Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bernie Sanders "Congress doesn't regulate banks, banks regulate congress."
FRI MAY 18, 2012 AT 10:45 AM PDT
Bernie Sanders "Congress doesn't regulate banks, banks regulate congress." Must see
byMinistryOfTruth
An outstanding segment of the Ed Show that you should see, in which Senator Bernie Sanders lays some truth on us in better words than I could regarding the Too Big To Fail banks, the money that controls the system, and how Jamie Dimon and JPMorganChase just proved everyone's point when we said that these banks can still crash the economy again and need to be broken up and re-regulated strictly.
Starting off the segment, Ed showed a clip of Congressman Barney Frank who made a very salient point . . .
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Mr. Dimon wanted a version of the Volcker Rule that frankly wouldn`t do very much. I think we now have a stronger argument for a Volcker Rule that says no to a bank -- your main job is lending and managing the money of your clients. You should not put
your own money at risk.
........... Bernie Sanders then comes on to state that the emperor has no clothes and that the Banks have gotten so large that they can now dominate both our politics through the influence of campaign donations and our economy in such a way that is a risk to both our economy and our democracy.
..................
Here is the video
JPMorgan`s $2 billion blunder has one potential upside. It could be
good timing, because regulators right now are writing a version of the
Volcker rule which could prevent this kind of risky bet from happening in
the future. We can only hope.
JPMorgan Chase`s CEO, Jamie Dimon, was one of the voices against a
strong version of the Volcker Rule. But, of course, Congressman Barney
Frank now sees this as a big opportunity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Mr. Dimon wanted a version of
the Volcker Rule that frankly wouldn`t do very much. I think we now have a
stronger argument for a Volcker Rule that says no to a bank -- your main
job is lending and managing the money of your clients. You should not put
your own money at risk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: The JPMorgan mess is also reminding voters how Wall Street
nearly sent us into a depression four years ago and it gives President
Obama no doubt an opportunity to do something about it in this election
year.
But a recent poll should make the president take notice. In five
potential swing states, large majorities agree with the statement:
"President Obama has not done enough to hold the banks accountable for
their role in the housing collapse." The collapse of the housing market
and Wall Street`s meltdown four years ago is still very much in the
forefront of people`s minds in this country. President Obama should be out
there, front on this issue, no doubt -- especially since Mitt Romney still
doesn`t get it.
Here`s what Romney said today about JPMorgan.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ROMNEY: I would not rush to pass new legislation or new regulation.
This is, in the normal course of business, a large loss, but certainly not
one which is crippling or threatening to the institution.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: That is just total denial.
Joining me tonight, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Senator, good to have you with us.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Good to be with you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: The circumstances surrounding JPMorgan, how big an
opportunity is this right now?
SANDERS: I think it calls attention to the recklessness and the
greed of Wall Street. It reminds people that four years ago, these people
on Wall Street forced this country into worst recession since the 1930s,
forced us to have to bail them out. And while Dodd/Frank was a step
further, it did not go far enough.
The American people are angry with Wall Street. You know what? They
want our financial institutions to invest in the real economy. They want
Wall Street to be lending money to businesses, so we can create jobs. They
do not want Wall Street involved in a gambling casino, waging risky bets,
and losing substantial sums of money and threatening the entire economy
SCHULTZ: How hard is it going to be for the Senate to do what the
American people want them to do when Wall Street is so terribly influential
and some say the banks own the Senate?
SANDERS: Ed, let me tell you what many others might not tell you.
You know, some people think, well, gee, the Congress regulates Wall Street.
I think the truth is that Wall Street regulates the Congress.
They have untold, unlimited amounts of money, money which is used to
get the deregulation -- you recall during the `90s, in a bipartisan way, to
get the deregulation which drove us into the brink of financial collapse.
They have all kinds of lobbyists on Wall Street. They make all kinds of
campaign contributions, so it will be hard.
But on the other hand, as your polls show, the American people
understand how dangerous Wall Street can be. They want Congress to stand
up and if we do what the American people want, it will be the right thing.
SCHULTZ: All right. What do you want to do? You want to break up
the banks?
SANDERS: Here`s what I want to do. For a start, you need to re-
regulate. You need to re-regulate. You need to bring back Glass-Steagall.
You need to say that if we`re providing federal insurance for large
banks, you know why? You can`t go gambling. You`ve got invest in the
economy.
SCHULTZ: Commercial and investment banks have to be designated.
SANDERS: If investment banks want to invest, get involved in Las
Vegas-type activity, let them do it, but not with federal insurance.
SCHULTZ: And how big a chance is that becoming a reality?
SANDERS: Well, I think our friend Jamie Dimon may have made it
easier.
SCHULTZ: OK.
SANDERS: So here`s the point, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Yes?
SANDERS: So invest, whatever you want to do, but don`t come crawling
from the federal government for insurance. That`s the key issue here.
