This is why he's gone off the rails and absurdly accused Hillary of not being qualified for President, when of course, she is the most qualified person to run for POTUS in a very long time.
In a primary that have had a lot of candidates run who make a virtue of their lack of experience, this stands out.
But the reason Bernie absurdly accused her of being unqualfied is not hard to get. His own sorry lack of qualifications came out in the Daily News interview.
"A New York Daily News editorial board interview with the candidate proved otherwise. The senator seemed to have no idea of what reformed banks should look like, or whether he would need new legislation, even though the government under his presidency would play a central role in tearing apart these complex financial institutions."
"Mr. Sanders followed the interview with what was meant to be a clarifying statement. The treasury secretary would draw up a list of too-big-to-fail banks, Mr. Sanders explained, and break them up under the authority of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. In an interview with us, Sanders policy adviser Warren Gunnels said that current regulators are not applying existing authorities aggressively enough and that Mr. Sanders would pick a strong treasury secretary with no Wall Street ties to fill in many of the details."
"It’s astonishing that, on this of all issues, the campaign would need to issue a what-the-candidate-meant-to-say statement. Even then, the campaign has left a lot of essential questions unanswered."
"Here’s one: What is breaking up the banks meant to accomplish?"
"From what Mr. Sanders and his campaign have said, you could posit several possibilities: protecting taxpayers, safeguarding the financial system, making the financial sector less concentrated and reducing the financial sector’s share of the total economy. Explaining that he wants to do all of these things is not sufficient, because policies differ depending on which goal you prioritize. Regulators working under Dodd-Frank, for example, have gone a long way to addressing the first two issues without breaking up banks, a step that many experts warn may not be worth the costs. If banking-sector concentration is Mr. Sanders’s concern, then he should explain why addressing it would justify those costs; after all, countries such as Canada have more concentrated banking systems and yet weathered the financial crisis much better. If, on the other hand, Mr. Sanders wants to shrink the overall financial sector, he must explain how breaking up a few banks into a larger number of medium-size banks would contribute."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-shocking-ignorance-on-his-core-issue/2016/04/07/83a8e33c-fc34-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?tid=ss_tw
It seems to me that what motivates him as much as anything is what you call political economy, the concentration of the sector. But as the Post says, he needs to explain why it justifies any and all costs. Why is this such a high priority? How does he explain Canada?
Krugman:
"The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?"
"Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point."
"Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board."
"You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html
"A highly revealing interview with the Daily News Editorial Board last week, however, shows that claim to be utter rubbish. Sanders is less Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party presidential candidate about whom he made a laudatory documentary, than Gene the Undergraduate Stoner, who, whenever interrupted amidst one of his interminable diatribes about the glories of socialist economics, complains about you harshing his buzz."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/james-kirchick-bernie-stoner-college-roommate-article-1.2591052
In a primary that have had a lot of candidates run who make a virtue of their lack of experience, this stands out.
But the reason Bernie absurdly accused her of being unqualfied is not hard to get. His own sorry lack of qualifications came out in the Daily News interview.
"A New York Daily News editorial board interview with the candidate proved otherwise. The senator seemed to have no idea of what reformed banks should look like, or whether he would need new legislation, even though the government under his presidency would play a central role in tearing apart these complex financial institutions."
"Mr. Sanders followed the interview with what was meant to be a clarifying statement. The treasury secretary would draw up a list of too-big-to-fail banks, Mr. Sanders explained, and break them up under the authority of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. In an interview with us, Sanders policy adviser Warren Gunnels said that current regulators are not applying existing authorities aggressively enough and that Mr. Sanders would pick a strong treasury secretary with no Wall Street ties to fill in many of the details."
"It’s astonishing that, on this of all issues, the campaign would need to issue a what-the-candidate-meant-to-say statement. Even then, the campaign has left a lot of essential questions unanswered."
"Here’s one: What is breaking up the banks meant to accomplish?"
"From what Mr. Sanders and his campaign have said, you could posit several possibilities: protecting taxpayers, safeguarding the financial system, making the financial sector less concentrated and reducing the financial sector’s share of the total economy. Explaining that he wants to do all of these things is not sufficient, because policies differ depending on which goal you prioritize. Regulators working under Dodd-Frank, for example, have gone a long way to addressing the first two issues without breaking up banks, a step that many experts warn may not be worth the costs. If banking-sector concentration is Mr. Sanders’s concern, then he should explain why addressing it would justify those costs; after all, countries such as Canada have more concentrated banking systems and yet weathered the financial crisis much better. If, on the other hand, Mr. Sanders wants to shrink the overall financial sector, he must explain how breaking up a few banks into a larger number of medium-size banks would contribute."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-shocking-ignorance-on-his-core-issue/2016/04/07/83a8e33c-fc34-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?tid=ss_tw
It seems to me that what motivates him as much as anything is what you call political economy, the concentration of the sector. But as the Post says, he needs to explain why it justifies any and all costs. Why is this such a high priority? How does he explain Canada?
Krugman:
"The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?"
"Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point."
"Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board."
"You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html
I don't agree at all that having the right values and character is all matters. If your pilot told you before takeoff that this is his first flight but not to worry, he has great character, you'd still head for the exits.
That Bernie doesn't know the mechanics of what he wants to do begs the question: how is he so sure this is what should be done?
The Daily News:
"Remember that guy who lived in your college dorm, always wore a Che Guevara t-shirt, and ranted about “the system?” That’s basically Bernie Sanders."
"Throughout this presidential campaign, a fulsome narrative has sprouted up around the Vermont socialist: That whatever one thinks of his far-left political views, Sanders is undoubtedly bookish, erudite and extremely knowledgeable about the issues.""A highly revealing interview with the Daily News Editorial Board last week, however, shows that claim to be utter rubbish. Sanders is less Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party presidential candidate about whom he made a laudatory documentary, than Gene the Undergraduate Stoner, who, whenever interrupted amidst one of his interminable diatribes about the glories of socialist economics, complains about you harshing his buzz."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/james-kirchick-bernie-stoner-college-roommate-article-1.2591052
Understandably Bernie is frustrated. He's down by 250 pledged delegates and has no path to victory. And the Daily News interview confirmed what many of us have suspected all along: that he is an empty suit.
If he's not going to get out, at least don't say things that help the GOPers.
No comments:
Post a Comment