Reply to Clinton Daily News Integiew

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Clinton Daily News Integiew"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]... A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president. [/quote]
Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings. [/quote]
Lame.  You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because [u]he [i]did[/i] correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item[/u], the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened).  Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.[/quote]

You claim the interviewer wasn't interested in being corrected and simply skipped to the next topic.  That's clearly not true.  The interviewer gave Sanders several attempts to explain the mechanism, even though Sanders kept veering back to his basic stump speech.  Sanders never explained, and he repeatedly contradicted his own answers.  Here's the relevant part ...

[quote]Daily News: Now, switching to the financial sector, to Wall Street. Speaking broadly, you said that within the first 100 days of your administration you'd be drawing up...your Treasury Department would be drawing up a too-big-to-fail list. Would you expect that that's essentially the list that already exists under Dodd-Frank? Under the Financial Stability Oversight Council?

Sanders: Yeah. I mean these are the largest financial institutions in the world….

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. [u]What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?[/u]

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to. You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. [u]Let's talk about the merit of the issue[/u], and then talk about how we get there.  [[i]Bernie shifts into his basic stump speech about how he thinks banks are too big and need to be broken up, but never gets to explaining how he'd do it[/i]]

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. [u]How do you go about doing it?[/u]

Sanders: How you go about doing it is [u]having legislation passed[/u], or [u]giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank[/u], that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: [u]But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?[/u]

Sanders: Well, [u]I don't know if the Fed has it[/u]. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, [u]you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that[/u], make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. [u]Well, I believe you do.[/u]

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. [[i]Sanders returns to his stump speech about economic benefits breaking up banks[/i]]

Daily News: I get that point. [u]I'm just looking at the method[/u] because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely. [u]You're asking a question, which is a fair question[/u]. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. ... [[i]Bernie changes the subject to energy policy and climate change[/i]] ... So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

Daily News: Well, [u]it does depend on how you do it[/u], I believe. And, [u]I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...[/u]

Sanders: [u]No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.[/u]

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm 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.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.[/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics