"How do you go about [breaking up too-big banks]?" Bernie: "I don't know...I have not studied..."

[KitSileya]

The New York Daily News put out the full transcript of their interview with Bernie Sanders, and the segment where they ask him about breaking up banks, there's a whole lot of not being sure about how to do that from his side. Lest I be accused of twisting his words, I'll post the relevant part of the transcript:

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306
Daily News: Now, switching to the financial sector, to Wall Street. Speaking broadly, you said that within the first 100 days of your administration you'd be drawing up...your Treasury Department would be drawing up a too-big-to-fail list. Would you expect that that's essentially the list that already exists under Dodd-Frank? Under the Financial Stability Oversight Council?

Sanders: Yeah. I mean these are the largest financial institutions in the world….

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

...

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point [that the banks have too much power and need to be disempowered]. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y, and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have... JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision.

...

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

For someone whose platform is mainly based on the reform of the financial system, especially one who says he wants to break up banks who are too big, this is jaw-dropping. He isn't sure about the current legislation, Dodd-Frank, and whether it gives the Fed or the administration (or neither?) the authority to do it. What are the current regulations, and what kind of legislation needs to be passed? He doesn't seem to know. He has no idea how to actually break up a bank - no idea of what is too big, how small will be small enough, no suggestions on how to actually accomplish it.

He admits to not having studied the legal and economical ramification of his key suggestion! He hasn't looked into previous attempts at breaking up companies deemed too-big-to-fail. This is stunning. And it is scary.

[Recursion]

1. It was never a real proposal, but it polls well

I get that; it's the campaign he has to run, and people love it. You just can't take his statements too literally, though. Yes, it's disappointing. That's politics.

[KitSileya]

2. But it's one of the pillars of his platform.

He admits that he hasn't actually looked into the matter, and he doesn't know the current legislation and regulations. Is all of his platform equally hollow, and what does that say about his candidacy?

[Recursion]

13. It's 2016; that's what people want

For reasons that make no sense to me, people are more interested in how a politician "feels", and that it be like they feel, than actual policies. It is what it is.

I'm not happy that he's our best-polling candidate for the general, but you run for the electorate you have.

[uponit7771]

52. I'm thinking they want someone to validate their anger and speak to what scares them not change it

... emperically or for the most part the scared are looking for their knight

[Recursion]

53. I think that's exactly right

I'm probably less idealistic than you, which is why I voted for him: I think that's what it's going to take this cycle. We'll deal with the fallout as it happens.

[wendylaroux]

179. who is that in your picture there?

does he have a mullet? down right fugly guy.

[thesquanderer]

58. I believe that your post is full of nonsense.

re:

He admits to not having studied the legal and economical ramification of his key suggestion!

No, what he says there, according to your own quoted passage, is that he has not studied the legal implications of the Met Life decision.

As long as we're talking about it, it is worth noting that the Met Life decision happened only within the last week, and the text of that decision has not yet been released, so there has not been much opportunity for anyone to study it.

Also, btw, that decision did not deny the gov'ts authority to break up institutions that are too big to fail... what Met Life successfully managed to do in this case was to convince the judge that the TBTF categorization should not apply to them in the first place.

Next: You bolded this Sanders line apparently to make some point, though I'm not sure what:

That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision.

What's wrong with that? That's exactly right. When the government says that something must be broken up (as they have done in the past with monopolies), it is not up to the government to decide *how* that breakup is to be done. The company is supposed to come up with their own plan that they think will address the concerns, submit that plan to the government, and then the government can approve it (or not, if they think it does not adequately address the concern).

The remaining bolded items you used to make your point was to point out his use of phrases like "I believe" and "I think." There is nothing wrong with those phrases. This is how many people speak, even when they are saying things they are certain are true. For example, I used "I believe" in that manner in the title of this post.

[inchhigh]

65. Stellar Reply

Everyone who reads the OP should also read your post so they can understand how the OP actually makes the case FOR Bernie's thoughtful and comprehensive understanding of the issue. Anyone old enough to remember the breakup of Ma Bell will immediately see he knows exactly what the government can and cannot do.

[Arneoker]

190. He stated three different understandings of what could be done about breaking up the banks

Does that make his understanding comprehensive? I just have to remember that a certain orange-haired candidate stated three different positions on abortion, and he got a lot of flak for that.

[Scuba]

67. Thread winner!!

[geek tragedy]

70. Except he thinks the President can tell the federal reserve what to do.

And still has no clue about how he would do it or what the consequences would be. None.

More rainbows and sparkle ponies

[bvf]

91. Don't look now, but

someone just beat your number.

[Recursion]

85. So, the largest breakup of a too-big-to-fail bank to date

And breaking them up is the absolute keystone of his campaign, and he "hasn't studied" it?

Really?

[thesquanderer]

92. Did you mean to post that to someone else?

It makes no sense as a reply to my post, so maybe you meant to reply to someone else?

(As my own post points out, the thing he "hasn't studied" is last week's Met Life decision; the judge's opinion has not yet been released so there's not much available yet to be studied; and MetLife isn't a bank; and the decision was not about what the gov't could do about a too-big-to-fail institution, but rather, whether MetLife was appropriately categorized that way in the first place.)

[Recursion]

94. No, I was calling out your nonsense

"He didn't study the Met Life decision"

That's idiotic. The keystone of his campaign is this single issue. The Met Life case is the single biggest example of breaking up TBTF banks so far. You actually think it's excusable for him "not to have studied" this?

[thesquanderer]

99. It seems like you're not reading.

The Met Life case is the single biggest example of breaking up TBTF banks so far.

Actually, Met Life is not a bank.

You actually think it's excusable for him "not to have studied" this?

There has been no opportunity for him to have studied this decision (which is what he was talking about). The judge only ruled last week, and has not yet even released his written opinion. So yes, perfectly excusable.

[Recursion]

101. Yes, it actually *is* a bank, since 2010 or so. Did you not know that?

Seriously? That is precisely what made it "too big to fail".

Christ... This is almost as bad as people who think Glass-Steagall had an impact on Goldman Sachs.

[thesquanderer]

105. No, it is not a bank, as of 2013. Did you not know that?

Details at:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/business/la-fi-mo-metlife-ge-capital-bank-deposits-20130114

But that's a side issue anyway. Regardless of what you call it, the bigger point is that the decision he has not studied is only a few days old, and not even completely available. Taking him to task for not having studied it is ridiculous.

[Recursion]

148. Read your own article: that was the result of this decision being adjudicated

They were "too big to fail" when they were still a bank.

[thesquanderer]

169. The case that Met Life just won was filed in 2015. After they were no longer a bank.

see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/business/dealbook/metlife-makes-its-case-against-too-big-to-fail-label.html

The article even makes a point that the case was about how "too big to fail" is applied to institutions that are not banks, that was a big part of it. i.e.

While banks are subject to stricter supervision based on asset size under the Dodd-Frank reform law, regulators are empowered to look at insurers and other financial institutions based on a variety of factors...when deciding whether it is systemically important. Designated firms are subject to stricter oversight by the Federal Reserve. The financial oversight council has also labeled Prudential Financial and the American International Group, along with General Electric’s financial unit, GE Capital.

Regardless, the fact that you called them a bank and I said actually they're not has nothing to do with the OP or any of the points I made to counter the OP, it was just a side note, to correct a misstatement on your part.

The actual point remains, yet again, that Sanders should not be taken to task for having not studied the Met Life decision... the judge only ruled last week, and has not yet even released his written opinion. This would be true even if Met Life were a bank. Which they're not.

[JonLeibowitz]

205. Incredible replies in this thread. Bravo.

[bvf]

93. It's worth noting

that you have yet to receive a cogent counter-argument to your post, nor will you.

Well done, and worth a rec on its own.

[Recursion]

95. Mine was cogent

It's the largest break up of a too-big-to-fail bank to date, and breaking up too-big-to-fail banks is the absolute central pillar of his campaign, and he "hasn't studied it"?

You're really OK with that?

[kristopher]

129. That isn't the central pillar of his campaign

But since you're a Hillary supporter, we can understand you really have no idea what Bernie is all about.

[Recursion]

133. Nope, I'm a Sanders supporter. I voted for him, not Clinton.

I'm not sure why it makes you feel better to imagine I voted for Clinton. But I find it both annoying and disrespectful, and I ask you to stop plainly lying like that.

[kristopher]

139. Sure. All Sanders supporters spend 100% of their time trashing him.

[Recursion]

141. More should. More Clinton supporters should criticize Clinton

They're two incredibly flawed candidates, and I'm still furious they were the two evils I had to choose between.

Frankly I can't see a dime's worth of difference between them, except that Sanders is somewhat more electable.

[kristopher]

143. Translation - Go Hillary!

[kristopher]

159. Sanders has been 100% consistent in his positions for 40 years.

When you post demonstrably false things like this it only confirms what is already obvious to everyone. You pretend to support Sanders while spending all of your time slandering him. Weak tea.

[Recursion]

164. Who the hell holds a single view for 40 years? That in itself is troubling

That doesn't trouble you?

[bvf]

188. Someone who's been right to begin with

and doesn't bow to political expediency in eleventh-hour desperation.

Someone who doesn't make up shit she thinks will sell to low-information voters (who must, of course, be brought to heel).

[SoLeftIAmRight]

215. most are clueless

legislation has already been passed that establishes this process

only people that do not know what is going on would not know this

[rosesaylavee]

210. This reply should be an OP

Thank you.

[Cal33]

71. No person can be an expert in every field. Bernie may not know much about banking.

In fact he has said that his wife does their income tax, but he can still want breaking
up the big banks as one of his top priorities as president. to prevent them from bringing
about another national economic crisis similar to the one in 2007 and 2008.

It's simple. He can have advisers who are expert in this field. That's what advisers are
for. Elizabeth Warren, for example is an expert here, and she would be more than glad
to help him out. She and Bernie see eye to eye in this area.

[kennetha]

160. He's not just not an expert

he has no idea what he's talking about. He is Trump-like in his lack of depth and failure to engage in the substance of actual policy.

[Arneoker]

192. So like Trumpo the Clown

He's going to bring in really smart advisors to instruct him on what to do on his signature issue, and we need trust that it will all work out fine.

Seriously, shouldn't he be giving at least a little detail, other than the big banks screwed us and they need to broken up? This is one of the key issues he is saying that show how we should choose him over Clinton!

[Baobab]

183. I guarantee you, he knows all about it, HE IS JUST BEING WAY TOO NICE TO CLINTON BY NOT BRINGING IT

UP, because the truth would kill her candidacy. because its a deal to basically make everybody in the world make the same, while preventing any reduction of debts or any bank regulation. So millions of people could conceivably lose everything.

One needs to understand the goals of the WTO, which one of which is economic integration of least developing countries, by liberalising services, are basically make business more profitable by lowering wages in developed countries and increasing the profits of businesses that play the differences in wages successfully.

[uponit7771]

28. Yeap, good marketing for mostly non PoC votes.

[Recursion]

41. Pretty much, yeah: he's trying to sell white workers on going back to the economics of the 1960s

The clue was the whole "wage stagnation" narrative: well, OK, but that's only affected white (specifically white male) workers; minority workers have seen significant wage gains over the same period, as have white women.

I honestly don't think it takes rocket science to see why that's a harder sell for minority voters.

[uponit7771]

46. +1, I said before that he's alarming on economic insecurity doesn't work with those who are already

... economically insecure so women, gays and PoC boogyman is seldom spoke of until forced.

[Recursion]

50. And I'm still cynical enough to vote for that

The electorate is in a weird mood this cycle, and wants to be lied to (OK, "told what they want to hear&quot . He's better at that.

[Human101948]

56. Do you think Roosevelt knew all the ins and outs of the 'banking holiday?' Or...

Perhaps he had others advising him?

Sunday, March 5, 1933, after a month-long run on
American banks, the newly inaugurated President of the
United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, proclaimed a fourday
suspension of all banking transactions, beginning the
following day. The nation’s stock exchanges also closed, even
though they were not mentioned in the President’s executive
order. On Thursday, March 9, Roosevelt did not reopen the
banks as planned; rather, he extended the closure for three
days. Americans should have reacted in horror to the
President’s proclamation and his decision to abandon his
original schedule. Instead, they waited to hear his plan.
Roosevelt’s fifteen-minute radio address to the American
people on Sunday evening, March 12—his first Fireside Chat—
informed the public that only sound banks would be licensed
to reopen by the U.S. Treasury: “I can assure you that it is safer
to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the
mattress.”1
Much to everyone’s relief, when the institutions
reopened for business on March 13, depositors stood in line to
return their hoarded cash to neighborhood banks. Within two
weeks, Americans had redeposited more than half of the
currency that they had squirreled away before the suspension.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/09v15n1/0907silb.pdf

Roosevelt’s advisers, who had no clearly defined strategy of their own for dealing with the banking crisis, seemed content to remain vague until their boss moved into the White House.

http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/22

[Recursion]

59. Yeah, in fact, I think FDR knew what he was actually talking about

Do you not?

[Human101948]

73. You have zero evidence to support your argument...

FDR relied on a group of advisors --

During their first one hundred days in office, the Brains Trust helped Roosevelt enact fifteen major laws. One of the most important initiatives was the Banking Act of 1933, which put an end to the banking panic.

https://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/brains-trust.cfm

...Those who call the policies of Sanders "radical" do not understand the history of American finance. When Sanders calls for restoring a version of the Glass-Steagall Act, he is not proposing something new; he is proposing something that had worked brilliantly for generations and was unwisely repealed in the years before the great financial crash of our times.
Those who call the words of Bernie Sanders "too strong" should remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt.

