My fellow DUers are so concerned that Bernie doesn't have a policy paper in his head--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1649233

Neither did FDR--

Those who believe that the politics of Bernie Sanders are too visionary to be accepted today should remember the political victories of FDR, and ask themselves why some recent polling suggests that Sanders would win a landslide against Republican Donald Trump in 2016 — as FDR won his landslide in 1936.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/268396-on-banks-sanders-sounds-like-fdr

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I remember when Bank of America was only allowed to operate in three states and was outraged that so many people sat on their fingers or voted in support of taking the leash off. Those who did deserve whatever they got as a result, but our nation needs to do better for the sake of the innocent and everyone to come.

The argument isn't that breaking up banks is undesirable, but that many more reforms must take place and that Bernie's plan should be broader than it is. Breaking up the banks is an emphatic, desirable move, but we could break up the banks all day long and the financial system's power to control and disrupt our economy would continue anyway. It's not the opening move under Hillary's plan, but it is on the table for everyone who wants financial reform.

Here's Elizabeth Warren on “the Unfinished Business of Financial Reform.”
http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/18/elizabeth-warren-speech/
She wants to break up the banks, but it's down there a ways because her list is significantly longer than just that.

There is nothing there to show, either by analogy to FDR or with Bernie's own record, how or whether he can accomplish what he says he wants to accomplish.

And judging by the Daily News piece, he hasn't the faintest clue.

Roosevelt’s advisers, who had no clearly defined strategy of their own for dealing with the banking crisis, seemed content to remain vague until their boss moved into the White House.

http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/22

Of course they had a clearly defined strategy to deal with both the banking crisis and the economic crisis in general.

Who are Bernie's advisers?

Roosevelt believed that a balanced budget was important to instill confidence in consumers, business, and the markets, which would thus encourage investment and economic expansion. As the economy recovered, tax revenues would increase making budget balancing even easier. This traditional view that deficits were bad was also supported by public opinion polls...

....Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and aides within the Treasury Department favored an approach that sought to balance the federal budget. But other advisers in the President's inner circle, including Harry Hopkins, Marriner Eccles, and Henry Wallace, had accepted the recent theories of British economist John Maynard Keynes

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/budget.html

Fortunately Roosevelt realized his beliefs were not the best for the country

And he turned around fairly quickly.

From your source:

In any event, this addresses Roosevelt. What about Bernie? Who are his economic advisers? It is well established that he wants to break up the big banks. We know he wants to reinstate Glass-Steagal. No problem with that.

The problem is: how many allies in Congress does he have to pass any legislation as controversial (in Congress) as Glass-Steagal? If by some miracle it is reinstated, is separating commercial banks from investment banks sufficient to achieve Bernie's goal? If by some miracle it is sufficient, what effects on the economy, either positive or negative, can be anticipated and how would they managed?

You may have some answers to this, but with all due respect, you ain't running for President. I would like to hear from Bernie on this.

And he ain't talking.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9f13e542-d4cd-11e5-8887-98e7feb46f27.html#axzz44xMWgS6y
Back on February 2016 - (your article you linked)



Further down -



There was nothing OOPSIE DAISY about it. It was deliberate. Every single bond bet against was DELIBERATE. ARMS were DELIBERATE. He thinks we are all new and are falling for his Goldman Sachs bullshit.

I want to know What Is In IT For Him?

He didn't all of a sudden become a goody goody two shoes.




Bloomberg article on Mr Kashkari - back in 2014 when he was running for something . . .



I figured it out - he sees Minnesota as a path to the White House in 2020. And he's also watching the bonds against oil/gas and private student loans. Like everyone else is. He's not special - his buddies at Goldman Sachs - someone tipped him off so he probably knows precisely what bonds have been packaged and rates AAA that are -zzzzz.

too long. JMO...

He won't get hired back on Wall Street in an investment bank. . . to the teller window for you! (not you - him )

...after all, the big banks are the ones who pay her off:


Hillary with one of her good buddies

Wall Street corruption and keeping the American economy safe.

http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2013/fs130116.cfm


Honk-----------------foir a political revolution Bernie 2016

Thank you for posting.

should be broken up into smaller banks (like they used to be) because they are "too big to fail". But the issue is not that they are big but that being big they are a danger to the world economy.

When one fails they run a huge risk of pulling the others down with them. That is where we were at in 2008. It was vitally necessary for the bailout because if we had not the world economy would have crashed and we would have found ourselves in another Great Depression.

Nothing has been done to protect us from that. The only thing that can be done is bring back Glass-Steagall to protect the accounts of individuals and then to return to smaller banks. It does not mean that a bank will not fail but if it does they will not be big enough to bring down the entire world economy.

I think the big banks do not like this idea because it has to do with the lose of power and nothing to do with the lose of money they hold.

congress, in their infinite wisdom, gave $$$ to the bankers and investment firms that screwed-up royally.

Instead, the $$$ should have gone to the victiims of predatory loans, those that got fired/laid-off as a result of
the screwed-up bank policies.
Mortgages could have been paid, thus 'bailing out' the banks by saving people instead of victimizing them.

The way it was done reeks of under-handed RW conspiracies to hand tax-payer $$$ to the .001% and still evict
the 'deadbeats' that they screwed in the first place.

Tar, feathers and guillotines are too good for these assholes.

whacking a plastic train while toddlers cried in shock; he looks like a guy who's just realized he's lost a Sankara Stone and ain't getting it back