2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumObama rebukes Sanders on breaking up big banks
It is true that we have not dismantled the financial system, and in that sense, Bernie Sanderss critique is correct, Obama said in an interview with The New York Times Magazine published online Thursday.
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has repeatedly called on Americas biggest banks to be broken up, a call that has galvanized his liberal supporters. Obama suggested that such a plan is unrealistic.
But one of the things that Ive consistently tried to remind myself during the course of my presidency is that the economy is not an abstraction, he said. Its not something that you can just redesign and break up and put back together again without consequences.
More at http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/277991-obama-rebukes-sanders-on-breaking-up-big-banks
Peregrine Took
(7,413 posts)Obama hoping for a Wall Street job some day?
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)TPP is another example of OBama making his bones - for life after the WH
He's just as much a corporate puppet as Clinton (take your pick which)
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)"Impeachment off the table" feel good times.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)They cannot act on impulse on major things. Careful consideration of effects of changes is essential. In that regard, President Obama is probably one of our most thoughtful and careful Presidents in my lifetime.
I doubt he has ever made a decision on the spur of the moment.
think
(11,641 posts)Nothing to see here. In fact lets just ignore it. Surely the rules will be watered down so that it's no longer the case.
Heck if the banks become felons lets just change the laws so bank felons can do business with the government. But do it quietly. No need to upset the common folks:
By Shahien Nasiripour / Chief Financial and Regulatory Correspondent - 08/11/2015 04:24 pm ET | Updated Aug 11, 2015
So much for that tough talk about holding Wall Street accountable for its crimes.
With the blessing of the White House and the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is attempting to sneak through a major policy change that would enable big banks convicted of felonies to continue lending through a federal mortgage program, according to federal records and government officials.
The housing agency wants to quietly delete a requirement for lenders to certify they havent been convicted of violating federal antitrust laws or committing other serious crimes. HUD proposed the move on May 15, without detailing the reasoning behind the change. Its now considering public comment, with an eye towards finalizing the proposal.
Five years after lawmakers and the Obama administration said the Dodd-Frank financial reform law would end the problems caused by banks perceived to be too big to fail, HUDs move could represent yet another capitulation from federal officials who want to appear to be tough on Wall Streets crimes, but dont want big banks to suffer the consequences typically associated with felony convictions.
The main beneficiaries of the proposal would be JPMorgan Chase, the nations largest bank with more than $2.4 trillion in assets, and Citigroup, the third-largest U.S. bank with $1.8 trillion in assets, according to Federal Reserve data...
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-hud-big-banks_us_55c4f2f2e4b0923c12bcc4b1
Any problem can easily disappear. Why get all worked up about it....
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)to act. He must be big on incrementalism like his buddy Hillary.
He is thoughtful and careful? Really? The man that said he didn't plan for what happened after they got rid of the dictator in Libya?
Oh what tangle webs we weave...
QC
(26,371 posts)think
(11,641 posts)KPN
(15,645 posts)In many respects, that's a good thing because he's done a lot of good and he's also wielding a hefty bat right now to establish some exclamation points in the waning days of his Presidency.
But he's also being defensive and revealing his centrist leanings in doing so. Keep in mind that Rahm Emmanuel was Obama's Chief of Staff and right hand man when he said "Fuck the liberals".
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)collapse will occur, it is only a matter of time. That should do wonders for the legacy Obama is oh so worried about.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the too big to fail banks alone because the people who run those banks are really mean and could do bad things if we threaten their stranglehold on the financial system. Hopefully President Clinton will continue the fine tradition of appointing one of them to run the treasury department so that there will be no hint of discomfort with a sensible centrist Democratic administration.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)There were political officers who outranked the field officers. In this instance it is the financial officer who outrank everybody else.
casperthegm
(643 posts)But one of the things that Ive consistently tried to remind myself during the course of my presidency is that the economy is not an abstraction, he said. Its not something that you can just redesign and break up and put back together again without consequences.
Can someone point to me where Bernie said this was a simple process, as Obama appears to be implying?
In addition, as much respect as I have for Obama, this is an example of where the party has simply failed the middle and lower class. The "things are ok the way they are" approach is not working for those people. The banks are once again in the "too big to fail" status. Where is the support to reinstate Glass Steagall? Certainly not coming from the presumptive Democratic Nominee.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MgtPA
(1,022 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)Bernie calls for breaking up the big banks, not dismantling the economy.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Sanders says "break up the big banks", and he seems to be interpreting that as "shut down the big banks".
His comment about the economy not being something we can "just redesign and break up and put back together again" sounds like shutting down the banks and starting over. When Sanders simply wants different parts of the banks spun off into separate entities.
Sanders suggestion is something that large businesses do all the times. The banks could have been easily broken up first by division (commerical vs retail) then into regional entities (see "Bell, Ma" and "Oil, Standard" . Stock holders would've been given the same percentage of stock in each entity. Nobody would have lost a damn thing outside the breakup expenses, which would be substantial, but hardly a dint in big bank profits.
What were the consequences of breaking Ma Bell into a bunch of Baby Bells? For the most part, they were good consequences!
Why do all "the grownups" act like this is something radical?
G_j
(40,367 posts)misinterpretation ..imo
2cannan
(344 posts)believes breaking up banks is an option.
snip
To that end, Kashkari continued, "the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is launching a major initiative to develop an actionable plan to end [too-big-to-fail, or TBTF], and we will deliver our plan to the public by the end of the year. 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."
Among the solutions he floated: "breaking up large banks into smaller, less connected, less important entities" and "turning large banks into public utilities by forcing them to hold so much capital that they virtually can't fail (with regulation akin to that of a nuclear power plant)."
From:
Unlikely Critic Says Banks Still Too Big To Fail, Pose 'Nuclear' Risk to US Economy
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/16/unlikely-critic-says-banks-still-too-big-fail-pose-nuclear-risk-us-economy
snip
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)gordianot
(15,238 posts)Which is it? Depends on the M$M glasses you are wearing at the time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511859011
floriduck
(2,262 posts)The man who chose NY Ferderal Reserve chairman, Timothy Geitner, as his Treasury Secretary, (and got such wonderful input from Larry Summers) wants to let the big banks and Wall Street firms be.
Makes complete sense to me.
Autumn
(45,084 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)Even more of the economy. Under the rules, they should be told to break up, re-design... Get the Ma Bell treatment. Many of our large corporations need a Ma Bell moment in my opinion.
And it's not as if the big banks are behaving. Goldman just paid out $5billion for defrauding people. No one is in jail. And the CEO probably got a bonus.
theaocp
(4,237 posts)I'm sure Hillary espouses the idea of what others can do that we cannot, yes? What rot.
lostnfound
(16,179 posts)Tell the banks to decide how to break themselves up - to create a plan to make themselves smaller. Government just approves the plan. But government as regulator is a theory left in the dustbin of a more civilized era.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)and this is one of those times.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."It is true that we have not dismantled the financial system"... which is, of course, a false equivalency.
Breaking up the biggest banks / financial institutions is NOT "dismantling the financial system". It is bringing the financial system under control.
Politicians choose their words carefully, in order to frame the debate. That is what Obama is doing here. It is a fundamentally defensive posture that he is expressing here, because he knows damned well that he failed to do what should have been done in response to the financial crisis.
Not buying his "rebuke". Sorry, Obama. I like you a lot, but in this case, you are the one who deserves rebuke.