• 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

That's the thing I don't get. We've had 30 years of Reaganomics and after 30 years it has been nothing but an absolute failure. We tried it, it failed, let's go back to what was working. I don't know why the American people are so beholding to feeding the wealthy top 1% as much wealth as possible in the hopes that maybe some of it will trickle down. Also here's what I don't get...

The name itself is indicative of it's failure to work. "TRICKLE DOWN". Not cascade, not waterfall, not avalanche. "Trickle down". Jeez and to think this policy has been in effect for over 30 years.
Oddly, for at least a decade now I've heard conservative talking heads say we need to implement trickle down economics to fix the current system.....

To paraphrase alot of people into one statement...
 
What makes you believe that the smaller pieces would be sustainable, and why?

I'm not the one who said that they would be more sustainable, but the reason many of us want smaller financial institutions is so they won't damage the entire economy if they fail.
 
I'm not the one who said that they would be more sustainable, but the reason many of us want smaller financial institutions is so they won't damage the entire economy if they fail.

They don't? Says who?

Any idea what happens when a bank fails?
 
I'm not the one who said that they would be more sustainable, but the reason many of us want smaller financial institutions is so they won't damage the entire economy if they fail.

And require tax payer bailouts.
 
Obviously the impact of a small bank failure isn't the same as the impact of a large bank failure. Seems that would stand without mention.
 
What I find most interesting about this thread is conservatives against the idea of not supporting banks that are to big to fail with taxpayer dollars. If Rand Paul were to introduce a similar bill they'd all be doing a C-Walk(just google it old people) down Wall Street.
 
What I find most interesting about this thread is conservatives against the idea of not supporting banks that are to big to fail with taxpayer dollars. If Rand Paul were to introduce a similar bill they'd all be doing a C-Walk(just google it old people) down Wall Street.

One of the low information crowd rears his head and chimes in with the usual innane rhetoric that he's known for.

TARP ( the " Too Big to Fail " bailouts ) was paid back.

The over 5 Trillion dollars in GSE debt ? Passed onto the US Treasury and has yet to be paid back.
 
Obviously the impact of a small bank failure isn't the same as the impact of a large bank failure. Seems that would stand without mention.

The Failure of the two most corrupt Financial entities involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis caused far more of a impact than any one Bank.

Bernie Sanders is real good at not bringing this little fact up.
 
One of the low information crowd rears his head and chimes in with the usual innane rhetoric that he's known for.

TARP ( the " Too Big to Fail " bailouts ) was paid back.

The over 5 Trillion dollars in GSE debt ? Passed onto the US Treasury and has yet to be paid back.

One of the low information crowd rears his head and chimes in with the usual innane rhetoric that he's known for.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money | PolitiFact New Hampshire

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
What makes you believe that the smaller pieces would be sustainable, and why?

not every two story house is stable, but if it collapses, it causes a lot less damage than a one hundred story rickety skyscraper.

and i'm not arguing against letting corporations grow. i'm arguing against letting corporations grow and consolidate to the point at which a collapse could bring down the entire economy.
 
No I support identifying and then addressing the issues that led to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis, not diverting attention away because its Politically inconvenient for one Political party.

The GSEs were tax exempt, exempt from SEC reporting requirements, had access to a 4 Billion dollar line of credit straight from the US Treasury that NO Bank could touch , had a " AAA " debt status, could run their business with almost no equity or Capital requirements and were the single largest purchaser of both Securities backed by Subprime loans and Subprime loans themselves.

They created demand for a toxic product, they distributed TRILLIONS in Securities backed by Subprime loans and they purchased Trillions in Subprime loans and Securities and they were being run like ENRON on steroids.

The GSEs hid over a Trillion dollars in Subprime debt while they were the primary consumer of Securities backed by Subprime loans amd while they were getting Billions of dollars straight from the US Treasury. ( 2011 SEC investigation )

There's a word for that. Its called Securities fraud. In this case it was unprecedented securities fraud.

There's a good reason they were the only two Financial entities that were charged and investigated by the SEC.

I haven't heard Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren address this ONCE.

