Senate Passes Banking Deregulation Bill

My head is spinning from all this winning: the Trump tax cuts, the end of the defense sequester, Larry Kudlow in charge of the economy and now the Republican Congress passing bipartisan banking deregulation on the 10 year anniversary of the collapse of Bear Stearns:

“President Donald Trump and other supporters of the major banking bill that cleared the Senate on Wednesday say they want to rescue the nation’s lenders from a crush of regulations.

But far from being crushed, the industry looks more like it’s booming.

Banks have hauled in record profits for the last three years and will be among the biggest winners under the new tax-reform law. Their loans are growing by 4 to 5 percent a year, well within historical norms. And even community banks, which the bill’s backers say they’re most concerned about, are making money. …”

What is the Republican Congress planning to work on next? I can hardly contain my excitement. More tax cuts of course. Maybe a cut in the capital gains tax rate this time.

Note: I’m recovering from the biggest political hangover of my life. In hindsight, I couldn’t have been more wrong about Donald Trump. POPULISM, LMAO!


About Hunter Wallace 9121 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

39 Comments

  1. (((Larry Kudlow))). I wonder if he ever cheated on his wife. That’s immoral ya know. I’ll just BET his co ethnics will call the cops on him, if he ever does anything remotely naughty.

  2. Looks like a Full House. As soon as that Bill becomes law they’ll be hot wiring those banks with derivatives so they can bring it all down like they did the last time – stick ZOG.fedgov with the debt, call in the loans and consolidate more real wealth for the The Tribe.

  3. Whatever it takes to destroy us, that’s what they make a beeline for. Many people will grudgingly admit this without daring to contemplate much less affirm the cause — brutal, vampiristic Jewish supremacism.

  4. This may be a prelude to a Cyprus or Greek style bank heist. ZOG.fedgov won’t be covering it this time. That means the next place banks can recover any losses is from the savings and/or checking accounts of their customers. I strongly suggest that anyone here quietly move their money to a credit union. Where credit unions, banks, and savings and loans are concerned, only the credit unions haven’t ripped off their customers. Look for credit unions with four star ratings and preferably those that do not take any form of Matricular Consular cards.

    • Neither Cyprus nor Greece are sovereign currency issuers.

      There is no theoretical case in America where such a “bail-in” would be required.

      Your bank deposits are insured by the FDIC according to federal law. While you can lose purchasing power owing to inflation, you cannot actually lose your money (up to the insured limit).

      As for bank losses there are several options:

      -Raise more capital
      -Takeover by healthier partner
      -Bankruptcy
      -Bailout

      But no matter what happens, your deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC.

      • You mean guaranteed by the taxpayer. The FDIC could not cover anything if the (((banks))) were not bailed out by the taxpayer.

        You are an obvious jew trolling this board.

        • You mean guaranteed by the taxpayer. The FDIC could not cover anything if the (((banks))) were not bailed out by the taxpayer.

          You are an obvious jew trolling this board.

          The FDIC charges insurance premiums to depository institutions.

          That said, yes it is ultimately guaranteed by taxpayers–which is what the full faith and credit of the United States government means.

          I for one sleep soundly at night knowing that my bank deposits are guaranteed by the productive power of over 300 million people.

          Since the creation of the FDIC in 1933, not once cent of depositor money has been lost. Prior to this depositors routinely lost their money during bank failures. Those bank failures not only harmed the depositors who lost their savings, but all debtors as well since the money was literally destroyed.

          And bear in mind that it is the deposits that are insured, not the stockholder’s equity. TARP was a disgrace, but an entirely different matter than the FDIC.

          I am of Swedish ancestry, and three of the five largest banks in the United States have Irish CEOs. Only one is headed by a Jew.

          • You got that right. If Hunter follows up, he will find that Southern Congressmen, like that fellow from Alabama whose name escapes me, thought most of these things like the up. WASP’s all.

          • @Krafty Wurker

            Replying to my post because WP does not allow me to reply to you.

            You got that right. If Hunter follows up, he will find that Southern Congressmen, like that fellow from Alabama whose name escapes me, thought most of these things like the up. WASP’s all.

            Senator Carter Glass from Virginia and Representative Henry Steagall of Alabama.

            Populists used to be broadly in favor of more government intervention, regulation, and spending.

            This changed in the generation after the war, largely because the federal government became the enemy of the American people.

          • never mind Thorfinn’s soporific nonsense.

            in fact, your bank deposit is an unsecured loan to the (((bank))).

            the day the dollar dies,

            your 1’s and 0’s in cypberspace will disappear instantly,

            and re-appear (((elsewhere))).

          • @Haxo Angmark

            never mind Thorfinn’s soporific nonsense.

            Not my fault you have a poor attention span. If I’m wrong show us.

            in fact, your bank deposit is an unsecured loan to the (((bank))).

            It is correct that it is an unsecured loan to the bank (likely headed by an Irish CEO), but it is insured (by the FDIC).

            Since the creation of the FDIC not one cent of depositor money has been lost.

            the day the dollar dies

            Real Soon Now

          • <[email protected]_mike

            Jew Troll I know all about (((banking))).

            If you know all about it, then you should be able to argue.

            Which you are not.

            Either show that I am wrong or apologize for being wrong.

      • @Thorfinnson

        Dude FDIC is owned and operated proudly by the feds….and they NEVER have confiscated anything now have they????!????

        Wait, there was the gold confiscation act of 1933….

        • The elimination of the gold standard eliminates the need for such confiscations entirely. And the gold holders got dollars in exchange. Cypriot depositors got diddly squat.

          The Federal Reserve has the power to create unlimited quantities of money, so why on Earth would bank deposits be confiscated?

          The Bank of Cyprus does not have such power since it is a member of the Eurozone. The European Central Bank does have the same power (in fact it has more powers than the FED since it can purchase corporate securities unlike the FED), but Germany insisted that Cypriot banks and depositors take a haircut.

          • “gold holders got dollars in exchange”

            whereupon Roosenfelt, Morganthau and Co. devalued the dollar 40% against gold,

            thereby making themselves a quick 40%.

            you really are a Jew,

            aren’t you.

          • @Haxo Angmark

            whereupon Roosenfelt, Morganthau and Co. devalued the dollar 40% against gold

            Only importers were harmed by this.

            Exporters benefited.

            Nontradeable goods and services were unaffected.

            As a result very few people lost purchasing power.

            thereby making themselves a quick 40%.

            The gold remains in the custody of the government (and FED) to this day and makes up the backbone of our reserves. Roosevelt and Morgenthau made no personal profit of any kind.

            you really are a Jew,

            aren’t you.

            Swedish.

            I’ve just moved beyond “Austrian” crankery.

          • @Thorfinnson

            “The Federal Reserve has the power to create unlimited quantities of money, so why on Earth would bank deposits be confiscated?”

            To force people into crypto currency and even greater devalued, devaluable, and unprotected currency.

            You really think these people have created a benevolent system?

            I will be candid and frank, you should oppose the current banking standards at the very least because of the gold confiscation act of 1933. Forcing people into the scheme automatically makes a system based on coercion. An abusive system and an enemy to a free people. You should study Andrew Jackson and his opposition to national banks. Everything he said about them has come true.

          • @Professional

            To force people into crypto currency and even greater devalued, devaluable, and unprotected currency.

            So Nelson W. Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew, Frank Vanderlip, Henry P. Davison, Benjamin Strong, and Paul Warburg plotted the Federal Reserve System on Jekyll Island in 1910 in order to push people into crypto?

            You really think these people have created a benevolent system?

            Benevolent? No.

            Workable? Yes.

            I think the power to create money should belong to the government rather than the banks, but the doomerist nonsense spouted by hard money cranks is simply not true.

            I will be candid and frank, you should oppose the current banking standards at the very least because of the gold confiscation act of 1933. Forcing people into the scheme automatically makes a system based on coercion. An abusive system and an enemy to a free people.

            I am in favor of coercion and against freedom.

            You should study Andrew Jackson and his opposition to national banks. Everything he said about them has come true.

            The immediate consequence of the destruction of the Second Bank of the United States was the Panic of 1837, which destroyed the career of Jackson’s hand picked successor Martin Van Buren (known as Martin Van Ruin as a result).

            The following free-banking era meant that each bank note was only redeemable in gold at its bank of issue. This meant bank notes traded at a discount based on the distance from the bank of issue and the perceived soundness of the bank. The discount varied based on market sentiment, so this meant every bank note’s value changed daily and these values changed against each other.

            Sort of like the forex market today, except within our own country. And even within the same CITY. Financial newspapers of the time published daily exchange rates of major bank notes every day.

            This is, to put it bluntly, an absurd system and the fact that hard money and libertarian cranks lionize it is ridiculous.

  5. While this can’t be called populist, this is a good bill. Dodd-Frank is out of control and is especially onerous on smaller banks.

    Of particular interest to this site is that this bill exempts smaller lenders from the requirement to record the demographic data of mortgage applicants.

    And you can guess exactly what the purpose of that requirement was.

    People tend to have a weird and pathological hatred of banks. I am quite happy with banks in my experience. They cause me far less grief than, say, the tech companies.

    The banks provide me with a checking account for free and credit cards that give me a discount on everything I buy (cash back). The online banking tools are very good and I can even deposit a check with my mobile phone. Unlike the tech companies they do not care that I am far right and have no “community standards” or “terms of service”.

    Why exactly am I supposed to hate them?

    Am I supposed to be mad about bank profits or something? I own stock in Wells Fargo (which isn’t even allowed to grow its deposits ffs), JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. So I like bank profits.

    And if Congress cut the capital gains tax I would be delighted, though I do recognize that is unlikely to boost the real economy. But who doesn’t like having his tax bill cut?

    I don’t mean to be rude but not all of us on the alt right are broke. Some of us benefit from traditional conservative causes. I didn’t vote for Trump for these reasons, but when my taxes are cut I certainly am not going to complain!

    • Banks, by their very nature, are a tax on it’s nations citizens. (((They))) were treasonously bailed out by Bush in 2008. The banking issue has absolutely zero to do with race. You might be benefiting, but by definition you are benefiting at someone else’s expense, just like affirmative action. I tried explaining this to Matt Parrott a few years back, but he thought the bank bailouts “stabilized” things.

      People with a financial advantage won’t give it up, including your fellow whites. I also understood why this would doom the movement back in 2015. Now three years later, there is a backlash against the boomers here…

      In a nutshell, stock market gains come by creating deficit spending, and therefore it must be supported by labor. All of this wealth without labor is unearned, including bitcoin.

      The alt right is destined for failure. We live in an age of class warfare, and race is only a subset of that.

      • Banks, by their very nature, are a tax on it’s nations citizens.

        In the sense that fractional reserve banking can create inflation, yes. But any monetary system will have certain effects with winners and losers.

        Presently the system punishes depositors and persons on fixed incomes.

        During the gold standard era price trends were frequently deflationary, especially after the Panic of 1873. Deflationary price trends, especially for commodities, greatly hurt debtors–farmers above all.

        Populists of that era despised the gold standard and referred to the demonetization of silver as the “Crime of ’73”. For an entire generation populists demanded the unlimited free coinage of silver by the federal government in order to inflate the money supply, whereas the establishment was opposed. International bankers of that era were derisively referred to as “the Gold Ring”.

        William Jennings Bryan denounced the gold ring in his famous Cross of Gold speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1896:

        You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!

        The issue disappeared as gold discoveries in Alaska, the Yukon, South Africa, and Russia resulted in the money supply finally being reflated.

        (((They))) were treasonously bailed out by Bush in 2008.

        I do not support TARP. The federal government should have taken the banks into conservatorship instead and wiped out the stockholders. This is what Sweden did during its banking crisis in the early 1990s.

        And the government DID demand and receive equity for bailing out General Motors and Chrysler.

        The banking issue has absolutely zero to do with race.

        Like everything else in this nutty country, banking is intertwined with race. The banking crisis of the last decade for instance originated in George W. Bush’s hope to turn hispanics and blacks into Republicans by issuing them mortgages they were not qualified for.

        And this current deregulation bill is being criticized by Elizabeth Warren on the grounds of race.

        You might be benefiting, but by definition you are benefiting at someone else’s expense, just like affirmative action.

        Whose expense? Depositors?

        Even if true, I’m comfortable benefiting at someone else’s expense.

        If some dope puts all of his savings into a deposit account instead of the stock market that his problem, not mine.

        I tried explaining this to Matt Parrott a few years back, but he thought the bank bailouts “stabilized” things.

        Matt Parrot doesn’t even understand that another man’s child is not his daughter. Lost cause.

        The bank bailout did stabilize things.

        That, however, does not justify the unjust enrichment of stockholders at taxpayer expense and the failure to hold executives responsible.

        In a nutshell, stock market gains come by creating deficit spending, and therefore it must be supported by labor. All of this wealth without labor is unearned, including bitcoin.

        The stock market also did well in the 19th century, when governments rarely ran deficit outside of wartime.

        Deficit spending increases income to the private sector, but it is also an implicit tax hike in the future. It’s a temporal redistribution of output. And bear in mind that everyone’s debt is someone else’s asset. I purchase $10,000 worth of Series I Bonds every year for instance, and I’m considering Treasuries now for the first time in my life (haven’t ever seen positive real interest rates since I started investing).

        The reason the stock market always goes up in the long term is that every day tens of millions of people go to work and improve on yesterday’s work. Output growth has exceeded population growth since the High Middle Ages and this shows no sign of stopping.

        Whether or not my capital income is “earned” (and the IRS does not define it as earned income), it is ultimately produced by the millions of dedicated employees of Corporate America.

        Bitcoin is a religion, not an asset class.

        The alt right is destined for failure. We live in an age of class warfare, and race is only a subset of that.

        I think we’re doing well, though our enemies are legion and powerful.

        Agree on class warfare. I’m fighting a class war against Hunter Wallace and his commenters. 😉

        • Thorfinnsson, I’m rubbing my eyes in disbelief here: a WN displaying financial acumen for once! A truly astonishing and rarely seen sight.

          Hunter Wallace is such a laughable poser. Every few years he gets a new idea in his about what “the most important thing” is with respect to pro-white politics, and he promptly begins acting the part. So some years ago, he decided that being (seen as) a “member of the community” was crucial, so he quickly transformed from a derisive atheist into a righteous Christian, all the better to mix it with his fellow southerners. It was hilarious watching him trying to play the part.

          More recently he’s decided that “populism” is where the action is, so he mindlessly chimes in to protest pro-banking legislation, while clearly being clueless about the particulars. Having already decided that Trump isn’t populist enough, economic nationalist policies like the steel tariff pass by without comment.

    • Nothing has zero to do with race in the current climate. Populism as I conceive it is neither race nor class warfare but has implications for both. Populism insists that the people’s shared sense of right and wrong be respected and believes the elite is acting against or apart from essential norms e.g. by undermining Christianity or the family or vilifying the majority or robbing average people to the benefit of the elite.

    • Just because you are a ‘winner’ from Crony Capitalism doesn’t mean you have to defend it. Banks have robbed the public by taking risks to make huge profits and when the risks didn’t pan out they passed the bill to the taxpayer. And are still doing so. Over the last 40 years the average American has gained nothing while the banks and their big shareholders have gained enormous wealth. I have a lot of sympathy for REAL community banks (under 200M, say) but none for the crooks at Goldman Sachs or Morgan or BOA and the congresscons who rob us on their behalf. If tech companies are worse, that’s not much of a defense. And who can doubt banking will be politicized as soon as it is practical to do so. PayPal already refused accounts to right-wingers. You sound like a libertarian or ‘moderate Republican’ to me. Alt Right is more like the space that has Huey Long at one end and Hitler at the other.

      • Just because you are a ‘winner’ from Crony Capitalism doesn’t mean you have to defend it. Banks have robbed the public by taking risks to make huge profits and when the risks didn’t pan out they passed the bill to the taxpayer.

