]

32. Seriously, the fact that this legislation didn't pass says less about Bernie than it does about the

rest of the Democratic caucus.

[arcane1]

33. And he can't really be blamed if a republican Senate doesn't vote on it n/t

[stevenleser]

37. It goes to the heart of why he is running. If he can't get anything more progressive passed than

any generic Democrat, there is no reason for his candidacy.

[arcane1]

40. That's a made-up excuse for disqualification.

Why would we vote for any Dem who can't get a bill passed in a republican Senate? It's not just limited to this one Senator.

[stevenleser]

45. It would be made up if it wasn't the reason he was running. But it is. nt

[arcane1]

47. Maybe he should write a fast-track TPP bill. Repubs LOVE that.

Since apparently our standard for a candidate is now one who only writes bills that republicans approve of.

[stevenleser]

58. Changing the subject won't help the facts about your chosen candidate. nt

[arcane1]

66. So, who could pass a liberal bill in a republican congress? You keep avoiding that.

[stevenleser]

73. I'm not avoiding it, Bernie is the only one suggesting he can. So its only incumbent upon him and

his supporters to explain how.

[TM99]

140. Your logic is tortured.

But you then again you are a media pundit.

[neverforget]

145. Lol!

[stevenleser]

160. No, your thinking is magical. I'm a realist. You remind me of the Southerners in

Ashley's house in Gone With the Wind, with their yee haw excitement of going to war with the North.

I'm sorry to have to play the Rhett Butler role here and dash your dreams of victory. The person you are supporting has no chance of delivering what his implied promise is saying he can.

[TM99]

167. Rhett Butler, you are not.

You claim to be a 'realistic' but have set up an 'unrealistic' expectation for a candidate to meet in order to be 'electable'.

It is really that simple.

[stevenleser]

174. Understanding the idea of a metaphor, you don't. Nt

[TM99]

175. You are so funny Steven.

I understand a metaphor. Yours just wasn't a good one.

And naturally you never actually address what someone says to you.

No wonder you became a pundit. Well done, man, well done!

[stevenleser]

177. No, I'm not. But I grasp reality quite well and don't engage in magical thinking. Nt

[TM99]

178. Keep telling yourself that

and you are most certainly engaging in magical thinking.

[stevenleser]

179. Lol, I'm not the one suggesting Sanders can get progressive legislation passed by this congress

That's you and his other supporters saying that, despite his legislative history and the fact that he has just introduced a bill that we all know will die in the first committee it touches.

Bravo, well done.

[TM99]

181. Oh Steven.

If Sanders can't get progressive legislation passed by this congress, neither can Clinton.

Unless what you are really saying is that you are fine if neither even try.

Been spending too much time on Fox News? You look into the abyss long enough, and well....you know how the rest goes.

[stevenleser]

34. Excellent. So what approximation of this legislation do you expect Bernie can get passed and

what Republicans will vote for it. Please take into account the last four times he submitted this legislation and failed to get it or a compromise version passed.

[arcane1]

39. I expect republicans to wipe their ass with it.

I would expect the same result if the Dems had the majority.

Does that reflect poorly on Sanders? Not at all.

[stevenleser]

43. So now we're electing people to submit meaningless gesture bills that have no hope of passing

and will not move the needle and then we cheer. Yay!

And afterwards nothing has changed at all.

Well played.

[arcane1]

46. You're trying too hard.

Care to name someone who CAN get bills passed through a republican Senate?

[stevenleser]

48. You're confusing a ball right next to the hole with someone trying for a hole in one on a par 5

You're asking folks to cheer on and support a candidate who says all the right things about momentous progressive change but after 24 years in congress hasn't been able to get much of anything done to move the needle at all.

And this latest bill will be more of that. As the bard wrote "it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

The week after this bill dies in committee, no one will remember it was submitted. Yay!

What we need is someone who can get things done, even if those things are incremental.

[arcane1]

50. And this someone is...?

[stevenleser]

52. Have no idea what you mean. nt

[arcane1]

54. LOL Of course you don't

Thanks for wasting my time.

