Anonymous wrote:Why was MY Daily News asking about the Fed? Bernie and Hillary are running for President of the Federal Government, not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve isn't an executive branch agency under the President, they are separate entities, with separate governance structures, policies and rules. Doesn't seem like that's understood here.

The Fed is quasi federal. I used to work there. The president appoints the fed chair. It has some autonomy, but it's certainly not outside govt.

Anonymous wrote:It's really baffling and bewildering that the Daily News was referring to the Treasury and exec branch regulators as the Fed. The Federal Reserve is not at all the same and are definitely not interchangeable terms, and that the difference matters tremendously. And even more bewildering that half of DCUM doesn't seem to get that.

You keep saying that. Everyone gets that. But Bernie still blew that interview. That mistake by the Daily News doesn't negate that.

NP here, who supports Clinton's candidacy over Sanders's for many of the reasons NYDN stated in their endorsement, though perhaps with less of a cheerleader's attitude toward Clinton and less disdain for Sanders.

I read the transcripts of the interviews back-to-back. To me it did seem that the NYDN took a more aggressive approach toward Sanders in their line of questioning, but at least some of that seemed to stem from a current feeling of not really understanding how he would implement his platform. The interviewers, IMHO, seemed well-prepared wrt the candidates' positions whether or not they knew the details of Dodd-Frank. Acknowledging that bias, though, I think Clinton manages to come across as a detail-oriented policy wonk who probably already has drafted several policy memos and possibly even suggested legislation that she would be ready to circulate and implement within her first 100 days. Sanders comes across as a big picture thinker who hasn't yet formulated detailed plans for implementing his policies. I do think his ideas are more radical (not in a bad way), and I share some of his progressivism on several issues. But I really don't feel convinced he can make them a reality within the confines of the Oval Office. I know POTUS is a powerful position, but it has limitations. Effective Presidents understand those limitations. Bill Clinton made a lot of mistakes in his first term (and Hillary was at least part of the healthcare reform one) by not understanding how power is apportioned across Washington. After reading the interviews, I came away thinking that Clinton may be a good (though possibly 1-term) President to bring a bit more discipline to the White House and that I would be really interested to see Sanders in a position like Sec. of Labor and given the reigns to really transform the agency and make it more relevant. I feel like understanding the plight of the American worker is where his platform and policy understanding really differentiate him...and it's the part of his progressivism that best resonates with me. A powerful Sec. of Labor can and should demand a seat at the table for input into trade agreement negotiations, so he could even have a voice in one of his more important foreign policy planks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, both Sanders and Clinton believe in breaking up banks where necessary, neither of them wants to break up big banks just for the sake of breaking them up, both of them understand that poor lending practices were the root cause of the failure, in fact they do agree on almost all of the major points. Where their stated differences are is more about what they consider risk and what the thresholds for action are.

Really? Breaking up big banks for the sake of it seems to be Sanders' key position. He doesn't even say it's mostly because of the danger of poor lending practices - Sanders views big corporate entities as simply having too much power in general, so he wants them smaller just to limit their power. It's just an extension of his theme of support-the-little-guy-against-big-business.

Clinton definitely is NOT saying the same thing as Sanders.
Clinton understands all the details, thresholds, findings, and potential consequences that must be considered.
Sanders says that if somebody (Treasury Secretary, Fed, or ??) thinks a bank is too big, then it should be broken up, but the won't tell them how to reorganize.

The bolded portions are things that Clinton knows and says that Sanders does not know or say:

Clinton: ...I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.

So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is, both Sanders and Clinton believe in breaking up banks where necessary, neither of them wants to break up big banks just for the sake of breaking them up, both of them understand that poor lending practices were the root cause of the failure, in fact they do agree on almost all of the major points. Where their stated differences are is more about what they consider risk and what the thresholds for action are.

Really? Breaking up big banks for the sake of it seems to be Sanders' key position. He doesn't even say it's mostly because of the danger of poor lending practices - Sanders views big corporate entities as simply having too much power in general, so he wants them smaller just to limit their power. It's just an extension of his theme of support-the-little-guy-against-big-business.

It occurs to me that the person focusing so nearly on this one detail replicates and demonstrates much of the problem with Bernie's candidacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really baffling and bewildering that the Daily News was referring to the Treasury and exec branch regulators as the Fed. The Federal Reserve is not at all the same and are definitely not interchangeable terms, and that the difference matters tremendously. And even more bewildering that half of DCUM doesn't seem to get that.

I think some link Jeff posted - maybe even earlier in this thread - explains that there are a few possible mechanisms that hypothetically could be used to break up the banks: (1) legislation, (2) Federal Reserve action, and (3) Treasury action. IIRC, that article tried to suggest (unconvincingly IMHO) that Sanders actually knew what he was talking about in the interview. To me at least, it appears the interviewer was expecting Sanders to say the Federal Reserve would manage the break-up, especially since Sanders referenced the Kansas Fed as part of his original answer. But then Sanders said the executive could order it (which is different). And then he said the executive couldn't order it.

If Sanders understood the process, he clearly could have corrected the record. The interviewer gave him several opportunities to set the record straight.

