Sanders on breaking up banks: "I haven't personally studied that."

[Desroko]

I guess eight years wasn't enough time to do his homework.

http://genius.it/www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

He also couldn't name a criminal statute that he believes any financial institution or executive violated, but he's sure there is one. (And he's a little iffy on the difference between criminal, civil, and regulatory law.)

My inclinations are more towards Sanders than Clinton, but train wrecks like this interview are why I won't vote for him in the primary.* He repeats his stump speech at every opportunity because he has no grasp of policy detail. Having your heart in the right place doesn't mean much if your head isn't there also.

*I won't be voting for Clinton either.

[SillyAmerican]

My inclinations are more towards Sanders than Clinton, but train wrecks like this interview are why I won't vote for him in the primary.* He repeats his stump speech at every opportunity because he has no grasp of policy detail. Having your heart in the right place doesn't mean much if your head isn't there also.

*I won't be voting for Clinton either.

I couldn't agree more. But honestly, sometimes I wonder where Bernie's head is exactly...

[Torie]

It's odd that Bernie is not up to speed on this, since this is his signature issue - the corruption of big finance.

[Lief 🗽]

The entire NYDN interview is a train wreck. He's like a slightly more eloquent Trump.

[Lyin' Steve]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't he also want to raise the corporate tax rate?  What's he gonna do when GE moves to another country, slap a tariff on GE products to punish them?  Then he really would be Trump.

[Torie]

Absolutely nothing Bernie wants to do that he outlined in the article will ever happen. He has no power to do any of it unilaterally despite his unsubstantiated asserted fantasies to the contrary, and Congress is certainly not going to go along with his agenda of financial and economic seppuku. Bernie in some ways sounds remarkably like Trump on these matters - not in style certainly, but he does on the substance.

[DrScholl]

This makes it clear that he talks big talk, but has nothing to back it up.

[Lyin' Steve]

Wow, you weren't kidding, this whole interview is excruciatingly painful.

I got to the part on breaking up financial institutions and had to stop because his arrogance and incompetence was just infuriating me.

So much of the interview comes down to "I don't know" or "I haven't studied that" or "I'm not sure what the implications would be" or "I believe that" for things that aren't true.

This guy wants to undertake an extremely radical shaking-up of the US economy, and he's not even confident about what would happen or how it would work!  He walks around like he's the leading expert on the evils of Wall Street and how to fix him, and here he is getting stumped again and again on his one issue -- the issue he pivots to on every question because "fix this and you fix everything" -- by a couple journalists.  Reminds me of the Palin/Couric interview.

Just from the last part I read before quitting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[KingSweden]

Ugh that was painful! The concept of breaking up banks is actually pretty straightforward - you need to divorce investment banking from taxpayer exposure and the Fed system and make all investments done for clients in commercial banking a fiduciary relationship. The regulatory vehicles could be varied, but that's the thrust. It's a simple answer I'm surprised he couldn't provide.

[pho]

I'm no financial industry expert, but wouldn't reinstating Glass-Steagall essentially "break up" the big banks? If so, it's strange that he took the position in favor of reinstating it having not "personally studied" breaking up big banks.

[Desroko]

Ugh that was painful! The concept of breaking up banks is actually pretty straightforward - you need to divorce investment banking from taxpayer exposure and the Fed system and make all investments done for clients in commercial banking a fiduciary relationship. The regulatory vehicles could be varied, but that's the thrust. It's a simple answer I'm surprised he couldn't provide.

The division of assets and liabilities - which he came close to touching upon but whiffed on in the end - is actually quite complex, because it's something that current contracts and operations don't necessarily anticipate.

If he thinks it absolutely needs to be done for the health of the economy, I can respect that - but he needs to fully understand the implications of what he's saying, and it doesn't appear that he does.

The endless harping on Glass-Steagall - which again, did not regulate the shadow financial system - is another problem. Shibboleths and slogans don't solve real, complex problems - especially problems that have nothing to do with their proposed solution/cause.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This interview was positively Palinesque. If he doesn't know the answers to his signature issue of Wall Street regulation then imagine what a disaster he would be in a debate about national security and foreign policy.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

-1 for Bernie! He's all talk no action and apparently no knowledge.

[Reaganfan]

He isn't serious. The fact that he is soft on Hillary shows he doesn't really want the Presidency.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

...and Clinton has? She loves the way things are.

[Lief 🗽]

...and Clinton has? She loves the way things are.

Yes. She studied it and realized it was a stupid and unworkable idea.

[Torie]

...and Clinton has? She loves the way things are.

Yes. She studied it and realized it was a stupid and unworkable idea.

Hillary actually is quite informed on this set of issues. Maybe she has been bought off, as Bernie alleges, by Wall Street campaign contributions, but she is very well informed, and articulate in this area. That is my opinion.

[Xing]

Not a flattering interview, to be sure, and he should have been better prepared. However, I do question the intellect of those who compare him to Trump or Palin.

[YPestis25]

Yeah the interview was pretty bad, but I think we're all overreacting a little.

[Desroko]

Not a flattering interview, to be sure, and he should have been better prepared. However, I do question the intellect of those who compare him to Trump or Palin.

It was a bad interview, but he's not close to that bad.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

...and Clinton has? She loves the way things are.

Yes. She studied it and realized it was a stupid and unworkable idea.

Hillary actually is quite informed on this set of issues. Maybe she has been bought off, as Bernie alleges, by Wall Street campaign contributions, but she is very well informed, and articulate in this area. That is my opinion.

We can't keep calling that an opinion because it gives credence to the Bernie people who think they have a right to make a #HotTake in that area. Present the facts!

[Ebsy]

I'm no financial industry expert, but wouldn't reinstating Glass-Steagall essentially "break up" the big banks? If so, it's strange that he took the position in favor of reinstating it having not "personally studied" breaking up big banks.

No, not really.

[Wiz in Wis]

The thing that really got me was how he knew that the banks were too big, had to be broken up, but didn't know if the Fed could break them up, and even if they did have the authority, how they would be broken up would be "up to the banks" as he didn't want to run them??

I mean... you're saying they have to break up but providing no guidance as to how they should reconstitute themselves... what if they just reform a bunch of unstable little banks that all suck? Why would you allow that? He would have to at least have some notion of what needs to be separated from what right? Why was he so unprepared for this?

[Lief 🗽]

It's not over-reacting at all. How can anyone honestly read that interview and think Bernie Sanders is even qualified to be a Senator, much less a President. Breaking up the big banks is the centerpiece of his campaign, and yet he's apparently given zero consideration to how he will do it, the consequences of doing so, the current law, etc.?? How is that acceptable? He doesn't even seem to be aware that MetLife and AIG are currently being broken up.

On trade, another centerpiece of his campaign, he's totally unable to articulate what specifics of trade agreements are bad and that he would change. He just says they're bad and he'd rewrite them. How is that acceptable? Opposition to these FTAs is like 1/3 of all this guy talks about and he is totally stumped when asked for specifics on how he'd revise them?? Come on.

I totally understand liking Bernie Sanders. I totally understand thinking he's an important progressive voice in our political system. But how can anyone read this interview and think he's prepared to be the President of the United States?

[emailking]

Yeah the interview was pretty bad, but I think we're all overreacting a little.