breaking up big banks: HRC vs BS
On Colbert, Clinton clearly indicated a strategy towards breaking up too big to fail banks quite different than Sanders'. Hers is to let them fail (for which there is Dodds rank insurance money, i.e., a bailout) and IF there are problems managing it's recovery, then the bank goes into reorganization proceedings, i.e. break-up.
Hers is the strategic outlook of a crisis manager, not surprising as she has been in that mindset for many years. She knows how it's done. It's why she always rates as highly prepared to be our country's next president.
Sanders otoh is a change agent. His strategy is to break up the too big to fail right away, under procedures used to proactively break up Ma Bell and IBM. His approach is to not let them fail, to no longer allow their size to overly influence the economy, a key factor in the corruption now rotting our politics and civics to the core. Sanders sees these break ups as one of the medicines that must be applied to heal our currently sick body politic.
Clintons world view was confirmed in her answer to Colbert asking why she wanted to be president? Revealing she replied every statement was about building in a continuous manner on the rights we've won and the economic and political systems now in place.
When contemplating the prospect of forever losing the Supreme Court, my problem is this.... Crisis managers don't bring out the critical new voter cohort necessary for a Democratic victory the way that an authentic change agent always does. Always! We may be setting ourselves up to lose by nominating a Crisis Manager.
= new reply since forum marked as read