Face it - Sanders doesn't understand the process, and he hadn't been prepared to answer on the details. He's got his big idea that he's been preaching for a while - which is fine to have - but he's never dug into the details of how he'd accomplish it. Quite frankly, someone in the campaign (Weaver?) should be kicked in the ass for this, because the campaign should have had someone investigate the nitty-gritty details of each of Sanders' big proposals and make sure the candidate actually understands them. Sloppy.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's not at all what I got out of it. He only mentioned the Kansas City Fed in reference to support from members of the Fed for breaking up big banks where necessary (i.e. Neel Kashkari and others who've said as much) but he said and implied nothing about the specifics of the Fed's role in managing breakups (and neither for that matter did Clinton). Neither of them went into much detail or specifics on the mechanics.

Bottom line is, both Sanders and Clinton believe in breaking up banks where necessary, neither of them wants to break up big banks just for the sake of breaking them up, both of them understand that poor lending practices were the root cause of the failure, in fact they do agree on almost all of the major points. Where their stated differences are is more about what they consider risk and what the thresholds for action are.

There was a good US News story yesterday on how Bernie goes for big rallies and Clinton does more roundtables and policy discussions that focus on a single issue. This interview demonstrates why, at least in part.

Anonymous wrote:It's really baffling and bewildering that the Daily News was referring to the Treasury and exec branch regulators as the Fed. The Federal Reserve is not at all the same and are definitely not interchangeable terms, and that the differencematters tremendously. And even more bewildering that half of DCUM doesn't seem to get that.

Wow,.the degree to which the apologists ate going is amazing. Anyone fluent in banking law could address this confusion in their response, Bernie was unable to because he has has only the most superficial knowledge of this subject.

Anonymous wrote:It's really baffling and bewildering that the Daily News was referring to the Treasury and exec branch regulators as the Fed. The Federal Reserve is not at all the same and are definitely not interchangeable terms, and that the difference matters tremendously. And even more bewildering that half of DCUM doesn't seem to get that.

I think some link Jeff posted - maybe even earlier in this thread - explains that there are a few possible mechanisms that hypothetically could be used to break up the banks: (1) legislation, (2) Federal Reserve action, and (3) Treasury action. IIRC, that article tried to suggest (unconvincingly IMHO) that Sanders actually knew what he was talking about in the interview. To me at least, it appears the interviewer was expecting Sanders to say the Federal Reserve would manage the break-up, especially since Sanders referenced the Kansas Fed as part of his original answer. But then Sanders said the executive could order it (which is different). And then he said the executive couldn't order it.

If Sanders understood the process, he clearly could have corrected the record. The interviewer gave him several opportunities to set the record straight.

Face it - Sanders doesn't understand the process, and he hadn't been prepared to answer on the details. He's got his big idea that he's been preaching for a while - which is fine to have - but he's never dug into the details of how he'd accomplish it. Quite frankly, someone in the campaign (Weaver?) should be kicked in the ass for this, because the campaign should have had someone investigate the nitty-gritty details of each of Sanders' big proposals and make sure the candidate actually understands them. Sloppy.

Some posters here - maybe it's just one, I don't know - seem to operate in an alternate reality.

^ Given NYDN totally flubbed on such a core concept of how US central banking works, and how the Hillary supporters went along with it, it's clear they (and you) are far more out of your depth than Sanders is. You all just accepted the spin and talking points and ran with them unquestioningly.

Anonymous wrote:It's really baffling and bewildering that the Daily News was referring to the Treasury and exec branch regulators as the Fed. The Federal Reserve is not at all the same and are definitely not interchangeable terms, and that the difference matters tremendously. And even more bewildering that half of DCUM doesn't seem to get that.

Hillary supporters only see that which confirms their biases.

It's really baffling and bewildering that the Daily News was referring to the Treasury and exec branch regulators as the Fed. The Federal Reserve is not at all the same and are definitely not interchangeable terms, and that the difference matters tremendously. And even more bewildering that half of DCUM doesn't seem to get that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. 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.

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.

Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, 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.

Can you post that exchange? I must've missed it.

Every time Sanders refers to the Treasury or the administration (via Treasury) the interviewers respond with "the Fed" clearly muddled on the difference between the two, this happens twice and Sanders goes back to correcting the interviewer and going back to talking about administration regulators. The second time the interviewers then just change the subject. It was really messy on the NYDN's part.

You keep acting as though this was the only part of the interview that Bernie was we gone. It clearly wasn't.

There's a common theme among some of you, that Bernie is always a victim. Does he have to take ownership of anything? Is he not responsible even for an interview?

I feel this way too and it's not a good look. I would have much more respect for a candidate who admits a mistake and moves on. There's always an explanation for Bernie's mistakes and questionable votes. Always. I don't think I have ever heard him admit to making a mistake.

And there's something to be said about supporters who do not question their candidate on such mistakes. You are not helping him be a good leader.

This is exactly the way I feel about Hillary. Every negative thing that is said is because she is a woman or people are unfair to her. The entire world jus misunderstands Hillary. Poor Hillary. It is so much ridiculous whining. So much apologizing. It is getting absurd.

Nope, I personally don't think she's doing a good job with BLM, and she needs to address that.

See? I can admit that and still support her. Supporting her doesn't mean that I say "yes, dear leader" to whatever she does or says. It means I generally like what she stands for and I will call her out when she fucks up.

And the Sanders supporters constantly say they do not agree with him on guns. Everyone says that. But his weaknesses in policy don't even come close.