Aired Last week 0:16
Mark Levin | KTOK
Senator Bernie Sanders discussed on Mark Levin
From the news
Aired 3 months ago 63:01
Ep. 279 - Jeff Weaver
Jeff Weaver was the campaign manager for Senator Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign. He joins the show to discuss Sanders' unique appeal to voters, what it was like to run against Hillary Clinton, the landscape of 2020, and more.
The Axe Files with David Axelrod
Aired 3 months ago 49:30
Interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio on Hurricane Michael and the missing Saudi Journalist; Interview with Democratic candidate for Georgia Governor, Stacey Abrams on reports of voter suppression in her race; Interview with Vermont Senator, Bernie S
First, Jake talks to Florida Senator Marco Rubio about Hurricane Michael, the effects of climate change, and the diplomatic fallout over the missing Saudi Journalist. Jake is then joined by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to discuss healthcare, Trump's response to the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, and who will run for the Democrats in 2020. Next, our panel of Paul Begala, Scott Jennings, Amanda Carpenter, and Symone Sanders joins to discuss new CNN polling on the 2020 race and their thoughts on the upcoming elections. Finally, in this week's State of the Cartoonion, Jake takes a look at how the feud between Kanye West and Taylor Swift... may lead to the West Wing? via Knit
State of the Union with Jake Tapper
Aired 3 months ago 12:00
Breaking up Big Banks
Welcome back says Barada. A podcast takes just ten minutes to get you smarter on the collision of tech business and politics. I'm Denver, MAC on today's show, Republicans begin to feel a Brett bounce and the latest trouble for vaping companies. But I. Breaking up Wall Street. Yesterday was the ten year anniversary of the creation of tarp, which was that giant pool of money. The federal government used to bail out, big banks at the height of the financial crisis, and using that as a backdrop Senator Bernie Sanders and California, congressman Brad Sherman introduced legislation that would effectively break up big banks. No single financial institution should be so lodge that it's failure would cause catastrophic risk to millions of Americans ought to our nation's economic well-being. So the Senate Bill introduced by Sanders would basically require the break-up of any US financial institution with exposure to more than three percent of America's GDP, which works out to around five hundred eighty four billion dollars among those that would be affected. Our Goldman Sachs p. Morgan Wells Fargo and also some big insurance companies like AIG and MetLife. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway would also be included. Now, the house proposal doesn't yet have a specific figure on it. But in a moment, we'll speak directly with Representative. Sherman to see if three percent is also his number now, not surprisingly, the banks are not too excited about this. They argued that changes made after the financial crisis have made them much safer and that there's a fundamental role for large financial institutions in the US economy. The bottom line is that none of this is going to become law anytime soon. At least so long as Republicans control congress and the White House. But it is the sort of populace message. The Democrats might use heading into the midterms, particularly after Sanders and his fellow left wingers had some success getting Amazon to increase its minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour. And at the very least it reminds Wall Street that not all of DC's regulatory zeal is aimed at Silicon Valley in fifteen seconds. We'll go deeper on this with congressman Brad Sherman, but I, this axios gives you the news and analysis. You need to get smarter faster on the most important topics and are unique, smart, brevity format. We cover topics from politics to science and media to tech subscribe to get smarter faster at sign up. Dot axios dot com. And now back to the podcast. We're joined by Representative, Brad Sherman democrat, who represents California's thirtieth district and is also a member of the House Financial Services committee. Congressman. The basic response from Wall Street yesterday was we already got regulated after the financial crisis. We are safer now, thanks things like stress tests. Please leave us alone. Why are they wrong? Well, because no amount of regulation and certainly not the modest regulation that's been imposed so far guarantees that they won't go under the proof of this is the eighty basis point subsidy that they get from the perception that they will be build out banks in that business. The key is borrowing it alot rate and lending at a higher rate, and you're able to borrow at a lower rate not only based upon the strength of your balance sheet, but also based on the belief on Wall Street that if that balance she were insufficient, Washington would Bill you out. And so there are a handful of institutions that yet. That subsidy because everyone on Wall Street believes a ES. It's important to have that safety net and be that safety net is being provided only various largest institutions who have already proven exactly ten years ago that if they get in trouble, congress will build them out. Ten years ago, and one of the problems wasn't just size. It was the interconnectedness, right? You know the fact that these institutions were so integral to the US economy and they were all connected to each other connected with insurance companies with mortgage lenders. It's cetera. From your perspective, how does the Bill you're proposing address or does it the interconnectedness issue as opposed to mainly the size issue? It deals with the size issue, and I, it sounds like you know, you go on these diets and they say, is long as you don't eat this particular food you'll be okay. Rdo makes this food with that food. No, the key is total caloric intake. And these giant banks are now more than fifty percent larger than they were at the time of the meltdown. And even if inter connectedness were a factor, that's a very hard thing to define in which you'll find in most economic regulation and tax issues. All the complicated numbers stuff. Is that policymakers responsible to the public may give you a. Good top line, but the details tend to be controlled by the industry and so to say, oh, you don't need to regulate the big important thing that the public and focus on, but we promise that the details will work out. Okay, really puts us at the mercy of those who will deal with the details regulations on interconnectedness. Could you imagine having a a town hall on those. Become law and the largest students were to break up into a bunch of smaller institutions. How did those smaller institutions or how do you address the risks they may be taking? So I think back, for example, something like the s. and l. crisis which wasn't