Say what you will about Bernie Sanders

[_Kevin Graham]

The left has coined the term "Democratic socialism," to deal with the fact...

The term wasn't "coined" by Leftists, it has been around as a prominent movement since the 19th century. The fact that you don't know this just proves how uneducated you really are.

numbers are high but not enough people are dependent on government handouts to sell socialism yet.

The majority of folks who favor democratic socialism over capitalism are not dependent on government.




You've been educated on these points time after time, but appear unwilling or simply incapable of learning.

[_Kevin Graham]

honesty was not mentioned in the OP, only consistency...

If you knew anything about either you'd know that he is consistent because he is honest. People who flip flop all the time aren't honest. They say one thing and do another. If Bernie were a typical politician who only wanted to get into office so he could become a millionaire (like the rest it seems) then he would have joined one of the two parties a long time ago. As it is, the record shows he cannot be bought. No wonder he's the only person trying to get money out of Washington. By contrast, Hillary offers lip service claiming she supports that too, only because she already has all the money. Since 2007 she has made over $140 million, an average of $20 million/year. Sanders just released his tax returns and he and his wife combined for a total income of just over $200k last year.

To propose that Dictators are pliable, and inconsistent is absurd. Dictators are so predictable, we have a word for them.....Dictator.

Dictators like Hitler were pliable before obtaining power, which is how they obtained power in the first place. Hello? Do you really believe Hitler would have been such a fan favorite had he been straight up about his future intentions of mass genocide? Historians note how he pandered to both the Christians and the Socialists before dumping them after he no longer needed them. So what the hell are you talking about?

Lindsey Graham has also had a long political career - so obviously he shares the same qualities as Bernie.

Feel free to point out where I ever said a long political career means you have good qualities. You have the attention span of a spatula, or you're just trolling again.

It is still laughable today, just watch the guy....and perhaps recent marijuana legislation helps his campaign.

A majority of polls have him mopping the floors with any of your preferred candidates in a general election and you say it is laughable that he could be elected. Yeah, you're trolling.

[_EAllusion]

But how many Ivy-league educated professors were long time members of a Christian Church whose pastor said things like, “Are 44 million Americans with no health care insurance less important than ‘gay marriage’"? (Jeremiah Wright, 2005)

Nothing in Obama's writing or speaking suggested he held the stereotypical views of a traditional black pastor in general or Rev. Wright in particular, though. Obama has never come across as a social conservative of the type popular among Black protestants. Obama's political enemies have been trying to marry him to the offensive, crazy views of Rev. Wright forever. Assuming you reject that, I'm not sure why you'd adopt the inference from Rev. Wright's views to Obama's in this one particular case.

For a liberal professor of an elite school turned liberal politician residing in one of the most liberal areas of the country to genuinely oppose gay marriage is about as surprising in 2008 as it would be in 2016. It's not impossible, but it's also radically opposed to expectations.

Your argument seems to be that Obama always supported gay marriage, but he pretended not to in his earlier political years. I just don't see why, if an entire nation has obviously evolved on an issue, that it has to be a crazy "coincidence" when people in politics do as well.

Obama is not representative of the entire nation. Gay marriage was wildly popular in the cohorts Obama belonged to. Opposing gay marriage in 2008 is the sort of thing a college professor would be wise to keep to himself. What America had to "evolve" on involved catching up with their views. My argument is two-pronged. One, Obama held the sorts of views and biography that would be highly predictive of gay marriage support in 2008. Two, Obama's "evolving" language is awkward and weird outside of the context of trying to signal to gay marriage supporters that he's with them and will come out in support when the time is right. You can add a third prong in that Obama came out in support of gay marriage pretty much exactly when the political winds shifted to that being a favorable thing to do. Whata coiniky-dink.

Obama has misled about other positions he holds out of political convenience . I'm not sure why this one is a hill you prefer to die on.

[_honorentheos]

Obama came out in support of marriage equality in May 2012 when the republican field was trying hard to out crazy one another over civil liberty issues. Just making sure we keep the facts in front of us.

