Presidential Candidate Bernie Sander (D-VT), vows to break up largest banks during his first year in - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders vowed to break up the country’s largest banks and insurance companies within the first year of taking the oval office in a speech in New York on Tuesday. During a speech in downtown Manhattan, Sanders said that within the first 100 days of his administration he would direct his Secretary of the Treasury to compile a list of financial institutions that were “too big to fail.” Within the first year of his presidency, he would move to disband the companies, whose potential financial collapse are deemed too risky to the nation's economy. During the course of his remarks, the presidential candidate specifically named several companies when talking about what he sees as reckless and monopolistic behavior on Wall Street, including Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and others. [/QUOTE] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-vows-break-nations-largest-banks-year/story?id=36101481[/url]

I'm all for creating smaller banks that won't fuck us over if they tank

[quote]During the course of his remarks, the presidential candidate specifically named several companies when talking about what he sees as reckless and monopolistic behavior on Wall Street, including [B]Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase[/B] and others.[/quote] So basically Clinton's top contributors? I seriously hate Hillary Clinton so much lol. While I may not necessarily agree with everything Sanders says, the dichotomy of one candidate running to destroy the banks and one running as their lapdog is almost tragic.

you guys really need to vote him in, not only would he fix the us or at least get some things done. he could also put pressure on Saudi Arabia when it comes to things like human right and other international stuff

Yeah I don't really see that happening, along with some of the other shit he's promised, but god damn would it be hilarious watching some execs shitting themselves if he made it to the oval office. (Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen, just don't think it's feasible in the current climate)

[QUOTE=Levelog;49465180]Yeah I don't really see that happening, along with some of the other shit he's promised, but god damn would it be hilarious watching some execs shitting themselves if he made it to the oval office. (Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen, just don't think it's feasible in the current climate)[/QUOTE] then dont forget to vote for him. [editline]5th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;49465189]Another impossible proposal from Bernie Sanders, he's just as likely to do this as he is to implement national healthcare or "free college" during his term. If actually manages to get elected he'll just spend the next four years accomplishing absolutely nothing because every Republican in Congress will be blocking his every move, it'll be like Obama's presidency but much [I]much[/I] worse.[/QUOTE] He's actually an effective legislator. he has one of the highest bills to law ratios. or should I say amendment to law ratio. [video=youtube;-yo-JunU2dA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yo-JunU2dA[/video]

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49465189]Another impossible proposal from Bernie Sanders, he's just as likely to do this as he is to implement national healthcare or "free college" during his term. If actually manages to get elected he'll just spend the next four years accomplishing absolutely nothing because every Republican in Congress will be blocking his every move, it'll be like Obama's presidency but much [I]much[/I] worse.[/QUOTE] A large part of Sanders' campaign is to elect Democratic majorities to both chambers of congress.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49465227]And how is he going to do that?[/QUOTE] By doing something Hillary or other establishment candidates cannot do, generate excitement. In a head to head match up, Sanders would win against Trump by 13 points. That's a landslide victory in an election and would enable the Democrats to gain a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. It's happened before.

As much as I admire Sander's message, he is becoming very idealistic at this point. How could he be able to get much done if Congress is still dominated by the GOP? I'm not holding my breath for the president, but more for the midterm elections to see who controls the house.

The Banks need to be reeled in sure... but I actually don't see that happening for the next 8 years after Citizens United get's overturned.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49465305]Those head to head nominee polls are just fluff, especially this early, Trump isn't guaranteed to get the nomination anyway, it'll most likely go to a more moderate candidate. Regardless, he's gonna need a lot more than just generate excitement to get a Democratic majority in congress, the Republicans aren't going to give up their current hold on congress so easily.[/QUOTE] I agree completely. But election patterns and the position Republicans will be at in November puts them at a severe disadvantage. Almost 30 of their seats are up in the Senate, and hundreds of Democratic want-to-be congressmen are raising thousands via online donors, something GOP candidates have struggled with. [editline]5th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;49465308]As much as I admire Sander's message, he is becoming very idealistic at this point. How could he be able to get much done if Congress is still dominated by the GOP? I'm not holding my breath for the president, but more for the midterm elections to see who controls the house.[/QUOTE] He's been saying this for 40 years.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49465189]Another impossible proposal from Bernie Sanders, he's just as likely to do this as he is to implement national healthcare or "free college" during his term. If actually manages to get elected he'll just spend the next four years accomplishing absolutely nothing because every Republican in Congress will be blocking his every move, it'll be like Obama's presidency but much [I]much[/I] worse.[/QUOTE] that isn't a good enough reason to not vote, for me, really, especially when the other alternative is a clown.

