2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOne major reason I support Sanders primarily rather than Clinton
I'll vote Clinton if she's the nom. Meanwhile, it's Sanders for me. This is one reason why. Pretty sure Clinton won't touch this.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)...is what would be said about Hillary, if this was presented in her name.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)and find the banks listed among her largest financial contributors, one could be forgiven for saying that about her.
think
(11,641 posts)By Peter Schroeder - 07/13/15 01:47 PM EDT
Hours after Hillary Clinton vowed to crack down on Wall Street, an adviser said she has no plans to push a bank break-up bill beloved by the left.
Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve official now advising the Clinton campaign, told Reuters Monday that she has no plans to push for the return of a banking law that separates commercial and investment banks.
Read more:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill
By BURGESS EVERETT 7/17/15 10:26 AM EDT
Bernie Sanders is backing a bill to break up big banks after advisers to presidential rival Hillary Clinton made clear earlier this week she will not support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act.
Noting that hes long supported reimposing a firewall between investment and commercial banks, the Vermont senator said hes officially rejoining an effort led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to break up the big banks, saying, If we are truly serious about ending too big to fail, we have got to break up the largest financial institutions in this country.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-big-ban-break-ups-glass-steagall-120287.html#ixzz3hC7UC6H1
Triana
(22,666 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Our economy is global, and unless someone could get every foreign bank to break up as well, it wouldn't make a difference. I'm all for regulation and raising capital gains, but breaking up US-only banks won't do much.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Would you care to compare and contrast US banks with those based in other countries in terms of regulations? Your entire assertion rests on the idea that we have to remain shitty to keep footing with equally shitty regulations in other countries, so you should support that assertion.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)We enabled it, and we continue to enable it.
We COULD pass regulations that protect the United States economy, and deal with some of the darker sides of globalization.
But we won't as long as the defeatist (or in the pockets of the oligarchy" so-called centrists continue to allow Big Banks, Big Corporations and Wall Street write the rules of the road with no interference from he mere peons.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citibank any of those deemed too big to fail. I challenge you to google those names along with the words multinational or global.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And is was when Glass-Steagall was in place..... a domestic policy.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)It merely stops them from using OUR money to do it. We the people would have a bank where we could deposit OUR money for safe keeping that would be invested locally and be covered by FDIC. The investment banks who take huge risks would still be there and anyone who wanted to could put money in their investments but these banks would have to buy their own insurance and use their own money to invest. We would not all be in the game. Just before W left office he tried to privatize Social Security - think what would have happened if he has succeeded. The same thing that happened to all those lost pensions in the Great Recession.
In the Great Recession many lost their savings and pensions because the way it is now the banks can gamble with OUR money regardless if we want them to or not. Also the reason that we had to bail them out was because there was not enough money in the FDIC to cover all the money these too big to fail banks had gambled with.
By separating the banks (back to what it was before Clinton repealed GS) the money of the depositor is protect by FDIC as it was since the Great Depression and the investment bankers can take their chances with their own money. Wall Street is not a good place to save your money. It is an investment entity.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)This video, based on UN and IMF data indicates that a society's happiness index is directly related to wealth inequality. So the systematic breakup of too-big-to-fail corporations decreases wealth inequality in the US and therefore favorably affects the US happiness index.
In addition, it has the benefits of vitiating the political power of big corporations and creates more economic competition.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)China won't stop so anything we do won't make a difference.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)words, such words are the foundation upon which one builds methods suited to obtaining the objectives. Methodology without principle is one of the most dangerous aspects of government.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)[img][/img]
wolfie001
(2,252 posts)....and sang its praises? That Walmart? UUUUGGGGHHHH..............
jwirr
(39,215 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It has made her very, very rich. She is a member in good standing of the 1%.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)If Congress can't regulate, then how in the hell does he think Congress will move to break up the banks?
It's ain't going to happen. Sanders doesn't have a magic wand.
The ONLY thing reasonable to help the situation now is actually enforcing the regulations on the books now.
madokie
(51,076 posts)you can bet that the house and senate will turn too. With a democratic house and senate and President things can happen. As it is it's pretty much a given that if Clinton wins it will continue as it is now. I'm ready for a change and I trust Bernie Sanders to give me that
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)that is so out of the realm of possibility that it doesn't even warrant a response.
Tiny chance the Dems can pick up a Senate seat or two... the House: it will be in Republican hands for a while.
The only chance of a turn-over is the new census in 2020.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You say Bernie can't change anything, but either can Hillary in his scenario, no?
If that's true then what else do go on than the positions they take on issues.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"If Bernie wins the Presidency you can bet that the house and senate will turn too."
