General Discussion

jmowreader

(53,213 posts)

115. They needed to be bailed out, but we blew it when we did

Sun Dec 14, 2014, 11:26 PM

Dec 2014

The time to mandate systemic changes was when the banks were on the ropes.

Let's be blunt: Bernie Sanders' "make a list of the too-big-to-fail banks and break them up" idea sucks so hard it'll lift a bowling ball twenty feet. There is no way in Hell the real serious malefactors will ever be broken up, and if they did there's nothing to prevent the broken-up parts from working under the table to sabotage the breakup.

What NEEDS to happen is simpler and more effective: When Glass-Steagall was written, three screens were erected in the financial industry. Back then, you had "commercial banks" - savings accounts, checking accounts and loans; "investment banks" - stocks, bonds, commodities futures and other similar products; and "insurers" which sell insurance. The government wanted completely different companies to sell the three product lines, but since a LOT of banks also sold stocks, the government required separation between the bankers and the brokers. Thanks to our "friends" in the Republican Party, I can go to my bank tomorrow morning, approach my Personal Banker, and ask for a new checking account, a car loan, an auto insurance policy for the new car and a hundred shares of the company that made it - and get everything from the same lady. Which is exactly how it was set up before Black Friday of 1929, and it's one of the reasons there was a Black Friday of 1929. My idea is very easy to comprehend: within 364 days from the enactment of the law requiring it, a financial institution needs to decide whether it is a commercial bank (in this law a credit union will be classified as a commercial bank as a credit union serves the same essential function as a commercial bank), a mortgage bank, a securities dealer or an insurance company, and they must completely divest themselves of the other three lines of business. Further, a divested financial firm may not retain the name of the firm it was divested from..."Wells Fargo Home Mortgage" and "Wells Fargo Securities" must create new names for themselves.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

150 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie Sanders: The solution: The major Wall Street banks must be broken up.... [View all] Playinghardball Dec 2014 OP

maybe we could have if dems all dems bothered to vote belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #1

We need them to be careful about how they vote too! Many Dem's voted to roll back Dodd-Frank law. midnight Dec 2014 #41

I hear you, but Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts said there was no quid pro quo. Dustlawyer Dec 2014 #112

Why yes! And he's the same purportedly well-educated Chief Justice who can't even get the calimary Dec 2014 #124

So true, and a lying, corrupt idiot at that! Dustlawyer Dec 2014 #142

Maybe more Dems would turnout at the polls ........ raindaddy Dec 2014 #55

dems dont vote so if you want to stay in office and your party wont get out and vote belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #63

Right, it's all the public's fault. raindaddy Dec 2014 #68

yes it's the people's fault for not voting - your excuses for not voting are lame belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #96

"the left wont vote" -- A lie LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #125

not a lie- in 2010; 235,809,266 was the voting-age population voter turnout 90,682,968 thats belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #138

If you defining "the left" as ALL dems that is fair LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #140

The cheerleaders of the "Third Way"... malokvale77 Dec 2014 #87

Their predictable defense of the indefensible is way past stale. raindaddy Dec 2014 #93

Past stale... malokvale77 Dec 2014 #94

The obvious truth, plain and simple. nt Zorra Dec 2014 #2

Too bad he didn't decide to do this when Democrats were in control... brooklynite Dec 2014 #3

He totally did do this when Dems were in control. "The Nation", Thursday, November 12, 2009: Zorra Dec 2014 #5

Thanks for reminding our deep-pocketed, salon-going friend of that. (n/t) WorseBeforeBetter Dec 2014 #29

Happy to admit I was wrong... brooklynite Dec 2014 #105

Well don't expect him to say he Rex Dec 2014 #42

Very thankful people like you are on DU. appalachiablue Dec 2014 #66

+1000000 woo me with science Dec 2014 #107

Thank you. woo me with science Dec 2014 #108

This is why I support and will vote for Bernie Sanders in 2016. Autumn Dec 2014 #4

^^THIS PowerToThePeople Dec 2014 #6

+10000000 woo me with science Dec 2014 #9

Me too. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #33

Amen. hifiguy Dec 2014 #37

If need be, Bernie will get a write in vote from me. Autumn Dec 2014 #38

I am with you 100% MissDeeds Dec 2014 #70

I will never go that route again, the lesser of two evils is still evil and I'm done with it. Autumn Dec 2014 #71

No, if a greater evil takes over, that's on your head. onenote Dec 2014 #90

No it's not. If a party can't get a citizen to vote for them that is the fault of the party Autumn Dec 2014 #92

You're not obligated to do anything onenote Dec 2014 #98

A small evil grows into a larger evil. I chose not to feed it. n/t Autumn Dec 2014 #99

No. You prefer facilitating the greater evil onenote Dec 2014 #100

The solution is to stop creating the evil little terrorist. n/t Autumn Dec 2014 #101

When you get your pony, i hope its pretty onenote Dec 2014 #102

My pony will be beautiful. n/t Autumn Dec 2014 #103

"For for the Lesser Evil" LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #127

Plus +1000 No more Republican Infiltrators..whoops sorry, I mean noble 3rd way Democrats Katashi_itto Dec 2014 #117

He has my vote newfie11 Dec 2014 #40

and then promptly loose the white house and therefore supreme court picks belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #49

Pretty sad that that's a choice a person has to make to vote for their values. Autumn Dec 2014 #51

would love bernie to run but you cant count on dems to vote - it's not the system belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #53

You can't count on the Democratic leaders anymore either. Autumn Dec 2014 #57

What guarantee the 3rd way "Democrat" (Lol) would even give us a decent SCOTUS pick? Katashi_itto Dec 2014 #118

what kind of justice will we get from preisdent cruz or president rubio belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #119

If Sanders and or Warren is not the primary runner I'm re-registering as Ind. L0oniX Dec 2014 #52

I went to the DMV on the 12. After over 40 years as a Democrat I am no longer one. Autumn Dec 2014 #56

The only reason I registered Dem was so I could vote in state/district races but the Dem candidates L0oniX Dec 2014 #60

Count me in. nt Ilsa Dec 2014 #110

Same LittleBlue Dec 2014 #126

That is the conclusion I have come to. Voting for the lesser of two evils Autumn Dec 2014 #130

Great! treestar Dec 2014 #7

Maybe Obama will twist arms to help them get it passed... Autumn Dec 2014 #11

Well Obama is a compromiser and all that treestar Dec 2014 #12

Or he could use a veto pen. But at least Bernie HAS pushed legislation to do just that in 2009 Autumn Dec 2014 #13

No, at least he would sign it treestar Dec 2014 #14

Bernie didn't just sit there, he has introduced legislation to do just that Autumn Dec 2014 #15

Introducing is one thing treestar Dec 2014 #16

Maybe no arms were twisted by someone even more powerful than a lowly Senator. Autumn Dec 2014 #19

Then why didn't Bernie become pOTUS long ago? treestar Dec 2014 #20

No you are just being silly and I have no desire to play your game. Autumn Dec 2014 #21

Why didn't he do it already? treestar Dec 2014 #24

You mad bro!? Rex Dec 2014 #43

Yep. Why even bother? Rex Dec 2014 #44

He is JonLP24 Dec 2014 #121

Didn't Bernie just get promoted to Chairman of the Buget Committee? His brains and his words appalachiablue Dec 2014 #111

I reckon Harry Reid could have simply ended the filibuster to pass this Zorra Dec 2014 #23

With Elizabeth Warren in that powerful position to lead them treestar Dec 2014 #25

WTF are you talking about? I was referencing 2009. Zorra Dec 2014 #36

Funny ain't it? Rex Dec 2014 #45

They know. They just don't have a response that makes any sense Autumn Dec 2014 #64

You know it's not a discussion. Autumn Dec 2014 #59

Warren could've co-sponsored this in 2013. She didn't onenote Dec 2014 #84

Exactly, if they had wanted it to pass it would have passed. Amazing how Autumn Dec 2014 #26

Amazing! Congress will pass something if it wants to! joshcryer Dec 2014 #74

So enlightening to see all the adorable little posts Autumn Dec 2014 #77

Your words, not mine. joshcryer Dec 2014 #78

josh Autumn Dec 2014 #80

"if they wanted it to pass it would have passed" joshcryer Dec 2014 #81

New see, you almost fucking get it. Autumn Dec 2014 #85

"if they wanted it to pass it would have passed" joshcryer Dec 2014 #86

Reid only used the nuclear option on nominations. joshcryer Dec 2014 #69

what filibuster? onenote Dec 2014 #83

It didn't even make it out of Committee. joshcryer Dec 2014 #88

Budget isn't the Committee his bill got referred to onenote Dec 2014 #89

Here's where I saw that vote: joshcryer Dec 2014 #91

Thanks. He must have proposed his bill as an amendment to a bill in the Budget Committee onenote Dec 2014 #97

^^That^^, in a nutshell, is the perfect illustration of why Democratic Centrists have Zorra Dec 2014 #137

