• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill To Break Up The Big Banks

Summerwind said:
My dream ticket is Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but alas EW isn't in it, yet... maybe she'd be willing to be VP, fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

I want Elizabeth Warren to keep barking at Wall Street as a Senator. She's doing a very good job! (The vice president doesn't really do much.)
 
Summerwind said:
As I mentioned above, we really shouldn't be waylaying the thread, it isn't about Hillary, so I'm done with that out of respect for the OP.
Click to expand...
It's weird...lots of people keep saying Hillery will be a serious contender, but I haven't talked to anyone who actually wants to vote for her.
 
I wouldn't vote for Hillary in the primaries (and I can't anyway) but I'd end up voting for her in the general election...
 
Anomalism said:
Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill To Break Up The Big Banks

WASHINGTON, May 5 (Reuters) - Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist U.S. senator who has launched a bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, said on Tuesday he will introduce a bill to break up the biggest banks, a position far to the left of the party's front runner, Hillary Clinton. Calls for Wall Street's largest firms to be cut down were numerous after taxpayers spent billions of dollars to prevent the financial system from collapse during the 2007-09 financial crisis, but they have since gradually died down.

Sanders faces long odds against Clinton's fund-raising might, and his views might help position the former secretary of state and first lady more as a moderate and buttress her efforts to attract money from banks' deep pockets. Under the Sanders proposal, regulators on the existing Financial Stability Oversight Council would compile a list of institutions that are 'too big to fail' and implicitly rely on government support during a crisis. "If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," Sanders said in a statement.

Within a year of enactment of the bill, the Treasury secretary would be required to break up these firms. They would also be prohibited from using any customer funds for risky or speculative activities on financial markets. Sanders, an independent from Vermont, launched his long-shot bid last week, highlighting his fight against authorizing the Iraq war, which Clinton voted to authorize as a senator, and putting pressure on her political agenda from the left.

Sanders is not alone in his view that large banks still pose an undue risk to the economy after causing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a highly visible Democrat from Massachusetts, also wants to break up big banks. Among regulators, Tom Hoenig, second-in-command at the powerful Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, wants the same thing. Still, the bill stands a near-zero chance of becoming law. Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California, also backed the bill, but it has no Republican support. Republicans hold the majority in both houses of Congress. President Barack Obama is also opposed to making any changes to the 2010 Dodd-Frank law aimed at reforming Wall Street.
Click to expand...

as popular as it is to hate on big banks...they are not a monopoly and there is no legal framework under which they can be broken up.
concocting such a legal framework is extremely risky ... it would basically be the federal government dictating what size a legally operating business can be.

Congress, can, however, regulate their trading practices.... and most likely should.
It'll be interesting to see if Hillary kinda sides with the populist claptrap, or slaps him down with firm legal footing.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
"Unimaginative"? Maybe the 55th ACA repeal will get it!

But anyways anything of substance to why the bill should not be passed?
Click to expand...

none of these banks are a monopoly... there's simply no legal framework to justify breaking them up.
every bank is connected, small and large, through loans and credit guarantees and other contracts... so of course there is systemic risk in the event of a banking crisis.

even if a legal framework were to be concocted to break up these firms , that systemic risk would still exist, just on a wider scale. ( more banks involved as opposed to bigger banks involved).

it makes infinitley more sense to regulate the trade practices of federally insured banks than it does to arbitrary break them up and pretend you did something substantive
 
zebranivem said:
I want Elizabeth Warren to keep barking at Wall Street as a Senator. She's doing a very good job! (The vice president doesn't really do much.)
Click to expand...

That's a very valid point. I guess I was thinking if she was VP there'd be a strong chance she'd take over when Hillary or Bernie were done, but that (VP being elected after the P runs his/her two terms) really hasn't been the case for generation or more, guess I better put that idea out of my head.
 
Bernie Sanders has been saying since March of 2013 that he was going to introduce this bill. I guess now that he's running for President he's decided to actually do it. It's a great way to pander for votes.
 
Summerwind said:
Oh, there's that irony again.
Click to expand...

He is.

We can start off with the fact that he's a avowed Socialist and then go down his 12 point plan for how to quickly drive whats left of the American economy in to the ground.
 
Fenton said:
He is.

We can start off with the fact that he's a avowed Socialist and then go down his 12 point plan for how to quickly drive whats left of the American economy in to the ground.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see you break down his plan and explain how it drives the economy into the ground.
 
Anomalism said:
Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill To Break Up The Big Banks

WASHINGTON, May 5 (Reuters) - Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist U.S. senator who has launched a bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, said on Tuesday he will introduce a bill to break up the biggest banks, a position far to the left of the party's front runner, Hillary Clinton. Calls for Wall Street's largest firms to be cut down were numerous after taxpayers spent billions of dollars to prevent the financial system from collapse during the 2007-09 financial crisis, but they have since gradually died down.

Sanders faces long odds against Clinton's fund-raising might, and his views might help position the former secretary of state and first lady more as a moderate and buttress her efforts to attract money from banks' deep pockets. Under the Sanders proposal, regulators on the existing Financial Stability Oversight Council would compile a list of institutions that are 'too big to fail' and implicitly rely on government support during a crisis. "If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," Sanders said in a statement.

Within a year of enactment of the bill, the Treasury secretary would be required to break up these firms. They would also be prohibited from using any customer funds for risky or speculative activities on financial markets. Sanders, an independent from Vermont, launched his long-shot bid last week, highlighting his fight against authorizing the Iraq war, which Clinton voted to authorize as a senator, and putting pressure on her political agenda from the left.

Sanders is not alone in his view that large banks still pose an undue risk to the economy after causing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a highly visible Democrat from Massachusetts, also wants to break up big banks. Among regulators, Tom Hoenig, second-in-command at the powerful Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, wants the same thing. Still, the bill stands a near-zero chance of becoming law. Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California, also backed the bill, but it has no Republican support. Republicans hold the majority in both houses of Congress. President Barack Obama is also opposed to making any changes to the 2010 Dodd-Frank law aimed at reforming Wall Street.
Click to expand...

It may not be released as of yet, but I cannot seem to locate the actual bill to see the language of how Sanders proposes this.

But what I can find is the targets are J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley under the "standard" that they "issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards, over half of all mortgages, control 95 percent of all derivatives held in financial institutions and hold more than 40 percent of all bank deposits in the United States."

Our issue is a matter of law, and specifically the method to break up these organizations by the Treasury Department.

Since we are looking at a solidly 114th Republican controlled Congress it is unlikely to even make it out of committee. Meaning, this is a political stunt to coincide with White House ambitions by doing two things at one time. One, force Republicans to defend "too big to fail" organizations. Two, force competing Democrats into a political litmus test on handling "too big to fail." It is difficult to look at this as a real purposed bill on the part of Sanders, where he will try to garner support for it within the present Congress. I'm not entirely sure Obama would sign it even if it miraculously made it out of Congress.
 
OrphanSlug said:
It may not be released as of yet, but I cannot seem to locate the actual bill to see the language of how Sanders proposes this.

But what I can find is the targets are J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley under the "standard" that they "issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards, over half of all mortgages, control 95 percent of all derivatives held in financial institutions and hold more than 40 percent of all bank deposits in the United States."

Our issue is a matter of law, and specifically the method to break up these organizations by the Treasury Department.

Since we are looking at a solidly 114th Republican controlled Congress it is unlikely to even make it out of committee. Meaning, this is a political stunt to coincide with White House ambitions by doing two things at one time. One, force Republicans to defend "too big to fail" organizations. Two, force competing Democrats into a political litmus test on handling "too big to fail." It is difficult to look at this as a real purposed bill on the part of Sanders, where he will try to garner support for it within the present Congress. I'm not entirely sure Obama would sign it even if it miraculously made it out of Congress.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of principal. Somebody should be fighting for this, and Bernie has decided to be the one. If Republicans don't want to look bad by defending "Too big to fail" then maybe they shouldn't defend it.
 
Anomalism said:
It's a matter of principal. Somebody should be fighting for this, and Bernie has decided to be the one. If Republicans don't want to look bad by defending "Too big to fail" then maybe they shouldn't defend it.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it, I do not think this is all about principal. It makes more sense that this is about dealing with Hillary and Republicans at the same time.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I don't buy it, I do not think this is all about principal. It makes more sense that this is about dealing with Hillary and Republicans at the same time.
Click to expand...

I think Sanders is attempting to take some of the POWER away from these huge banking monopolies that the US gave the Treasure to. Banks as lenders are influencing which Nations the USA manipulates to survive so that they can make their bank payments to their USA banking opportunists "privatizing" National patrimonies. The USA and huge Banking CORPORATIONS colluding to control Nations. Gosh, who'd a thunk it? "Too big to fail?" Screw 'em all. Pull the plug. Make sure the Nations that owe big debts to USA Banks survive to protect those bank payments. There have been no principles in recent gov't moves by the USA, at least, not since Vietnam.
 
DaveFagan said:
I think Sanders is attempting to take some of the POWER away from these huge banking monopolies that the US gave the Treasure to. Banks as lenders are influencing which Nations the USA manipulates to survive so that they can make their bank payments to their USA banking opportunists "privatizing" National patrimonies. The USA and huge Banking CORPORATIONS colluding to control Nations. Gosh, who'd a thunk it? "Too big to fail?" Screw 'em all. Pull the plug. Make sure the Nations that owe big debts to USA Banks survive to protect those bank payments. There have been no principles in recent gov't moves by the USA, at least, not since Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Back that up to somewhere between the end of WWII and Korea and I'll agree with you. Somewhere in there the politics of an initiative started to outweigh the principles of the initiative.
 
Anomalism said:
I'd love to see you break down his plan and explain how it drives the economy into the ground.
Click to expand...

Again ?

