RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Taibbi writes: "Ten years ago, George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as the TARP bailout. The rescue forked over $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out giant Wall Street banks that were already too big, and were about to get bigger."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)


Chatting With Bernie Sanders About a Looming Financial Crisis

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

04 October 18


The Vermont Senator just stood up to Amazon — but what about those Too Big To Fail banks?

en years ago, George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as the TARP bailout. The rescue forked over $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out giant Wall Street banks that were already too big, and were about to get bigger.

On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced new legislation on TARP’s anniversary. It is aimed at the central, still-unaddressed issue of the last disaster: the ungovernable size of the country’s biggest banks.

Dubbed the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist” act, the Sanders-Sherman bill revolves around a simple concept: If a bank controls assets that collectively represent more than 3 percent of the country’s GDP, or about $584 billion, it has to shrink or be broken up.

“We bailed these banks out ten years ago because they were ‘Too Big To Fail,’” Sanders tells Rolling Stone by phone. “Now it turns out that our four largest financial institutions — J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup — are on average 80 percent bigger than they were before we bailed them out. That’s not right.”

Banks have long been a focus for Sanders, who is hoping to use new tactics to take on old foes. He has been experimenting with the use of public pressure and journalism-like tactics — including the launch of a series of video testimonials about workplace conditions at companies like Disney and Amazon — to try to augment legislative efforts at reform.

Recent successes on that front have Sanders in a good mood. Just a month after being blasted by Amazon for “misleading accusations” and triggering a national controversy that saw much of the pundit class, along with Democrat-aligned think tanks, take Amazon’s side in the labor debate, he watched as the retailer this week appeared to capitulate, announcing a $15 minimum wage across U.S. operations.

“Look, at the end of the day, you rally public opinion, you force people to have to do the right thing,” says Sanders, who has spoken openly in the past about his frustration with the slow pace of change on the Hill.

It’s hard to understate just how much bank concentration has eaten at Sanders over the years. Beginning decades ago, the administrations of both Republican and Democratic presidents embarked on a series of policies intentionally designed to consolidate financial power.

The first major move on this front was the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. This law torpedoed restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines. These rules dated back to the McFadden Act of 1927, passed specifically with the idea of preventing financial concentration.

Signed into law by Bill Clinton, Riegle-Neal helped usher in the era of giant national banks. By 2016, Americans had 57 percent fewer FDIC-insured banks than they had in 1994. Sanders cast the only “no” vote against Riegle-Neal on the House Financial Services Committee.

The next major move was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, better known as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. A post-1929 safety measure passed in FDR’s day, Glass-Steagall prevented the mergers of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.

The ostensible justification for the repeal of this historically successful reform was that such restraint was no longer necessary. Moreover, the creation of “supermarket” financial institutions was needed to keep America competitive with giant “universal” banks in Europe and Asia.

In reality, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed to retroactively legalize the Citigroup merger, which had brought Travelers Insurance, Salomon Smith Barney and Citibank under one roof. That deal had been struck before Glass-Steagall was even repealed in 1998.

In one of the all-time revolving door atrocities, then-Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who helped push through the deal, later took a job with Citigroup and earned over $100 million as a “senior adviser” over the course of about a decade.

This early effort at banking concentration had Sanders even back then thinking about possible bailouts. In an examination of then-Fed chief Alan Greenspan in 2000, Sanders asked why any regulator would approve placing so many assets under one roof.

“Are you concerned about such mergers as Travelers Insurance and Citicorp when they form a company with assets of almost $700 billion?” Sanders asked. “What happens if they fail? Who in God’s name is going to bail them out? Are you concerned about that?”

Greenspan characteristically demurred. “We do not believe that in the event that it turns out that a substantial institution fails that they should be bailed out,” he said.

About the same time, future Treasury Secretary and then-CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson began lobbying for the relaxation of the so-called net capital rule, which ostensibly barred investment banks from borrowing more than 12 dollars for every one they actually had.

Within four years, the top five investment banks were meeting with the SEC to press for this change, and soon achieved it. Although the actual impact of the net capital rule change has been hotly debated, what’s not in question is the fact that by 2008, debt-to-equity ratios on Wall Street hovered around 33 to 1.

Of the five investment banks that pressed for the changes in 2004, three of them (Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers) would be dead within four years.

When the big crash happened in September 2008, most of the economic world focused on crafting a rescue to “stabilize” the economy. Sanders, however, honed in on the fact that any state-aided mergers and rescues would likely continue the dangerous concentration trend. As far back as September 17th, 2008, in fact, he complained on the floor of the Senate that any rescue of Wall Street that didn’t include mandated breakups would leave the underlying problem unaddressed.

“This country can no longer afford companies that are too big to fail,” he said back then. “If a company is so large that its failure would cause systemic harm to our economy, if it is too big to fail, it is too big to exist … We need, as a Congress, to assess which companies fall in this category … Those companies need to be broken apart.”

By that time, however, officials in the Federal Reserve and George W. Bush’s Treasury Department — including, notably, Paulson, who by then was Bush’s Treasury Secretary — had already moved in another direction.

They’d begun concocting a rescue plan, the chief characteristic of which was to double- or triple-down on the concentration narrative, using public funds to make dangerously large financial firms even bigger and more powerful.

This brand of rescue would continue in the next administration. Barack Obama’s chief bailout architect, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, had also been involved in the Bush rescues as head of the New York Fed, and had been a protégé of Rubin in the Clinton Treasury.

When Bear Stearns teetered, Geithner and other officials used Fed funds to help stuff the mess into the balance sheet of JP Morgan Chase. Later, when Merrill Lynch failed, it was folded into Bank of America. Bailout recipient Wells Fargo was prodded to swallow the toxic disaster over at Wachovia. The FDIC seized another basket case, Washington Mutual, and crammed it into Chase for a bargain price, with the state eating much of the loss.

These shotgun weddings had the immediate impact of preventing further meltdowns, but everyone knew that the longterm impact would be to further concentrate economic and political power.

For some, this created a major safety issue, as this kind of concentration virtually assures that future bailouts will be necessary. Even former TARP administrator (and Goldman banker) Neel Kashkari estimated as recently as this summer that the likelihood of a future bailout was 67 percent, absent some kind of effort to address Too Big To Fail.

For Sanders, however, the extreme concentration of economic power is a problem even if there isn’t another collapse in the next 10 minutes.

“It’s a movement to an oligarchy in this country,” he says. “Are we comfortable as a nation with a situation in which six financial institutions have assets equivalent to 54 percent of the GDP? What kind of economic power is that, what kind of political power is that?”

When work began in the summer of 2009 on the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, which was to be the signature legislative response to the crisis, everyone with a brain on the Hill knew two things.

First, the by-far biggest problem that needed to be addressed was the Too Big To Fail issue. And second, any meaningful effort in that direction would be a complete political non-starter.

Not only did the banks still own so much of Congress that such a move could never pass, but the government had long ago stepped away from its mandate to break up dangerous concentrations of corporate power.

“We don’t do [antitrust] anymore as a nation,” Sanders says.

Still, there have been scattered efforts to address the issue of economic concentration. Sanders issued his first attempt at a bill to break up the banks in November 2009. Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Ted Kaufman of Delaware also introduced an amendment to Dodd-Frank that mandated breakups of over-large companies based on simple, numerical caps.

That bill was walloped in the Senate, 61-33, with 27 Democrats voting against it, often using some version of a “size doesn’t matter” argument. “Size is not the appropriate restriction,” is how Virginia Democrat Mark Warner put it.

Brown, Sanders and California’s Sherman over the years kept at it, introducing different proposals to target Too Big To Fail banks. A consistent problem with these efforts has been a lack of support within the Democratic Party, whose economic policies have been dominated by the same Rubin-Geithner-Lawrence Summers Wall Street-friendly ideology (what one financial analyst friend of mine deems the “Rubino crime family”) for two-and-a-half decades now. It will require massive voter repudiation of these ties on the Democrat side to even begin to take real action on these ideas.

Sanders has been consistently ripped by Democrats for his bank-breakup concepts. During the 2016 campaign, when the official position of the party and the Clinton campaign was that shadow banking had caused the crisis, Barney Frank went so far as to pen an editorial for the Washington Post saying “Too Big To Fail is an Empty Phrase.”

Pundits piled on. The Financial Times claimed Sanders had “struggled to articulate how” he would go about a breakup, and claimed Fed reports had described the banking system as safer since Dodd-Frank. Slate said it was “hard to take Bernie Sanders seriously” on this issue.

Today, however, Sanders feels like he has a new weapon in the effort to bring about change on matters the public cares about. Amazon represents an example of how his office feels it can bypass the logjam both on the Hill and in the press, and take issues directly to the public.

“We changed the office around to a television station, Sanders Broadcasting,” he says, laughing. “You know, we do our agitation and we rally people.”

Sanders wants to use these tools to make the concentration of financial power among certain companies a leading issue for Democrats heading into the 2020 election season. The new bill would affect the six richest banks in the country — JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley.

“We’re going to have to reeducate people,” Sanders says. “This is the ten-year anniversary of economic calamity that resulted in millions of peoples lives being radically altered for the worst. Losing jobs, losing their homes, losing their life’s savings. It was a cataclysmic impact on our entire society.”

He adds: “We think that breaking up any financial institutions [that have] assets of more than 3 percent of GDP — which is about 580 billion dollars — is the right thing to do. It’s what should have been done a long time ago.”

Looking back at the catastrophe of three decades of concentration, it’s hard to conclude that he’s wrong. At the very least, the public is likely to agree with him on this score. Let’s hope that this time around, the Democrats realize this in time for the presidential election.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+61 # ER444 2018-10-04 13:21
My retirement will be much more difficult financially because of the money I lost in 2008. It is too late for me, but I beg you for the sake of my son and his friends to do something now before it too late AGAIN. The signs are there, the storm is brewing. It scares the hell out of me.
 
 
+8 # wrknight 2018-10-06 06:06
The fundamental problem is that we are living in a country that lives by the Golden Rule - that is "He who has the gold, rules".

So long as we allow those who govern to be governed by those how have the gold, nothing will change.
 
 
+73 # Moxa 2018-10-04 14:03
The public will agree with Sanders; the Democratic establishment will not. Assuming Bernie runs in 2020 it will be a question of who prevails. Eventually, the issue may become so hot with the public that Democrats are forced to go along with it--in the same way that so many 2020 Democratic hopefuls have--verbally at least--opted for universal healthcare--unt hinkable without Bernie's massive influence.

Bernie is the one remaining hope for this country. Most of the other potential candidates are not even in the same universe
as he is. I think he is the only one who recognizes that the status quo is fundamentally rotten.
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2018-10-04 23:24
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the public agrees with Bernie Sanders on this issue. It isn't the Democratic establishment, those evil supporters of Crooked Hillary (raise cross; brandish holy water) who'll be the chief obstacle to breaking up the big banks; it's the Republicans.

Relying on a magic socialist to somehow, at age 78, win the White House and bring in with him a "progressive" Congress which will break up the big banks is a pipe dream. We don't even know whether Sanders will still be alive in 2020. Therefore, if he really is "the one remaining hope for this country," it's time to start packing our go-bags in preparation for fleeing--before Trump seals off the country, north, east and west as well as south, to prevent anyone from EITHER coming in or leaving.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2018-10-05 15:11
Now ericlipps. You are near Pavlovian at the mention of a certain ah, “magical socialist”. And it is to the detriment of your attempts to supply well thought out commentary. You simply need to work more diligently at containing these emotional outbursts.

First, real politic. Holy water is in short supply these days even amongst those with belief in it. Second, both parties included planks in their 2016 platforms supporting a new Glass Steagall. Does this not indicate some bipartisan support? Next, these ideas do not require the election of a 78 year old “magic socialist”. They require electing Congressional representatives who support the effort.

Now, before you flee with your “go-bag”, I once more ask you to supply us with your thoughts as to how we might elect such folks.

Though I as I’m sure others, always look forward to your amusing asides, it would be so much to our benefit if you would share some positive ideas for approaching our dilemmas.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2018-10-05 18:54
"Second, both parties included planks in their 2016 platforms supporting a new Glass Steagall. Does this not indicate some bipartisan support?"

No, it suggests that the misleaders of both parties were lying barefaced through their teeth.

And while I disagree with ericlipps the better part of the time, and consider Sanders a bit timid on issues other than banking (on which I as an economist agree with him) I think counting on ANYONE to save us is whistling past the graveyard. One of the erstwhile Garrison Keillor's fictitious sponsors was "Xavier Onassis," but we will do so collaboratively (i.e., collectively) or not at all.

Other wise, yes.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2018-10-06 12:57
Au contraire econo.

There is within the GOP liberty caucus a number of those in favor of a new GS and they are joined by their progressive counterparts on the left. Too few of course, but better than none. Hence, it is quite correct to point out ericlipps defiency in deflecting blame from the neolibs onto the republicans.

Your description of the “misleaders” of both parties is apt, though different from what our esteemed friend ericlipps said. Our agreement about prevaricating “misleaders” does not preclude the fact that there exists a wellspring of bipartisan support for such legislation awaiting better leadership. Which is the point of my frequent though neglected efforts to engage ericlipps in ways and means we might elect fewer “misleaders” and more who adhere to the positions we desire.

Unfortunately ericlipps desired positions other than a salute to a defeated candidate are unknown. To date, he is reluctant to share them.

Nor do I accept our esteemed friends charge that folks see Bernie Sanders as a “savior” any more or less than his apparent enthrallment with a certain defeated Dem candidate as a defilement of the Queen Mother.

“St Bernie” is an assignation invented by our friends overwrought reaction to the political defeat of his ah, “savior”. It’s cute in a middle schoolish sort of way, but not reflective of serious political thought.
 
 
+15 # susanlno 2018-10-05 00:37
The truth is that most of the other "progressive" candidates aren't really progressive. I get e-mails demanding that I endorse as "progressives" policitians who are actually right-wing ("centrist") corporate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Claire McCaskill, and Tim Kaine. The Democratic Party, a profoundly corporate organization, is trying to make the term "progressive" as meaningless a label as "centrist" has become.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2018-10-05 19:00
Don't get me started, especially tonight. Had the Democratic party misleadership not descended into fear and timidity after their losses in 1968 and 1972 (or for that matter, during those campaigns), we would not be worrying about fascism today. Of course it's not that simple, and the Democratic misleadership is not the only problem. But as we math geeks say, it night not have been necessary, but it was sufficient.
 
 
+12 # wrknight 2018-10-05 03:20
Unfortunately, the "public" will not agree as most of the "public" is so ill informed that they can't understand what's happening to them. Just look at the Trump supporters. Then look at the majority of Americans that don't bother to vote. Even in this politically hot election year it is unlikely that the election turnout will exceed 50%. There's your real "public".

We have dumbed down education, news and entertainment to the point that the vast majority of Americans, the "public", are clueless.
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2018-10-05 14:35
Quoting wrknight:
Unfortunately, the "public" will not agree as most of the "public" is so ill informed that they can't understand what's happening to them. Just look at the Trump supporters. Then look at the majority of Americans that don't bother to vote. Even in this politically hot election year it is unlikely that the election turnout will exceed 50%. There's your real "public".

We have dumbed down education, news and entertainment to the point that the vast majority of Americans, the "public", are clueless.


Ha! A good chuckle is always appreciated.

The “average” member of the public is not a political junkie, retired, or even semi-retired. They have time constraints many of their critics do not.

They are working, trying their best to raise their families, generally active in what time they have, in local activities and surprisingly tuned into local issues that actually effect them on a day to day basis. Most of them are not “dumbed down” and are somewhat resentful at that characterizatio n. Hint: remember a certain recent usage of “deplorables”.

Now, into this we might factor that since elections began a couple of centuries ago ago or so, losers can be counted on to lament the “stupidity” of those who vote against them. Like the sun coming up in the east.

I tread lightly with the mild suggestion that better appeals might be made to win elections than “vote for us or you are stupid”.
 