While they perpetuate this " too big to fail " narrative and whine about Bailouts, over 5 Trillion dollars in GSE debt now sits on the books of the Treasury while the US FED buys another 3 Trillion from Banks via QE.

So there's TARP, ( paid back ) and then there's the Trillions in GSE debt that we inherited. I think you guys have your priorities a little mixed up

ok. let's address Fannie and Freddie as well as the so called "private" TBTF financial entities. agreed?
 
not every two story house is stable, but if it collapses, it causes a lot less damage than a one hundred story rickety skyscraper.

and i'm not arguing against letting corporations grow. i'm arguing against letting corporations grow and consolidate to the point at which a collapse could bring down the entire economy.

The economy didn't collapse, and the TARP outflow of $615 billion has all come back to the Treasury - with profit.

I'm no fan of the big banks (I'm an advocate of community banks) but that said, why do we have a right to demand that they be split up? Honeywell is a big company. So is AT&T, and Exxon, and Apple, and Berkshire Hathaway, and General Electric.....I could go on forever. Should we demand that they also be split up? What happens if any of them fail?

By the way, Dodd-Frank actually ensures the longevity of the big banks, and is strangling the smaller banks out of business. I know that the Democrats and Liberals pretend otherwise, but it doesn't hurt the big banks - it hurts the smaller ones.
 
No I support identifying and then addressing the issues that led to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis, not diverting attention away because its Politically inconvenient for one Political party.

The GSEs were tax exempt, exempt from SEC reporting requirements, had access to a 4 Billion dollar line of credit straight from the US Treasury that NO Bank could touch , had a " AAA " debt status, could run their business with almost no equity or Capital requirements and were the single largest purchaser of both Securities backed by Subprime loans and Subprime loans themselves.

They created demand for a toxic product, they distributed TRILLIONS in Securities backed by Subprime loans and they purchased Trillions in Subprime loans and Securities and they were being run like ENRON on steroids.

The GSEs hid over a Trillion dollars in Subprime debt while they were the primary consumer of Securities backed by Subprime loans amd while they were getting Billions of dollars straight from the US Treasury. ( 2011 SEC investigation )

There's a word for that. Its called Securities fraud. In this case it was unprecedented securities fraud.

There's a good reason they were the only two Financial entities that were charged and investigated by the SEC.

I haven't heard Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren address this ONCE.

While they perpetuate this " too big to fail " narrative and whine about Bailouts, over 5 Trillion dollars in GSE debt now sits on the books of the Treasury while the US FED buys another 3 Trillion from Banks via QE.

So there's TARP, ( paid back ) and then there's the Trillions in GSE debt that we inherited. I think you guys have your priorities a little mixed up


Obviously there is a good reason for that. The only monopoly that a socialist despises is a private one. Government monopoly is the Socialist end game.
 
By the way, Dodd-Frank actually ensures the longevity of the big banks
What ensures the longevity of the big banks is the comfort that no matter what they do they will have access to unlimited tax payer dollars for bailouts.
 
The economy didn't collapse, and the TARP outflow of $615 billion has all come back to the Treasury - with profit.

I'm no fan of the big banks (I'm an advocate of community banks) but that said, why do we have a right to demand that they be split up? Honeywell is a big company. So is AT&T, and Exxon, and Apple, and Berkshire Hathaway, and General Electric.....I could go on forever. Should we demand that they also be split up? What happens if any of them fail?

By the way, Dodd-Frank actually ensures the longevity of the big banks, and is strangling the smaller banks out of business. I know that the Democrats and Liberals pretend otherwise, but it doesn't hurt the big banks - it hurts the smaller ones.

it didn't collapse? tell that to me and to everyone else who lost their jobs in 2008. mine was due to end of grant, but i had to job search in the middle of all of that bull****. to say that it sucked would be the understatement of the decade. probably set my career back five to six years, as well.

the fact of the matter is that everybody got greedy and started casino gambling on risky ****, and it ****ed up the economy like it does every time. there is no reason to have a few massive banks gambling their asses off with most of the money. break them down into smaller, more competitive parts.
 
it didn't collapse? tell that to me and to everyone else who lost their jobs in 2008. mine was due to end of grant, but i had to job search in the middle of all of that bull****. to say that it sucked would be the understatement of the decade. probably set my career back five to six years, as well.

the fact of the matter is that everybody got greedy and started casino gambling on risky ****, and it ****ed up the economy like it does every time. there is no reason to have a few massive banks gambling their asses off with most of the money. break them down into smaller, more competitive parts.

