Soros: Not much difference between Obama and Romney

he said they're the same on grounds of taxation and because he didn't nationalize the banks during the recession

 

He's already given away 7 billion.

"he said they are the same except for the crowd that they bring with them"

He meant the ideology of the parties and the advocates of those parties are different...

And he goes onto talk about tax policy and Europe's success of bank nationalization.

 

Wait, who supports nationalizing US banks?


edit: nm found this quote- "It would be better to nationalize banks than merely to nationalize their debt and leave them with the profits, because that's really to the disadvantage of the taxpayer." - Soros

Ya Obama and Romney do both support dumping the bank failures on taxpayers.


And he said they differ on taxation and supreme court appointments.

 

probably no one in senate besides sanders and kucinich because nationalization is a socialist policy

 

I think it has more to do with what the banks want than fear of "socialism". These people want to be re-elected, after all.

I agree that nationalizing, re-structuring and then re-selling back to the private sector would be preferrable to bailing out.

 

so what would you do friend? deny bailouts and deny fdic insurance all-together?

 

That's exactly what FDIC does. I thought you guys were adamantly against that?

 

How is that any better? So both will suck and massage the big banksters cocks for that money?

Fuck thats shitty.

 

Yes, better to let the risk takers fail than to punish everybody. We don't have the money to bail them out, and FDIC is insolvent.

That's what you get for trusting the government.

Like I said, I would prefer that to bailouts.

 

Are you sure you're aware how many massive international multi-financial companies were at risk of complete failure? Most of these companies had both large networks of investment and commercial banking systems- probably near close to 100,000,000 customers. This was during the 2nd worst economic recession in about 100 years. I should refer you to post-Fed bank runs.

But OK, you will them default and risk the world's economy to prove a point.

Right now, yes. And if we allow huge too-big-to-fail banks to exist, and if big bank shareholders, administrators and CEO's continue to profiteer with people's money, they will most likely keep doing the same shit.

But when you say to remove FDIC, which removes bank financial regulations completely.. that's absurd.

You're forgetting about customers. You're forgetting about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which allows investment banks (rich guys, investors, corporate interminglers, derivatives, etc). When you remove financial regulations completely, or anyone can open up a bank in their garage, the only countermeasure you're endorsing is jail by fraud- no restitution, just "justice"; though since most deals are done behind doors, like we saw in '08, I'm sure most would get away.

So, WUT?

 

Letting the risk takers fail (repealing FDIC) would have greatly HARMED the rest of us. I'm sure you know that already in reference to '08. But removing deposit insurance would effectively result in total banking deregulation. If one bank goes under, whether it be from corruption, economic uncertainty, bank runs, recessions, there's bound to be a domino effect if they maintain their sizes.

And they only way to reimburse the potential hundreds of thousands of victims would be finding and prosecuting the greedsters (if fraud even caused the collapse- how would you know exactly anyways?), who probably have no money anymore, and throw them in jail. This is no good.

So... in terms of '08 which is history so this is just hypothetical, you'd rather have the FDIC liquidate customer deposits, nationalize it (while the shareholders and capital hoarding administrators still profit, fyi), and resell it to someone else? Who are you going to sell Citigroup too? Bank of America? Or are you just going to give it back? And you'd do that to every huge bank that cracked open? This would result in an army of zombie banks with low to none financial assets/mortgage backed securities certainly leading to all sorts of banking runs

So why is Obama a statist corporatist idiot loon communist cronyist traitor who should be tried for fraud and put to death, etc, etc, etc for bailing out banks? Anyone ...?

edit: You guys do know there were banking failures before the Fed or FDIC, right? Just making sure.

 

As Andrew Jackson said to the Central Bankers in the 19th century:

"You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!"


I doubt you actually think we've eliminated the problem by printing trillions of dollars and buying toxic assets, so that just means you don't care about the repercussions so long as it isn't you who deals with them.

Eventually we're going to have to face reality, why push that responsibility onto our kids?

Yes. That is much better than instead taking all that bullshit and punishing innocent victims with it.

As for your fear of people profiting, the FDIC can stop all that depending on the bank.

I think that's a stretch. He's just a corporate shill that should be kicked out of office.

Yes, we recognize that private market bankruptcies and deposit insurance are more fair and efficient.

 

Never thought id see the day Arnack supported the wealthy 1%.

Such a shame.