Those who believe that the politics of Bernie Sanders are too visionary to be accepted today should remember the political victories of FDR, and ask themselves why some recent polling suggests that Sanders would win a landslide against Republican Donald Trump in 2016 — as FDR won his landslide in 1936.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/268396-on-banks-sanders-sounds-like-fdr

[think]

96. "Break up the banks, says Minneapolis Fed chief"

Break up the banks, says Minneapolis Fed chief

Adam Samson in New York - February 16, 2016 6:12 pm


America’s biggest banks pose a potentially “nuclear” threat to the US economy and regulators should consider breaking them up, according to the new head of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.

Neel Kashkari, who was a key architect of Wall Street’s 2008 bailout, said the largest US lenders remain “too big too fail”. He said in his first public comments since becoming the head of the Minneapolis Fed at the start of the year that efforts to regulate the big banks since the financial crisis had not gone far enough.

A break-up should be on the table, alongside a plan to turn the largest into public utilities by “forcing them to hold so much capital that they virtually can’t fail”, he said. Taxing leverage throughout the financial system to “reduce systemic risks wherever they lie” should be considered as well, he added.

Mr Kashkari said that the largest financial institutions “continue to pose a significant, ongoing risk to our economy”. He unveiled a task force at the Minneapolis Fed designed to examine ways to make the financial system safer.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f13e542-d4cd-11e5-8887-98e7feb46f27.html#axzz44xH5arxD

[Recursion]

100. And I'd ask what he means too

In contrast, I'd imagine Kashkari actually has an answer of what a "broken up" banking sector would look like.

[think]

102. Bernie knows this is a complex subject and it's not easy to describe. You're posts in this thread

speak for themselves....

[Recursion]

103. They do: This is a complex subject, and if Sanders agrees with that he should treat it that way

FFS he could have said "this is very complex and there are a lot of ways it could fall". No. He just said "It will be better". I'm about two centimeters from being done with this guy and lobbying every superdelegate to vote O'Malley.

[think]

106. Please do go lobby for O'Malley. Maybe you'll quit spreading so much FUD about Sanders then....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. You just lack vision

If we can put a man on Pluto breaking up the big banks is not beyond our reach.

[George II]

111. So, a man can basically make stuff up that he thinks people will "love", and that's okay?

I think we're slowly finding out that he really doesn't have a platform and why he has accomplished very little in Congress.

[Baobab]

180. here is what you need to do- back out of the Whirled Trad e org. which Pres. Clinton signed in 1994

Bernie Sanders is being nice to Hillary and avoiding what would be an extremely toxic subject for her!

One which would invariably lead to dozens of things being uncovered which would literally be things which the US media, blogs, etc, including this one, it seems, dont like to EVER see discussed.

[ohheckyeah]

186. in other words it was bullshit. no big

surprise

[Maru Kitteh]

3. Holy crap.

[KitSileya]

4. The whole interview is very interesting.

He attacks Clinton's character in the same breath as he says he will not attack her character, he continues to refuse to help down-ticket Democrats and much more we already have seen. However, I found the segment on finance to be the most illuminating with regards to how he approaches issues - that is, he seems to go only for the soundbite, and has no actual knowledge of idea of what to do next.

[Recursion]

43. This surprised me; he's usually much better at avoiding this

And that's worrisome, because his entire campaign is premised on that exact question ("what do you actually mean?&quot never being asked, or at least never acknowledged. His deflection ("I envision a better economy&quot was good, but still he usually manages to head off the question in the first place. Maybe he didn't expect it from this source?

[BeyondGeography]

61. I think that may be right

The Daily News is a tabloid, not known for its in-depth political coverage and I can easily see, especially being a hometown boy who probably only read the News for its sports pages back in the day, how he would not be expecting a tough, detail-seeking interview.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. I was surprised by how detailed the questioning was.

[BeyondGeography]

134. Very impressed...Now I'm interested in seeing the HRC interview

and their endorsement statement.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. It seemed more like a deposition.

[BeyondGeography]

145. He was probably shocked

He certainly doesn't have a lot of range as a candidate. Notice how he tried to steer every question to his pet issue (i.e. the ISIS prisoner query to Guantanamo)? They wouldn't let him go there and he wound up embarrassing himself repeatedly. I know HRC won't have that particular problem, but she should probably expect some high hard ones too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. Do you think the Post will endorse Bernie?

[BeyondGeography]

161. Haha...was thinking about that this AM

I was trending toward, "yes," but also laughing at how appalled Bernie would be by that on some not insignificant level.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. I hope they do.

[geek tragedy]

69. If he can't answer that question in his sleep

then he's not serious about it and has been bsing.

He's not thought about either about how to do it or what the consequences would be.

Naked pandering.

[Recursion]

74. Literally until today I would have argued against that

I would have said he's really good at this and he's the right way to go for the general. But this interview is really sobering to me.

[geek tragedy]

76. Obvious question is: was he ever more than a protest candidate?

Did he ever think he was up to the job?

[Recursion]

78. Oh people are very, very good at convincing themselves of things

I don't think you can sustain a campaign like this if you don't at least on some level hope to win

[geek tragedy]

81. He wants to win, but does he really want the job?

Same dynamic with Trump

[Recursion]

82. Fair point. Just like 99% of his supporters don't actually want him to govern, I guess

[kennetha]

158. Totally Agree with you

He comes off as positively Trumplike in his lack of depth and serious engagement with substance.

That's why he is so robotic and repetitive on the stump. There's just no there, there. He's a cheap demagogue and not a serious policy oriented politician.

[kristopher]

132. No that isn't what his campaign is premised on.

But since you Hillary supporters spend so much time just making shit up, we don't expect anything else from you...

[Recursion]

135. Again, I have no idea why lying about my primary vote makes you feel better

It's an interesting psychological question. Why does kristopher feel better, and more validated, when he lies about who Recursion voted for?

It's a mystery.

[kristopher]

142. It isn't a mystery; it is self evident

You spend 100% of your time trashing Sanders and you try to legitimize the obvious bias AGAINST Sanders with the transparent ploy of claiming you support him.
I suppose you are operating on this principle:

[Armstead]

138. NO HE SETS GOALS...and if elected will hire highly capable experts to carry them out.

That's what he did as Mayor of Burlington, and had an administration that almost everyone said was successful.

[Recursion]

140. What? He won't even name his goals here

This is the opposite of setting goals. The Daily News offered to let him describe his desired banking sector and he couldn't answer.

[Armstead]

147. He mentions his goals all the time.

Restore a more diverse and broadly based financial system, and impose regulations with teeth to control the financial sector.

And hire experts to work out the details, and bargain with Congress to implement them as best he can.

These are not hard concepts to grasp. Sometimes you have to look at the forest, instead of obsessively gazing at the bark of specific trees.

Read this -- It might show you how pragmatic he can be to get results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/bernies-burlington-what-k_b_7510704.html

[Recursion]

149. Yeah I need more than that

Restore a more diverse and broadly based financial system, and impose regulations with teeth to control the financial sector.

Yeah, I need more. That can mean a lot of things. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would espouse the same "goals".

What does it actually mean?

[Armstead]

151. I haven't time for circular arguments

I posted that link as an example of how in an executive position is works with people to come up with workable plans to achieve his goals.

If it's not good enough for you, there's nothing I can say.