Another important thing to consider is that four Supreme Court seats are up for reassignment after the election. If we get a party Republican in office, we've got four more Scalias to deal with. So a Republican election is just generally a bad thing this year. The good news is that Trump is basically the face of the Republican party right now, and he's keeping eyes away from the lesser crazies in the party. Since there aren't any real moderates running in the party this cycle, Trump's presence is not entirely a bad thing. Sanders actually has a fairly solid chance thus far, we should very much hope he keeps it.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49465495] He's been saying this for 40 years.[/QUOTE] And it's sad that during his tenure he was not able to reign in the corporate banks. He was heard pretty much after the fact that our megabanks gambled away peoples' money in the bubble of '07.

This has to be the most retarded approach I have heard in my fucking life. We need to make it so the states have their own banks, so that all finances are managed more openly and within public view. Not only that, but having state banks means that states become responsible for the amount of funds they have, and are forced to play within the budget.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49465518]This has to be the most retarded approach I have heard in my fucking life. We need to make it so the states have their own banks, so that all finances are managed more openly and within public view. Not only that, but having state banks means that states become responsible for the amount of funds they have, and are forced to play within the budget.[/QUOTE] But then we have to get rid of Credit Unions and the like as well, and I love my credit unions. No-fees checking is the best. But breaking up corporate banks that are too big to fail is a fantastic idea, and separating the investment system from the savings and loan system means banks are ultimately much safer as a result. It's what we should have done after we started noticing the recession, but Obama never would have stood a chance against his congress. Corporate banks aren't a serious issue as long as they don't get too big. Now that the major corporate banks are big enough to cause serious impacts on the economy, it's a good idea to break them into smaller, more manageable chunks.

I'm not sure how this would be constitutional. The argument isn't that they're a monopoly. So They can't really use anti-trust laws.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49465538]I'm not sure how this would be constitutional.[/QUOTE] How would it not be? Mind pointing out either a line in the constitution or an amendment that prevents the breaking of banks?

Theodore Roosevelt managed to break up major corporations like Standard Oil and regulate the railroads in his time, he generated controversy yet ultimately redefined the presidency as we know it. Bernie is entirely capable of doing the same.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49465545]How would it not be? Mind pointing out either a line in the constitution or an amendment that prevents the breaking of banks?[/QUOTE] That's not how the constitution works. The federal government can't do something unless the constitution gives them the ability to do it. They don't get to do everything that isn't expressly forbidden.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49465549]That's not how the constitution works. The federal government can't do something unless the constitution gives them the ability to do it. They don't get to do everything that isn't expressly forbidden.[/QUOTE] That's... that's not how the Constitution works at all. The federal government can pass laws that don't explicitly go against the current interpretation of the Constitution. That's why we have anti-trust laws, of which there is no precedent in the Constitution (it's argued under the "ability to regulate Interstate commerce," but it's not explicit), but they're perfectly Constitutional because they don't explicitly go against it. You can't just say "that's not Constitutional!" without explaining why. Also, the federal government has the Constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce, so they can break up banks along those lines. That's how Jackson and Roosevelt broke up their respective organizations.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49465571]That's... that's not how the Constitution works at all. The federal government can pass laws that don't explicitly go against the current interpretation of the Constitution. That's why we have anti-trust laws, of which there is no precedent in the Constitution, but they're perfectly Constitutional because they don't explicitly go against it. You can't just say "that's not Constitutional!" without explaining why.[/QUOTE] You're just wrong about that. The constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government, and the 10th amendment leaves everything else up to the states. When taken to the courts for a law, the feds need to justify it's constitutionality by showing where the constitution gives them the power to do what they're doing. A lot of economic related laws are justified under the so called "commerce clause." The constitution allows the government to regulate inter-state commerce, and through that single line a crazy number of powers have been allowed for the federal government. I'm actually not sure what clause was used to justify the trust-busting in the early progressive era, probably the commerce clause, though. I suspect that Sanders would need to get a Sherman Act like bill passed that gave them the power to bust "too big to fail" businesses, and then take that bill through the long process of court appeals before they would actually be able to act on it. I don't think they would already have the justification under already existing bills. It definitely doesn't work under the Sherman Act because that specifically is about monopolies.