SCHULTZ: Well, you have the big getting bigger after what happened
on Wall Street.
SANDERS: All right. Here`s what you got -- and I want the American
people to hear this. Today, you have three out of the four largest banks
bigger than we were before we bailed them out.
SCHULTZ: Three of the four?
SANDERS: Yes.
SCHULTZ: Bigger than we were?
SANDERS: Yes. Significantly, also, you have the six largest
financial institutions have assets of over $9 trillion, which is the
equivalent of two-thirds of the assets -- equivalent to two-thirds of the
assets of GDP of the United States of America.
So stop for a minute. When you have institutions that large,
JPMorgan Chase, over $2 trillion, while some will say, we`re never going to
bail them out again, right? We`re going to let them fail -- I don`t think
that`s the case. That`s the danger, when they`re that big, if they go
under, with they will be bailed out again.
Number two, if Teddy Roosevelt was alive right now and saw that the
top six banks provided half the mortgages in America and two-thirds of the
credit cards, what do you think a good Republican like Teddy Roosevelt
would have said?
SCHULTZ: We would have gone after it, no doubt.
SANDERS: He would have said, break them up. They`re dangerous to
the economy. They`re dangerous to us (ph).
SCHULTZ: Sixty-nine percent of the American people own homes.
Doesn`t common sense come to play with lawmakers, why would you want to
gamble with that part of the economy? Why would you give people the
license to do that?
Now, they could go back tonight and do it again. Byron Dorgan was
here last night, and he says they`re all doing it.
SANDERS: Mm-hmm.
SCHULTZ: When`s the Senate going to wake up? You`re there. Where`s
the other 99?
SCHULTZ: Is it a political winner for the president to just hammer
this on the campaign trail?
SANDERS: Ed, in my humble opinion, if when the president first took
office -- and I`ve got to tell you, Byron Dorgan and I and others went to
the White House, a half a dozen of us, we went and said, this is three
years ago, "Mr. President, you`ve got to stand up to Wall Street."
You tell me, Ed, how many of these guys have gone to jail?
SCHULTZ: Well, none of them have gone to jail.
SANDERS: What kind of punishment has been rendered for the
horrendous damage they have done to millions and millions people? Nothing
at all. Virtually nothing at all.
And what they are coming back stronger than ever with Citizens
United, they now have unlimited sums of money to political campaigns.
Now, there`s another issue that I want to touch on. And that is you
have a situation where the Fed, of course, is supposed to be regulating the
large financial institutions, and then you have the absurdity of having
somebody like Jamie Dimon, a member of the New York Fed.
SCHULTZ: You want to get him out of there. You`re going to
introduce legislation to do that?
SANDERS: We`ll have legislation next week ending this absurd
conflict of interest.
SCHULTZ: OK. Senator, good to have you with us. Thanks so much.
SANDERS: Good to be with you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: It is a subject that we have to spend a lot of time on and
good timing, because regulators right now are writing a version of the
Volcker rule which could prevent this kind of risky bet from happening in
the future. We can only hope.
JPMorgan Chase`s CEO, Jamie Dimon, was one of the voices against a
strong version of the Volcker Rule. But, of course, Congressman Barney
Frank now sees this as a big opportunity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Mr. Dimon wanted a version of
the Volcker Rule that frankly wouldn`t do very much. I think we now have a
stronger argument for a Volcker Rule that says no to a bank -- your main
job is lending and managing the money of your clients. You should not put
your own money at risk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: The JPMorgan mess is also reminding voters how Wall Street
nearly sent us into a depression four years ago and it gives President
Obama no doubt an opportunity to do something about it in this election
year.
But a recent poll should make the president take notice. In five
potential swing states, large majorities agree with the statement:
"President Obama has not done enough to hold the banks accountable for
their role in the housing collapse." The collapse of the housing market
and Wall Street`s meltdown four years ago is still very much in the
forefront of people`s minds in this country. President Obama should be out
there, front on this issue, no doubt -- especially since Mitt Romney still
doesn`t get it.
Here`s what Romney said today about JPMorgan.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ROMNEY: I would not rush to pass new legislation or new regulation.
This is, in the normal course of business, a large loss, but certainly not
one which is crippling or threatening to the institution.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: That is just total denial.
Joining me tonight, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Senator, good to have you with us.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Good to be with you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: The circumstances surrounding JPMorgan, how big an
opportunity is this right now?
SANDERS: I think it calls attention to the recklessness and the
greed of Wall Street. It reminds people that four years ago, these people
on Wall Street forced this country into worst recession since the 1930s,
forced us to have to bail them out. And while Dodd/Frank was a step
further, it did not go far enough.
The American people are angry with Wall Street. You know what? They
want our financial institutions to invest in the real economy. They want
Wall Street to be lending money to businesses, so we can create jobs. They
do not want Wall Street involved in a gambling casino, waging risky bets,
and losing substantial sums of money and threatening the entire economy
SCHULTZ: How hard is it going to be for the Senate to do what the
American people want them to do when Wall Street is so terribly influential
and some say the banks own the Senate?
