1, 2, Bernie's coming for you...

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks.

how and why do you think this would benefit the country?

When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.

It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.

Reducing bank regulations would go quite a bit further in promoting bank competition. I don't think the government should be "breaking up" private businesses. If they're actually private. That's where the "no more subsidies and bailouts" thing comes in to play.

[star seed 7]

CNS really stepped in it now 

[Emo EMAW]

All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week.  I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.

Are you disengenuously playing team politics pointing out a 4.9% unemployment number that is bastardized by politicians and does not reflect our employment situation accurately, or are you just stupid?

He's not stupid, just lazy or trolling.

[CNS]

All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week.  I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.

Are you disengenuously playing team politics pointing out a 4.9% unemployment number that is bastardized by politicians and does not reflect our employment situation accurately, or are you just stupid?

Hey, I am just repeating what the media whores are all reporting after their back room blackmail sesh's.  Admittedly, I have not analyzed their blackmail reported numbers through my decoder ring I got from The National Review. 

[gatoveintisiete]

All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week.  I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.

Are you disengenuously playing team politics pointing out a 4.9% unemployment number that is bastardized by politicians and does not reflect our employment situation accurately, or are you just stupid?

Hey, I am just repeating what the media whores are all reporting after their back room blackmail sesh's.  Admittedly, I have not analyzed their blackmail reported numbers through my decoder ring I got from The National Review.

Lemming.

[CNS]

 

[catastrophe]

Yep, I am sure that the unemployment rate dropped from around 10% to around 5% because govt jobs.

I'm not commenting on any particular president's accomplishments. Besides, they typically do report private sector growth as a figure so it is easily tracked.

[catastrophe]

so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks.

how and why do you think this would benefit the country?

When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.

It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.

Reducing bank regulations would go quite a bit further in promoting bank competition. I don't think the government should be "breaking up" private businesses. If they're actually private. That's where the "no more subsidies and bailouts" thing comes in to play.

You may disagree with it, but the government has effectively been "breaking up" private institutions for a long time. That's why any major company merger requires the approval of the Department of Justice to determine whether it would be anti-competition.

[Kat Kid]

Sanders is popular for the same reason Trump is. They both feed off the fact that people are pissed off with the current system. Both would break the mold of POTUS, but at least with Bernie I'm not afraid he would actually run the county into the ground in a 4-year term. Most of Bernie's crazy ideas require lots of help from congress; he is unlikely to get too far off the rails.

Young voters certainly feel more entitled than earlier generations (what do you expect when you tell every single kid they can be whatever they want), but they are probably not wrong in their belief that if things don't change soon the next 20-40 years could be pretty crappy.

I would personally like Bernie to be prez just so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks and increase taxes on the super wealthy.

Baby boomers are more entitled than millennials.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CNS]

Millennials want less, too.

[sys]

When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.

It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.

as you may know, sifi banks in no way have little accountability with regards to how they manage capital.  they face exceedingly exacting regulation designed to prevent (among other things) the occurrence of another liquidity crisis.  are you simply philosophically against this regulation or you do believe that less-regulated smaller banks would constitute a more robust system?

[sys]

from the hero of the big short himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/opinion/dont-break-up-the-banks-theyre-not-our-real-problem.html

[sys]

bloomie's own media's view

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-15/democrats-buy-bernie-sanders-s-snake-oil-on-banks



in all seriousness, if bloomberg won the presidency, he'd have to divest himself of all of his various media enterprises?  i hope that doesn't keep him from running.

[catastrophe]

When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.

It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.

as you may know, sifi banks in no way have little accountability with regards to how they manage capital.  they face exceedingly exacting regulation designed to prevent (among other things) the occurrence of another liquidity crisis.  are you simply philosophically against this regulation or you do believe that less-regulated smaller banks would constitute a more robust system?

I agree we are not at a particular risk of a crisis identical to 2008, but one of the issues with regulations is that you often don't understand the problem until after it happens. Plus, like the article briefly mentioned, there is an argument that the banks effectively have too much say over what the regulations will be due to their political influence.

Another thing is that the more the government regulates, the closer you get to an actual socialist model (which most Bern critics seem to disapprove of).

I personally do believe that less regulated, smaller banks would be the ideal. But that is more due to my pro-competition views than any hard evidence.

[Mrs. Gooch]

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/

[mocat]

https://twitter.com/FANMAN_KSU/status/697253005901459457

[catastrophe]

Strong rebuttal.

[CNS]

Just the other day i had wacks feeling the Bern

[wetwillie]

"Bernies got our back, we don't want no super pac!"

[Cartierfor3]

His speech reminded me of Mitch Holtis on the Chiefs Kingdom show. I was waiting for him to thank the lake lotwana lake rats and say "in Novemba, we will put da hamma down bay bee!"

[sys]

The two worst places to be in American politics Wednesday morning: the breakfast table of Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

good line.

[CNS]

Will haunt both the rest of their lives.

[slackcat]

Even when he wins he loses.  Hillary took the majority of delegates.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?

Pubs have both houses now.

And yet Obama has been perfectly capable.

Good grief. 

How so?

Let's see... Successfully doubled the national debt from 10 to 20 trillion (that is simply amazing). Rammed through Obamacare. Now regulating CO2 in addition to actual pollution, driving up cost of electricity. Blocked Keystone pipeline based purely on AGW ideology, costing tens of thousands of construction jobs. Effectively refusing to enforce borders, importing poverty by the millions. Economy has created about 9 million jobs under Obama's presidency - but the population has grown by about 15 million. Labor force participation at lowest level in 40 years. Middle east even more mumped up than usual (and that's really saying something). Negotiated a "deal" with Iran to unfreeze hundreds of billions of dollars while virtually assuring their continued development of nuclear weapons.

That's just off the top of my head.

And yes, Bernie could absolutely make this even worse if he tries to implement his redistributive policies.

Looks like consumers have dodged another of Obama's unlawful and harmful policies, for now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/09/supreme-court-puts-the-brakes-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/?postshare=3911455067610338&tid=ss_tw

Essentially, the Clean Power Plan (note it's a "Plan" as opposed to an "Act" or, you know, something lawfully passed through Congress) would have imposed significant new CO2 emission restrictions on power plants, driving electric rates through the roof.

In what has become a pretty common theme, the Obama Administration didn't really care whether it was legal or not - they just announced the plan and were counting on it being too well-implemented to reverse by the time courts got around to striking it down or scaling it back. The old "eff the law - the law is what we say it is, and we still win even if a court reverses us a few years down the road" approach.

Thankfully, in a rather unexpected turn of events, the Supreme Court just ruled that the CPP cannot be implemented until after lower courts have had an opportunity to rule. the SC similarly blocked Obama's illegal efforts to massively expand amnesty to illegal immigrants. Too bad they didn't do the same for Obamacare...

[CNS]

To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents.  I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party.  If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad).  Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.