Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Your Senator A Member Of The Bankster Party? (Mccain's a bankster)
http://dailybail.com/home/is-your-senator-a-member-of-the-bankster-party-list.html ^

Posted on 05/09/2010 3:57:43 AM PDT by 4rcane

The one main benefit to the financial reform effort so far is that it helps further do away with the false paradigms of "left" or "right" and "Democrat" or "Republican" - fewer and fewer people are falling for those lies anymore. Try to get an ideological conservative to explain why Republicans love spending and so eagerly give welfare to banks. Try to get your local liberal to explain why it was a good idea to make backroom deals with abhorrent corporations and drill, baby, drill. Heck, even try to get a Tea Partier to explain choosing bailout-lover Sarah Palin to keynote their convention, especially when that movement once had at least some pre-astroturf roots in protesting government giveaways.

What we have now is a group of politicians with shifting alliances on a case-by-case basis to the special interests who fund them. And currently, the most damaging one to our nation is the rise of the Bankster Party. Thankfully, we can now better identify its members.

Anyone who voted for the Kaufman-Brown SAFE amendment deserves to be considered a member of the "People's Party", at least for today. And while I may not agree, I am also OK with someone voting no on Kaufman-Brown if they voted no on the bailout in the first place. That at least shows a consistent ideology and we wouldn't need to break up the banks into smaller parts if our leaders had the will to let them fail.

But there is a special place for those who have the audacity to do something as incredibly un-American as voting to provide unencumbered welfare for rich bankers and then subsequently do absolutely nothing to fix the problem. And that special place (for now) is in what we should call from this point forward the "Bankster Party". Allow me to present to you its current members:


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0bot; acornpaidfor; assclownpost; bloggersandpersonal; clownposse; dailykosagrees; dailyobot; democratpropaganda; dogmauberalles; dopersforobama; knownothings; liarschoir; ofaposter; palinfreeperping; paulbots; progressivefascism; sarahpalin; sorosstoodges; troll

1 posted on 05/09/2010 3:57:43 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Palin was bailout-supporting only when she was the veep candidate to McCain—and supporting the top of the ticket is what you do. Jeesh!


2 posted on 05/09/2010 3:59:36 AM PDT by 9YearLurker (mC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Find it odd that someone here is pimping a bill that would massively expand Govt control over the banks. Guess they just got all hot and bothered by the title and did not bother to actually READ the bill they are pimping.
3 posted on 05/09/2010 4:05:50 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is eventually you run our of other peoples money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
The Daily Bail
4 posted on 05/09/2010 4:09:45 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
Just a question for freepers who oppose all “bank bailouts”: If your bank fails, do you expect to have your deposits protected by the FDIC or do you prefer to let the free markets work in that case. I have been a banker for over 25 years and have seen few genuine bank or banker bailouts. I have seen thousands of depositor bailouts.

BTW, I am in favor of phasing out deposit insurance and creating a bankruptcy system for banks, but it can't be done overnight.

5 posted on 05/09/2010 4:13:32 AM PDT by TheConservativeBanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeBanker

Deposit insurance is fine as long as it isn’t contorted to bail out the higher-leverage and higher-risk investment-banking style activities of the largest banks post-GS. That’s the problem and a $100B cap is too crude a solution.


6 posted on 05/09/2010 4:50:02 AM PDT by 9YearLurker (mC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Agreed. Deposit insurance, for all of its benefits to savers, puts the taxpayer at risk for all manner of imprudent banking practices. I do favor a gradual phaseout of deposit insurance so that depositors start paying more attention to the prudence and solvency of their banks.


7 posted on 05/09/2010 5:00:41 AM PDT by TheConservativeBanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeBanker

You’re right, and I’d expand that to, really, almost all types of government “insurance”—whether flood or other disaster, healthcare, etc.


8 posted on 05/09/2010 5:03:25 AM PDT by 9YearLurker (mC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeBanker

So Mr. Banker, “depositor bailouts” you say. I guess you mean people who put their savings into a bank for two reasons. One is to hold until they can spend it and the other is to have a return on investment (interest). Right?

Now, explain to me the difference in me taking my money and placing it into a company’s stock to hold and hopefully receive a return on my money in the way of increased stock valuation? The same principle applies to life insurance companies.

Now, with that in mind, why is it good to bail out banks while it’s bad to bail out other enterprises? Worse yet, why is it good to take my hard earned (and wisely managed money) to give (excuse the term...I mean confiscate my money through taxes) to give to banks that are poorly managed?

I await your reply with great excitement and anticipation, knowing that the reply will certainly “get my mind right.”


9 posted on 05/09/2010 5:29:31 AM PDT by DH (The government writes no bill that does not line the pockets of special interests.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DH

First, you seem to deliberately disregard the fact that I stated that I am in favor of phasing out deposit insurance. It ultimately facilitates imprudent banking and causes depositors to not be prudent in their choice of banks.

My point was that “bank bailouts” do not generally put money in the pockets of bankers or their shareholders. They generally prevent deposit holders from losing their money when a bank fails.

If you really read my posts, you would have seen that I neither defend nor promote bailouts. I merely suggest that we correctly identify who is being bailed out.

BTW, did you take a “nasty pill” with your coffee this morning.

Cheers.


10 posted on 05/09/2010 5:54:24 AM PDT by TheConservativeBanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeBanker
First, you seem to deliberately disregard the fact that I stated that I am in favor of phasing out deposit insurance. It ultimately facilitates imprudent banking and causes depositors to not be prudent in their choice of banks. My point was that “bank bailouts” do not generally put money in the pockets of bankers or their shareholders. They generally prevent deposit holders from losing their money when a bank fails.

.

I agree with the line of thought, but the side-effect may be a strong dose of deflation. A lot of government spending is linked to percentage "taking" of value each year (i.e., property taxes).

11 posted on 05/09/2010 6:28:31 AM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeBanker

“BTW, did you take a “nasty pill” with your coffee this morning.”

I take my nasty pill every time the government pays taxpayer money confiscated from the citizens to interfere with ANY private enterprise........PERIOD!


12 posted on 05/09/2010 7:32:51 AM PDT by DH (The government writes no bill that does not line the pockets of special interests.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker; Al B.; Clyde5445; onyx; Virginia Ridgerunner
You were saying ...

Palin was bailout-supporting only when she was the veep candidate to McCain—and supporting the top of the ticket is what you do. Jeesh!

Trying to explain that to the "nattering nabobs of negativity" and the Palin-haters that you see on Free Republic, is like explaining things to a "pet rock" ... LOL ... [there's nothing between the ears to make a difference ... :-) ...]

13 posted on 05/09/2010 9:51:09 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Sarah Palin has something to say to the "nattering nabobs of negativity" ... LOL ...


14 posted on 05/09/2010 9:51:57 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

FREEPER POSTS ... ON ALL THINGS PALIN ...





Sarah Palin Endorses Carly Fiorina in California




Posts about Sarah Palin from May 1, 2010 to present ...


15 posted on 05/09/2010 10:45:46 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson