13 responses to “Protesting Banks”

1. 

   Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

   April 8, 2009 at 2:08 pm

   What the banks are doing to the country???? How is it in the banks best interest to break the financial back of this nation. If you want to know what the problem is, look no farther than Washington DC. Hitler had to blame the Jews, seems Obama has found his Jews. ACORN is his SD.
2. 

   Brian Knapp

   April 8, 2009 at 2:47 pm

   Hitler had to blame the Jews, seems Obama has found his Jews. ACORN is his SD.

   Seriously?
3. 

   Derrick

   April 8, 2009 at 2:47 pm

   What the banks are doing to the country???? How is it in the banks best interest to break the financial back of this nation. If you want to know what the problem is, look no farther than Washington DC. Hitler had to blame the Jews, seems Obama has found his Jews. ACORN is his SD.

   Another classic! But let’s expound on this insightful analysis. How about Rev Wright playing the part of Eichman, and Bill Ayers as Heydrich. Then we can have Bobby Jindal and/or John Boehner playing the part of FDR with Sarah Palin(with/without Bubba teeth) as Eleanor, you choose. I’m guessing that this make Bush, Neville Chamberlain and I’m guessing Audacity of Hope as the Mein Kampf. I could spend my day with this one ZRIII. Thank you sir.
4. 

   Steve Plunk

   April 8, 2009 at 3:18 pm

   Hamsher’s post is no less hyperbole than ZRIII’s. Blame black people? What a load. The April 11 protests will be nothing.

   The tea party movement is based upon the unprecedented amount of debt this country is assuming. I guess lefties like to treat peaceful demonstrations by conservatives as silly but in reality this is a serious issue and a serious movement.

   When the dust settles let’s see which movement is real and which is a pathetic attempt to deflect criticism.
5. 

   charles austin

   April 8, 2009 at 4:33 pm

   The thing that keeps flashing through my consciousness is Dan Ackroyd in Point/Counterpoint saying, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

   So, what are “the banks” doing to us? Say, Jane’s not trying to slip in a little wink, wink, say no more anti-semitism to accompany her accusations of racism here is she?

   FWIW, I wasn’t going to include Dan’s famous phrase above, but then I bothered to go and read what Jane wrote before hitting preview. What a sad, low life this sad lowlife has.

   Further FWIW, Bush gave drunken sailors a bad name, but he was a piker compared to the current administration when it comes to deficit spending, moral hazards, and corporate welfare. Good God, it’s like the regulators have given up alcohol for crack. Does Bush’s excesses somehow excuse Obama’s? Is she actually defending what Obama is doing now with his Stimulus Plan, son of Stimulus, TARP, TARP II, I was a Teenage TARP, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?
6. 

   Stormy Dragon

   April 8, 2009 at 7:25 pm

   The tea party movement is based upon the unprecedented amount of debt this country is assuming.

   No, it’s based on a bunch of Republicans who were happy to abet Bush’s massive expansion of the government but who can’t get over the fact they lost the election and are now using spending as an excuse to rationalize pure partisanship.
7. 

   anjin-san

   April 8, 2009 at 9:17 pm

   I guess this give the right wing nutosphere something to do…
8. 

   sam

   April 9, 2009 at 5:54 am

   Rightwing holy man at prayer meeting prior to tea party:

   Reverend Johnson: Oh Lord. Do we have the strength to carry on this mighty task in one night? Or are we just jerking off?
   Townspeople: Amen.
   Reverend: Amen.
9. 

   odograph

   April 9, 2009 at 8:28 am

   On a more serious note:

   The case for keeping banks in something close to their current structure begins to take shape. It’s not about traditional claims that big banks are more efficient, or Lloyd Blankfein’s argument that this is the only way to encourage risk-taking, or even the House Financial Services Committee view that immediate resumption of credit flows is essential for preserving jobs.

   Rather, the argument is: those opposed to banks and bankers are angry populists who, if unchecked, would do great damage. Bankers should therefore agree to some mild reforms and more socially acceptable behavior in the short-run; in return, the centrists who control economic policymaking will protect them against the building backlash. This is a version of Jamie Dimon’s line: “if you let them vilify us too much, the economic recovery will be greatly delayed.”

   There are three problems with this argument: it is wrong, it won’t work, and it doesn’t move the reform process at all in the right direction.
10. 

    Herb

    April 9, 2009 at 9:26 am

    “I predict equal success for both movements.”

    If by “success” you mean “failure,” then yes, you’re probably right. It’s been curious to see Reynolds/Malkin/like-minded folks embrace the concept of these Tea Party Protests.

    It’s almost as if they looked up Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Moveon.org and said to themselves, “Yeah, I wanna do that.”
11. 

    Steve Plunk

    April 9, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    I see the lefty pooh bahs have weighed in with the standard responses. It’s Bush’s fault! Right wing nut jobs! Bible Belt activism! Come on guys, those are tired, worn out cliches. Come up with something new.

    This is not directed at bankers either. It’s about government spending and mortgaging our children’s future. What? We’re not allowed to protest? Only hippies can protest? Get used to the right wing getting out and making some noise. We used to all concentrate on work (unlike the hippies) but now we see really bad things happening so work will have to wait. No more sitting and letting elected officials be the serious adults. They have failed us and we know it. It’s time to take it to the streets.
12. 

    Stormy Dragon

    April 10, 2009 at 9:11 am

    And I see the Republicans have now weighed in with their standard response: anyone who doesn’t love the Big Chief of the Republican tribe is a lefty. It couldn’t possibly be someone on the right who just thinks Republicans are unprincipled hacks.

    Bush is just as socialist as Obama, but the Republican party still isn’t ready to deal with the reality of what happened the last eight years. Likewise I have no doubt that had McCain won, his stimulus spending would have been just as bad as what we have now. The only difference is all the usual suspects in the Republican Party would be falling over themselves to tell us how great a leader McCain is to take such bold action on the economy and how anyone who disagrees is rooting for America to fail.

    Even in these tea parties, there’s lots of talk about fighting Obama, but does anyone say anything about undoing any of Bush’s spending? Nope, they’re too busy moving the goalposts to redefine Bush’s obscene spending as small government.

    I feel the same way about “small government” Republicans as I do about “civil liberties” Democrats. Both could really care less about the issue itself, it’s just a convenient excuse to agitate against the other party. As soon as someone from their tribe is in power, they’ll stop complaining even though nothing has changed.

    The problems we have started long before the current administration, and a real solution will require fixes that extend further back than the last election.

    A Republican whose memory on spending only goes back to January 2009 is just as unserious as a Democrat whose memory on civil liberties abuses only went back to January 2001.