Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have time to watch the video - does he actually understand whether or not it can be done under current law? Or what the legal and other ramifications would be? Because Bernie didn't, and that is the point. Citing someone else doesn't change Bernie's answers when asked about this central feature of what he says he wants to do as president.
He is the chair of the Federal Reserve in MN...Of course he knows as does the former chief economist of the freakin' IMF. He calls for breaking up the big banks as well, as does Nobel Laureate in economics, Joseph Stiglitz and hundreds of other top economists. If you actually watched the videos you would see this.
He is the chair of the Federal Reserve in MN...Of course he knows as does the former chief economist of the freakin' IMF. He calls for breaking up the big banks as well, as does Nobel Laureate in economics, Joseph Stiglitz and hundreds of other top economists. If you actually watched the videos you would see this.
Is it calling for the break-up of the big banks that is the problem?
Or the fact that Bernie demonstrated absolutely no knowledge as to how to achieve this DESPITE the fact that this is just about his only platform.
He is the chair of the Federal Reserve in MN...Of course he knows as does the former chief economist of the freakin' IMF. He calls for breaking up the big banks as well, as does Nobel Laureate in economics, Joseph Stiglitz and hundreds of other top economists. If you actually watched the videos you would see this.
Deflection, not answering my question. And the fact remains that
Quote:
Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
and
Quote:
It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
were Bernie's answers. He doesn't know the fundamentals of what he's saying he wants to do as president. You could post a dozen links or even 100 links of someone else talking about these issues and it doesn't matter what their qualifications are because they aren't the one running for president.
Is it calling for the break-up of the big banks that is the problem?
Or the fact that Bernie demonstrated absolutely no knowledge as to how to achieve this DESPITE the fact that this is just about his only platform.
Pretty sure it's the latter.
Judging by the reputation of that paper, its hard to take it serious. Its owned by a plutocrat with absolutely no interest at all in the well-being of the American people.
But lets say he wouldnt be able to answer all the legal ramifications and would have to get back to them to talk to his economic advisors. What is the big deal with that? These are complex issues, and he has highly competent advisors and excellent economists who advocate the same thing as he does.
Of course it can be achieved, and of course it will be good for the people who bailed out the banks to the tune of trillions which will have to be paid on the backs of the disabled, elderly and vets who will see their incomes slashed as a result to pay that debt. Its already happening. Its outrageous no matter how much you claim Wall Street has been good to you.
According to James Kwak, an associate law professor at the University of Connecticut,
Breaking up the big banks is twofold. First, it will reduce systematic risk created by large, complex, and unmanageable banks. Second, it will eliminate the unfair competitive advantage that big banks have, since everyone knows the government would not let them fail in a crisis,"
"It would help the economy tremendously because that would free up loans to mainstream business, main street businesses and other ventures that would help the economy," said Michael Greenberger, law school professor at the University of Maryland and director of the center for Health and Homeland Security.
But according to Kenneth H. Thomas Kenneth H. Thomas, a economist and former lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School,
"The single most important lesson we should have learned from the financial crisis is that a handful of giant entities are simply 'too big to fail' and must be bailed out to avoid catastrophic results," he wrote. "After watching our system nearly go over the cliff with the Lehman bankruptcy, our Beltway bureaucrats finally 'got it' and began bailing out systematic private and public entities. Even then, they acted in a painfully slow and perilous manner, doing too little, too late."
Didn't watch when I saw who it was by. Cenk Uygur is a Bernie shill and I have no need to listen to his opinions. If you have anything more objective, I'll be happy to take a look.
But thanks for the update on Mr. Capehart's personal life. What I saw listed him as with his ex - although oddly, things that were more recent than 5 years ago, but your link says they celebrated their 5 year anniversary. Whatever, his personal life really isn't relevant.
BTW guess who also works for The Washington Post LOL Also here is another article covering how The Clintons buy power and favors.
Judging by the reputation of that paper, its hard to take it serious. Its owned by a plutocrat with absolutely no interest at all in the well-being of the American people.
But lets say he wouldnt be able to answer all the legal ramifications and would have to get back to them to talk to his economic advisors. What is the big deal with that? These are complex issues, and he has highly competent advisors and excellent economists who advocate the same thing as he does.
Of course it can be achieved, and of course it will be good for the people who bailed out the banks to the tune of trillions which will have to be paid on the backs of the disabled, elderly and vets who will see their incomes slashed as a result to pay that debt. Its already happening. Its outrageous no matter how much you claim Wall Street has been good to you.
I'll just take the first. The president had all the power he needed to cut the banks down to size.
Criminal charges against 5-6 of the worst offenders would have paused the corruption.
Hillary most certainly isn't going to do it. Obama sure pulled the wool over the eyes of many who took him at his word and expected him to do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also here is another article covering how The Clintons buy power and favors. 