No-no. I mean a state bank like the [URL="https://bnd.nd.gov/"]Bank of North Dakota[/URL]. One which manages finances for the local government, puts funding into local economies, and encourages government-controlled industries. The Bank of North Dakota operates quiet a great deal of loans for college and stuff up here in North Dakota, not to mention they allow you to pay back your loans overtime via state taxes. Pretty awesome system. As for the government-controlled industries, if you have ever had flour from the "North Dakota Mill" you were legitimately getting flour and other baked goods directly from the North Dakota state government through the Bank of North Dakota's financial control of the mill and all those funds go back to paying North Dakotans, as well as financing conservation programs among other things. [t]https://www.ndmill.com/store/images/flour.gif[/t]

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49465611]No-no. I mean a state bank like the [URL="https://bnd.nd.gov/"]Bank of North Dakota[/URL]. One which manages finances for the local government, puts funding into local economies, and encourages government-controlled industries. The Bank of North Dakota operates quiet a great deal of loans for college and stuff up here in North Dakota, not to mention they allow you to pay back your loans overtime via state taxes. Pretty awesome system. As for the government-controlled industries, if you have ever had flour from the "North Dakota Mill" you were legitimately getting flour and other baked goods directly from the North Dakota state government through the Bank of North Dakota's financial control of the mill and all those funds go back to paying North Dakotans, as well as financing conservation programs among other things. [t]https://www.ndmill.com/store/images/flour.gif[/t][/QUOTE] now this is awesome

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49465631]now this is awesome[/QUOTE] Yes, oh yes it is. It's also the reason as to why North Dakota has a four billion dollar surplus at the moment, and has an unemployment rate which constantly dips below 2.5%

State and federal public banks would be an awesome companion to credit unions.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49465651]Yes, oh yes it is. It's also the reason as to why North Dakota has a four billion dollar surplus at the moment, and has an unemployment rate which constantly dips below 2.5%[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that's more to do with the massive oil reserves that were recently found and exploited. That mills total yearly profits were ~13 million in 2015 out of a total ~$7 billion state budget.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49465606]You're just wrong about that. The constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government, and the 10th amendment leaves everything else up to the states. When taken to the courts for a law, the feds need to justify it's constitutionality by showing where the constitution gives them the power to do what they're doing. A lot of economic related laws are justified under the so called "commerce clause." The constitution allows the government to regulate inter-state commerce, and through that single line a crazy number of powers have been allowed for the federal government. I'm actually not sure what clause was used to justify the trust-busting in the early progressive era. I suspect that Sanders would need to get a Sherman Act like bill passed that gave them the power to bust "too big to fail" businesses, and then take that bill through the long process of court appeals before they would actually be able to act on it. I don't think they would already have the justification under already existing bills. It definitely doesn't work under the Sherman Act because that specifically is about monopolies.[/QUOTE] Necessary and Proper Clause, most likely. After all, monopolies (our equivalent today is massive mega-corporations and these "too big to fail" banks) can interfere with the government and its execution of powers via financial clout and lobbying. "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

[QUOTE=sgman91;49465667]I'm pretty sure that's more to do with the massive oil reserves that were recently found and exploited. That mills total yearly profits were ~13 million in 2015 out of a total ~$7 billion state budget.[/QUOTE] True, but even with the oil fracking slowing down, we are still at a pretty steady unemployment rate.

[QUOTE=ScriptKitt3h;49465697]Necessary and Proper Clause, most likely. After all, monopolies (our equivalent today is massive mega-corporations and these "too big to fail" banks) can interfere with the government and its execution of powers via financial clout and lobbying. "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."[/QUOTE] What enumerated power would splitting the banks up be necessary and proper for? That's the most recent interpretation from the ACA's individual mandate case. The supreme court basically said that the elastic clause (necessary and proper clause) wasn't a good enough justification because it wasn't being used as a tool to carry out an enumerated power. That's why it was justified as a form of taxation instead. [editline]5th January 2016[/editline] There are already laws against bribery, quid-pro-quo lobbying, etc. So I don't think that would work. I'm sure they would try to use the commerce clause, but I'm not sure what argument they would make. Standard Oil was split up more for it's practices of undercutting competition and other semi-illegal practices than for it's pure market share.