Again, this sounds a lot like the conservative narrative against the Clinton's going back decades. It's a meme away from being something your mom would have posted on her Facebook during the Benghazi hearings.

Why not some point or other as to how you think Bernie will actually enact Dodd Frank better than Hillary would be able to? I'm not bagging on Bernie. If he wins the nomination he has my vote without question right now. But I don't see what makes him the preferred candidate when it comes down to doing what's in the job description. Sometimes it may as well be people saying outright they like a person's smile or would prefer to drink a beer with one candidate over any other.

The Dodd Frank question seems simple as well as meaningful. So...?

I'm not sure why for you, the implementation of Dodd-Frank will be the deal breaker.

Rather than seeing it as a deal-breaker, I see it as a bell weather. The reason is pretty simple, too. Major planks of Sander's platform are based on things I support, such as addressing increasing income inequality and equal access to opportunity that is lost when our society becomes as economoically stratified as it is today. But frankly I'm not revolutionary enough to vote for someone because of ideology. I'm pragmatic like that. I wonder about the hows and wherefores. Early in Sanders' candidacy Barney Frank made a comment that got my attention on Bill Maher's show regarding the fact nothing that Senator Sanders had been suggesting related to breaking up banks and addressing wealth migration was outside of the scope of the Dodd-Frank acted were it fully enacted. So it is meaningful to see both Sanders and Clinton essentially arrive at the same conclusion as former Senator Frank. Glass-Steagall is more about risk mitigation than breaking up banks.

So, that presents multiple problems for the links your provided as well. If you are arguing that Dodd-Frank is too weak, and Sanders has come to the conclusion that it's the tool to do the job his candidacy is based on...? Someone is out of step. That came right from the debate on Thursday so I'm not sure where you are getting your position from.

Here's the discussion from the debate -

CLINTON: It is important -- it's always important. It may be inconvenient, but it's always important to get the facts straight. I stood up against the behaviors of the banks when I was a senator.

I called them out on their mortgage behavior. I also was very willing to speak out against some of the special privileges they had under the tax code. When I went to the secretary of state office, the president -- President Obama led the effort to pass the Dodd-Frank bill.

That is the law. Now, this is our ninth debate. In the prior eight debates, I have said, we have a law. You don't just say, we're upset about this. I'm upset about it. You don't just say, go break them up. You have a law, because we are a nation of laws.

BASH: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

CLINTON: So I support Dodd-Frank, but I have consistently said that's not enough. We've got to include the shadow banking sector.

BASH: Thank you. Senator Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Secretary Clinton called them out. Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements? So they must have been very, very upset by what you did.

Look, here is the difference and here is the clear difference. These banks, in my view, have too much power. They have shown themselves to be fraudulent organizations endangering the well-being of our economy.

If elected president, I will break them up. We have got legislation to do that, end of discussion.

(APPLAUSE)

BASH: Secretary Clinton, if I may, Senator Sanders keeping bringing up the speeches that you gave to Goldman Sachs. So I'd like to ask you, so you've said that you don't want to release the transcripts, until everybody does it, but if there's nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters' minds, why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: You know, first of all -- first of all, there isn't an issue. When I was in public service serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks. I did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused.

I'm the only one on this stage who did not vote to deregulate swaps and derivatives, as Senator Sanders did, which led to a lot of the problems that we had with Lehman Brothers.

Now, if you're going to look at the problems that actually caused the Great Recession, you've got to look at the whole picture. It was a giant insurance company, AIG. It was an investment bank, Lehman Brothers. It was mortgage companies like Countrywide.

I'm not saying that Senator Sanders did something untoward when he voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives...

BASH: Madam Secretary...

CLINTON: ... but the fact is he did.

CLINTON: And that contributed to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and started the cascade...


And in case it isn't clear what he meant by already having legislation, here's what he said in the recent interview that caused a minor dust up over how well he had planned to actually carry out his promises, which was cited by Bernie supporters as proof he DID know what he was talking about on this very website -

Sanders alluded to both possible approaches in his conversation with the Daily News, according to a transcript of the interview.

