Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
imagine2015
imagine2015's Journal
imagine2015's Journal
April 7, 2016
Press Release
Sanders Links Clinton to Panama Papers Scandal
April 7, 2016
Bernie Links Hillary To The Panama Tax Dodging Scandal
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-links-clinton-panama-papers-scandal/Press Release
Sanders Links Clinton to Panama Papers Scandal
April 7, 2016
PHILADELPHIA – Responding to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to portray him as unqualified for the White House, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders linked her to a trade pact exploited by wealthy individuals and profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes.
An investigation by a team of journalists revealed that 214,000 entities throughout the world have used a law firm in Panama to shelter their incomes and profits to avoid paying taxes. The release this week of the documents on offshore financial dealings raised questions over the widespread use of tactics to avoid taxes.
Sanders cited the former secretary of state’s support of the trade deal as one reason she should not be the party’s nominee for president. “I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has made it easier for wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries,” Sanders told a rally at Temple University in an auditorium packed with nearly 13,000 supporters.
Sanders five years ago led opposition to the Panama trade deal in a Senate floor speech. He predicted that the pact would make it easier for the wealthy and the powerful to stash their cash in Panama to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Clinton had opposed the deal in 2008 when she was running against then Sen. Barack Obama. But in an about face, she helped push the agreement through Congress when she was secretary of state.
“The American people are sick and tired of establishment politicians who say one thing during a campaign and do the exact opposite the day after the election,” Sanders said on Tuesday in a prepared statement. As president, Sanders said he would terminate the trade deal and investigate U.S. banks, corporations and wealthy individuals who have been stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes.
Sanders came to Pennsylvania fresh off a win Tuesday in Wisconsin, his seventh victory in the past eight caucuses and primaries. A new national poll release Wednesday put him ahead of Clinton by two points and also showed him ahead of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
Clinton earlier on Wednesday questioned Sanders’ qualifications to be president. “Secretary Clinton appears to be getting a little nervous,” he shot back. “She has been saying lately that I am not qualified to be president.”
Sanders then ticked off his own list of reasons why Clinton isn’t qualified to be in the White House.
“I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds.
“I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.
“I don’t think you are qualified if you voted for the disastrous war in Iraq.
“I don’t think you’re qualified if you supported almost every disastrous trade agreement.
“I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has gave the green light to wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-links-clinton-panama-papers-scandal/
An investigation by a team of journalists revealed that 214,000 entities throughout the world have used a law firm in Panama to shelter their incomes and profits to avoid paying taxes. The release this week of the documents on offshore financial dealings raised questions over the widespread use of tactics to avoid taxes.
Sanders cited the former secretary of state’s support of the trade deal as one reason she should not be the party’s nominee for president. “I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has made it easier for wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries,” Sanders told a rally at Temple University in an auditorium packed with nearly 13,000 supporters.
Sanders five years ago led opposition to the Panama trade deal in a Senate floor speech. He predicted that the pact would make it easier for the wealthy and the powerful to stash their cash in Panama to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Clinton had opposed the deal in 2008 when she was running against then Sen. Barack Obama. But in an about face, she helped push the agreement through Congress when she was secretary of state.
“The American people are sick and tired of establishment politicians who say one thing during a campaign and do the exact opposite the day after the election,” Sanders said on Tuesday in a prepared statement. As president, Sanders said he would terminate the trade deal and investigate U.S. banks, corporations and wealthy individuals who have been stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes.
Sanders came to Pennsylvania fresh off a win Tuesday in Wisconsin, his seventh victory in the past eight caucuses and primaries. A new national poll release Wednesday put him ahead of Clinton by two points and also showed him ahead of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
Clinton earlier on Wednesday questioned Sanders’ qualifications to be president. “Secretary Clinton appears to be getting a little nervous,” he shot back. “She has been saying lately that I am not qualified to be president.”
Sanders then ticked off his own list of reasons why Clinton isn’t qualified to be in the White House.
“I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds.
“I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.
“I don’t think you are qualified if you voted for the disastrous war in Iraq.
“I don’t think you’re qualified if you supported almost every disastrous trade agreement.
“I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has gave the green light to wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries.”
April 7, 2016
The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.