[Recursion]

154. Well, it's not. He's got my vote, as the lesser evil, but I don't trust the man whatsoever

at this point. He's our strongest candidate but **** I'm furious that we're down to two candidates this weak.

[kennetha]

163. Just like Donald Trump?

[Armstead]

167. NO just like he did as Mayor of Burlington

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/bernies-burlington-what-k_b_7510704.html

The battle over Northgate Apartments illustrates Sanders’s general approach to governing. In addressing this and many other issues, he encouraged grassroots organizing, adopted local laws to protect the vulnerable, challenged the city’s business power brokers and worked collaboratively with other politicians to create a more livable city.

Now that Sanders, a U.S. Senator from Vermont, is running for president, the eight years he spent as Burlington’s chief executive (1981-89) will be under close scrutiny. Although President Obama recently joked at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that Sanders is a “pot-smoking socialist,” he was actually a hardworking, pragmatic, effective mayor who helped transform Vermont’s largest city (population: 38,000) into a thriving town.

Thanks to the enduring influence of the progressive climate that Sanders and his allies helped to create in Burlington, the city’s largest housing development is now resident-owned, its largest supermarket is a consumer-owned cooperative, one of its largest private employers is worker-owned, and most of its people-oriented waterfront is publicly owned. Its publicly owned utility, the Burlington Electric Department, recently announced that Burlington is the first American city of any decent size to run entirely on renewable electricity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/us/politics/as-mayor-bernie-sanders-was-more-pragmatic-than-socialist.html


.

..he was re-elected three times, each with an increasing share of the vote. Under his watch, Burlington, Vermont’s largest city, cropped up on lists of the best places to live. U.S. News and World Report named him one of the nation’s 20 top mayors in 1987, crediting him with preserving affordable housing, holding the line on property taxes and making a serious push for home rule in a state where cities had little autonomy.

“He learned how to use the levers of local government to improve people’s lives,” said Peter Dreier, a professor of politics and public policy at Occidental College who studied Burlington during Mr. Sanders’s mayoralty.

This was not necessarily what many had expected.

[Bonobo]

5. Does Bernie have to know how to make gasoline if he wants to fill up his car too?

How about TV? Can he watch that or does he first have to understand how it works?

This is a stupid point.

First, one must have the will to do something. The fact that he does not yet know precisely the proper mechanism to achieve it is not that important.

Presidents have advisors or all kinds. It is called going about something deliberatively. It is a wise way to proceed.

Do you think the President is like a plumber or repair man who has to like rush in and get the job done alone?

Very foolish understanding of how things work.

[KitSileya]

6. He hasn't studied the issue. He doesn't know the current situation.

He hasn't even tried to find out what the probably consequences will be. How can he suggest it if he doesn't know what these experts of yours claim will be the ramifications of his suggestion, and how will he propose legislation if he has no idea of how it can be done? I mean, he hasn't even looked into failed attempts - the journalist mentions MetLife, and Bernie admits he hasn't studied it.

[Bonobo]

8. Respectfully, you really have no idea what he knows or does not know.

I am 99.9% certain that he knows 99.9% more than you do though.

[KitSileya]

10. I go by what he says. He says he hasn't studied it as an answer to a direct question.

He cannot answer a direct question about it. For most of us that means he doesn't know.

[Bonobo]

11. Your OP was filled with a comedic level of bolding to give a false impression. nt

[KitSileya]

12. I bolded to make it easier to see what supported my opinion.

I'm sorry if making it easier to parse information is comic to you.

[Bonobo]

14. Banks are institutions. They can be broken up.

I don't see what is so hard to accept about that in theory.

If you think it is a requirement to first understand the precise legal or political mechanisms for achieving that end result, I will disagree and tell you that it is first necessary to have the will to do so.

[Recursion]

16. Yes, but you can see that isn't what this is. He literally has no idea what "break up the banks"

would actually mean. Nobody does. Because it was never a real plan; it's something he says to get people excited. He knows perfectly well that it doesn't actually mean anything. It's so vague and feel-good as to be completely meaningless. Which is fine; he's running an election campaign and that seems to be working. But you can't seriously read this interview and claim that he actually has a plan to break up the banks: he doesn't.

[Bonobo]

21. He has a will to break up banks. That is enough for me at present. nt

[kennetha]

165. And Donald Trump has a will to build a wall and keep all muslims out

Wishing it were so is not a plan for making it so.

[Armstead]

146. he knows who to hire and how to get things done

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/bernies-burlington-what-k_b_7510704.html

[Arneoker]

194. And Trumpo has built hotels

[Armstead]

197. Apples and oranges

Oh screw it....

[uponit7771]

48. He said he didn't know... wtf?!

[Recursion]

51. In fairness he's been much better at dodging this question until now

And his entire campaign strategy hinges on dodging that question, so he'd better hope this was a one-off...

[GoneFishin]

26. I know it. This is a gotcha OP. If Bernie layed out a 99% complete plan they would rip on him for

the 1% that was not worked out.

Pretending that he is supposed have 8 years worth of detailed plans worked out using only the resources of his campaign staff is gotcha nonsense.

I forget why I clicked on this OP. I usually don't waste the click on these Fox News-like posts.

[uponit7771]

38. There's nothing gotcha about a " what's your plan" question that he's had more than a year to form

[Recursion]

55. FFS wake up. He was asked what a "broken up" banking sector would look like

He has no answer, because nobody does, because "breaking up the banks" either means nothing or a million contradictory things. His whole campaign has been based on avoiding anyone scratching past that popular meme and asking "what does that actually mean?", and he failed on the fucking Daily News? (In fairness, I wouldn't have expected that from them, either.) All he can say is, "better".

Will it be like Ma Bell becoming the Baby Bells? Will it be a forced liquidation of assets to smaller firms? Will it be a simple abrogation of corporate charters? These questions are crucial, and nobody can honestly say they are "for" or "against" "breaking up the banks" without knowing which one we're talking about. His entire campaign is premised on avoiding these questions.

This isn't about implementation details or a legislative strategy; I totally agree that both candidates' proposals require a different legislature. What is the outcome he wants? A banking sector broken up.... geographically? By underlying security/equity sector? How? If you can't answer that, how can you say you agree with him? Because some of those outcomes would be much better than what we have now and some would be much, much worse.

[Tanuki]

86. Seriously? Asking him to clarify the details of his signature slogan is no more of a "gotcha"

than Sarah Palin's claim that Katie Couric asking her what newspapers she read was a "gotcha." Being unprepared and at a loss for an answer does not mean that the problem was with the question or the questioner.

[treestar]

87. LOL

St Bernie cannot be criticized.

Obama was expected to do everything in his firs year.

[redstateblues]

128. Like Sarah Palins gotcha questions? He should do better

[GoneFishin]

168. Yes, this is a gotcha OP in as much as no response will satisfy those whose only goal is to smear.

It's too late to pretend any of you care about policy matters. You don't.

[uponit7771]

29. So when it comes to specifics he'll just give it to someone else like Trump?! Really?!.. sigh SMFH

[treestar]

77. It is very bad for a candidate when you

Have to argue that advisors are going to do things for him.