That is a beautiful mind. I wish I could get mine to go there at a time other than when I'm sleeping.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)than why did you respond?
I think that Dems can, and will take back the House and Senate, if we get out the vote.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Americans by the millions are pissed off.
HRC represents just more of the same...nothing will change with her and people see it already.
When Bernie wins in 2016, just watch what will happen in 2018...Pukes, Baggers and DINO's will be swept aside.
This is a political revolution.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)There are quite a few Republicans from blue states defending seats that were picked up in the 2010 midterm election. The house is more difficult because the districts are gerrymandered.
--imm
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)You're not going to create a blue wave by telling people both party's are the same. That's cynicism, and cynicism oppresses turnout, oppressed turnout elects Republicans. And a candidate that suggested a primary against Obama in 2012 isn't going to win over Obama's massive coalition. We need a candidate who sticks up for the Democratic party to motivate people to the polls.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)due consideration. The confirmation that we are tired, as a collective, of the bullshit . . . that confirmation by way of the election of Bernie Sanders, can inspire further change.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)they do not like that.
George II
(67,782 posts)Neither house will turn Democratic off the coat tails of Bernie Sanders.
But then again, we can say that IF Sanders wins the Presidency that will happen, but we won't have to worry about seeing that premise not come true because he'll never get elected President.
think
(11,641 posts)It's not a magic wand....
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)it's dead in the water.
think
(11,641 posts)Telling me the GOP leadership doesn't like it isn't discussing the bill on it's merits.
It's an obvious attempt to give Hillary a pass for her lack of support for re-instating a new version of Glass Steagall....
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Or, as the great Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, "I have a dream. But it will never get through Congress. So what's the point?"
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)without dreaming & envisioning it first, and then working your ass
off for it.
Come on. You don't know that?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)[img][/img]
think
(11,641 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But I guess that was before the Democratic Party became the domain of sell outs and defeatists.
So yeah, I guess we are powerless to rein in the obscene amount of power and wealth that are concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of monopolies and oligarchs.
And while we're at it, let's just dispense with this "unicorn" of democracy.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They have led really good men to claim that guns are a problem of gangs in LA and Chicago, not rural America. It is a thought process we must fight against.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)So.... exactly why can't Sanders do that?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I guess we should just not bother with this democracy shit, and just hand the rest of the keys to the country over to the corporations and big banks to do with us as they will....
jwirr
(39,215 posts)wants the investment banks to be free to use OUR money to gamble with even if we do not want them to. As breaking up the banks all that is needed is one bill and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie have already submitted it to the Senate. Glass-Steagell allows for two different types of banks.
Bank 1 is a deposit or commercial bank that hold our deposits and our retirement funds etc.. They are invest locally and are insured by FDIC.
Bank 2 is an investment bank that anyone who wants to can invest in but the bank must insure their own holdings. They do not have access to OUR money nor do we have to bail them out if they lose. They have to gamble with their own money.
I posted about this above with more detail.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Another one is I trust him to be true to his word and not just blowing smoke to get elected, not so sure about Clinton
artislife
(9,497 posts)Cosmocat
(14,566 posts)Bernie is most certainly more right on more issues, to me.
Which is why I flipped to him early after he announced.
I have every faith in this country if it all works out for him to be POTUS, that we will stick him with the same worthless ass congress we have now basically and will also fall in line with the republican slander machine to turn his presidency to shit, like we have with BHO.
But, it gives us a 1 in 1,000,000 shot ...
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)
One claimed to have a Ferrari (I believe him). Those are quarter million dollar cars - the most expensive made and least environmentally sound -12/14 miles per gallon, city driving. He'd posted about HRC driving away in a Ferrari, leaving Bernie in the dust. When I observed that was a poorly chosen imagery for a Democratic candidate, he said I was just jealous of all her money. That's how they look at life, sadly - whomever has the most money wins life's game and must be the best.
I simply can't communicate with someone who has such a world view.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)appalachiablue
(41,149 posts)and that is how many think, although most Dems. are bright enough not to say that even if they think it, particularly the non new money ones.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)beholden to them as a moral principle.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Is not a concern for me. Truth be told, I don't even know what that means.
I can appreciate your support for Bernie, but I'm sticking with Hillary!
wolfie001
(2,252 posts)You know, that gave us AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Either way we get f@cked.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)What does that mean? Are you getting paid to post or was just a bad idea for a signature graphic?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)But if he has given up on congress and their ability to regulate Wall Street, what is his plan. It seems his whole campaign has been based off of past statements and action from congress. That comment, from someone stating they can be the change, makes no sense at all. Why would anyone who believes him here support anyone at all. Seems more like a quote excusing his lack of accomplishments in the body he serves.
