How Bernie Sanders Could Break Up the Big Wall Street Banks

[Dot Com]

Heres DTMB & Avatar4321 if they get what they're proposing (Letting the Banksters have it all, INCLUDING THE CRUMBS):

 

[RandallFlagg]

Being that Wall Street owns the federal government, this is never going to happen.

It never ceases to amaze me about the left. When a republican was president, the country was going to hell in a hand basket. Now that there has been an incompetent slob from the radical left in office, everything is just fine.

The idea that Obama has created 10 times as many billionaires during his presidency simply flys over the heads of these radicals. Obama is bought and paid for by Wall Street. Just like any other politician.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The size of the banks is not the issue

How is that when 'Too BIG to Fail' is the whole point?

ummm..... because the too big to fail banks of 2008 are even bigger now since they acquired the banks that failed? You like taxpayer-financed bailouts eh?

They need to be broken-up to the size that their failure wont bring down the entire economy like it came perilously close to doing in '08

Excellent summation; when they dont need $4 trillion to keep our economy afloat then they cease to be a threat to our national security.

Well, let's ask George Bush and Barack Obama why they bailed out the banks, shall we?

ummm..... because they were too big to fail you moron. That why breaking them up is needed so they never have this great nation over a barrel again

Ah, I see.....so then tell me this: If that were the case - why didn't either of those two clowns break them up while "the iron was hot"? Hmmm?

I'll gladly answer for you.... Because this is a Capitalist society and, as it should be, it's not illegal to "get big" - or didn't you know that? However, were it me - I would have let them go belly up - as they SHOULD have done. True Capitalism would dictate that.

Because Repubs, and many of the Dems (they're two sides of the same coin) are owned by wall st you dweeb. Lock, stock, and barrel. Gawd but you're dumb.

And you are a fucking idiot that is incapable of understanding that NO politician is going to "break up" anything. We are a Capitalist society dumbass. There is NOTHING illegal about becoming "big".

And even if that old man of yours WERE to try anything, he would end up dead. Found in his bed, dead of a heart attack.

You go ahead and screw with the ultra-rich. They didn't become ultra-rich by answering to little people like you and me. GAWD your dumb.

 

[oreo]

I have seen several shows on the boobtube where people ask how does Sanders think he can break up Big Banks, and there are a multitude of ways to do it that dont fit a 5 second sound bite.

It is very doable folks and I dont see what the point is of asking him so often how he plans to do it.

1. Pressure the banks directors to break up the banks themselves. "OR else I'll do it and you wont like how I do it..."

2. Via the Federal Reserve; Appoint people to the seven member Board of Governors who would then vote that Bank of America was 'a grave threat to financial stability of the United States.' ...could take a few yers.

3. Get Congress to pass some new laws to enable it.

4. Sherman Anti-trust Act

5. Through Executive Order as justified under previous Presidents, for example Obama's "Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness" which states:
Section 103
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;...
Section 200
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:

(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and

(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.....

Section 201 (e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market....

Section 301 Loan Guarantees (c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith....


A good set of lawyers could drive a 747 through that EO.

How does a president break up a big bank?

Dallas Fed president: Break up the biggest banks globally

The Fed’s Newest President Wants to Break Up the Big Banks, and Bernie Sanders Is Thrilled

St. Louis Fed President: Break Up the Banks - Shadowproof

Break Up the Big Banks - NYTimes.com

Well you have a major problem as does your candidate. The Federal Reserve bank is completely separate and independent from the Federal Government. IOW--the Federal Government is not in charge of the Federal Reserve. There is no pressure, there is no threats and there is no legislating that can make them do anything that they don't want to do.

Now you would think that someone that has sat in the Senate for the last 25 years would know this basic, fundamental economic banking principle. Frankly if Sanders doesn't know it, he has no business being a senator, much less POTUS.

Here is the article that Hillary Clinton mentioned in the New York debate, that she wanted everyone to read.
Bernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break Up Big Banks, Among Other Things | VICE News

 

[PredFan]

Something needs to be done about some of the things that the banking industry does. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Crazy Bernie and the US Government to do it right.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Why do we want the government screwing with the banks or any other private industry? Haven't we screwed our economy enough?

The banks screwed the economy in 2008. Dubya even said so, "Wall Street got drunk!" Now they have paid big fines, but nothing that wasn't baked into the cake before they initiated the most convoluted, poorly understood instruments that guaranteed big returns, betting on the failure of the very Bankenstein monster they created.

And Congress wouldn't touch them. Obama won't either. They run the country.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Something needs to be done about some of the things that the banking industry does. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Crazy Bernie and the US Government to do it right.

