Kinda reminds me of the Donald Trump interview with the WaPo Editorial Board………
See what The DOnald and Bernie don’t seem to understand….is that AFTER the ‘revolution’ – we need to know how you are going to actually govern……
Talking points are not policy.
Details matter and neither The Donald nor Bernie have actual details.
‘Bernie Sanders sat down with the New York Daily News editorial board on Monday, seeking their endorsement in the upcoming April 19 Empire State primary’.
‘It did not go well for the senator from Vermont’.
‘There’s more — lots more — including an exchange over what law, exactly, Wall Street executives broke during the economic collapse and how Sanders would actually prosecute them. But the two passages above give you some idea of how the bulk of the interview went’:
‘The Daily News pressing Sanders for specifics and asking him to evaluate the consequences of his proposals, and Sanders, largely, dodging as he sought to scramble back to his talking points’.
Daily News: “And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase”?
Sanders: “Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It’s an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to”.
“You’ve got head of, I think it’s, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let’s talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there. …”
Daily News: Okay. “Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it”?
Sanders: “How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail”.
Daily News: “But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority”?
Sanders: “Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it”.
‘And this back-and-forth over the consequences of forcing the closure or fundamental reorganization of the big banks’:
Daily News: “So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have … JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of …”
Sanders: “What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States”
Daily News: “I get that point. I’m just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don’t understand. So, what I’m asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go”?
Sanders: “I’m not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank”.