"How do you go about doing it?" the senator was asked.

"How you go about doing it is having legislation passed," he replied, "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."

While some commentators apparently took this response to indicate that Sanders hadn't thought his plan all the way through, it is also possible that he has considered more than one option if he wins the general election, depending on whether Congress is willing to work with him.

In any case, when the Daily News pressed him, he gave an unambiguous answer.

"How?" Sanders was asked. "How does a president turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, 'Now you must do X, Y and Z?' "

"Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination," Sanders explained.

So, yeah. Bell weather. And we're back to asking how he's going to be better at actually doing it than Clinton. So?

[_Kevin Graham]

Nothing in Obama's writing or speaking suggested he held the stereotypical views of a traditional black pastor in general or Rev. Wright in particular, though. Obama has never come across as a social conservative of the type popular among Black protestants. Obama's political enemies have been trying to marry him to the offensive, crazy views of Rev. Wright forever. Assuming you reject that, I'm not sure why you'd adopt the inference from Rev. Wright's views to Obama's in this one particular case.

Well I think there is a significant difference between 1) accepting non-religious conspiratorial things said by Jeremiah Wright and 2) being influenced by his views on gay marriage, especially since the latter is religious in nature and it has come to be a pretty standard view among Christian Churches everywhere. Black protestants are among the least accepting Christians when it comes to gay marriage; second only to white Evangelicals. In 2004 fewer than 20% of black protestants were accepting of gay marriage.

So it shouldn't be a shock to find out there are Black Christians, even educated Liberal ones, who oppose gay marriage. I can think of several Mormons who fall into this category as well. They're liberal in virtually every category except abortion and gay marriage. There is a Facebook group called LDS Democrats and it is funny sometimes watching them talk about how they support the Left, except when the issue is tolerance towards abortion/homosexuality. At that point religion takes priority over politics.

For a liberal professor of an elite school turned liberal politician residing in one of the most liberal areas of the country to genuinely oppose gay marriage is about surprising in 2008 as it would be in 2016. It's not impossible, but it's also radically opposed to expectations.

Well, this is a religious position we're talking about, so I think it is apt to look at his religious institution of preference for the source of his influence, as opposed to speculating about how he could/would/should have been indoctrinated as a professor. After all, his comments on the subject throughout the years have always been explained as a religious view. But I don't really buy this line of reasoning, not when I've seen staunch Progressives like Daniel McClellan, David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid teaching at one of the most religiously conservative schools on the planet. And this notion that college professors receive their own form of liberal indoctrination as professors, is such a Britebart/Limbaugh thing to say.

Obama is not representative of the entire nation.

No, but he is part of the nation and so we shouldn't be terribly surprised if his changing views correspond with the nation's. That's all I was saying. The country moved left in hurry when it came to this issue. Politicians don't live in a vacuum, they're just as much a part of society as anyone else.

Gay marriage was wildly popular in the cohorts Obama belonged to. Opposing gay marriage in 2008 is the sort of thing a college professor would be wise to keep to himself.

Well then that answers the question as to how a professor could possibly work at a Liberal institution and hold such a views. Mystery solved I guess. So does this mean you concede the point that he genuinely opposed gay marriage as a professor?

As an elected official he spoke about it in detail when he was asked. And I don't think it is entirely accurate to say he "opposed gay marriage" because it misses a lot of context and could be interpreted to mean he was opposed to homosexuals having the same rights as others. In fact, he was a strong supporter of individual rights and "civil unions" and believed gay couples should receive every benefit that married couples enjoy. This piece from Politifact chronicles all the statements he has made through the years and this one was instructive. He was being interviewed by a Lesbian:

As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation ...

"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed . . . I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name… Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."

It seems the take away from this is that he was going to push for what he believed he could get. So by getting civil unions passed, it was just one step closer to legalizing gay marriage except he didn't like calling it that because of the religious connotations the Republicans were using to make it a wedge issue. Obama opposed gay marriage on religious grounds, but at the same time felt they should not be discriminated against and that the issue of "marriage" was a religious one. And the State should look at couples in terms of being joined as civil unions.

My argument is two-pronged. One, Obama held the sorts of views and biography that would be highly predictive of gay marriage support in 2008.

Predictions for him genuinely supporting this and that are flawed, especially when we have his own comments along with his established religious views to tell us that he didn't support it. I think you're putting too much stock in the mysterious powers of Liberal institutions to make professors abandon their religious views for the sake of being accepted by the tribe.

Two, Obama's "evolving" language is awkward and weird outside of the context of trying to signal to gay marriage supporters that he's with them and will come out in support when the time is right.

It can be tricky putting together the context of all his comments and making perfect sense out of them, but I think I've managed to properly understand what he was getting at.

You can add a third prong in that Obama came out in support of gay marriage pretty exactly when the political winds shifted to that being a favorable thing to do. Whata coiniky-dink.

If we look at his comments from 2004 and then again from his memoir in 2006, it isn't much of a coincidence. Many folks reading his book in 2006 understood a man who struggled with the issue internally and was willing to consider that he had been wrong. I suspect the announced shift in 2012 had probably little to zero effect on his defeat of Romney.

Obama has misled about other positions he holds out of political convenience.

As have virtually all politicians. I guess this means we should never give them the benefit of the doubt, huh?

I'm not sure why this one is a hill you prefer to die on.

You think I'm dying? Is it not possible for two guys to just shoot the crap and agree to disagree?

[_Kevin Graham]

So, yeah. Bell weather. And we're back to asking how he's going to be better at actually doing it than Clinton. So?

OK, thanks for taking the time to clarify what you were getting at.

The first question that jumps out in my mind is this.

Does Hillary ever say she is even willing to break up the banks? Because I don't see her saying that. Bernie says he would make that priority #1, and he would use Dodd-Frank if necessary, although it is unlikely that he would be able to use that legislation because it is so weak. Meaning, although there is a clause giving authority to break up banks deemed too big to fail, the process itself is complex and requires,

"... the backing of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors and then a two-thirds vote by the members of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which includes all eight major financial regulators and the Treasury Secretary.

This is where Sanders would likely run into trouble. The Fed’s board of governors is made up of seven people (usually, anyway—there are two vacancies currently) and they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, to staggered, 14-year terms. Terms for the current five members of the board, all appointed by president Barack Obama, won’t expire until sometime between 2020 and 2026. And while the chair and vice-chair of the board only serve in those positions for four years, the next president won’t have a chance to replace them until early 2018—a year after taking office.

It seems highly unlikely that the existing Federal Reserve board will decide to use their power to break up the banks simply because a newly-elected president Sanders instructs them to do so. Even if he were able to secure their assent, he would need also need to appoint a passel of new regulators to okay their action, with the assent of a Senate that will likely be outright hostile to Sanders’ plans. If he is serious about using the Fed to break up the banks, he will need to first go through a knock-down, drag-out fight to appoint a Fed board willing to back his plan. Sanders’ promise itself seems too big to succeed. That may be why reforming the Federal Reserve is also a favorite idea of the Vermont senator"

This piece and this piece covers the ways in which Sanders has proposed breaking up the banks.

But back to the primary differences between the two. I don't believe for a second that Hillary would even try to break up the banks. If Dodd-Frank made that a viable option then it probably would have happened already. As far as Hillary saying she is tough on Wall street and the banks, who the hell does she think she is kidding? She's received millions from their lobby and refuses to release her paid speeches. But we have witnesses who heard her speeches and what they say is that she came across as their cheerleader, not their nemesis.

[_EAllusion]

As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation ...

"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed . . . I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name… Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."

I hadn't read this quote before. That's Obama pretty much outright saying that he favors gay marriage, but feels that civil unions are more politically viable and thus supports that approach. That was the standard meek position of a Democrat in that particular time-frame. Thanks for finding it, but I find your using it in defense of the position you're taking odd. It's the most blatant example of Obama saying he needs to take a civil union stance to avoid Republicans demagoguing on the word marriage. The venue probably determined the level of openness as he's signaling to a special interest group that he favors their top cause.

I think this is known, but it's worth saying that Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing as Obama on this topic.

You think I'm dying? Is it not possible for two guys to just shoot the crap and agree to disagree?

It's an expression. You're spending a lot of time defending a dubious position, is all.

[_honorentheos]

Thanks for the reply, Kevin.

Perhaps it's worth discussing what either candidate means when it comes to big banks and what needs to be done about them.

As noted earlier and reiterated in some of the links you've provided, it appears that Senator Sanders' meaning is related to capping the size a financial institution could reach before it would need to sell off assets. He's said his plan would not be to tell banks how they get under the cap, just that they reach it. What the cap would actually be is unknown and generally mentioned as needing to be determined. That's a fair definition I guess, so long as we recognize what it means right now.

Clinton has said she'd also use Dodd-Frank to do something similar to banks that pose a threat to the economy or who are determined to have poor living will plans for unwinding without tax payer support. So, it's a fair criticism to ask if she'd "break up the banks" per se rather than be more reliant on regulators to target which institutions need to be identified and required to downsize or otherwise sell off assets to reduce the risk they could transfer to the broader economy. That's also very much in line with comments made by Barnie Frank who's criticisms of Sanders have primarily been that his one-size-fits-all approach to regulating Wall Street is dangerously naïve and sees the role of government as needing to be able to approach the problem on a case-by-case basis. Is that really a better approach? I suspect a person's response would be very much in line with their preference for Bernie v. Hillary. But I don't really know. I can see pros and cons thinking through both.

Anyway, the language Clinton uses in the debates and elsewhere isn't as dramatic as Sanders uses when she says she'd hold them accountable.

It seems like a question the voters should be hoping both candidates would get wonkish on in future debates or speeches.

Here's what both campaigns websites say on the issue:

www.hillaryclinton.com

Hillary’s plan will tackle dangerous risks in the financial system:


• Impose a risk fee on the largest financial institutions. Banks and financial companies would be required to pay a fee based on their size and their risk of contributing to another financial crisis.


• Close the Volcker Rule’s hedge fund loophole. The Volcker Rule prohibits banks from making risky trading bets with taxpayer-backed money—one of the core protections of the post-financial crisis Wall Street reforms. However, under current law these banks can still invest billions through hedge funds, which are exempt from this rule. Hillary would close that loophole and strengthen the law.


• Discourage excessive risk-taking by making senior bankers accountable. Senior managers should lose some or all of their bonus compensation when a large bank suffers losses that threaten its overall financial health.


• Make sure no firm is ever too big and too risky to be managed effectively. Hillary’s plan would give regulators more authority to force overly complex or risky firms to reorganize, downsize, or break apart.


• Tackle financial dangers of the “shadow banking” system. Hillary’s plan will enhance transparency and reduce volatility in the “shadow banking system,” which includes certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks, and other non-bank financial companies.


• Impose a tax on high-frequency trading. The growth of high-frequency trading has unnecessarily placed stress on our markets, created instability, and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies. Hillary would impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading and reform rules to make our stock markets fairer, more open, and transparent.


Hillary would also hold both corporations and individuals on Wall Street accountable by:

•Prosecuting individuals when they break the law. Hillary would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial frauds, enhance whistleblower rewards, and provide the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission more resources to prosecute wrongdoing.


•Holding executives accountable when they are responsible for their subordinates’ misconduct. Hillary believes that when corporations pay large fines to the government for violating the law, those fines should cut into the bonuses of the executives who were responsible for or should have caught the problem. And when egregious misconduct happens on an executive’s watch, that executive should lose his or her job.


• Holding corporations accountable when they break the law. As she enhances individual accountability, Hillary will make sure that corporations don’t treat penalties for breaking the law as merely a cost of doing business, so that we can put an end to the patterns of corporate wrongdoing that we see too often today.


berniesander.com

Technically the section on reforming wall street relies on calling out legislation he sponsored that was aimed at wall street, so the message is about consistency (per your OP) and less about what he'd do as president (still a concern to me).

Here is what the site says:

KEY ACTIONS
Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities.

Led the fight in 1999 defending Glass-Steagall provisions which prevented banks (especially “too big to fail” ones) from gambling with customers’ money, and currently is a co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill to reinstate those provisions.

Has proposed a financial transaction tax which will reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation; proceeds would be used to provide debt-free public college education.

Is co-sponsoring Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s bill to end Wall Street’s practice of paying big bonuses to bank executives who take senior-level government jobs.

Introduced a tax on Wall Street speculation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free

Supports capping credit card interest rates at 15%.

Sponsored an amendment calling for an audit the Federal Reserve. The audit found that far more had been spent in the Wall Street bailout than previously disclosed, and that considerable funds had been spent to bail out foreign corporations.

Warned about the risks of deregulation eight years before the fiscal crisis of 2008.

Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions


There are proactive and reactive elements in both candidates plans. There's some differences but also a huge degree of uncertainty regarding what either really means, in my opinion.

But supposing that either is elected, what makes you feel that the Obama appointed Fed governors would be unsupportive of reform measures aimed at reducing the bank's maximum allowable assets? Looking at the Fed's website, the governors appear to vote in lock step with the Fed chair.

And given tonights results in NY, is it really clear to Sanders supporters that the world is going to be better off if they stay home in November if Clinton does win the nomination? Where do the differences between Hillary and Bernie justify that?

[_honorentheos]

It's kind of interesting to read the language of the "Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act" that Sanders authored -

..........................

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee

A BILL
To address the concept of ‘‘Too Big To Fail’’ with respect to certain financial entities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. COMPILATION AND REPORT ON INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.

8 (a) COMPILATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council shall compile and submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a list of entities that it deems Too Big To Fail, which shall include, but is not limited to, any United States bank holding companies that have been identified as systemically important banks by the Financial Stability Board (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Too Big To Fail List’’).

8 (b) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.—Upon receipt of the Too Big To Fail List, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit the List to Congress and the President.

12 SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.

20 (b) CONSULTATION WITH OTHER REGULATORS.—In carrying out the requirement of subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the primary financial regulatory agency of the entity to be broken up.

1 SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE FINANCING.
3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not use or otherwise have access to advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility, the Federal Reserve discount window, or any other program or facility made available under the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C.9 221 et seq.), including any asset purchases, temporary or bridge loans, government investments in debt or equity, or capital injections from any Federal institution.

12 SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON USE OF INSURED DEPOSITS.
13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any entity included on the Too Big To Fail List that is an insured depository institution, or owns such an institution, may not use any insured deposit amounts to fund—

(1) any activity relating to hedging that is not directly related to commercial banking activity at the insured bank;
(2) any use of derivatives for speculative purposes;
(3) any activity related to the dealing of derivatives; or
(4) any other form of speculative activity that regulators specify.

(b) RISK OF LOSS.—An entity included on the Too Big To Fail List may not conduct any activity listed in subsection (a) in such a manner that—

(1) puts insured deposits at risk; or
(2) creates a risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act—
(1) the term ‘‘primary financial regulatory agency’’ has the same meaning as in section 2(12) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301(12)); and
(2) the term ‘‘Too Big To Fail’’ means any entity whose failure, due to its size, exposure to counterparties, liquidity position, interdependencies, role in critical markets, or other characteristics or factors, would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.

[_cinepro]

He's talking about guest workers he isn't attacking immigrants. I corrected you on this point before but you seem unwilling to learn.

People are people, Kevin. That's what mystifies me about the immigration issue; the math on unemployment is usually ignored.

If US unemployment is at 5%, and someone of working-age comes to this country, then they will either be unemployed, or they will get a job, but that will be one less job for someone who was already here. And they may be willing to work for less, whether we're talking about unskilled or skilled labor.

The case with Intel (and Disney, and other large companies) is more offensive because it is more obvious. But if we could see the job shifts that incurred from low-skilled immigration as well, it might be just as disturbing.