Want to trust the fake Baptist preacher from Canada whose wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs, instead?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Being that Wall Street owns the federal government, this is never going to happen.

So your argument is reduced to "You are right but it'll never happen"

Is that the gist of it?

How is breaking up the banks going to change Wall Street owning the feds?

 

[PredFan]

Something needs to be done about some of the things that the banking industry does. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Crazy Bernie and the US Government to do it right.

Want to trust the fake Baptist preacher from Canada whose wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs, instead?

How's the weather on your planet?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The size of the banks is not the issue

How is that when 'Too BIG to Fail' is the whole point?

ummm..... because the too big to fail banks of 2008 are even bigger now since they acquired the banks that failed? You like taxpayer-financed bailouts eh?

They need to be broken-up to the size that their failure wont bring down the entire economy like it came perilously close to doing in '08

Excellent summation; when they dont need $4 trillion to keep our economy afloat then they cease to be a threat to our national security.

Well, let's ask George Bush and Barack Obama why they bailed out the banks, shall we?

ummm..... because they were too big to fail you moron. That why breaking them up is needed so they never have this great nation over a barrel again

Define "breaking them up".....

Soooo..... you have no issue w/ monopolies?

I asked you to define "breaking them up".....Now, can you please find it possible to not answer my question with a question?
BTW genius. I neither stated nor implied anything regarding support for monopolies..
BTW, if there were ONE large bank which had NO competition, that would be a monopoly.....
I suppose that when say, the price of gasoline spikes in the wake of a natural disaster such as a hurricane, you consider that to be "price gouging".
And I suppose when there is an important event in a city and the hotel rates rise with the demand, that is also price gouging..
I am just trying to ascertain your grasp on business and the marketplace.
By all means, please enlighten us.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Being that Wall Street owns the federal government, this is never going to happen.

So your argument is reduced to "You are right but it'll never happen"

Is that the gist of it?

How is breaking up the banks going to change Wall Street owning the feds?

it isn't...But it looks and sounds good when Sanders says it and the media reports this stuff.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Heres DTMB & Avatar4321 if they get what they're proposing (Letting the Banksters have it all, INCLUDING THE CRUMBS):

holy shit....The scary part is not that you dug up this crap. The scary part is you believe in your own reality

 

[Dot Com]

How is that when 'Too BIG to Fail' is the whole point?

Excellent summation; when they dont need $4 trillion to keep our economy afloat then they cease to be a threat to our national security.

Well, let's ask George Bush and Barack Obama why they bailed out the banks, shall we?

ummm..... because they were too big to fail you moron. That why breaking them up is needed so they never have this great nation over a barrel again

Ah, I see.....so then tell me this: If that were the case - why didn't either of those two clowns break them up while "the iron was hot"? Hmmm?

I'll gladly answer for you.... Because this is a Capitalist society and, as it should be, it's not illegal to "get big" - or didn't you know that? However, were it me - I would have let them go belly up - as they SHOULD have done. True Capitalism would dictate that.

Because Repubs, and many of the Dems (they're two sides of the same coin) are owned by wall st you dweeb. Lock, stock, and barrel. Gawd but you're dumb.

And you are a fucking idiot that is incapable of understanding that NO politician is going to "break up" anything. We are a Capitalist society dumbass. There is NOTHING illegal about becoming "big".

And even if that old man of yours WERE to try anything, he would end up dead. Found in his bed, dead of a heart attack.

You go ahead and screw with the ultra-rich. They didn't become ultra-rich by answering to little people like you and me. GAWD your dumb.

we got ourselves a live one here people , an ultra-rich fluffer. AND, quelle surprise, he's a Rightie The safety & security of this great nation is the responsibility of the Executive kiddo and having all of one's eggs in a single basket (a few monopolistic Banksters) runs contrary to that

Take that ultra rich cawk outta yer mouth son and go to your local library IF you know where it is.

 

[Dot Com]

Why do we want the government screwing with the banks or any other private industry? Haven't we screwed our economy enough?

The banks screwed the economy in 2008. Dubya even said so, "Wall Street got drunk!" Now they have paid big fines, but nothing that wasn't baked into the cake before they initiated the most convoluted, poorly understood instruments that guaranteed big returns, betting on the failure of the very Bankenstein monster they created.

And Congress wouldn't touch them. Obama won't either. They run the country.

^ that

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why do we want the government screwing with the banks or any other private industry? Haven't we screwed our economy enough?

The banks screwed the economy in 2008. Dubya even said so, "Wall Street got drunk!" Now they have paid big fines, but nothing that wasn't baked into the cake before they initiated the most convoluted, poorly understood instruments that guaranteed big returns, betting on the failure of the very Bankenstein monster they created.

And Congress wouldn't touch them. Obama won't either. They run the country.

Define "the banks".....
Look, the federal government created banking and investment rules that were a quid pro quo to the large banks and investment houses in return for the federal mandates that forced lenders to relax credit standards for mortgages.
two such trade offs were Credit Default Swaps and the other was "mortgage backed securities". These and other ( term used very loosely) investments( is playing a slot machine really an investment?)were to be fully backed by the federal government in case of default.
Everyone was happy. The lenders would look good because their PR depts could put "hey look at what we're doing" ads. Those ion Washington who were obsessed with increasing home ownership, could run to their constituents and say " see, we stopped the practice of redlining and now you too can borrow the money to buy a house"...And of course the lenders felt comfy knowing that even though the likelihood of defaults, they could sell the loans to other institutions and in the case of foreclosure, confiscate the properties and resell them at a profit because the demand for homes was driving prices to levels never seen before.
The problems arose when the unexpected occurred. That was mass defaults on these loans in a very short period of time. Entire neighborhoods of mostly starter type homes became what I referred to as "foreclosurehoods"...
There is no one party or industry on which to place blame.
The originator was the federal government. There were those in Congress who saw a way to increase home ownership but never considered the consequences.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, let's ask George Bush and Barack Obama why they bailed out the banks, shall we?

ummm..... because they were too big to fail you moron. That why breaking them up is needed so they never have this great nation over a barrel again

Ah, I see.....so then tell me this: If that were the case - why didn't either of those two clowns break them up while "the iron was hot"? Hmmm?

I'll gladly answer for you.... Because this is a Capitalist society and, as it should be, it's not illegal to "get big" - or didn't you know that? However, were it me - I would have let them go belly up - as they SHOULD have done. True Capitalism would dictate that.

Because Repubs, and many of the Dems (they're two sides of the same coin) are owned by wall st you dweeb. Lock, stock, and barrel. Gawd but you're dumb.

And you are a fucking idiot that is incapable of understanding that NO politician is going to "break up" anything. We are a Capitalist society dumbass. There is NOTHING illegal about becoming "big".

And even if that old man of yours WERE to try anything, he would end up dead. Found in his bed, dead of a heart attack.

You go ahead and screw with the ultra-rich. They didn't become ultra-rich by answering to little people like you and me. GAWD your dumb.

we got ourselves a live one here people, an ultra-rich fluffer. AND, quelle surprise, he's a Rightie The safety & security of this great nation is the responsibility of the executive kiddo and having all of ones eggs in a single basket (a few monopolistic Banksters) runs contrary to that

Take that ultra rich cawk outta yer mouth son and come to your senses

Your class warfare rhetoric and nonsensical bullshit posts are tiresome.

 

[Dot Com]

we got ourselves a live one here people, an ultra-rich fluffer. AND, quelle surprise, he's a Rightie The safety & security of this great nation is the responsibility of the executive kiddo and having all of ones eggs in a single basket (a few monopolistic Banksters) runs contrary to that

Take that ultra rich cawk outta yer mouth son and come to your senses

Your class warfare rhetoric and nonsensical bullshit posts are tiresome.

point out the error in my previous post.

"Financial" *cough* "services" make up an ever increasing portion of the economy kid. Were you aware of that? There is very little collateral needed to take on big risks and the littlwe that the Dems wanted to implement was met w/ howls by guess who...... wait for it........ bought & paid-for, Rightists like yourself

 

[thereisnospoon]

Something needs to be done about some of the things that the banking industry does. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Crazy Bernie and the US Government to do it right.

Want to trust the fake Baptist preacher from Canada whose wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs, instead?

What's wrong with being a VP at Goldman Sachs?

 

[thereisnospoon]

we got ourselves a live one here people, an ultra-rich fluffer. AND, quelle surprise, he's a Rightie The safety & security of this great nation is the responsibility of the executive kiddo and having all of ones eggs in a single basket (a few monopolistic Banksters) runs contrary to that

Take that ultra rich cawk outta yer mouth son and come to your senses

Your class warfare rhetoric and nonsensical bullshit posts are tiresome.

point out the error in my previous post.

"Financial" *cough* "services" make up an ever increasing portion of the economy kid. Were you aware of that? There is very little collateral needed to take on big risks and the littlwe that the Dems wanted to implement was met w/ howls by guess who...... wait for it........ bought & paid-for, Rightists like yourself

Error? You posted your opinion. Opinions cannot be in error.
BTW, there is no bank monopoly.....Get that out of your head.
Just what do you believe a guy like Bernie Sanders is going to be able to do about any of your complaints?

 

[Dot Com]

So your argument is "They're too big to take on" Is that the gist of it?