because you had a couple of very large s. and l.'s it was because you had lots of small ones that were all taking very bad risk. If you have regulation that is terrible as what we did for us and ELS in the nineteen eighties, nothing will save you, but a reasonable Bank regulation scheme combined with an understanding that may be one Bank will go under from time to time. Once a century two or three times a century. One Bank will go under and it will be dealt with just as we lost toys r. us or Circuit City. It will be a part of what happens in a capitalist society, and it won't be good, but we'll go on and we won't tear the social fabric of the country. We will bail anybody out instead if you have these giant institutions. It's only a matter of time before one of them goes under, whereas close to going under calls the White House and says, we're taking the whole economy with us. In addition, these large banks that keep getting larger direct their lending chiefly to large borrowers and sovereign debt around the world. If we can move our economy to banks of regional size, medium size, more money will be lent to small business and communities, and you feel that they'll still be enough capital. Could large businesses will still obviously need loans and you believe that despite that, they'll still be enough for those large companies ES. As a matter of fact, the largest businesses tend not to borrow from banks very much. They borrow on the bond market. So I don't think that often you can put together a syndicate of banks. So there are many countries that have a few businesses as large as our biggest business where that country doesn't have six banks that three percent of their GDP. So we will do just fine and we will have more competition and we'll have. Fair competition without a few banks being able to tell their creditors and remember they get most of their money by borrowing it. And most of it is not FDIC insured because it's not an amounts of under a quarter million. They won't be able to tell their creditors, not only can you rely on our balance sheet you can rely on Sam. The small Bank can't say that the medium size banks can't say that and we shouldn't have them face competition from large banks of kin. Center centers is Bill came out yesterday, the actual tax. We haven't seen the actual text of yours yet. So I'm curious, he included this three percent tap. Basically, three percents of GDP is where this would kick in in his Bill. Is that the same number you're thinking of? It's the same number of thinking of, but Senator Sanders I have introduced identical legislation pretty much last four congresses. He has now made his Bill a little bit longer and more sophisticated more definitive, and we're looking to do the same with our Bill. We did introduce the old fashioned. Sanders. Sherman Bill earlier this congress, and we're now catching up to be if not identical with Senator Sanders new version at least more sophisticated than we are now obviously with Republican control of congress and the White House. This Bill won't become law anytime soon. But I'm curious if Democrats do when the house do you think a Bill like this could at least pass the house with just slight democratic control. I think it would be very tough, and I think that it's important to drive this message home, and I think a lot of important bills take a long time to pass and you wouldn't turn to somebody in nineteen fifty six and say, don't introduce the Civil Rights Act. You can't pass it this congress, so we'll keep working on it. And a lot depends on this election and what message it sends to the country as a whole thing back than Civil Rights Act. And you obviously had lots and lots of flare ups in issues that we're in the news every day. Bring that to this context, you believe you need a big Bank to fail in order to actually someday get this past the finish line. Oh God, I hope not an look. We're not talking about nationalizing the banks destroying the banks e Protozoa when it reaches a certain size. One sale animal reaches a certain size. The healthy thing for to do is to split into two and I figure for Protozoa can do that in a healthy basis. Our big banks can't as well from vampire squids to Protozoa Representative Sherman. Thank you very much. And my final two right after this. Nick Bilton here host of vanity fair's inside the high podcast. Every single week. We talked to authors experts on Trump CEO's of the biggest companies in tech media and Hollywood, and politicians and pollsters give inside the high of a listen on apple podcasts or any way you get your show. There is more news out there than ever before, but these days it's harder than ever to find it and to know what to trust. Axios AM takes effort out of getting smart by synthesizing the ten stories that will drive the day and telling you I, they matter, subscribe at sign up dot, axios dot com. And now back to the pro rata podcasts. Now it's time for my final two and I up Republicans are beginning to feel a breadth bounce. So for months, most of the midterm election talk has been about a Blue Wave. And in fact, that was the topic of this podcast just two days ago. But top Republicans tell axios that the Cavanaugh saga has significantly energize their voters, possibly to the point of making the party confident in holding onto the Senate and even gaining in the Senate. So for example, take a look at North Dakota. There's a new Fox News poll out that puts Republican challenger Kevin, Kramer up twelve points on incumbent democrat Heidi Heitkamp with a former aide to Mitch McConnell, telling us quote, the state now appears out of the reach entirely for Democrats. There's also new polling. The puts Missouri Senator Claire mccaskill behind her GOP challenger, Josh, Holly. The bottom line here is that the breadth cavenaugh situation has gotten both sides of the aisle very worked up, but Democrats were already raring to go for November. Now it seems that Republicans might be getting closer to matching that enthusiasm. And finally it. It has been a very tough couple of weeks for jewel, which is the brand of e cigarette. Your teenager probably hides in a place. You don't know about the company is already under a deadline to prove to the food and Drug administration that it can keep its products out of the hands of minors or else. All of its flavored products are going to be banned. Then last Friday, the FDA executed, an unannounced inspection of jewel headquarters hauling away, thousands of pages of marketing documents. Now, remember, this is a company that just two or three months ago was valued at fifteen billion dollars by big name. Investors like fidelity now, jewels in so much trouble that reportedly just hired a new PR executive whose last job was in the Trump White House, and we're done so much. Thanks for listening and to my producer, Tim show vers have a great national taco day, and we'll be back on Monday with another pro rata podcast.