SANDERS: Ed, let me tell you what many others might not tell you.
You know, some people think, well, gee, the Congress regulates Wall Street.
I think the truth is that Wall Street regulates the Congress.
They have untold, unlimited amounts of money, money which is used to
get the deregulation -- you recall during the `90s, in a bipartisan way, to
get the deregulation which drove us into the brink of financial collapse.
They have all kinds of lobbyists on Wall Street. They make all kinds of
campaign contributions, so it will be hard.
But on the other hand, as your polls show, the American people
understand how dangerous Wall Street can be. They want Congress to stand
up and if we do what the American people want, it will be the right thing.
SCHULTZ: All right. What do you want to do? You want to break up
the banks?
SANDERS: Here`s what I want to do. For a start, you need to re-
regulate. You need to re-regulate. You need to bring back Glass-Steagall.
You need to say that if we`re providing federal insurance for large
banks, you know why? You can`t go gambling. You`ve got invest in the
economy.
SCHULTZ: Commercial and investment banks have to be designated.
SANDERS: If investment banks want to invest, get involved in Las
Vegas-type activity, let them do it, but not with federal insurance.
SCHULTZ: And how big a chance is that becoming a reality?
SANDERS: Well, I think our friend Jamie Dimon may have made it
easier.
SCHULTZ: OK.
SANDERS: So here`s the point, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Yes?
SANDERS: So invest, whatever you want to do, but don`t come crawling
from the federal government for insurance. That`s the key issue here.
SCHULTZ: Well, you have the big getting bigger after what happened
on Wall Street.
SANDERS: All right. Here`s what you got -- and I want the American
people to hear this. Today, you have three out of the four largest banks
bigger than we were before we bailed them out.
SCHULTZ: Three of the four?
SANDERS: Yes.
SCHULTZ: Bigger than we were?
SANDERS: Yes. Significantly, also, you have the six largest
financial institutions have assets of over $9 trillion, which is the
equivalent of two-thirds of the assets -- equivalent to two-thirds of the
assets of GDP of the United States of America.
So stop for a minute. When you have institutions that large,
JPMorgan Chase, over $2 trillion, while some will say, we`re never going to
bail them out again, right? We`re going to let them fail -- I don`t think
that`s the case. That`s the danger, when they`re that big, if they go
under, with they will be bailed out again.
Number two, if Teddy Roosevelt was alive right now and saw that the
top six banks provided half the mortgages in America and two-thirds of the
credit cards, what do you think a good Republican like Teddy Roosevelt
would have said?
SCHULTZ: We would have gone after it, no doubt.
SANDERS: He would have said, break them up. They`re dangerous to
the economy. They`re dangerous to us (ph).
SCHULTZ: Sixty-nine percent of the American people own homes.
Doesn`t common sense come to play with lawmakers, why would you want to
gamble with that part of the economy? Why would you give people the
license to do that?
Now, they could go back tonight and do it again. Byron Dorgan was
here last night, and he says they`re all doing it.
SANDERS: Mm-hmm.
SCHULTZ: When`s the Senate going to wake up? You`re there. Where`s
the other 99?
SANDERS: Let me just say again what many people will not be happy to
hear. Wall Street is extraordinarily powerful. Congress doesn`t regulate
them. The big banks regulate what Congress does.
SCHULTZ: Is it a political winner for the president to just hammer
this on the campaign trail?
SANDERS: Ed, in my humble opinion, if when the president first took
office -- and I`ve got to tell you, Byron Dorgan and I and others went to
the White House, a half a dozen of us, we went and said, this is three
years ago, "Mr. President, you`ve got to stand up to Wall Street."
You tell me, Ed, how many of these guys have gone to jail?
SCHULTZ: Well, none of them have gone to jail.
SANDERS: What kind of punishment has been rendered for the
horrendous damage they have done to millions and millions people? Nothing
at all. Virtually nothing at all.
And what they are coming back stronger than ever with Citizens
United, they now have unlimited sums of money to political campaigns.
Now, there`s another issue that I want to touch on. And that is you
have a situation where the Fed, of course, is supposed to be regulating the
large financial institutions, and then you have the absurdity of having
somebody like Jamie Dimon, a member of the New York Fed.
SCHULTZ: You want to get him out of there. You`re going to
introduce legislation to do that?
SANDERS: We`ll have legislation next week ending this absurd
conflict of interest.
SCHULTZ: OK. Senator, good to have you with us. Thanks so much.
SANDERS: Good to be with you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: It is a subject that we have to spend a lot of time on and
I hope the American people get it.
Transcript via msnbc.msn.com:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47461651/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/#.T7Z-8K5wujM
MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/18/1092100/-Bernie-Sanders-Congress-doesn-t-regulate-banks-banks-regulate-congress-Must-see
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