By Naomi Klein
April 6, 2016
Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
HILLARY IS 'FIGHTING FOR US'
The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.
By Naomi Klein
April 6, 2016
First, some facts. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including her Super PAC, has received a lot of money from the employees and registered lobbyists of fossil-fuel companies. There’s the much-cited $4.5 million that Greenpeace calculated, which includes bundling by lobbyists.
But that’s not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clinton’s most prominent and active financial backers is Warren Buffett. While he owns a large mix of assets, Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country.
While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.
At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed “the land of money,” all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.
Bernie Sanders’s campaign is built around precisely this logic: not the rich being stroked for a little more noblesse oblige, but ordinary citizens banding together to challenge them, winning tough regulations, and creating a much fairer system as a result.
Sanders and his supporters understand something critical: It won’t all be win-win. For any of this to happen, fossil-fuel companies, which have made obscene profits for many decades, will have to start losing. And losing more than just the tax breaks and subsidies that Clinton is promising to cut. They will also have to lose the new drilling and mining leases they want; they’ll have to be denied permits for the pipelines and export terminals they very much want to build. They will have to leave trillions of dollars’ worth of proven fossil-fuel reserves in the ground.
Meanwhile, if solar panels proliferate on rooftops, big power utilities will lose a significant portion of their profits, since their former customers will be in the energy-generation business. This would create opportunities for a more level economy and, ultimately, for lower utility bills—but once again, some powerful interests will have to lose (which is why Warren Buffett’s coal-fired utility in Nevada has gone to war against solar).
A president willing to inflict these losses on fossil-fuel companies and their allies needs to be more than just not actively corrupt. That president needs to be up for the fight of the century—and absolutely clear about which side must win. Looking at the Democratic primary, there can be no doubt about who is best suited to rise to this historic moment.
The good news? He just won Wisconsin.
Read the full article at: http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/
But that’s not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clinton’s most prominent and active financial backers is Warren Buffett. While he owns a large mix of assets, Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country.
While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.
At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed “the land of money,” all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.
Bernie Sanders’s campaign is built around precisely this logic: not the rich being stroked for a little more noblesse oblige, but ordinary citizens banding together to challenge them, winning tough regulations, and creating a much fairer system as a result.
Sanders and his supporters understand something critical: It won’t all be win-win. For any of this to happen, fossil-fuel companies, which have made obscene profits for many decades, will have to start losing. And losing more than just the tax breaks and subsidies that Clinton is promising to cut. They will also have to lose the new drilling and mining leases they want; they’ll have to be denied permits for the pipelines and export terminals they very much want to build. They will have to leave trillions of dollars’ worth of proven fossil-fuel reserves in the ground.
Meanwhile, if solar panels proliferate on rooftops, big power utilities will lose a significant portion of their profits, since their former customers will be in the energy-generation business. This would create opportunities for a more level economy and, ultimately, for lower utility bills—but once again, some powerful interests will have to lose (which is why Warren Buffett’s coal-fired utility in Nevada has gone to war against solar).
A president willing to inflict these losses on fossil-fuel companies and their allies needs to be more than just not actively corrupt. That president needs to be up for the fight of the century—and absolutely clear about which side must win. Looking at the Democratic primary, there can be no doubt about who is best suited to rise to this historic moment.
The good news? He just won Wisconsin.
Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
HILLARY IS 'FIGHTING FOR US'
April 7, 2016
Sanders is Right: Clinton Not Qualified To Be a Progressive President
On 'quality control' and the Democratic Party
by Peter Bloom
April 7, 2016
Peter Bloom is a lecturer in the Department of People and Organisations at the Open University. He has published widely on issues of 21st century democracy, politics and economics in both scholarly journals and in publications including the Washington Post, The New Statesman, Roar, Open Democracy, The Conversation and Common Dreams. His book, Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Globalization, will be released next year.
Read the complete article at: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/07/sanders-right-clinton-not-qualified-be-progressive-president
"Bernie Sanders is right, Hillary is not qualified to be a progressive President"
Sanders is Right: Clinton Not Qualified To Be a Progressive President
On 'quality control' and the Democratic Party
by Peter Bloom
April 7, 2016
Peter Bloom is a lecturer in the Department of People and Organisations at the Open University. He has published widely on issues of 21st century democracy, politics and economics in both scholarly journals and in publications including the Washington Post, The New Statesman, Roar, Open Democracy, The Conversation and Common Dreams. His book, Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Globalization, will be released next year.
Sanders has forcefully challenged Clinton’s own qualifications. He challenged her credentials on both domestic and foreign policy issues. Referring to the recent release of the “Panama Papers” he proclaimed “I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free-trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has made it easier for wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries.”
Clinton has been trumpeted repeatedly for her undeniable political experience. Yet as Sanders has taken great pains to point out – it is easy but dangerous to confuse being experienced for being qualified. Also required is wisdom, judgment and strong ethical principles.
It is not clear by any stretch of the imagination that Clinton is more experienced than Sanders. His success as a mayor, congressman and Senator holds up well with her resume as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. However, it is hard to argue that she matches up to him in terms of wisdom and principles.
Time and again – from the Iraqi invasion to LGTB rights, from the free trade to the environment – Sanders’s judgment has revealed itself far superior to Clinton’s. The leak of the “Panama Papers” further highlighted this qualified difference between the two candidates. While Clinton as Secretary of State was negotiating a free trade agreement with Panama that would easier for the wealthy to move their money offshore, Sanders was giving a speech on the Senate floor railing against this deal as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the majority of Americans.
The contest between Clinton and Sanders represents something far bigger than the election of the candidates themselves. It is the choice between status quo experience and progressive wisdom. To quote Robert Reich, Hillary Clinton is " the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have. But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change."
Hillary Clinton is undeniably an extremely experienced and informed candidate. She is also a clear lesser evil than any Republican she will face. However, Sanders is right, she is not qualified to be a progressive President.
Clinton has been trumpeted repeatedly for her undeniable political experience. Yet as Sanders has taken great pains to point out – it is easy but dangerous to confuse being experienced for being qualified. Also required is wisdom, judgment and strong ethical principles.
It is not clear by any stretch of the imagination that Clinton is more experienced than Sanders. His success as a mayor, congressman and Senator holds up well with her resume as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. However, it is hard to argue that she matches up to him in terms of wisdom and principles.
Time and again – from the Iraqi invasion to LGTB rights, from the free trade to the environment – Sanders’s judgment has revealed itself far superior to Clinton’s. The leak of the “Panama Papers” further highlighted this qualified difference between the two candidates. While Clinton as Secretary of State was negotiating a free trade agreement with Panama that would easier for the wealthy to move their money offshore, Sanders was giving a speech on the Senate floor railing against this deal as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the majority of Americans.
The contest between Clinton and Sanders represents something far bigger than the election of the candidates themselves. It is the choice between status quo experience and progressive wisdom. To quote Robert Reich, Hillary Clinton is " the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have. But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change."
Hillary Clinton is undeniably an extremely experienced and informed candidate. She is also a clear lesser evil than any Republican she will face. However, Sanders is right, she is not qualified to be a progressive President.
Read the complete article at: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/07/sanders-right-clinton-not-qualified-be-progressive-president
April 7, 2016
“Or Secretary Clinton might want to apologize to the millions of workers in this country who lost their jobs .?.? because of the disastrous trade agreements that she supported,”
Hillary Clinton should apologize to millions of workers who lost their jobs because of her policies.
Bernie Sanders:“Or Secretary Clinton might want to apologize to the millions of workers in this country who lost their jobs .?.? because of the disastrous trade agreements that she supported,”
April 7, 2016
S.1206 -- Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)
S 1206 IS
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1206
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 6, 2015
A BILL
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act'.
SEC. 2. COMPILATION AND REPORT ON INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
(a) Compilation- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council shall compile and submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a list of entities that it deems Too Big To Fail, which shall include, but is not limited to, any United States bank holding companies that have been identified as systemically important banks by the Financial Stability Board (in this Act referred to as the `Too Big To Fail List').
(b) Submission to Congress and the President- Upon receipt of the Too Big To Fail List, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit the List to Congress and the President.
SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.