[stevenleser]

57. I'm here to help. nt

[Autumn]

59. I bet the the initials are HRC

[arcane1]

65. Known for writing all those liberal bills that passed a republican Senate

[LiberalLovinLug]

162. lol You also have no idea what a politician is

If you think their entire job is bureaucratic in nature. That they just function as paper pushers, and only papers that are pre-approved to be pushed at that. How long have you been even following politics? because you seem awfully naive on the nature of politics and the many tropes that are involved in that occupation.

I would agree that the OP was overblown in using the term "body blow" to describe Sanders move. That was not its purpose. It was to engage discussion in a topic. Was it theatre? Of course! It was to light Megyn Kelly's hair on fire. It was a method to continue to put a spotlight on a topic that would be forgotten about if everyone was like yourself and only thought issues that could be passed by a Republicans and Blue Dogs are worthy of being introduced and reintroduced onto the public consciousness.

Maybe you should read up on the many failures of the Suffrage movement in attempting to pass voting rights bills both Statewise and Nationally. How many times they were told it was useless, that no one was listening and they had no chance in hell to get what they wanted.

[stevenleser]

163. If by politician you mean the kind of magical thinking that suggests Bernie can deliver, then no.

If you mean a realistic idea of what the current political climate is and the capabilities of the candidates, then yes, I know about that.

[LiberalLovinLug]

166. whoooooooooooosh

Magical thinking? Yes you are right in one aspect that just thinking and thinking and thinking about a problem does not make it go away. Nor does waiting and waiting and waiting, sitting on your hands until the zeitgeist shifts in your favor.

Some politicians who are actually doing their job throw solutions out to those problems for the public to ruminate over. They use theatre, stunts, whatever you want to call it. Especially when you are in the minority this is a valuable tool. And you cannot deny that between the GOP and the third way and Blue Dog Democrats, Bernie has few allies. Did you even take notice of my point about the Suffragettes?

Maybe you are just confused with the idea of a "progressive" politician.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Incremental progress is over-rated ...

better to swing for the fences and strike out than get singles and score.

[stevenleser]

84. LOL, exactly. Only it's even worse. This bill isn't even a swing for the fences.

When a bill dies in committee it's the manager telling the batter, um, no, I'm not even putting you in the lineup today. Go away. And no one ever knows the batter was even on the team.

[bvar22]

63. Do you believe that Hillary will break up the Big Banks?

[arcane1]

67. Apparently, our ideal candidate is the one the repubs agree with the most.

It's crazy-town in this thread!

[LanternWaste]

74. What is a merely a meaningless gesture to one is illustrating the courage of his convictions...

What is a merely a meaningless gesture to one is illustrating the courage of his convictions to another. Yet, as both are vague enough to be without any real concrete meaning, both are irrelevant in a rational conversation. Yay, indeed.

[stevenleser]

75. Wasting everyone's time on something that has no effect and changes nothing doesn't take courage.

He risks nothing by submitting the bill. It dies in committee after the Republicans in committee have a few good yucks at its expense. A week later no one remembers the bill. Except:

The Repubs privately trot it out when meeting with their banking friends and asking for campaign donations, and perhaps the donations increase. If the bill has an effect, that's it.

[arcane1]

77. You missed the memo: choose candidates whose ideas the republicans agree with

Anything else is a waste of time, apparently.

[stevenleser]

88. Except when it's gun control, then going the same way with Republicans is just fine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6631117

[arcane1]

99. Nice try. Actually, a lame try. You're descending into self-parody at this point.

Still waiting to find out your wisely-chosen candidate

[stevenleser]

100. You're the one caught in several contradictions now. Please, explain away, I'm all ears.

Yes, explain how its terrible to vote with Republicans except when Bernie does it!!!!!

[arcane1]

101. The topic was writing bills that repubs would vote on. Changing the topic again?

Lame.

I disagree with his gun vote. So what? Who is YOUR choice?

Put up or grow up.

[stillwaiting]

91. You are FULL of it. Absolutely full of it. Repetitive talking point is ridiculously lame. nt

[stevenleser]

92. Sure. Judging a candidate running to be transformative on his ability to get it done is unfair.

Right. Keep telling yourself that.

[stillwaiting]

93. You're transparent. nt

[stevenleser]

95. Transparently realistic and fact based. Yep, that's me. nt

[stillwaiting]

96. Mr. Cellophane I'd say. nt

[arcane1]

102. Cellophane has more substance. This one is just here to piss on liberals.

[stillwaiting]

106. He's ridiculous. He must be laughing his ass off with his talking points.

I can't believe he's actually saying that Bernie has to get good legislation passed in a ridiculously corrupted Senate in order to be a "good leader" and be qualified to be President.

He's LEGITIMIZING a deeply corrupt Congress. Fucking sad and infuriating!

If we can only have a President that can "successfully" work with a hugely corrupted Congress, then we can only have a hugely corrupted President. Period.

He really should be embarrassed.

[Number23]

113. Do people here expect for Sanders to run his presidency by executive orders only?

I truly do not understand the insults, hatefulness and derision tossed your way for asking such a reasonable question.

Bernie Sanders is running as a transformative president. He's going to "clean up" Washington and get the bums out. I say, more power to him!

But the idea that sending in legislation that has failed before more than once and may very well fail again somehow "proves" that Sanders is the right guy for the job makes no sense. Either Congress is so corrupt that it makes no difference who is president or Sanders will have to work with them to get things done. Most people on earth are smart enough to realize that a president cannot change things all by himself.

All of the snarling and name calling tossed your way does not change that reality.

[arcane1]

115. The point is, NO liberal bills will get through this republican Senate

So why does that disqualify Sanders, and only Sanders?

[Number23]

126. I have not seen a single post say that it disqualifies Sanders. The only people who are acting

as though Sanders is the Prophet are his supporters. Everyone else recognizes that his powers will be limited from Day One because of this Congress. Steven appears to only be saying that if Sanders wants to be as transformative as his supporters wants him to be, there is nothing that he can do either without the help of Congress or if he does everything through EO.

But somehow, pointing out something that is nothing but the truth means that steven (and others) get piled on with insults. That's really stupid.

[arcane1]

128. Post 10:

"If he can't get bills passed that reflect his beliefs, what's the reason for voting for him again?"

Seems clear to me. Same as every nonsensical follow-up reply: If Sanders can't get this bill voted on in the repub Senate, there's no reason to vote for him.

I disagree.

[Number23]

129. If Sanders is elected to be transformative and cannot get anything through this Congress, what's the

point of voting for him again? is not a slam against anyone but is nothing but the truth and the reality of the limits of his presidency or for any other person in that office.

[arcane1]

130. That was my point: Nobody can get anything through this congress

Not just Sanders.

[Number23]

133. If it's difficult for anybody, and somebody wants to be "transformative" then asking what chances

they have to be as transformative as they want to be is a perfectly legitimate and perfectly reasonable question.

I'm not of the mindset that "nobody" can get anything through this congress. Our current president has had by every measure a more than decent amount of success getting things through and around this congress.

Appointing someone with grand ideals and the most noble of principles that can't get anything done is not progress.

[stevenleser]

176. That's exactly it. As you can see, it's not a difficult idea to grasp

We have these DUers excited by his candidacy because of his positions and he has no chance of implementing any of them. So what's the point?

We're going to get incrementalism at best, if we're lucky.

[Dustlawyer]

12. Just bringing up the issue helps! The more of the public that is aware of the problem and how it

affects them personally (credit card interests rates), the better it will be for advancing on this issue instead of retreating and/or not talking about it. Make Fox and the Republicans defend these banks. Make the democrats who took a snoot-full of Wall Street money have to choose where their loyalty lies. You cannot make change this big without trying.
I wish he could have included a bill to bust up the media oligarchy too, but that would not work well when campaigning for POTUS.

[Hiraeth]

18. Bernie Sanders is the sexiest man on the planet.

I am in love.

[Enthusiast]

24. Break 'em up! It's what the people want! Oh, yeah. The people no longer matter.

Lets take steps to change that.

[SoapBox]

36. For those saying this is meaningless, etc...

What will we get if we get all Pukes in The White House and Congress?

If it even raises a conversation, I'll take the meaningless statement.

[stevenleser]

41. I'm not saying it's meaningless, if he can get it passed. I'll even take an approximation or

compromise bill.

[arcane1]

42. Sanders wrote a great bill that republicans hate, and that's a good thing n/t

[hifiguy]

44. This is why I LOVE Bernie.

He says what needs to be said and no one else in DC has the nerve to say.

[MaggieD]

51. Why didn't Bernie introduce this in 2009?

And isn't it the exact same thing Warren proposed years ago?

[smokey nj]

55. He did.

[deutsey]

61. He did (and a few times since)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/06/financial-regulation-breakup-idUSN0618960720091106

Nov. 6, 2009:

WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - An independent U.S. senator on Friday introduced a bill that would give the government the power to identify and break up financial firms that are "too big to fail," an idea that is catching on.

"If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," said Senator Bernie Sanders in a statement.

"We should break them up so they are no longer in a position to bring down the entire economy," he said.


I'm not sure if it's the same as what Warren proposed.

[MaggieD]

103. So he's doing it again for political optics - right?

[deutsey]

124. I don't know

I don't know him beyond his public persona and political record.

[PufPuf23]

56. Go Bernie. Re-install Glass-Steagall.

Add steroids.

Prosecute.

[lewebley3]

170. Do you know how a Bill becomes law, it doen't need votes

Just a thought!

[lewebley3]

69. Bernie, is just talking about breaking up the Banks, He cannot strike blow to the Banks!!

It would take a Dem, House and Senate to do this!: This is nonsense post:

Of course we need to breakup banks, but it is not politically possible, because
Dem's didn't get out an vote.

This why I am for Hillary, she just doesn't talk about getting things done, she
has been in fight to get things done for years.

Dem's need to function as a team to win the white house, and congress.

Bernie's followers divide the Dem's team. the only way Bernie can run has been
to join the Dem's. That should tell people something: Hillary is one of
top raisers of money for the Dem's. Bernie followers owe Hillary a great
deal of thanks for working so hard for Bernie's new party!

[arcane1]

80. I'd love to believe Clinton would break up the too-big-to-fails.

But I consider that highly unlikely.

Being a "top raiser of money" is easy when you have those very same too-big-to-fails giving you money. That's not exactly a "plus".

[lewebley3]

87. Its not based belief's is based on Votes: Top raiser is a +

Money is exactly plus politics, its why Sanders suddenly became a Dem,

Obama got elected because of money: true for us he was the right guy,
but without money, there would be no President Obama.

Hillary and Obama will continue to fund and raise money for Dem's, and
that is how Dem's will afford Sanders, and Dem's bills.

[arcane1]

97. And that's exactly why Hillary won't break up her donors n/t

[lewebley3]

117. Her donor's are what Bernie is using to run for office!!

He is joining the Dem's, because with Hillary and Dem's money, he
can get on every ballot in country, in every state, He won't
have to pay for it, its paid for by Hillary and Dem's hard work! (for years of hard-work).


Bernie won't be breaking up any donor's that help him get on ballots, the money he
earns can go solely to his campaign, isn't that nice of Hillary and Dem's.

Sanders followers keep bashing Hillary and Dem's because of money, but now
want all Dem's party help they can get!

Three Cheers for loyal kind Dem's that let others have chance to run for office~~

Three Cheers for Hillary and Dem's party's hard work, but it is just the beginning
of what will be needed to win; and Hillary and Obama will be working hard to
raising money so the Dem at least have some chance of keeping the white house.

[Babel_17]

76. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt and Truman, the Kennedys, and now Sanders

No offense intended to any progressives not mentioned.

[WillyT]

78. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Duval]

89. Just wait and watch us fight!

We can do it with our voices, our feet, our hands and our "donations" (ohhh, this part is the hardest for retired Seniors).

I'm ready!

[Dont call me Shirley]

90. Put Sherman Anti-Trust Act back to work!

[Aerows]

98. Love him

or Love Hillary, it doesn't matter.

It's the right thing to do, and I'm glad he is doing it.

[Thespian2]

105. I suppose those who think

Senator Sanders efforts against Wall Street are just for show know much more about pushing legislation than Senator Sanders...oh, he keeps trying to pass legislation against big banks...for shame, Bernie, you should get in line with the rest of the candidates and wait for your hand-out from the "too big to fail"...

[arcane1]

109. Right? "I want a candidate who gives up or never tries!" isn't very inspiring.

I'm so old, I remember when principles were considered an important thing to look for in a candidate.

[Thespian2]

110. Me, too

I remember Jimmy Carter's campaign...