I didn't say people didn't lose their jobs. I said the economy didn't collapse. It didn't. Not everyone in this country lost their jobs or their money. In fact, most people didn't. Not sure what your definition of collapse is, but to me it means break down or fail.

Everyone didn't get greedy. Lots of stupid consumers did. A few investors did. But not everyone.
 
One would think that an avowed socialist would want to nationalize the banks, not break them up. Sometimes, labels don't describe the real political philosophy of the person to whom the label is applied.

Why shouldn't the banks be broken up? Why do we need our economy to be dependent on entities "too big to fail"?
 
I didn't say people didn't lose their jobs. I said the economy didn't collapse. It didn't. Not everyone in this country lost their jobs or their money. In fact, most people didn't. Not sure what your definition of collapse is, but to me it means break down or fail.

Everyone didn't get greedy. Lots of stupid consumers did. A few investors did. But not everyone.

remember the collapse any way that you choose to, and call it anything you want. a whole lot of us were really hurt by it. we should break up banks when they get too big to fail and are engaging in risky investment strategies that might make another bailout unavoidable. they won't be broken up, though, because they have too much power. and the next time they **** up, the taxpayers will bail them out again.
 
remember the collapse any way that you choose to, and call it anything you want. a whole lot of us were really hurt by it. we should break up banks when they get too big to fail and are engaging in risky investment strategies that might make another bailout unavoidable. they won't be broken up, though, because they have too much power. and the next time they **** up, the taxpayers will bail them out again.

I never said a lot of people weren't hurt by it Helix. People lose their jobs all the time. I've lost jobs due to cutbacks. 47 retailers have announced they're closing thousands of stores this year. That's many thousands of jobs lost. Does that mean the economy has collapsed? No, it doesn't.

The big banks won't be broken up, you're correct. They are extremely powerful and both parties are beholden to them. Dodd-Frank, contrary to popular belief, ensured their longevity. The small banks can't compete and will start closing and being acquired with alarming speed very soon. I don't personally believe that taxpayer bailouts are on the horizon for the big banks anytime soon though; they aren't involved in what they were involved in a decade ago. They actually right now aren't any more vulnerable than any company their size. It's the small banks that are being choked, thanks to our government.
 
One would think that an avowed socialist would want to nationalize the banks, not break them up. Sometimes, labels don't describe the real political philosophy of the person to whom the label is applied.

Why shouldn't the banks be broken up? Why do we need our economy to be dependent on entities "too big to fail"?

Don't trust a Socialist.
 
The Failure of the two most corrupt Financial entities involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis caused far more of a impact than any one Bank.

Bernie Sanders is real good at not bringing this little fact up.

That's beside my point that the bigger the bank failure, the bigger the financial impact. Deny that at your own risk, and tb's too!

Also,

Anytime something bad happens, it doesn't take long before blame starts to be assigned. In the instance of subprime mortgage woes, there is no single entity or individual to point the finger at. Instead, this mess is a collective creation of the world's central banks, homeowners, lenders, credit rating agencies and underwriters, and investors.

Read more: Who Is To Blame For The Subprime Crisis?
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter
 
One would think that an avowed socialist would want to nationalize the banks, not break them up. Sometimes, labels don't describe the real political philosophy of the person to whom the label is applied.

Why shouldn't the banks be broken up? Why do we need our economy to be dependent on entities "too big to fail"?

Its a really good question, I don't know the answer to. It just perplexes me that the right bends themselves into a pretzel defending banks becoming as big as they wish, as though the left wants to punish them! Devising laws that prevent such expansion is financial protection, not penal.
 
Back
Top Bottom