(b) Consultation With Other Regulators- In carrying out the requirement of subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the primary financial regulatory agency of the entity to be broken up.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE FINANCING.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not use or otherwise have access to advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility, the Federal Reserve discount window, or any other program or facility made available under the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.), including any asset purchases, temporary or bridge loans, government investments in debt or equity, or capital injections from any Federal institution.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON USE OF INSURED DEPOSITS.
(a) In General- Any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List that is an insured depository institution, or owns such an institution, may not use any insured deposit amounts to fund--
(1) any activity relating to hedging that is not directly related to commercial banking activity at the insured bank;
(2) any use of derivatives for speculative purposes;
(3) any activity related to the dealing of derivatives; or
(4) any other form of speculative activity that regulators specify.
(b) Risk of Loss- An entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not conduct any activity listed in subsection (a) in such a manner that--
(1) puts insured deposits at risk; or
(2) creates a risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term `primary financial regulatory agency' has the same meaning as in section 2(12) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301(12)); and
(2) the term `Too Big To Fail' means any entity whose failure, due to its size, exposure to counterparties, liquidity position, interdependencies, role in critical markets, or other characteristics or factors, would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:S.1206.IS:
Here is the text of Bernie's "break up the big banks"Senate legislation introduced on May 6, 2015
The following is the text of the "Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act" introduced in the Senate by Senator Sanders on May 6, 2015S.1206 -- Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)
S 1206 IS
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1206
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 6, 2015
A BILL
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act'.
SEC. 2. COMPILATION AND REPORT ON INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
(a) Compilation- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council shall compile and submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a list of entities that it deems Too Big To Fail, which shall include, but is not limited to, any United States bank holding companies that have been identified as systemically important banks by the Financial Stability Board (in this Act referred to as the `Too Big To Fail List').
(b) Submission to Congress and the President- Upon receipt of the Too Big To Fail List, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit the List to Congress and the President.
SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.
(b) Consultation With Other Regulators- In carrying out the requirement of subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the primary financial regulatory agency of the entity to be broken up.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE FINANCING.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not use or otherwise have access to advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility, the Federal Reserve discount window, or any other program or facility made available under the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.), including any asset purchases, temporary or bridge loans, government investments in debt or equity, or capital injections from any Federal institution.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON USE OF INSURED DEPOSITS.
(a) In General- Any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List that is an insured depository institution, or owns such an institution, may not use any insured deposit amounts to fund--
(1) any activity relating to hedging that is not directly related to commercial banking activity at the insured bank;
(2) any use of derivatives for speculative purposes;
(3) any activity related to the dealing of derivatives; or
(4) any other form of speculative activity that regulators specify.
(b) Risk of Loss- An entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not conduct any activity listed in subsection (a) in such a manner that--
(1) puts insured deposits at risk; or
(2) creates a risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term `primary financial regulatory agency' has the same meaning as in section 2(12) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301(12)); and
(2) the term `Too Big To Fail' means any entity whose failure, due to its size, exposure to counterparties, liquidity position, interdependencies, role in critical markets, or other characteristics or factors, would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:S.1206.IS:
April 7, 2016
Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks
by Peter Eavis
APRIL 5, 2016
Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for.
The Daily News on Monday published an interview with him that led some commentators to say he didn’t know how to break up the country’s biggest banks. Downsizing the largest financial institutions is one of Mr. Sanders’s signature policies, so it would indeed raise questions about his candidacy if he had little idea of how to do it.
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.
Read the full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=2
The following is the text of the "Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act" introduced in the Senate by Senator Sanders on May 6, 2015
S.1206 -- Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)
S 1206 IS
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1206
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 6, 2015
A BILL
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act'.
SEC. 2. COMPILATION AND REPORT ON INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
(a) Compilation- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council shall compile and submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a list of entities that it deems Too Big To Fail, which shall include, but is not limited to, any United States bank holding companies that have been identified as systemically important banks by the Financial Stability Board (in this Act referred to as the `Too Big To Fail List').
(b) Submission to Congress and the President- Upon receipt of the Too Big To Fail List, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit the List to Congress and the President.
SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.
(b) Consultation With Other Regulators- In carrying out the requirement of subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the primary financial regulatory agency of the entity to be broken up.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE FINANCING.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not use or otherwise have access to advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility, the Federal Reserve discount window, or any other program or facility made available under the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.), including any asset purchases, temporary or bridge loans, government investments in debt or equity, or capital injections from any Federal institution.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON USE OF INSURED DEPOSITS.
(a) In General- Any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List that is an insured depository institution, or owns such an institution, may not use any insured deposit amounts to fund--
(1) any activity relating to hedging that is not directly related to commercial banking activity at the insured bank;
(2) any use of derivatives for speculative purposes;
(3) any activity related to the dealing of derivatives; or
(4) any other form of speculative activity that regulators specify.
(b) Risk of Loss- An entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not conduct any activity listed in subsection (a) in such a manner that--
(1) puts insured deposits at risk; or
(2) creates a risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term `primary financial regulatory agency' has the same meaning as in section 2(12) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301(12)); and
(2) the term `Too Big To Fail' means any entity whose failure, due to its size, exposure to counterparties, liquidity position, interdependencies, role in critical markets, or other characteristics or factors, would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:S.1206.IS:
The New York Times: "Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks"
Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks
by Peter Eavis
APRIL 5, 2016
Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for.
The Daily News on Monday published an interview with him that led some commentators to say he didn’t know how to break up the country’s biggest banks. Downsizing the largest financial institutions is one of Mr. Sanders’s signature policies, so it would indeed raise questions about his candidacy if he had little idea of how to do it.
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.
Read the full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=2
The following is the text of the "Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act" introduced in the Senate by Senator Sanders on May 6, 2015
S.1206 -- Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)
S 1206 IS
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1206
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 6, 2015
A BILL
To address the concept of `Too Big To Fail' with respect to certain financial entities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act'.
SEC. 2. COMPILATION AND REPORT ON INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
(a) Compilation- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council shall compile and submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a list of entities that it deems Too Big To Fail, which shall include, but is not limited to, any United States bank holding companies that have been identified as systemically important banks by the Financial Stability Board (in this Act referred to as the `Too Big To Fail List').
(b) Submission to Congress and the President- Upon receipt of the Too Big To Fail List, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit the List to Congress and the President.
SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.
(b) Consultation With Other Regulators- In carrying out the requirement of subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the primary financial regulatory agency of the entity to be broken up.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE FINANCING.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not use or otherwise have access to advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility, the Federal Reserve discount window, or any other program or facility made available under the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.), including any asset purchases, temporary or bridge loans, government investments in debt or equity, or capital injections from any Federal institution.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON USE OF INSURED DEPOSITS.
(a) In General- Any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List that is an insured depository institution, or owns such an institution, may not use any insured deposit amounts to fund--
(1) any activity relating to hedging that is not directly related to commercial banking activity at the insured bank;
(2) any use of derivatives for speculative purposes;
(3) any activity related to the dealing of derivatives; or
(4) any other form of speculative activity that regulators specify.
(b) Risk of Loss- An entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not conduct any activity listed in subsection (a) in such a manner that--
(1) puts insured deposits at risk; or
(2) creates a risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term `primary financial regulatory agency' has the same meaning as in section 2(12) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301(12)); and
(2) the term `Too Big To Fail' means any entity whose failure, due to its size, exposure to counterparties, liquidity position, interdependencies, role in critical markets, or other characteristics or factors, would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:S.1206.IS:
April 7, 2016
Press Release
Sanders: Break up Too-Big-to-Fail Banks
April 6, 2016
LARAMIE, Wyo. — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ spokesman issued the following statement on Tuesday on how the nation’s biggest banks would be broken up under a Sanders administration:
“Sen. Bernie Sanders and Secretary Clinton have very different points of view on how to reform Wall Street and the largest financial institutions in this country.
“Sen. Sanders believes that it is necessary to break up large financial institutions not only because we need to prevent another Wall Street bailout, but because of the incredible concentration of ownership and power that now rest with a handful of these huge institutions. In fact, the six largest financial institutions in this country now have assets equivalent to more than 56 percent of our nation’s GDP, issue two thirds of the credit cards, and one third of the mortgages.
“Electing Sen. Sanders as president would send a clear message to financial regulators that they need to do everything within their power to break up financial institutions so that they can no longer threaten the financial well-being of the American people.
“Here’s how he will accomplish that.
“Within the first 100 days of his administration, Sen. Sanders will require the secretary of the Treasury Department to establish a “Too-Big-to Fail” list of commercial banks, shadow banks and insurance companies whose failure would pose a catastrophic risk to the United States economy without a taxpayer bailout.
“Within a year, the Sanders administration will work with the Federal Reserve and financial regulators to break these institutions up using the authority of Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
“Sen. Sanders will also fight to enact a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act to clearly separate commercial banking, investment banking and insurance services. Secretary Clinton opposes this extremely important measure.
“President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Glass-Steagall Act into law precisely to prevent Wall Street speculators from causing another Great Depression. And, it worked for more than five decades until Wall Street watered it down under President Reagan and killed it under President Clinton. That is unacceptable and that is why Sen. Sanders will fight to sign the Warren-McCain bill into law.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-break-big-fail-banks/
Bernie Sander's Plan To Break Up The Too-Big-to Fail Banks
Press Release
Sanders: Break up Too-Big-to-Fail Banks
April 6, 2016
LARAMIE, Wyo. — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ spokesman issued the following statement on Tuesday on how the nation’s biggest banks would be broken up under a Sanders administration:
“Sen. Bernie Sanders and Secretary Clinton have very different points of view on how to reform Wall Street and the largest financial institutions in this country.
“Sen. Sanders believes that it is necessary to break up large financial institutions not only because we need to prevent another Wall Street bailout, but because of the incredible concentration of ownership and power that now rest with a handful of these huge institutions. In fact, the six largest financial institutions in this country now have assets equivalent to more than 56 percent of our nation’s GDP, issue two thirds of the credit cards, and one third of the mortgages.
“Electing Sen. Sanders as president would send a clear message to financial regulators that they need to do everything within their power to break up financial institutions so that they can no longer threaten the financial well-being of the American people.
“Here’s how he will accomplish that.
“Within the first 100 days of his administration, Sen. Sanders will require the secretary of the Treasury Department to establish a “Too-Big-to Fail” list of commercial banks, shadow banks and insurance companies whose failure would pose a catastrophic risk to the United States economy without a taxpayer bailout.
“Within a year, the Sanders administration will work with the Federal Reserve and financial regulators to break these institutions up using the authority of Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
“Sen. Sanders will also fight to enact a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act to clearly separate commercial banking, investment banking and insurance services. Secretary Clinton opposes this extremely important measure.
“President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Glass-Steagall Act into law precisely to prevent Wall Street speculators from causing another Great Depression. And, it worked for more than five decades until Wall Street watered it down under President Reagan and killed it under President Clinton. That is unacceptable and that is why Sen. Sanders will fight to sign the Warren-McCain bill into law.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-break-big-fail-banks/
April 6, 2016
EXCLUSIVE! A Photo Of Hillary Getting In Bush's Face To Protest The Iraq War! My Hero Hillary!
Isn't that what this is?
April 6, 2016
Hillary now claims she was a "protester" back in the 60's & 70's! Did she just make that up?
Where are the pictures and/or news article regarding her participation in political protests?
Was she a participant in the anti-Vietnam war movement, women's rights demonstrations, union strike support, civil rights, any protest actions at all?
Or did she just make this up like her "sniper" story?
Hillary: "..Look, I think its exciting to be in effect, protesting.....I remember I did that a long time ago when I was in my twenties and I totally get the attraction of this..."
April 6, 2016
Bernie Sanders Speaks on George W. Bush and Hillary's Support of Bush
CLINTON: “I wish he would criticize and join me in criticizing George W. Bush, who I think wrecked the economy and created the conditions for the great recession.”
SANDERS: “I gather Secretary Clinton hasn't listened to too many of my speeches or followed my work in the congress because very few people stood up to George W. Bush, whether it was the war in Iraq or any other of his policies.”
And Bernie voted against Bush's invasion of Iraq while Hillary Clinton supported it instead of joining him in criticizing George W. Bush.
LIKE THREE PEAS IN A POD
?
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHome country: USA
Current location: Merica!
Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2015, 02:36 PM
Number of posts: 2,054