I am actually having a hard time believing Sanders said something so foolish and pessimistic. I have seen many really foolish quotes, like this one, attributed to him in the past; only to find out it wasn't him. He is smarter than this.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Something Sanders clearly says won't work. Pie in the sky by his own admission. If you believe his quote in the op, which I'm not sure it is from him, you must then agree your links are pandering for votes to simply be President. He says it won't work himself.
"I do not believe congress has the ability to regulate Wall Street." Bernie Sanders. <- I have not verified this quote from the op. It looks really bad on Sanders and wish it were verified. I have seen foolish quotes attributed to him before.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Bernie believes that unless we break up the banks, Congress cannot regulate or hold them accountable. He also fears, as I do, that unless the dynamic is changed we taxpayers will be held up by them again. We can either break them up, or stand at their mercy. I too, believe that is the choice we face. Either we act, or we face a bleak future where gains are privatized and losses are socialized. That is a brand of socialism I just cannot support.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He offers legislation at a time when he says nothing can happen. His words, not mine. No gotcha at all. What year did he put this legislation forward? '07, '08, '09? I highly doubt he has been a senator since '07 and just proposed this legislation to kick off a campaign.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Except the quote refers to concentration of wealth. It is exactly in line with his proposed legislation. But let's go with the one who doesn't want to regulate at all. That's a winning strategy for everybody.
Well, it's a win for the banks, anyway. Also possibly for those who hope for armed revolution.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Unlike Sanders, he hasn't publically said it will fail. If you truly have interest in Wall Street Reform, are you going with the person who admits failure out of the gate, or the person who will work relentlessly to make it happen? Sanders has admitted defeat before joining the fight. O'Malley has a record of accomplishments. You are being dishonest whey you say he "doesn't want to regulate at all." That is actually a blatantly false statement with respect to all three of our candidates mentioned. Difference is, only one feels he can't accomplish it.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)There is at least one position with which I strongly disagree and find myself more in alignment with Hillary. I'll be happy to reconsider in 2020. Right now, I view this campaign as an introductory tour. I don't see a path by which he wins the nomination or the GE at this time. Also, I am in doubt that he will still be on the ticket by the time my caucus rolls around in March.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The number of times legislation is brought up is second in politics only to pandering. Glass was removed in the '90's. Looking for a leader. A negotiator.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)You know we won't either one change our positions, but I do enjoy arguing policy rather than personality.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and put them in prison where a lot of them BELONG like Reagan did during the Savings and Loan crisis, and corporate owned presidents Bush and Obama HAVEN'T!
By getting those criminals in prison, you perhaps could start helping to pull back on some of the actions working against Americans by Wall Street and the banking industry, up until we have working majorities of non-corporate congress critters to restore laws, and perhaps put a new law in that would reform the definition of statute of limitations so that it could be extended selectively on crimes committed that have since been made "legal" by acts of those linked with those crimes through BRIBING (even if now it is considered legal where it wasn't before) congress and our judicial system to pass and enforce laws (or not enforce them) to properly prosecute them in the past the way they should have been.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There is a lot of truth to it and I believe Sanders would have a more aggressive justice department. I think he and O'Malley would both have a more aggressive Justice Department. Thank you for your well thought out reply. I do believe both Sanders and O'Malley would be more bold in that area than Hillary.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)do it alone. He has made it clear that in a revolution we create a movement that work for the change. The idea is to mobilize voters to push congress to do what they want. I think FDR said to some of his supporters that they had "make him do it". That is make their support so apparent that congress would not dare ignore it.
BTW I think that President Obama also was saying that but once he was in the WH the voters kind of forgot that part.
One of the first steps that he is indicating is helping to win the Senate back - which is why he keeps talking about a 50 state strategy. As for the House that is so gerrymandered that only a miracle will get it back. I think the House is where we will come in.
As for his accomplishments in the body he serves. He did not get his rating from NAACP, NARAL and the environmental groups for nothing. His record is very good.
And everything that you say about him can be applied to Hillary as well. But I will add one thing - Hillary and Bill Clinton triangulated (traded off) those of us who are poor or poc when they agreed to welfare reform and tough on crime laws. I do not want to be thrown under the bus again.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Mainly because he supports the issues that matter the most.
And his crazy hair!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"We can't beat wall street, so I am voting for the candidate who is in their pockets". That seems to be the hillarians contribution to this thread.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Vote for resignation, capitulation, and corporatization!
The planet is hosed and America's screwed. Now, what's on TV?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And then don't work to oppose them like our current president.
George II
(67,782 posts)...what action will he lead them in taking?
WHAT is Sanders' solution beyond getting people outraged?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)We all have to live in what they pay for.