Let's remember how glass- steagall got started.
The great depression, 1933, we said one way to take risk out of the system is to separate ordinary accounts from the high risks on wall street, that kind of gambling.
We put a wall between the two, and that was glass-steagall.
The banks wanted to get to the high trader -- trading, and traders wanted access to the depository.
Regulators created loopholes and congress finally got rid of it in 1999. we had the big crash in 2008, and we all said there was too much concentration in the banking industry, the big are too big, and we have two big to fail.
But the big, large banks that you would like to break up our the ones that are good but survived the best.
The ones that we bailed out where the big, financial institutions, and the scary part is they now 30% bigger than they were when we bailed them out.
What this is about is to say it will take a lot of tools to get rid of too big to fail, but one of them ought to be if you want to do high-stakes gambling, good on you, but you do not get access to people's checking account and savings account because that makes you really big and the intertwining exit more likely you will get bailed out.
Your critics are suggesting this is more about politics than policy, this is going back in time, and there is no chance this will pass senate.
, on, do you see who i am fighting with?
I am standing shoulder to shorter with john mccain.
We have angus king.
You have a democrat, a republican, and independent -- evil who say this just aches cents erin -- people who say this just makes sense.
I am not hearing the defense for why people who want to take high risk gambles should get access to your savings account to do it.
You do not think there can be a well diversified bank in this country that can manage risk appropriately?
They can do it, but they should not do high risk wall street gambling.
They can manage a portfolio within the banking sphere, but not the kind doing wall street investments, nope.
The argument will be you are against the prophets of any kind.
I am not.
Here is the key.
When grasped eagle was originally passed, -- glass- steagall was originally passed, we had banking crisis, and after glass-steagall we had 50 years of ink profitability, no crashes, and an american middle class that strengthened and group.
We -- grew.
We started to pull regulatory threads out, creating loopholes about letting the banks get more involved in whatever they wanted to do, and we ended up with the biggest crash since the great depression.
We need to be pushing back.
We have to wind more risk out of the system.
We cannot be in a too big to fail or old and ben bernanke says we -- world and in bernanke says we still are.
We heard the new leverage ratios that the banks are screaming about.
Why are you concerned though steps in dodd frank are not enough to address concerns?
The banks are 30% bigger than they were five years ago.
Five years ago, we said they were too big and that is what forced us to have two big to fail.
They got bigger.
We cannot do that.
It will help bring downsize and make part of the system safer.
The next time there is a big hug them, i want to know the savings, checking accounts, -- big problem, i want to know the savings, checking accounts are safe here at would you -- safe.
What if it goes to foreign competitors?
I think they are capable.
Have you seen that this will get consideration on the senate floor?
Right now, we are fighting for, introducing it had -- introducing it.
But me switch gears.
You could have to vote on a successor to ben bernanke should he leave the fed.
What is your take on who that should be?
He has been there before.
He probably would not do it , but he would be up for it.
Let me throw some other names that you.
Jenna yellen and larry yellen -- larry summers -- jenna yellen and larry summers.
In that sense we have smart, talented people that would serve.
Could larry summers get confirmed in the u.s. senate?
I do not know.
This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.