Bernie Sanders Flopped on How to Break up Big Banks Huh? Nope…

If you’ve been stomaching the corporate news the last couple of days, or pro-Hilary content, then you’ve been told Bernie Sanders flopped big time in a recent interview with the New York Daily News. Well, thanks to folks like renowned economist Robert Reich and the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grimm, a different picture of what unfolded is being painted.

Yeah, it’s hard to imagine corporate interests misrepresenting what Sanders said, a man who is openly challenging the oligarchic status-quo.

In recent days, the corporate media and Clinton supporters, have been spinning a post-fight interview that Sanders had no real answers, when asked how he would break-up the big banks. As you surely know, Sanders has said that he would break up the biggest banks on Wall Street, so you know, civilization isn’t beholden to them.

Well, here is some what of what Reich and Grimm had to say about the argument Sanders dropped the ball in the interview.

Here is some of what Reich had to say on Facebook:

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.

And here is some of what Grimm relayed in his Huffington Post article:

In fact, in several instances, it’s the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details.

 

Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

 

This is true, as economist Dean Baker, Peter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.

 

As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve…

Yup. Sometimes, just sometimes, the internet can be a beacon of progressive light…

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s