Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:48 PM Apr 2016

Obama rebukes Sanders on breaking up big banks

President Obama is defending his handling of the financial crisis from Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and others on the left who say the White House's Wall Street reform plan did not go far enough.

“It is true that we have not dismantled the financial system, and in that sense, Bernie Sanders’s 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 America’s 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 I’ve consistently tried to remind myself during the course of my presidency is that the economy is not an abstraction,” he said. “It’s 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
39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama rebukes Sanders on breaking up big banks (Original Post) ProudToBeLiberal Apr 2016 OP
Good - shows that Bernie is definitely on the right track. Peregrine Took Apr 2016 #1
agree Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #17
He did say he was staying in DC at least until the girls graduate, so who knows? MgtPA Apr 2016 #21
I agree, that's interesting timing AuntPatsy Apr 2016 #29
Absolutely. Otherwise, the elites have no critiques of "clubhouse policy" to respond to at all. nt villager Apr 2016 #30
Yep. That's it. 840high Apr 2016 #35
Hope AND Change was so 2007. nt nc4bo Apr 2016 #2
After the election it was "Looking forward" and R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2016 #22
Presidents need to be careful, thoughtful people. MineralMan Apr 2016 #3
5 out of 8 TBTF banks are currently in violation of the Dodd-Frank rules think Apr 2016 #12
His approach to the big banks is the polar opposite of careful, it is reckless. He has had 7 years Skwmom Apr 2016 #14
“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” QC Apr 2016 #4
Not one mention of Wall Street corruption by the TBTF banks. It's like it's not even happening.... think Apr 2016 #5
Obama's in full gloss-coat-his-legacy mode these days. KPN Apr 2016 #6
and none of those Wall Street Banksters went to jail. B Calm Apr 2016 #7
the bankers should have been jailed and paid personal fines Angry Dragon Apr 2016 #8
Tells you who's side Obama is on. People need to wake the fuck up ThePhilosopher04 Apr 2016 #9
We are not trying to put them back together again, we are breaking them up. The NEXT big financial Skwmom Apr 2016 #10
As a sensible centrist I agree that it is best that we leave Warren Stupidity Apr 2016 #11
It's almost like the days of the Soviet Union where R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2016 #25
So we should leave the banks alone? More status quo rhetoric? casperthegm Apr 2016 #13
I guess "fucking used car salesman" wasn't really far from the mark. Scuba Apr 2016 #15
There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #16
We can't have any of that irresponsible FDR shit, no sir! MgtPA Apr 2016 #18
The corporatist in chief, nt. Broward Apr 2016 #19
Mr. President, I respectfully disagree. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #20
strawman much? Schema Thing Apr 2016 #23
It sounds like he is misunderstanding Sanders. ieoeja Apr 2016 #24
that is a deliberate G_j Apr 2016 #31
Even the president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve (and former Goldman-Sachs exec) 2cannan Apr 2016 #26
Obama, going to the mat for the wrong team. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #27
On one post this story is a rebuke another it is a critique that is correct. gordianot Apr 2016 #28
To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" floriduck Apr 2016 #32
I imagine the lure of the Wall Street /bank speech circuit is getting louder day by day. Autumn Apr 2016 #33
That's such bullshit. These banks are bigger and would tank glowing Apr 2016 #34
How about instead of fucking "looking forward", we tried this: theaocp Apr 2016 #36
Smart guy but that's a stupid comment lostnfound Apr 2016 #37
I don't always agree with President Obama, Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #38
Ah, the art of political speech... ljm2002 Apr 2016 #39

Ferd Berfel

(3,687 posts)
17. agree
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:08 PM
Apr 2016

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)

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
30. Absolutely. Otherwise, the elites have no critiques of "clubhouse policy" to respond to at all. nt
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:54 PM
Apr 2016

MineralMan

(146,308 posts)
3. Presidents need to be careful, thoughtful people.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:54 PM
Apr 2016

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)
12. 5 out of 8 TBTF banks are currently in violation of the Dodd-Frank rules
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:04 PM
Apr 2016
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/investing/dodd-frank-banks-living-wills/

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:

How The Obama Administration Is Helping Big Bank Felons

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 haven’t 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. It’s 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,” HUD’s move could represent yet another capitulation from federal officials who want to appear to be tough on Wall Street’s crimes, but don’t want big banks to suffer the consequences typically associated with felony convictions.

The main beneficiaries of the proposal would be JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s 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)
14. His approach to the big banks is the polar opposite of careful, it is reckless. He has had 7 years
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:05 PM
Apr 2016

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...

KPN

(15,645 posts)
6. Obama's in full gloss-coat-his-legacy mode these days.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:57 PM
Apr 2016

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".

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
10. We are not trying to put them back together again, we are breaking them up. The NEXT big financial
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:02 PM
Apr 2016

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)
11. As a sensible centrist I agree that it is best that we leave
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:02 PM
Apr 2016

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)
25. It's almost like the days of the Soviet Union where
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:41 PM
Apr 2016

There were political officers who outranked the field officers. In this instance it is the financial officer who outrank everybody else.

casperthegm

(643 posts)
13. So we should leave the banks alone? More status quo rhetoric?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:04 PM
Apr 2016

“But one of the things that I’ve consistently tried to remind myself during the course of my presidency is that the economy is not an abstraction,” he said. “It’s 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.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
24. It sounds like he is misunderstanding Sanders.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:26 PM
Apr 2016

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&quot . 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?


2cannan

(344 posts)
26. Even the president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve (and former Goldman-Sachs exec)
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:46 PM
Apr 2016

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

gordianot

(15,238 posts)
28. On one post this story is a rebuke another it is a critique that is correct.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:51 PM
Apr 2016

Which is it? Depends on the M$M glasses you are wearing at the time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511859011



 

floriduck

(2,262 posts)
32. To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:58 PM
Apr 2016

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.

 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
34. That's such bullshit. These banks are bigger and would tank
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:02 PM
Apr 2016

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.

lostnfound

(16,179 posts)
37. Smart guy but that's a stupid comment
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:03 PM
Apr 2016

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.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
39. Ah, the art of political speech...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:02 PM
Apr 2016

..."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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Obama rebukes Sanders on ...