[Joob]

7. , what happened with Metropolitan Life?? Who are they? Should he have studied them?

[KitSileya]

9. Met life is an insurance company that was deemed too big to fail.

The US government tried to use Dodd-Frank regulations on it. It was not very successful. MetLife is still litigating the regulations they tried to put on it.

[Cha]

15. Thank you for this, Kit!

[reformist2]

17. OK, so Bernie needs to formulate a plan. But monopolies have been broken up before...

So in my opinion, it's no big deal. With Bernie, we WILL break up the big banks. How we do it, is really just details.

[uponit7771]

31. Bernie's had a freakin year to formulate a plan!! He's not serious about "revolution"

[Armstead]

150. Please read these. Like him or not, he know how to get things done.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/bernies-burlington-what-k_b_7510704.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/us/politics/as-mayor-bernie-sanders-was-more-pragmatic-than-socialist.html

[murielm99]

18. Thanks for this post.

We should have known that this was just one more of his vague generalities. He has no real idea how to accomplish anything.

[coyote]

19. It´s been done before and

it can be done again.

[uponit7771]

32. Its been done before with people who know what they're doing, not someone who has no plan

... at all

[firebrand80]

20. All you need is a posse and some baseball bats nt

[uponit7771]

34. Don't forget the podium bird, need that guy to peck em to death

[rbrnmw]

22. kicking this important post

[woodsprite]

23. That could be where VP Warren steps in. n/t

[Karma13612]

24. That's what I'm thinking. Eom

[salinsky]

35. Put down the pipe ....

.... and, back slowly away from your keyboard.

[uponit7771]

39. Who knows that the biggest banks aren't even in the US and wouldn't have stopped the 08 crash

... if they were all broken up before 07 !?!?

OMG...

[treestar]

84. Why would she want that job?

When she did not want to be president?

[Sancho]

25. Bernie's plan doesn't make sense - the biggest banks are not in the US!!!

US law has no effect on them. Bernie is selling snake oil.

Breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help. Most big banks are not in the US, and most influential money is not in the US. The US can't "break up" international banks, and without Congress cannot change the possibility of "influence".

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

1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander

[bvar22]

184. Those aren't the banks that brought the USA to its knees in 2007.

WE had some leverage over them in 2008, before we handed them a Trillion Dollars, no strings attached, but we missed that chance. The best time to demand concessions is BEFORE handing over the money to the extortionists.
There are ways to break them up, or at least re-install the firewall protections we had before Glass-Steagal was signed away under Bill Clinton. That would be a good beginning.

But Bernie gave an honest answer, which is rare for any politician, and certainly is refreshing to hear instead of his opponent's "plans". I have no doubt that he will pursue the goals he set, and find a way to do it.

Teddy Roosevelt (The Trust Buster) would be a good place to start.

This thread is just full of the Hillary Campaign Slogan:
[font size=4]NO. WE. CAN'T![/font]

[uponit7771]

27. MORE PROOF!! Sanders is NOT ... NOT serious about "revolution" one bit

This guy listens to too many birds on podiums!!

[seaglass]

30. I read this last night. It's shocking. It's not that he hasn't had plenty of time to study up on

this and put together a cohesive workable plan for one of the key ideas of his campaign. Yikes.

[reformist2]

40. A little memorized blather on the issue should put the bedwetters at ease.

The public doesn't want to hear the details, really. That's not the president's job, anyway.

[seaglass]

47. Clearly it is true that there are many who are not interested in details, they are mostly

Sanders and Trump supporters.

[Recursion]

57. It's not "shocking" to me at least; I've never thought there was a "there" there with Sanders

I just think vacuous pablums are what the electorate wants.

[seaglass]

66. Put it this way. I read his College for All bill and though there are many questions and the

discussion about how it would be implemented and funded has not been forthright - at least there was some detail. Based on that I expected that he knew more about whatever he thinks he wants to do with Wall Street than he does. Silly me.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Sounds like he would hit the ground walking in circles

What a cringeworthy interview, filled with, "I don't knows," "haven't thought about its," "could be's," and "maybes." For instance:

Daily News: Okay. American Special Forces recently killed a top ISIS commander, after they'd hoped to capture him. They felt, from what the news reports were, that they had no choice at that. What would you do with a captured ISIS commander?

Sanders: Imprison him.

Daily News: Where?

Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo...

Daily News: Well, no, separate and apart from Guantanamo, it could be there, it could be anywhere. Where would a President Sanders imprison, interrogate? What would you do?

Sanders: Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot. I suppose, somewhere near the locale where that person was captured. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.

Daily News: Would it be in the United States?

Sanders: Would it be in the United States? It could be, yeah.

Read the whole thing. The NYDN really took him apart.

[salinsky]

36. Not ready for prime time ....

.... but, he makes his supporters feeeeeeel goooooood.

[riversedge]

45. Yeah--they Feeeeeeeeeeeel the Berrrrrrrrrrrrn! We will all end being Bernt toast!

[uponit7771]

54. We'll all be Bern victims

[Trust Buster]

37. Sanders panders to those looking for an easy fix. He doesn't have a magic wand.

[uponit7771]

42. But they have a podium bird ...

[riversedge]

44. Not surprised. Sanders has,all along been vague about HOW to accomplish his goals-like the

the Revolution--! Once, during an interview,someone asked about how he would get all his big plans passed in Congress. He had to be pushed to answer by the host--then he finally said something about McConnell looking out the window at protestors. So that means--all of Sanders fan will have to come to DC and protest for the next 4 years.

[Recursion]

49. It's not even that; here Sanders isn't even clear what the goal is

What would a "broken up" banking system look like? His only answer is "better". Thanks...

[geek tragedy]

60. He should not be president. He can't do the job

He's as prepared as Trump is.

[inchhigh]

62. Except he isn't saying that

He was just answering a question about the legal implications of a specific case over whether Metropolitan was a Systematically Important Financial Institution and more broadly, whether Insurance companies are. Its a thorny question but it has no impact on whether Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan is a SIFI.

[CalvinballPro]

63. Bernie Sanders is a fraud

This man is an embarrassment to himself. If I were his campaign, I'd be reducing interviews at this point, because the vetting has finally begun, and it's going to be a trainwreck for the Sanders staff.

[Vinca]

64. Right on cue . . . the slur du jour! Thanks. The others have gotten so boring.

[athena]

125. His own words are a slur?

Doesn't that tell you something?

[wendylaroux]

176. obama should have broken them up.

[livetohike]

68. He's a fraud. Thankfully he will never be President. He doesn't have the

ability/intelligence to think anything through.

[treestar]

72. It is stunning

To read that. That is one thing on which one would think he had a plan

[Recursion]

75. It is not just stunning but devastating

FFS, this is a question he needs to be able to answer backwards in Swahili without using anything but muscle memory. This is literally the raison d'etre of his campaign, and this is absolutely shocking to me.

