2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEven the NY Times says Bernie was right in the Daily News interview
http://nyti.ms/1S0qa3nBy 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 didnt know how to break up the countrys biggest banks. Downsizing the largest financial institutions is one of Mr. Sanderss 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 Newss 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. Sanderss answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year.
Here are the most relevant parts of the exchange.
Daily News: Now, switching to the financial sector, to Wall Street. Speaking broadly, you said that within the first 100 days of your administration youd be drawing up...your Treasury Department would be drawing up a too-big-to-fail list. Would you expect that thats essentially the list that already exists under Dodd-Frank? Under the Financial Stability Oversight Council?
The Daily News may be referring here to the contents of Mr. Sanderss bill. The legislation says that, in no more than 90 days, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a high-level regulator set up by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, would have to draw up a list of firms that appear to too big to fail. Then steps would be taken to break them up.
Bernie Sanders has been criticized for an interview in which he seemed to lack clarity in how he would break up big banks.
Hilary Swift for The New York Times
The Daily News comes back to the mechanics of breaking up the banks.
Daily News: Okay. Well, lets assume that youre correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?
Mr. Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of Treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
Mr. Sanderss recognition here of the need for legislation is significant. Many banking experts say that Congress would need to pass a new law to give regulators the explicit authority to introduce direct caps on bank size. The Federal Reserve has introduced many measures since the financial crisis of 2008 that have created incentives for banks to shrink and many banks are declining in size.
But senior officials at the Fed believe that Congress would need to do more. Neel Kashkari, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, favors extra measures to tackle too-big-to-fail banks and is working on a plan to do this. Ultimately Congress must decide whether such a transformational restructuring of our financial system is justified in order to mitigate the ongoing risks posed by large banks, Mr. Kashkari said in a recent speech.
The problematic word for Mr. Sanders in his answer above is or.
It suggests he believes that the secretary of the Treasury, using powers already given under Dodd-Frank, can press the banks to break up even without new legislation. This might be an option hed take if Congress refused to pass new breakup legislation. Under Dodd-Frank, the Fed could in theory raise its capital requirements to such a high level for the largest banks that they quickly decide to break themselves up. But such a path might face stiff legal resistance. As a result, Mr. Sanderss apparent suggestion that the Treasury secretary could act unilaterally might betray a weak grasp of Dodd-Frank. Or he may simply be confused about what it contains.
Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?
Sanders: Well, I dont know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
It makes sense for Mr. Sanders to hedge here about the Fed. The Daily News asks if the Fed has that power now. As we have seen, the Fed currently has a lot of power but maybe not all the power it might require to break up the banks without facing serious legal challenges from the financial industry. And Mr. Sanders is also correct that an administration can obtain that power that is what his bill is for.
Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, Im a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...
Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.
Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. Im not quite...
Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of Treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.
Mr. Sanders is mostly cogent here. This is more or less how a breakup would work under his legislation. Doing what he outlines here would be far easier if Congress passed his breakup bill, or something like it. Mr. Sanders is on shaky ground if he thinks it would be easy to slash the size of the banks with Dodd-Frank alone. But, taking the interview as a whole, as well as his past positions, that does not appear to be the path he favors.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Jayson Blair .....
Vicki Iseman NYT lawsuit ....
NYT doesn't have a very good track record of late.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)But I guess you know better than I do
MADem
(135,425 posts)Nice cherry pick, though. You missed these:
And, since you don't do context well and got this one from a right wing news source (unironically entitled Right Wing News), this one is actually defending Obama against 'spin' flung at him by Rudy Giuliani:
Keep struggling, though!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)the NYT doesn't (never mind that they LIE LIE LIE) so they're "better?"
Mmmmm kay.
NYDN's reach does not exceed their grasp. NYT makes shit up.
merrily
(45,251 posts)take it to the bank.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Using front page over the top smears to sell the rag?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)If tabloids that will post any cover they think will sell bird cage filler because they are "shocking" or "hyperbolic" enough to earn a buck, then I will consider the source laughable. Does what you posted make the covers I posted serious discussion of Obama?
You only prove the point I'm making, you fell for the bait, they don't post news, they post anything they think will sell the rag.
I hear London has a great selection of tabloids, should they also be granted SELECTIVE seriousness and gravitas depending on if the shameless nonsense is convenient on a day when they aren't dissing Obama falsely because they are dissing Sanders that day? Providing fun smear talking points put out by the David "a little bit slutty and a little bit nutty" Brock? (by the way, what a great feminist supporter he is), slut shaming a victim of sexual harassment and painting her, the victim by disgraceful tactics as the one to be accused. Where in the feminist movement did Hillary find him?
Come to thing of it, my being not white as the driven snow like Brock, I see something else wrong with him on a fundamental level, considering he did that to a black professional woman of impeccable character, I dub him "a little bit racist and a little bit Salacious" and find my statement true where his was false.
PT Barnum was right Some people will even fall for his slimy tactics There's a sucker born every minute. He was hired no doubt due to his effectiveness at his slimecraft.
I am waiting for the smear where "batboy is the spawn of Bernie and a test tube rat ovum bioengineered with a finch!!!" LOL.
Read the NYT they are establishment but can write serious, reliable news.
However since instead these sort of publications appear "weighty" to you" more so even than real papers go big!
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Rosario Dawson ... WHY She Supports Bernie...
&nohtml5=False
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)big scandal! OMG! He knows shit (this morning CNN) and now the NYT comes with this... what is the word I am looking for... BACKFIRED
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Considering what he did to Anita Hill, a black professional woman of impeccable character, and what he was most famous for saying about her, I find my headline both apt and true where his was vile and false.
I even added the "google it for them" words that may be too hard to understand considering they only read tabloid covers these days.
I think my headline could write a great article about him, since lately an eye catching front page headline is all that matters, I already did most of the work, just need a silly, eye grabbing and tasteless photo and the entire cover would be complete.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I suspect the whole campaign is starting to backfire
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)a politician that polls extremely low re honesty I agree will likely backfire and hard.
So far all her negative attacks on him have backfired, going full scorched earth I believe may be catastrophic for her. I could be wrong tho, a sucker is born every minute. There is very little that is true that is attack worthy and that which is is nothing seriously unethical in his case, he is a rarely honest and consistent politician.
There is room for valid disagreements on some points, but few of which the public agrees with her on, and with no actual scandals, only phony or extremely exaggerated attacks are there to be made IMO.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not that I blame her for missing it.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)She is not reading public sentiment realistically in the right now and it is hurting her.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and yes, it is hurting her
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,420 posts)Thanks for the thread, jg10003.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)Truth is Hillary's Kryptonite .
senz
(11,945 posts)and for that reason I do not think their attitude has changed; they are still anti-Bernie and most likely remain pro-Hillary.
They say he gets "tangled up in some details and lacks clarity." However, Bernie is perfectly comfortable with the subject and describes it reasonably if casually. It's not like he was handed a list of questions or even subjects to prepare for. A president doesn't have to do the detail work; they state what they want done and underlings do it.
They also say he is "mostly cogent" in describing his approach, but I find that phrase disrespectful. Hell, I would have found that phrase insulting in a Freshman Comp class. Bernie is perfectly at home with what he is talking about and the NYTimes is in no position to condescend to him.
For these reasons, I believe the NYTimes is cooperating with Hillary's new assault on Bernie's basic competence. It is such a joke; he is far more competent than Hillary in all of the areas under discussion.