 
+8 # Michaeljohn 2018-10-05 18:18
"The “average” member of the public is not a political junkie, retired, or even semi-retired. They have time constraints many of their critics do not."

And yet, according to TV ratings, they have plenty of time to watch absolute junk; generally the sort of 'entertainment' Trump delivers in his campaign rallies.

What's truly deplorable, is the what the boob tube nonsense has done to those folks over the last 40 years or so.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2018-10-05 19:11
Yep. Now there’s a campaign theme to win on.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2018-10-05 19:49
It is difficult to pin down the proportion who have been "dumbed down" by our educational system as a whole, including Facebook, whence a majority of the populace is said to get most of its news. That system as a whole has certainly deteriorated since I was in public schools (1952-1964; a classmate with whom I have lunch every week agrees), but nowhere nearly as much as the RW vandals and thieves would have us believe, or in the WAYS they would have us believe.

This is by no means a simple or one-dimensional matter. Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is not the same as stupidity (inability or unwillingness to learn), and judgment is another matter entirely, without which "critical thinking" (formerly known simply as "thinking") is impossible. Belief Systems (BS) that rely on "The Book"--ANY book--are a further complication, though they could be seen as a form of lack of judgment.

Since the primary alternative to "mob rule" is authoritarian rule, we just about have to rely on the population at large, the reason so many of the people who helped to birth this Republic were so avidly supportive of public education. I think that in order for civilization to survive humankind will have to create new localized systems, somewhat underground as in the Bradbury classic, and beholden to no BS except reality as best we can discern it. There can be no "perfect" system, but that is what the people who study such things broadly agree upon.
 
 
+1 # wrknight 2018-10-06 05:53
What do you want to bet that less than half of American voters will not vote next month?

Do you really believe that they won't vote because "They are working, trying their best to raise their families, generally active in what time they have, in local activities and surprisingly tuned into local issues that actually effect them on a day to day basis."? Really?

If they are so tuned into local issues, why don't they vote in local elections?

How many Americans can name most of the players on their favorite sports teams but can't name their Congressional representatives much less their state representatives , city councilmen, county supervisors or school board members? (Can you?) How tuned in to local issues is that?

As an election officer, I can tell you how many people vote and how many don't. In one special, local election for a school board member not too long ago, 12 people voted in a precinct of over 2000 voters. How tuned into local issues is that?
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2018-10-06 13:33
I give you the great Jim Hightower:

“If God wanted us to vote he’d give us Better Candidates”

Have your local officials raise property taxes by 10% and watch the turnout. Or default on a bond issue. Or the school board take any controversial position. Issues or lack of, determine much of this. No major issues, voter apathy.

This is not new. Dumbed down is merely a current pejorative. One hundred years ago, two hundred, a high percentage of the population was illiterate. Votes were bought and sold to the highest bidder. Literacy rates have seldom been equal to today. We live in probably the most educated time in world history.

The people are not dumb. They possess a visceral sense that the system is corrupt, perhaps beyond repair. Not voting is a statement in itself.

If you are correct, and people are “dumbed down” to this degree, why would you prefer they vote?

Does it occur that the FF’s purposely avoided a pure democracy for good reasons, including the one you here lament?
 
 
+9 # economagic 2018-10-05 07:07
Quoting Moxa:
The public will agree with Sanders; the Democratic establishment will not. I think he is the only one who recognizes that the status quo is fundamentally rotten.


I think he is just the only one honest enough to admit it even to himself. Interestingly enough, the IMF has just issued a report saying essentially the same thing at greater length and in more technical terms.

"[Around the year 2000] future Treasury Secretary and then-CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson began lobbying for the relaxation of the so-called net capital rule, which ostensibly barred investment banks from borrowing more than 12 dollars

. . . by 2008, debt-to-equity ratios on Wall Street hovered around 33 to 1."

This is precisely the situation that led to the bank runs (and closures) in the aftermath of the Crash of 1929 but on a MUCH grander scale, and similar to that faced by the people who had bought houses under the "NINJA" or "liar loans" prior to the Crash of 2008. When any entity has borrowed far more than it owns on the assumption that its future stream of income will more than cover the future stream of payments required by the debt, it is vulnerable to any disturbance in the economy that squeezes its income for more than a short while. When payments are due and the borrower can't pay, the lender seizes and sells the borrower's assets as needed for it to be reimbursed for the loan.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2018-10-05 12:11
Quoting Moxa:
I think he is the only one who recognizes that the status quo is fundamentally rotten.

- speaking of what many don't know -
many who comment here don't even know that obama did not bail out the banks? it will come as a shock to many here that - as

Taibbi writes: "Ten years ago, George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as the TARP bailout. The rescue forked over $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out giant Wall Street banks that were already too big, and were about to get bigger."

many here are mired in some hyper-progressi ve bible that obama is conservative - only as compared to some - not in reflective reality
 
 
+10 # SusanH 2018-10-05 00:15
Breaking up the Big Banks is one answer. Breaking up with the Big Banks is another. But although individuals can - and should - move their money to community banks and credit unions, cities, counties, and states can't, because those banks are too little. The only answer is public banks, and many jurisdictions are seriously considering them.
 
 
+3 # susanlno 2018-10-05 00:28
Mr. Taibbi, the phrase is "HOMED in on," not "honed." It refers to a tracking device following a "homing signal" to its source ("home"), whereas "hone" is a verb meaning "to sharpen," like an ax blade. And, yes, I realize that you won't actually read this post.
 
 
-1 # economagic 2018-10-05 19:51
Yes, THANK you. Newspeak.
 
 
+19 # relegn 2018-10-05 06:18
"We don't do (antitrust) anymore as a nation," Sander's says.
Bernie is correct and that needs to change and should be a central policy of Progressives.
 
 
+12 # Kootenay Coyote 2018-10-05 08:42
Chief US deities: Mars, God of War & Mammon, demon of Greed. No others need apply.
 
 
+10 # NAVYVET 2018-10-05 09:04
I'm pretty sure Liz Warren agrees with Bernie on this issue--but Bernie remains WAY ahead of everyone on his across-the-issu es combination of human rights, civil rights for people of color (including Native Americans), immigrant issues, and a general respect for the US Constitution, its Preamble and Bill of Rights. Seems to me that the Democratic Socialists were correct all along! You can give yourself a moral victory and join up with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Bernie's a member, and several newcomers are who won their primaries, although they now must run as Dems.

We need to retire both the Dems and Repubs who long ago became bloated warmongering greedos, They've been losing any sense of morality, ethics (and their brain cells) and the ones who aren't lying, narcissist demagogues have lost contact with people outside the Beltway, Wall Street & the Fossileer Baronage since the end of WWII. We need to retire the Greens, too, which have always been a small bunch of elitist, overwhelmingly white academicians, and it's obvious why they've never moved out of the starting gate. Finally we must form a People's Party! The DSA could be the start. Can you imagine the hordes of people who would want to attend THAT convention--and then stream back home to campaign passionately for genuinely vital issues?!
 
 
+13 # Working Class 2018-10-05 09:21
I totally support the approach Sanders advocates. However, given the economic power Wall Street holds over our Federal Government I am not holding my breath. We should not put all our eggs in one basket. Another approach that receives far to little attention in the media is the Public Bank movement. North Dakota has had a very successful public bank since 1919. Instead of state revenue going to Wall Street to be invested worldwide, it is recycled in the North Dakota economy. Wall Street does not get a cut off the people of North Dakota's money just for being middlemen. Approximately 40% of the worlds bank actions go through public banks. Germany runs a very successful public bank. If each state had a public bank, each large city and/or each large county did also then the Wall Street banks would lose billions of dollars of skim off the public trough. Money collected from the public in the form of taxes would be invested back into the community the money came from. Legislation proposed by Sanders and others would be great, but starving the beast that has wrecked our economy out of pure greed and lack of moral compass should also be part of the solution. Google Public Banking Institute and get involved.
 
 
0 # Porfiry 2018-10-06 04:59
The present situation with tariffs, taxes, and immigration reminds one of the 1920s and the booming economy it created. And the ultimate collapse into the Great Depression. The coming economic collapse will make the Great Depression look like child's play.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN