DC Press Corps Spins Itself Silly Over Sanders’ Specifics [View all]

[stupidicus]

I think sillier would be a better description of the HC-supporters conduct, which includes those that benefited from her husband signing that 1996 Telecom Act into law. But we know how it goes -- they'll cling to their talking points like a Pee Partier does their guns and bibles -- with the mythical tenacity of a Gila Monster -- and similarly, they'll retain some vestige of truth to them long after they are thoroughly debunked.

Among the frenzied were the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic‘s David Graham and Vanity Fair‘s Tina Nguyen, with CNN‘s Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview, I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders’ answers, but I’m an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.

When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That’s exactly the right answer. The government doesn’t know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan; JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.

The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage-backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high-level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn’t try.

And the fact that Sanders didn’t know the specific statute—who cares? How many people know the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in someone’s head? That’s murder, and if a candidate for office doesn’t know the exact title and specifics of her state murder statute, it hardly seems like a big issue. http://fair.org/home/dc-press-corps-spins-itself-silly-over-sanders-specifics/