HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Message auto-removed

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 02:59 PM


Message auto-removed

4 replies, 911 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Message auto-removed (Original post)
Name removed Apr 2016 OP
elleng Apr 2016 #1
Name removed Apr 2016 #2
MADem Apr 2016 #3
Name removed Apr 2016 #4

Response to Name removed (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 03:01 PM

1. No.

'In an exchange with the New York Daily News editorial board a few days ago, Bernie said he didnít know if the Fed had authority to break up the big banks but the President does have such authority under the Dodd-Frank Act.

This drew an onslaught of criticism from the media: "Bernie Sanders Admits He Isn't Sure How to Break Up Big Banks," read Vanity Fair's headline. "This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders," said The Washington Post. "How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?" asked The Atlantic. The Clinton campaign even said in a fundraising email "on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he's unable to answer basic questions about how he'd go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn't already have that authority under existing law."

The criticism is bonkers. Bernie was absolutely correct when he said the President has the authority to break up the big banks under Dodd-Frank. He's repeatedly specified exactly how he'd use that Dodd-Frank authority to do so. His critics are confusing the Dodd-Frank Act with the Federal Reserve. Whether the Fed has the authority on its own to break up the biggest banks is irrelevant.
Clearly, Bernie has the Democratic establishment worried enough to try to twist his words into pretzels.'


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Response to Name removed (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 03:21 PM

3. Yeah, he nails it all right--in the paragraph AFTER the one you snipped--LOL!!!

(To be clear, I have my own view, that Sanders has shown himself to be a lousy manager of his staff on Capitol Hill over the years, which doesnít bode well for a presidency, and has not shown much interest in organizing, or ability to organize coalitions within the House or the Senate to advance his agenda, outside of his audit-the-Fed legislation, and some improvements to Obamacare. Thatís troubling, but itís different than deciding heís not serious and doesnít know what heís talking about.)

Even damning him with faint praise, I have to disagree with this guy--Sanders does not know what he's talking about. And Clinton gets grilled every bit as much as he does--the difference is, she gives complete, thorough, thoughtful and detailed responses--and people have read them, and know them, and have a sense of where she stands on issues because she is articulate when she responds to queries by the 4th Estate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MADem (Reply #3)