Breaking up the big banks and giving free college tuition sounds great until you think about the chain reaction these things will cause, especially to those who rely on the banks for their savings and the smaller banks who rely on the big banks for loans etc. And when you think about the college tuition, you also have to realize how many people will be laid off who work in financial aid.
Actually, I think you have a misunderstanding of what "breaking up the big banks" is. Prior to 1999, banks were restricted to essentially collecting deposits and then using those deposits to extend loans. They were not allowed to engage in investments and securities speculation/trading/etc. Some of the larger banks would set up alliances and affiliates that would engage in investment activities (like Citibank's association with investing firm Salomon Smith Barney) but there was always a separation (separate Boards, separate budgeting, etc.). Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed in 1999, which basically said banks now had free reign to operate in securities and other financial markets (including insurance). Suddenly, deposits and loans were no longer a focus for big banks. For those keeping track, Bill Clinton signed this.
So, with the larger banks now expanding into other financial activities, they focused less of their time on deposits and loans and more on the big $$ involved in investing. Suddenly those savings and loan sides weren't turning the same profits, so ATM fees, minimum account fees, and the like suddenly became the big rage. In addition, with the intermingling of data, an idea developed by the same guys who crashed the S&Ls in the late 1980s came into being: mortgage backed securities. I can go into detail here if interested, but essentially risky investments were obfuscated by popping a bunch of mortgages together into groups that looked less risky as a group, even though the mortgages in those groups were *very* risky. The housing market bursting in most areas killed these investment vehicles. Whereas prior to 1999, this would have taken down a few investment firms who had been involved, given a little turmoil, but then things would have settled and we moved on. But since this wasn't just some investment companies anymore, but huge banks that held trillions in people's deposits, suddenly we couldn't just let failed companies fail (thus the "too big to fail" doctrine).
Sanders wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, which would push banks back into being banks, rather than bank/insurance/investment-securities companies. This would require banks to sell off or spin off the portions of them that are not deposit/loan oriented, removing the too big to fail argument. The banks could continue affiliate or allied activities, but would no longer be able to intermingle budgets or strategies, nor risk our base banking structure on a bunch of unrelated risky enterprises.
Matt @ 4/2/2016 19:51
Bernie Sanders is an absolutely wonderful human being, but I'll personally be supporting Hillary as one of the most experienced and qualified candidates in history and more reasonable and logical approach to the problems of our nation.
I've posted the article elsewhere, but part of her issue is she starts from fiscally a center to center-right perspective (check out political compass ratings on her), which means that any "compromise" with the far-right wing in Congress right now is going to result in a Right side approach. Sanders provides more of a balance if what you seek is a middle road fiscally.
Matt @ 4/2/2016 19:51
Also, in what way has Obama been a terrible president? Look at all he accomplished before the congress was gridlocked and all he continued to accomplish even after his presidency was forced on the defense. He stuck to his guns and defended himself against a Congress that made it their mission to make his job as difficult as possible for him.
He hasn't been altogether unsuccessful, but he backed down on many of his promises and his "change" has often been more of the same. I can laud his accomplishments, but I can also criticize his failings. A couple big ones were continuing the domestic surveillance policies instituted by Bush, putting a Monsanto shill in charge of DepAg (after promising to label GMO containing foods), and backing down immediately to take single payor off the table when the ACA was being discussed.
How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?
You are still ignoring the elephant in the room. The huge chunks of tax dollars that will be in the hands of bloated, inefficient, and corrupt government agencies.
If that money stays in the hands of corrupt businesses, there is at least a chance for a smarter individual to get some of it away from them. When it's in the hands of the government, it requires a revolution to wrest it away.
The government thing is something that can happen from agency to agency, but in a functioning democracy those responsible for the corruption should technically be replaced/fired, once found out.
Anyway, talking from a different perspective here but government should be capable if you vote in competent people.
Essentially, Hillary's campaign is trying to reach out to "young people" using the web access portal that any young folks made fun of... back in the early 90s.
How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?
#1 GOAT