[Tarc]

79. So basically, he doesn't know how to ride his one-trick-pony of an issue?

[Recursion]

80. Well, to me that is at least surprising, because I thought he *did* know how to ride it

But FFS if he can't answer that question in his sleep, he's got problems.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. Really? Here is Hillary offering a pile of false bullshit about basic history she lived through:

She credits Ron and Nancy for doing the very thing they are despised for not doing at all and also claims that the thousands of courageous activists who sounded the warning bell while Reagan slept did nothing at all, she says we waited for Brave Ron and Nancy to lead. It's all lies.

I still can't believe anyone in our Party thinks that way and I still can't believe her supporters are not disgusted by what she said. Her trashing of the LGBT community and her lavish praise of Reagan changed my opinion of her and also of her supporters including those in power in this Party. No more trust for any of them on any issue ever. It's that simple.

So that's where I am. Between the anti LGBT Reagan love and the antisemitic aggression, the Hillary campaign has made me sick to my stomach.

[Recursion]

117. What does Clinton have to do with this? I didn't vote for her

Why do you keep bringing up Clinton when I criticize Sanders? I'm already not a Clinton primary voter.

[Bluenorthwest]

121. Uh, Presidential candidates who can't answer simple questions is the category Alex.

Hillary is the candidate who opposed LGBT rights until very recently and now she wants us to believe she's fully committed to those rights but her smearing of LGBT activists, her praise of Reagan and her apparent lack of basic knowledge of the world that has been going on around her makes that hard to believe.
Her supporters want to parse over Bernie in every single way, but like you do, any mention of Clinton's nasty display of ignorance or bigotry or Reagan admiration is met with 'Why do you bring that up'.

She botched a very simple moment. She rushed to crap on LGBT, to lie about history and to promote the Reagans and that was totally fine with all of her supporters.

It's all double standards.


If she can't manage to talk about AIDS without praising Reagan she's not qualified to be President. If she does not know the history of this country during her own lifetime, she should not be President.

Of course her supporters do not care about LGBT rights, nor about HIV/AIDS nor about the ongoing massive cost in human life that is the price of the sort of bullshit Reagan and Clinton purvey about HIV/AIDS.

[Recursion]

122. Which is why I'm not a Clinton supporter

Why do you keep bringing her up?

[WhiteTara]

171. Because it's easier than answering the real question. nt

[uponit7771]

172. +1

[ucrdem]

83. It's a talking point that tests well and that's about it.

If you read the "Too Big to Fail" legislation Bernie wrote that's all there is -- "break up the too big to fail banks" repeated about 40 times and formatted to look like an actual resolution. But it clearly isn't intended to be.

[Perogie]

88. You think you're sly

An ellipsis is a set of three periods ( . . . ) indicating an omission.

By using the ellipsis you changed the actual sentences to make it look like your claim is actually true.

This is a tactic often used by RW web sites to misquote Democrats to make them look bad.

Example: KitSileya is the biggest ... idiot.

The actual sentence: KitSileya is the biggest fan of DemocraticUnderground and if you don't believe it you're an idiot.

See how that works? See how silly it makes you look to use a RW tactic.

[mcar]

89. Isn't that one of his main proposals?

[LuvLoogie]

90. And now a musical interlude...

[beaglelover]

97. He's as much a snake oil salesman as Cruz.

[ecstatic]

98. And this is one of the biggest problems I have with him. His ideas are great!

But there's zero indication that he has any idea of what he's doing or how to accomplish anything that he has promised.

His numbers do not add up. He hasn't thought through any of the consequences of his proposals. You'd think that a single issue candidate would at least be an expert in the single issue he's interested in. But that's not the case with Sanders. Clinton knows way more about the issues that Sanders cares about, and has realistic solutions to address those issues.

Not one senator has endorsed him, despite having worked on the hill for decades.

He doesn't have the legal background or education that most modern presidents and presidential candidates (excluding Bush and Trump) have had. He would be eaten alive in the GE.

[Recursion]

104. Earlier on he was asked what the first change he would make would be

He said "I'll have the Treasury Secretary draw up a list of banks that are too big to fail."

But that list is already drawn up, annually.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt at the time, that he was just being a demagogue. I'm not so sure now.

[George II]

109. "Wait until people get to know him"

That's the problem, people are getting to know him, and we're finding out he's the guy behind the curtain in Emerald City.

[bigtree]

110. truly bizarre

Alan Kestrel @AlanKestrel750
Bernie's answers on how to break up the banks did not inspire confidence at all.




Christine. ‏@mercerstine 11h11 hours ago
@AlanKestrel750 @MattMurph24 A complete lack of understanding. Barney Frank was right. https://t.co/wMxM4RSEkQ


https://twitter.com/edgeoforever/status/717336760049643520


Storify: Bernie Sanders Says He Doesn't Know How To Break Up the Banks
He doesn't know the law. He doesn't have a plan.
https://storify.com/femme_esq/bernie-sanders-says-he-doesn-t-know-how-to-break-u

[UtahLib]

112. K&R. nt

[Skwmom]

113. What B.S. Bernie is smart enough to bring together a smart team to put together a plan. n/t

[Laser102]

114. OMG! No ideas on how financial institutions work. What powers the president has.

How to implement his plans to bust big banks. Also, what role does the opposition party play in his plans? Do republicans roll over? People should be very afraid of this.

[My Good Babushka]

115. He can push to reinstate Glass-Steagall

the banks can be broken up under the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts, just like Reagan took out Ma Bell.
This is not uncharted territory.
Lots of candidates don't get into the details of how they'll enact their platform. Clinton still doesn't know if NAFTA was good, after all, but she still wants to be in charge of future trade agreements.

[Hiraeth]

155. ah .... good ole Ma Bell .... memories

I kinda miss ole Ma Bell. Am I the only one? Am I looking back with fond/false memories?

[lagomorph777]

118. Secretary of Treasury Elizabeth Warren could make it happen.

[KingFlorez]

119. The lack of knowledge is stunning

He is definitely not prepared to be President. His entire campaign is a bunch of proposals without anything to back them up.

[athena]

120. This interview is devastating.

The transcript is worth reading in its entirety. Here is another gem:

Daily News: I know you've got to go in a second. When was the last time you rode the subway? Are you gonna a campaign in the subway?

Sanders: Actually we rode the subway, Mike, when we were here? About a year ago? But I know how to ride the subways. I’ve been on them once or twice.

Daily News: Do you really? Do you really? How do you ride the subway today?

Sanders: What do you mean, "How do you ride the subway?"

Daily News: How do you get on the subway today?

Sanders: You get a token and you get in.

Daily News: Wrong.

Sanders: You jump over the turnstile.

Daily News: We would like our photographer to be there when you jump over the turnstile.

Sanders: I'm like anybody when I….

He claims he's taken the New York subway in the past year and yet has no idea how it has worked for years. Why couldn't he just tell the truth? How can anyone trust what this guy says?

[Armstead]

127. MY God he doesn't remember the details of a subway ride, Can Clinton even drive a damn car?

[athena]

130. Details?

Claiming that you took the subway in the past year, and then not knowing how one actually gets into the subway, that seems normal to you? It's an obvious lie. That's what you would call it if Hillary had said it and not Bernie.