[myrna minx]

107. K&R nt

[Avalux]

114. Great news! Especially on the heels of the Wells Fargo lawsuit.

Wells Fargo Bankers Accused of Fraudulent Behavior, Taking Advantage of Customers

http://consumerist.com/2015/05/05/los-angeles-sues-wells-fargo-over-unfair-customer-account-conduct/

[arcane1]

116. Ooh, I hadn't seen that!

This would make a great OP!

[snappyturtle]

122. Hope there's a provision in the proposed bill to get rid of "bail ins".

I need to read more I guess but over all I think this is a stellar idea! Go Bernie!

[99Forever]

123. This is what Bernie Sanders is, a REAL progressive and populist.

Not just a fast-talking pretender while campaigning, but all the time. His honesty is beyond repute, and that isn't matched by a single other contender to the office.

[L0oniX]

134. Mega K & R

[hughee99]

135. I think perhaps the author doesn't understand

The term "body blow" or at least "delivers". Even if this bill got a vote, it couldn't pass the house or senate. I'll bet the bill is great but not a single person on Wall Street will lose a second of sleep over this.

[brooklynite]

136. What was the "body blow"...

...since he introduced this Bill in a Republican Senate where it'll never pass?

[hughee99]

138. It has as much chance of passing as a bill

Making live puppies the new featured dish in the congressional cafeteria.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

142. if they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist...KICK KICK KICK

REC REC REC

[sabrina 1]

144. Yes, finally, it does like they ARE in for a fight, and they have begun.

Clearly they are worried about Bernie. And have dug up something that they are going to keep repeating, 'he voted for guns'.

BS, and if that's all they've got, let them talk among themselves.

Go Bernie!!

[BeanMusical]

146. I so hope that it will work!

[midnight]

147. kick.....

[BeanMusical]

148. Goldman Sachs?

Huh oh, The Clintons won't be happy.

[certainot]

149. will the left get bernie's back? no

if bernie starts to get traction the rw radio swiftboating machine will start to hum.

will the left even have any clue what they're saying and how often? no

if they really want to get his back the left will start monitoring rw radio and responding, and protesting the 90 + publicly funded unis that broadcast sports on and therefore endorse 270 limbaugh radio stations that will be doing and lying everything they are instructed to to keep dems out of office and guys like bernie and eliz warren on hte sidelines.

if the left ever wants to do anything to end this nightmare it has to start with the rights best weapon, rw radio. otherwise, just keep treating the symptoms as usual, and good luck.

[AzDar]

154. Bernie!!

[lonestarnot]

156. Yes! Yes! and Yes!

[raouldukelives]

158. K&R Every dollar in Wall St is a vote against Bernie.

Once people determine what side they are on, then they can begin to fight.
If one wishes to stand against something, not standing with it is a great start.

[Omar4Dems]

161. I love Bernie, I love the spirit of this bill,

but it has a snowball's chance of making it to Obama's desk.

[november3rd]

164. Bernie Promised

Bernie Promised he would do everything possible to centralize the issues the American people want to have on the table in the upcoming election cycle.

He's wasted no time living up to his promise.

He asked that we join him in a mass movement that would change American politics from the grass roots level.

I haven't caught up to him yet.

I do believe that if all of his supporters rev it up, throw off the shackles of conventional media and methods, we have time to shake the foundations of the corporate oligarchy.

We know what to do, so in order to succeed we just have to be WILLING TO DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to achieve it.

[mother earth]

168. Bernie stands head and shoulders above the rest....a true representative of the people.

[LuvLoogie]

169. There are 244 Republicans and 188 Democrats

in the U.S. House of Representatives.

There are 54 Republicans and 44 Democrats in the U.S. Senate

Body Blow! Body Blow! Bernie Sanders DESTROYS the big banks!!

Uh huh....

Kind of like Pacquiao Mayweather.

Dems flail about, while the Gopers do nothing and win.

[liberal N proud]

171. A body blow?

It won't even leave a bruise.

You know the GOP isn't going to allow this to pass!

[woo me with science]

172. Huge K&R

[Unvanguard]

173. A bill that won't pass isn't any sort of "body blow." n/t

[Sunlei]

183. break up those banks. They did this in the uk and new banks pay 2/3% interest to regular savers.

Senator Sanders get the old banks off our backs.