This week, the talking point that’s going around is about how that dummy Sanders doesn’t know how to break up the banks. That he “bombed”, had “a disaster”, “struggles”, etc.
In particular, this “single-issue candidate” doesn’t know how to break up the big banks.
Is it true? Let’s break it down.
1) Sanders maintains that he can break up the big banks.
First, Clinton is the one that says current laws are enough, especially in defending her position on not reconstituting Glass-Steagall (the repeal of which coincidentally benefited her career largest donor).
Still, can Sanders break-up the banks now? Yes: [emphasis added]
“Agency heads have a lot of leeway to do a lot of things,” he said. “If you had someone who is a populist or Democratic Socialist in the way Bernie is, it would change the tenor very quickly in rule-making and enforcement, especially at the Federal Reserve. Whoever Bernie puts in Janet Yellen’s role, if they think a bank is a huge systemic risk, they along with other members of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, can break it up. Those appointments could have a real impact.”
2) But what if he doesn’t!
Luckily, in addition to current regulations, he proposes more, like the Warren sponsored Glass-Steagall Act (which Clinton opposes)
5 reasons Glass-Steagall matters: [emphasis added]
Bernie Sanders wants to implement a new version of the Act, which was repealed in 1999 after having been in effect for more than 75 years. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is not calling for its reinstatement.
3) Wall-street is wondrous, only a few bad apples!
Not to spend too much time on this ridiculousness, but just one example:
So does someone not know what their talking about? Yes.
Is it Sanders? No.
Oh, and who does Elizabeth Warren agree with? Sanders.
But hey, it’s a new week and thus we need a new talking point.
Last week it was parroting the majority’s opinion in Citizens United, can’t wait to see next week’s!
Napoleon Bonaparte: “In politics stupidity is not a handicap.”