Lets see, more " stimulus to increase aggregate demand ", tax increases, protectionism and empty devisive narratives and left wing talking points is NOT what this Country needs after 8 years of Obama's incompetence.

Sanders and people like him have no idea how to grow free market economies. He's a Socialist, how would he know or his supporters know how to create jobs and new investment ?

People like Sanders think you incentivize investiment via threats and intimidation. They think tax increases on Corporations and investors and the " Rich " leads to equity and " fairness " and ridiculously more private investment.

When in fact they're moronic narratives and policies only lead to more disparity, poverty and unemployment as Corporations simply sit on their Capital instead of investing it in the economy and investors take their wealth elsewhere.

Sanders thinks a Country can borrow and spend its way into prosperity and low unemployment. Japan blew through 10 different Stimulus packages totallting 100 Trillion Yen in under 10 years and all it did was grow their debt.

Now theyre a basket case and so is Socialist Venezuela.

Sanders is Socialist a moron who attracts low information supporters who thinks more Government, higher taxes on wealth creation and nationalizng major industries is the answer to our problems.
 
Summerwind said:
Right at the moment you're wrong about how people feel about Hillary, she's beating all opponents by leaps and bounds in polls. She could screw up though and lean too far right as she did in 2008 and lose most of the party.
Click to expand...
She is only beating people right now because of name recognition.
 
One would think after the 2008/9 debacle, breaking the banks up would be a no-brainer!

But they & their bought Congressional minions are a potent adversary for the people & free-market capitalism.

Time to put an end to corporate social welfare, & let them learn to stand on their own in a free-market capitalist system - My pocket-book is still hurting from bailing them out!
 
Chomsky said:
One would think after the 2008/9 debacle, breaking the banks up would be a no-brainer!

But they & their bought Congressional minions are a potent adversary for the people & free-market capitalism.

Time to put an end to corporate social welfare, & let them learn to stand on their own in a free-market capitalist system - My pocket-book is still hurting from bailing them out!
Click to expand...

Lol !!

NONE of Bernie Sanders ( the avowed Socialist ) solutions has anything to do with free-market capitalism.

None. He wouldn't know what free market capitalism was if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

And NO ONE'S " pocket book " is hurting from the consequences of TARP.

First it was paid back, and second it didnt come out of anyones pocket books.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!

NONE of Bernie Sanders ( the avowed Socialist ) solutions has anything to do with free-market capitalism.

None. He wouldn't know what free market capitalism was if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

And NO ONE'S " pocket book " is hurting from the consequences of TARP.

Forst it was paid back, and second it didnt come out of anyones pocket books.
Click to expand...

Reasonable people want fair market capitalism, like free trade, free capitalism migrates towards benefitting fewer and fewer, more and more. Fair trade, fair capitalism. Both require regulation and monitoring.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!

NONE of Bernie Sanders ( the avowed Socialist ) solutions has anything to do with free-market capitalism.

None. He wouldn't know what free market capitalism was if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

And NO ONE'S " pocket book " is hurting from the consequences of TARP.

First it was paid back, and second it didnt come out of anyones pocket books.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders understands that an economy cannot function properly with all of the wealth and power concentrated at the top. He understands that when the people on the bottom are making more money it stimulates the economy. He understands that breaking up monopolies and creating competition is how you make the market healthier. He understands capitalism better than his Republican counterparts.
 
Anomalism said:
Bernie Sanders understands that an economy cannot function properly with all of the wealth and power concentrated at the top. He understands that when the people on the bottom are making more money it stimulates the economy. He understands that breaking up monopolies and creating competition is how you make the market healthier. He understands capitalism better than his Republican counterparts.
Click to expand...

We went thru this already, pretty much what the New Deal was about (in part) which restricted and regulated predatory banking that at least in part led to the depression. Worked well several decades, grew the biggest strongest middle class that the modern world at least had ever known. But 30 years of Reaganomics are reversing that. This is what Sanders wants to address.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!

NONE of Bernie Sanders ( the avowed Socialist ) solutions has anything to do with free-market capitalism.

None. He wouldn't know what free market capitalism was if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

And NO ONE'S " pocket book " is hurting from the consequences of TARP.
First it was paid back, and second it didnt come out of anyones pocket books.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, the topic is not 'Bernie Sanders', but his attempt to end the 'too big to fail free ride syndrome'. I'm willing to acknowledge that even candidates I don't like occasional have an idea that has merit.

You're point about TARP being paid-back is reasonably accurate, but those funds came out of the tax-payer's funds, which I believe I can euphemistically refer to as 'my pocket-book' without occurring too much discrepancy.

But the big-picture you're missing is free-markets cannot exist without regulation - monopoly or oligarchy are NOT free markets. Neither are bail-outs with the people's money - that my friend is corporate socialism.

And the current American dualistic economic system of 'corporate socialized losses with 'free-market profits' is exactly what Mr. Sanders is attempting to rectify!

Are we free-market? Or socialist? Which is it?

I'll weigh-in for free-markets in a well-regulated economic system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom