Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Liberals are obsessed over the phrase "too big to fail" when applied to banks and financial institutions, an industry they don't understand and are predisposed to see as a plaything of the "rich."

"Too big to fail" was a really stupid way to justify bailing out banks and investment companies whose failures would have left craters in the economy, craters whose effect would have been short-to-medium term in length - crony capitalism at its worst. JP Morgan is not too big to fail; it's failure would be inconvenient in the short-term, but survivable in the long-term. However, JP Morgan is well-connected with the political elite (Democrats and Republicans).

Of course, liberals don't mind using the phrase (or concept) when applied to companies whose workforce is predominantly union, i.e., GM (whose bailout was also justified under a "too big to fail" rubric). A GM failure would have resulted in significant job losses, jobs that would have been replaced by non-union jobs in places not named Detroit.

A socialist government under Bernie Sanders would nationalize GM, claiming it is too big to be left in the hands of capitalists. And it would continue to make cars people don't want. To bolster it and force people to buy its cars, other carmakers would either be nationalized or driven out of the country, leaving GM as the country's only automaker.

Marx and his modern-day adherents (Bernie) are obsessed with managing industrial capacity. Thus, only one car company is needed. As such, Bernie would turn GM into America's Trabant, a car Time described as "A virtual antique when it was designed in the 1950s, the Trabant was East Germany's answer to the VW Beetle — a "people's car," as if the people didn't have enough to worry about. Trabants smoked like an Iraqi oil fire, when they ran at all, and often lacked even the most basic of amenities, like brake lights or turn signals." No competition meant no need to keep up with the other guys' safety innovations or create any of your own.

No business is "too big to fail." Failure is the cleaning out of obsolete industries or poorly run businesses.

Dodd-Frank needs to be entirely repealed. The concept doesn't work.

Here is what the law does:
1. Identify companies that would cause major problems if they failed.
2. Ensure those companies get bigger with government support.

If a company is 'too big to fail' you need to unwind it now before it gets any bigger.

Deer Bernie:

Will you demand that the federal government be held to the same standards as private businesses? Dodd-Franks, Sarbanes-Oxley, GAAP accounting?

It's a "yes" or "no" that I'm looking for. What we really need is "truth in accounting".

Or is government "too big to fail"?

The Bern: full on Marxist:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/how_much_of_a_communist_is_bernie_sanders_part_2.html

The sad thing is, our government got too big, with out being too big to fail.

"No business is "too big to fail." Failure is the cleaning out of obsolete industries or poorly run businesses."

So what about the fact that these business can fail due to excessive regulation? Like being forced by the Government to lend money (mortgages) to people that don't have a prayer of paying it back? The banks suddenly end up carrying a butt-load of debt on failed loans.

Liberals regard the welfare state as too big to fail, but they don't want to disassemble that.

I hate Sanders because any day now I'm going to be a billionaire.

I like Clinton because she has a vagina and thus represents half the electorate who will automatically vote for matching genitalia.

I like Trump because he places the blame for lost jobs on illegal immigrants, where it belongs, and not on Congressional-slush-funding corporate CEOs who are only living the American dream you jealous losers.

I dislike Cruz because, like the majority of people in Congress, sometimes I'm right about creepy folk creeping me out.

Bill,

That is the same thing. When regulations get so problematic that the company collapses it doesn't really matter if it was a requirement to loan money to poor credit risks or too high wage costs due to a minimum wage rule. No company should be 'too big to fail'. Anyone can be replaced. If the government chooses to make an entire industry unprofitable (as Obama wants to do with coal) then that industry will cease to exist. Layering subsidies on top of regulations to save nonprofitable businesses is just wasteful and rarely works in the long run.

I live in Minnesota, therefore I will be voting for Trump.

I'm sorry; as bad as Trump is (and he is really really bad) he's still a less bad choice than either of the two democrat leaders.

So what about the fact that these business can fail due to excessive regulation? ~ Bill at April 6, 2016 9:03 AM

Then they weren't pumped up and "saved" because they were "too big to fail." They were regulated out of business.

If the banks had been saved because the government acknowledged its error in making them loan money to high risk borrowers in order to inflate the rate of homeownership, that would be one thing, but the government bailed out big banks because it argued the banks' failures would tank the already-ailing economy.

So, instead of the truth about what caused the mortgage bubble and subsequent failure (government interference), we are served the myth of greedy banks that used political influence to prop themselves up when their own bad practices left them bankrupt.

And despite the government's overwhelming responsibility for the mortgage mess, the banks exhibited just enough bad practices and greed to make that myth believable.

It was worse than that. The federally backed corporations (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) are the ones that bundled up mortgages as an investment vehicle for Wall Street.

Banks didn't care: they wrote the loans knowing that that they would simply turn around and sell those loans to Fannie or Freddie or some other sucker. Then they could make a small profit off the loan, tick off the box that they were serving the poor, and not get any backlash if the deals went south.

When those bundles turned into junk bonds without being rated as such, that was the swindle. And that was Freddie and Fannie's doing. And those people running Freddie and Fannie? big fat bonuses.

Bernie is a goddamn idiot. Stunning stupidity. And so are the people voting for him.

He sounds like a 15-year old who has just read Marx for the first time.

Quit trying to kill my cat. I love that thing.

Amy don't sell your glass of water short.

Banks didn't care: they wrote the loans knowing that that they would simply turn around and sell those loans to Fannie or Freddie or some other sucker. Then they could make a small profit off the loan, tick off the box that they were serving the poor, and not get any backlash if the deals went south.

I worked in the mortgage division of a major bank in the build up to the mortgage bubble. We had to make the "no-doc" loans to meet our CRA obligations (usually agreed to under ACORN threats to block future mergers and acquisitions). The underwriters flat out called them "liar loans."

A typical applicant was a guy telling you his income was $200,000 or more per year as a gardener while his only assets were a 1978 Toyota Corolla and a bank account with less than $200 in it. Since the loan was a "no doc" loan (that means no income verification required or even allowed), the underwriter was forced to accept the applicant's word.

The OCC hadn't quite signed onto the whole "give a home loan to anyone who asks" trend the federal government, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various housing advocacy groups were pushing.
The OCC had certain risk levels that were acceptable for the bank's portfolio - and holding these loans would bring the portfolio below that level. As a result, our rule was "Harry never holds."

So, the bank sold the "liar loans" as soon as possible to get them off the books so the OCC didn't ding us. We had a whole operation dedicated to packaging the loans for sale and getting them off the books.

There were no suckers. No one from the bank represented these as anything but C paper loans (we weren't Goldman, selling bad loans as good ones to clients at the front door while hedging the bets at the back door). Mostly we sold them to Freddie and Fannie through the program they set up.

Say what you will, about Colonel Sanders, at least he had a successful chicken recipe.

Bernie can't even match that.

"On the other side, I'll vote for my dog or the urn containing your dead cat before I vote for Donald Trump."

You may have to hold your nose, lest you be identified as a Ross Perot throw-this-to-the-Democrats-because-I-don't-understand-there-is-only-room-for-two-parties sucker.

Your conscience might be just fine having voted for {insert anonymous Libertarian here}, but if enough people do that, you will be looking at Hillary in the White House and a permanent inability to afford medical insurance, unless you quit work and get with the government programs.

Naiveté is the only thing demonstrated by a voter with principles nowadays.

Perspective: "I'll vote for my cat or your dead dog before I vote for Hillary." Ooo! Nuance!

"On the other side, I'll vote for my dog or the urn containing your dead cat before I vote for Donald Trump."

You may have to hold your nose, lest you be identified as a Ross Perot throw-this-to-the-Democrats-because-I-don't-understand-there-is-only-room-for-two-parties sucker.

Your conscience might be just fine having voted for {insert anonymous Libertarian here}, but if enough people do that, you will be looking at Hillary in the White House and a permanent inability to afford medical insurance, unless you quit work and get with the government programs.

Naiveté is the only thing demonstrated by a voter with principles nowadays.

Perspective: "I'll vote for my cat or your dead dog before I vote for Hillary." Ooo! Nuance!

Radwaste at April 6, 2016 4:17 PM

Totally agree Radwaste. I hope the #NeverTrump imbeciles get over their collective tantrum and realize the end goal here, is #NeverHillary & #NeverBernie

The problem with that Isab is many of the Trump supporters are blue collar Democrats. They prefer Hillary to Cruz.

As a fiscal conservative I plan to vote against Hillary (or if a miracle occurs against Bernie). Who is on the other side is largely irrelevant.

In my opinion, Obama has them both beat on both accounts - Obama has done far worse than Trump's crudeness when he gave the "finger" to his opponent. Obama is far more stupid than Sanders when he keeps going on talk shows like he is still campaigning and not actually governing.

Quite frankly, after an idiot like Obama it doesn't surprise me that folks will support an idiot like Sanders, or a crude asshat like Trump.

The difference is that Obama was, and still is, given a free ride by the press.

Also, to be fair, Amy lives in California. Her vote is largely moot. The state is going to Hillary. Voting or not her conscience has no cost. The outcome is already known.

The problem with that Isab is many of the Trump supporters are blue collar Democrats. They prefer Hillary to Cruz.

As a fiscal conservative I plan to vote against Hillary (or if a miracle occurs against Bernie). Who is on the other side is largely irrelevant.

Ben at April 6, 2016 6:42 PM

I believe large numbers of democrats in this country absolutely loathe Hillary. One reason is because a substantial number of blue collar dems are gun nuts.

They will tell their SjW wives and daughters they are voting for Hillary, and then get in the booth and pull the handle for the other guy.

Hillary is in real trouble because a large number of the core democratic constituencies simply won't turn out for her.

I don't know if the democratic fraud machine in the blue cities in the swing states can overcome the complete lack of enthusiasm for Hillary in the more rural areas.

Prediction: I say Trump wins in a popular vote landslide.

Cruz wins in the Electoral college, against either democratic candidate.

I'll vote for my dog or the urn containing your dead cat before I vote for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump, if elected, would be the best President to take office this century.

Then again, so would Donald Duck.

Trump is a bombastic yahoo, Bernie is running on the Santa Claus platform and Cruz gives me the willies. That leaves Hillary.

How rich are you Jojo? I'm pretty well off and I don't think I can afford Hillary. Her going rate is in the $10's of millions per ruling.

Hillary is a crook who insists a "right wing conspiracy" is responsible every time she gets her hand caught in the cookie jar - to the point that she actually believes it. Trump is a bratty 12-year-old in a suit who insists he will be better than anyone else based solely upon his own ego. Cruz is more interested in getting his own way than in governing. And Bernie is living in a fairy tale fog and wants to force the rest of us to drink the Flavor-Aid.

At first, neither Bernie, nor Trump, will have significant Congressional support from either party for their programs - since neither is an insider that plays nice with the party powers-that-be. Hillary will have some support, but like Obama, she'll alienate her own party with her arrogance. Cruz will wrap himself in a blanket of righteousness and refuse to listen to any who disagree with him, even Republicans.

If elected, each one of the current crop of candidates will follow Obama's lead and try to use executive orders to bypass a Congress unable to work with them and tired of making the effort.

In all, none of the current candidates appears to have the emotional maturity to be president. This does not bode well for the country.