The banks will be broken up. joshcryer Dec 2014 #149

Maybe if those in our executive branch were less interested in cultivating favor with very JDPriestly Dec 2014 #31

Brothers in Arms... n/t jtuck004 Dec 2014 #109

SOMEBODY better do SOMETHING, because minorities are getting hosed. WorseBeforeBetter Dec 2014 #67

+1 Jamaal510 Dec 2014 #114

The TARP rollout was terrible, Hank Paulson started the rollout and apparently allowed Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #8

K&R Bernie Sanders, 2016 woo me with science Dec 2014 #10

He better be wary of getting on any small planes. Rex Dec 2014 #46

The Major Shareholders of the Federal Reserve Ichingcarpenter Dec 2014 #17

They didn't have to be broken up they just had to not be bailed out. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #18

Yep ...so much for letting the free market capitalism decide who lives and dies. L0oniX Dec 2014 #61

They needed to be bailed out, but we blew it when we did jmowreader Dec 2014 #115

Don't forget that it was Clinton who signed the bill ozone_man Dec 2014 #135

Phil Gramm, Jim Leach and Thomas Bliley were Democrats? Who knew? jmowreader Dec 2014 #141

Yes, they were Republicans, but Clinton was a Democratic president ozone_man Dec 2014 #144

It is necessary to break up ALL banks jmowreader Dec 2014 #145

Ok, but isn't that re-instating Glass_Steagall? ozone_man Dec 2014 #146

It goes beyond Glass-Steagall jmowreader Dec 2014 #147

Sounds good, but is there anyone in the Democratic Party leading that effort? ozone_man Dec 2014 #150

An absolute truth. 99Forever Dec 2014 #22

When it happens again maindawg Dec 2014 #27

*It's like d�j� vu all over again.* WorseBeforeBetter Dec 2014 #28

The next bailout is already being planned and they are flipping us off while they do it. L0oniX Dec 2014 #50

Oh, that I know... WorseBeforeBetter Dec 2014 #65

And it isn't just the banks. We need legislation that prevents our country from being JDPriestly Dec 2014 #30

+1 Enthusiast Dec 2014 #34

with the dems not voting you can forget about that belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #54

Unfortunately, antitrust enforcement has been deader than Dillinger hifiguy Dec 2014 #62

Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Enthusiast Dec 2014 #32

Preach it Bernie!!!! Initech Dec 2014 #35

While getting something like this may be hard with all the rethugs ruling, if a there is a crash it jwirr Dec 2014 #39

I will vote for Bernie and INdemo Dec 2014 #47

You're either with Sanders and Warren or you are with the enemy of the common people. L0oniX Dec 2014 #48

So why hasn't Warren co-sponsored Sanders' bill? onenote Dec 2014 #75

I agree....but how do you do it? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #58

Is Bernie sending mixed signals on the banking industry, he attends a meeting with lobbyists Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #82

You can't possibly expect anyone to take this post seriously, can you? LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #129

You may not but I bet he took it seriously since he and others attended. Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #132

Holy shit, your "point" is beyond laughable LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #133

Maybe you want to call it dumb, think I will correspond with Bernie and tell him how dumb Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #134

Now you are just spewing BS and seeing what sticks. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #136

+1 Jamaal510 Dec 2014 #113

K&R a zillion times MissDeeds Dec 2014 #72

When Bernie treats this as a serious proposal, then I will onenote Dec 2014 #73

Warren isn't known to co-sponser liberal legislation. joshcryer Dec 2014 #76

Very few bills pass the Senate or become law at all JonLP24 Dec 2014 #120

Not counting bills to name a post office, Bernie has introduced exactly one bill that became law onenote Dec 2014 #143

This is why I am supporting Sanders for President - ALL THE WAY! TheNutcracker Dec 2014 #79

And the two major political parties. And the major media conglomerates. n/t Orsino Dec 2014 #95

LOTS of industries need to be broken up. Wall Street is at or near the top though. nt stillwaiting Dec 2014 #104

Wall Street isn't an "indus....",...oh shit,...it IS. Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2014 #106

Oh I agree the biggest 10 banks should be broken up its not going to happen any time cstanleytech Dec 2014 #116

If only it were just our country. raouldukelives Dec 2014 #122

YES. Bring back Teddy "The Trust-Buster" Roosevelt! calimary Dec 2014 #123

I'm sure that proposal will first on Hillary's "To Do" list. Won't it? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2014 #128

Its time to scare these banksters. Moostache Dec 2014 #131

goldman sux certainly needs to be dismantled pansypoo53219 Dec 2014 #139

K&R liberal_at_heart Dec 2014 #148