[Armstead]

131. Well Sanders just lost my vote

[Recursion]

152. So, straight-up lies don't lose your vote? (nt)

[wendylaroux]

181. yes,that's why I voted for Sanders. nt

[Armstead]

204. Like he really has a reason to lie about riding a subway. Jeeze Louise

[Fast Walker 52]

123. As a Bernie supporter this is somewhat disturbing. HOWEVER, it is early, and it is something

he can address as his campaign moves along. Right now he's trying to win the nomination, this would be a much bigger problem in the GE.

[athena]

124. This is his main issue.

It has been his main talking point for months. It's not some dusty corner of foreign policy. What kind of person promises he will break up the big banks without first looking into exactly how he will do it?

[Fast Walker 52]

175. It's not his "main issue". It's one of about 10 issues that he has pushed

In any case, he is right. The details can be worked out.

[redstateblues]

126. Bernie is not ready for prime time

[kennetha]

166. He's a prime time demagogue.

A Donald Trump of the left

[wendylaroux]

177. you're a disgusting troll

[Armstead]

136. If elected he will do what he did in Burlington. Hire the best experts.

He had the same crap thrown at him when he was running for Mayor of Burlington.

What he did there, was hire really smart people in different fields to provide the expertise to carry out his goals and direction. Together they brought the budget into line, kept the potholes fixed and successfully carried out an innovative progressive agenda.

Through that he had a very successful tenure and was named one of America's best Mayors.

[uponit7771]

173. Trump is saying the same thing!!!! Not ready for prime time at all

[AgerolanAmerican]

153. It's no worry

One phone call with William Black will give Bernie all the info he needs to unravel the grip of the vampire squid.

[workinclasszero]

157. Rainbows and unicorns for everybody!

Bernies just throwing out code words people want to hear with no actual plans on implementing them.

[Armstead]

202. Grueul and stale bread for everybody

Except for me and my banker buds who get steak and champaigne

[brooklynite]

174. I can safely predict that Hillary Clinton will get the Daily News' endorsement

[CanadaexPat]

178. Does it matter how their lines of business

are divided up?

[Ferd Berfel]

182. Recognizing a Problem is the first step. Hillary

hasn't even got THAT far. In fact she's acknowledged denial that there is even a problem.

Bernie has been exposing the problem for a very long time. Hillary has been sweeping it under the rug.

Bernie is the only chance

[Gothmog]

185. How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?

Sanders is not clear on policy. He is good at sound bytes but cannot explain how to be break up the big banks
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanderss-rough-ride-with-the-daily-news/476919/

It’s striking that there hasn’t been more coverage of Sanders’s policy ideas so far during the campaign, even at this late date, with most of the primary season concluded. He’s even acquired a reputation as something of a wonk, the kind of guy who eschews soaring rhetoric for dry nuts and bolts on the stump—and gets people to love him anyway. The gaps uncovered by the Daily News are not just about pragmatism. (There have, of course, been plenty of accusations, not least from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that Sanders is offering a deeply unrealistic program. He tends to answer that they fail to grasp that he is building a political revolution.) The question here is not how Sanders would enact policies, but what those policies would be. If the Sanders campaign has shied away from deep dives into policy, this interview might be why: The candidate reveals himself as a far defter diagnostician than clinician.

The most glaring example came early in the encounter, during a discussion of the problem of “too big to fail” banks. There is disagreement among economists on the left over how important, if at all, it is to break up large financial institutions. The board granted Sanders’s argument and asked him how he’d do it, producing an excruciating cat-and-mouse game:

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

[Armstead]

201. Unlike Clinton who doesn't give a rats ass about the issue

Things are just fine as they are. Monopolies? What are those? All I know is they pay me well for my speaking ability.

[Gothmog]

207. 9 things Bernie Sanders should’ve known about but didn’t in that Daily News interview

Here are some more facts about how poorly informed Sanders is https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/05/9-things-bernie-sanders-shouldve-known-about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Nine moments in the Sanders conversation left me agape. From his own plans for breaking up too-big-to-fail banks to how he would handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to dealing with the Islamic State, the man giving homegirl Hillary Clinton a run for her money seemed surprisingly out of his depth. The bold in the text is mine for emphasis.

1. Breaking up the banks

Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing [breaking up the banks]?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, “Now you must do X, Y and Z?”

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

2. The legal implications of breaking up a financial institution

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I’m a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order…

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I’m not quite…

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It’s something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

3. Prosecuting Wall Street executives for the financial collapse of 2008

Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?

Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.

Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?

Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don’t. But if I would…yeah, that’s what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that’s illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.

Daily News: I’m only pressing because you’ve made it such a central part of your campaign. And I wanted to know what the mechanism would be to accomplish it.

Considering this is the core of his campaign message, Sanders should know all of the points covered in 1, 2 and 3 inside and out. He should have been able to lecture his interrogators into a stupor with his detailed knowledge. Instead, Sanders sounded slightly better than a college student caught off-guard by a surprise test in his best class just before finals.

Sanders has a talking point but has not considered any of the implications of what this talking point means and how to implement this talking point. This interview is scary.

[Armstead]

209. He's talking about what matters that Democrats have avoided for years

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

Daily News: ....in your speech you mention the financial industry and you focused on corporate America, the greed of Wall Street and corporate America. So I wanted to get a sense of corporate America, as the agent of American destruction.

Sanders: General Electric, good example. General Electric was created in this country by American workers and American consumers. What we have seen over the many years is shutting down of many major plants in this country. Sending jobs to low-wage countries. And General Electric, doing a very good job avoiding the taxes. In fact, in a given year, they pay nothing in taxes. That's greed.

That is greed and that’s selfishness. That is lack of respect for the people of this country.

Daily News: And so how does that destroy the fabric of America?

Sanders: I'll tell you how it does. If you are a corporation and the only damn thing you are concerned about is your profits. Let's just give an example of a corporation that's making money in America, today, but desiring to move to China or to Mexico to make even more money. That is destroying the moral fabric of this country. That is saying that I don't care that the workers, here have worked for decades. It doesn't matter to me. The only thing that matters is that I can make a little bit more money. That the dollar is all that is almighty. And I think that is the moral fabric.

To me, what moral is, I've got to be concerned about you. You've got to be concerned about my wife. That's moral to me. That's what I believe in. And if the only thing that matters to you is making an extra buck, you don't care about my family, I think that's immoral. And I think what corporate America has shown us in the last number of years, what Wall Street has shown us, the only thing that matters is their profits and their money. And the hell with the rest of the people of this country.


Daily News: Okay. Do you weigh in the balance at all, the fact that a company that's moving jobs overseas, that the competitive climate may be such that they feel that they must, to compete in the United States?

Sanders: No. I think, firstly, we have to appreciate these guys wrote the rules in the first place. So they wrote the trade agreements. And then, yes, I do understand you can make more profits by paying people in Mexico, or China, or Vietnam pennies an hour, I do understand that. But I believe that people have...and, by the way, I'm not anti-trade. We live in a global economy, we need trade. But the trade policies that we have allowed to occur, that were written by corporate America have been disastrous for American workers.

So I think we need trade. But I think it should be based on fair trade policies. No, I don't think it is appropriate for trade policies to say that you can move to a country where wages are abysmal, where there are no environmental regulations, where workers can't form unions. That's not the kind of trade agreement that I will support.


-------------------
Daily News: At what point in history, in the recent history of the United States, do you think the balance began to tip against the American worker?

Sanders: In the early '70s. I think it was in the late '60s/early '70s. I think Lyndon Johnson's, maybe even earlier than that, the victory over Goldwater, in '64 got the ruling class in this country very nervous.

And I think there became a very organized effort, on the part of corporate America, and very powerful forces, to say, "Look, we are in trouble. And we're going to have to fight back." And I think what you have seen in a number of ways, trade being one way, attacks on trade unions being another way, to really reestablish and strengthen the power of the few against the many.


Daily News: And do you trace all of that, do you ascribe, are those the forces in your mind that have led to wage stagnation since then?

Sanders: I think there's been a very concerted effort to take on trade unions. No question about that. You're seeing that every day, or in the last few years, in Wisconsin, what the governor there, Scott Walker, is about. That is a perfect metaphor for what I think corporate America...much, I'm not going to say all of, but much of corporate America has wanted to privatize everything that can be privatized. To destroy trade unions. To make it harder for people to get health care. To give tax breaks to the very wealthiest people in this country. Yeah, I think that has been a very concerted effort.

[Carolator]

187. Actually, Bernie is correct

His answer(s) are in line with the procedure. It would be difficult, per Slate, but it can be done.

<snip>


So Sanders has borrowed another idea that's been floating around liberal circles for a while: Take down Bank of America, Citibank, and their peers with laws that are already on the books. Specifically, he wants to use Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which gives regulators the power to break apart large financial institutions they think pose a “grave threat to the financial stability of the United States.”

Section 121 is, potentially, an extremely powerful tool. I say potentially, because nobody seems quite sure exactly how it can be used. The words "grave threat" are, after all, a tad vague, which makes it unclear exactly when it can be applied to firms that aren't on the verge of immediate collapse. Nonetheless, it lets regulators order banks, insurers, and other companies involved in finance to liquidate assets, shut down lines of business, or stop offering certain products—which is to say, shrink.

But by design, it's also very, very hard to implement. First, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors must decide that a bank (or shadow bank) does indeed pose a "grave threat" to America's financial well-being. Then, two-thirds of the Financial Stability Oversight Council have to vote to start breaking it up....

Meanwhile, the FSOC is a 10-member board of regulators, including everyone from the Fed chairman to the Treasury secretary to the chairman of the National Credit Union Administration. While these are all presidential appointees, Sanders would have to get his picks through Congress, which would be far harder if business-minded Democrats and Republicans suspect that these men and women will start wreaking havoc on their favorite donors....

Whether or not Sanders' promise is realistic—even if he gets his pick of regulators, it's anybody's guess how the courts will interpret Section 121 authority after the inevitable lawsuits—it's politically interesting.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/01/06/bernie_sanders_one_weird_trick_for_breaking_up_the_big_banks.html

Note: The article claims he would try to "leapfrog Congress as long as he has the right appointees in place"...but that is not what Sanders said in the Daily News interview. And he is also right about how the banks decide to restructure themselves, in coordination with regulators and the Fed.

ETA: Bernie introduced legislation last year:

A bill that I’ve written would require financial regulators within one year to identify and break-up huge financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley so that they can never again cause another financial crisis like the one that happened in 2008.

I am delighted that this legislation has been endorsed by the Independent Community Bankers of America, representing more than 6,000 community banks. Their support is an important recognition that the function of banking should be boring and the current situation still contains too much risk and too much emphasis on profit-making.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/break-up-big-banks_b_7233284.html

And currently there is a lot of chatter about this very topic including from two local Fed Reserve presidents, Kashkari and Fisher. I came across this discussion on CNBC from March 17, just a couple of weeks ago:

Bartlett Naylor, a shareholder activist and a member of financial watchdog group Public Citizen, has once again called for J. P. Morgan and Citigroup to be broken up. Shareholders of the two financial institutions will vote on potential breakup plans later this year. Naylor and CLSA bank analyst Mike Mayo joined the "Halftime Report" today to discuss whether or not a breakup would benefit shareholders.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/17/time-to-break-up-the-big-banks.html

[uponit7771]

193. No he's not, he's wrong not to have any idea by now

[Carolator]

196. Well, that's like

your opinion, man.

[Armstead]

200. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste

[MrMickeysMom]

189. Anyone interested in reading this interview without cut an paste food fighting can go here...

All others, by all means... carry on. Very entertaining pissing holes you've made in the snow...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511652764

[MrMickeysMom]

195. And, while you're at it...

THIS was taken out of context via the "cut and paste" kung foo of some very angry Clinton supporters...

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

Really? Really, Clinton Supporters?

Just read the interview if you want to show what he said... Do you have to stoop to taking the conversation surrounding the "too big to fail" banking industry out of context to make it seem that his response was senile?

You really have to do that? I though that's what the National Inquire Tabloids were doing out there. I just read today that Taylor Swift was turning into a preppy, so I'm gonna not exactly gonna BUY that rag.

[Armstead]

199. Some people would have a hard time with Dick and Jane

[Nanjeanne]

191. Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks - NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?partner=IFTTT&_r=0

In the interview, with The Daily News’s editorial board, Mr. Sanders does appear to get tangled up in some details and lacks clarity. Breaking up the banks would involve arcane and complex regulatory moves that can trip up any banking policy wonk, let alone a presidential candidate. But, taken as a whole, Mr. Sanders’s answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year.

[Armstead]

198. Clinton -- "Things are just ducky as they are. No need to change anything."

I'm glad you enjoy living in a new Gilded Age of Monopolies

[Agnosticsherbet]

203. He hasn't a clue how to do this stuff.

Or if he can do this.

I could never vote or a candidate that doesn't know what he is doing.

[felix_numinous]

206. Someone admitting they need to do research

is certainly preferable than constantly being caught making stuff up.

Cleaning up this much corruption will be a long process, it took a long time to get here--people are and will fight tooth and nail for their stolen booty.

How many people out there are willing to try?? This takes nerves of steel.

[Cha]

208. Start studying BS.

[libdem4life]

211. Beats "Cut it out"

Uh, it's never been done and is likely to be a work in progress. That is what a staff/ cabinet supplies. There will be maniacal opposition.

So he doesn't claim to have all the answers. That's honesty in my book. I'd guess no one knows it all.

[elleng]

212. audio + transcript

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

[Lucinda]

213. KNR

[Number23]

214. "I don't know" What the ever loving hell??

Alot of damning stuff coming out this week. K&R

[BainsBane]

216. That interview is something else

It confirms what many of us have seen for a long time now.

[Historic NY]

217. YUP.