        I opposed TARP when it happened and I still do today. The federal government should have followed the Swedish model and wiped out the stockholders by taking the banks into conservatorship. Or we could call it the General Motors model, since the government did demand equity from GM and Chrysler.

        It is worth noting however that the TARP bailout did net the Treasury Department preferred stock, and the Treasury Department ultimately made a $17 billion profit on the program.

        Top executives should have been much more deeply investigated than they were.

        I started buying bank stocks in 2014.

        And are still doing so.

        There may be an implicit guarantee of a future bailout–if one is required.

        But today banks are not being supported by taxpayers. The last TARP holdings were sold in 2014. Note that they are making record profits.

        Over the last 40 years the average American has gained nothing while the banks and their big shareholders have gained enormous wealth.

        This is not specific to banks, and the banks are not to blame for the stagnation of wages. Higher wages are good for banks because it increases demand for their main product–loans.

        Free trade, mass immigration, feminism, and increasing corporate concentration are responsible. The increased importance and protection of intellectual property likely plays a role as well. And we can’t leave out the healthcare and education rackets.

        I have a lot of sympathy for REAL community banks (under 200M, say) but none for the crooks at Goldman Sachs or Morgan or BOA and the congresscons who rob us on their behalf.

        I am quite happy with the banking services I’ve received from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, USAA, Capital One, and Charles Schwab–to name a few large banks.

        I was not happy with the service I received from a local community bank, though I do note that the credit union where I live now is widely liked by the local proletariat. All of my local employees except one bank there and comment favorably on it.

        Nobody (here) likes crony capitalism or what took place in 2007-2008, but does anyone actually have cause to be unhappy with banking products and services?

        I love my bank accounts and credit cards!

        If tech companies are worse, that’s not much of a defense.

        The tech companies actively conspire to oppress and censor me. The banks do not.

        And who can doubt banking will be politicized as soon as it is practical to do so. PayPal already refused accounts to right-wingers.

        Paypal is a tech company, not a bank. PayPal is not FDIC insured, and unlike bank payments there is no finality in PayPal payments.

        Instead of politicizing banking, tech is trying to take over banking. Fortunately the financial industry is regulated, which limits what shenanigans tech can get away with. And the banks are doing an excellent job investing in technology–note how you can deposit a hand-written check with a smartphone.

        You sound like a libertarian or ‘moderate Republican’ to me. Alt Right is more like the space that has Huey Long at one end and Hitler at the other.

        I am a protectionist, support much higher public capital expenditures, and am in favor of breaking down concentrated corporate power. With respect to the banks, yes they should be broken up.

        But otherwise you are not wrong. Many small-l libertarian ideas are good. Just keep those dweebs away from the National Question and our money.

  6. Capital gains cuts? Banking and business de-regulation? More profits for Wailing Wall Street?

    That’s exactly the kind of stuff I voted for.

    #MAGA!!!!

  7. Render unto Shlomo the things which are Shlomo’s. When the $ collapses I think these clowns will all be looking at Capital Treason. Watching them attempt to make a last stand in Israel will be priceless.

  8. With this appt, ZOG is pulling another job on the national debt. A brown job, so to speak. They are getting prepared for another round of bankster looting.

    Darren ‘Whackhead’ Simpson of S.A. Jo’berg radio station ( 94.7 Highveld Stereo) definitely has his head around this type of woe. In this podcast he is calling up members of the public on behalf of the ‘friends of Jacob Zuma trust’.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8JkeuTqF5k
    Whackhead Simpson – Please donate to Jacob Zuma

  9. I imagine there is some good and bad in this bill. I would have to know some details.

    The credit union that has my mortgage would not refinance my home loan since I am not able to show work for two years but I managed to pay the monthly payment, insurance, and taxes. Being responsible means nothing. They told me federal law prohibits them from doing anything for me. Thanks Dodd-Frank.

    • The bill exempts banks with under $250 billion in assets from many of the requirements of Dodd-Frank. Most of the Dodd-Frank requirements are onerous and ridiculous, and in general Dodd-Frank would not have prevented the last financial crisis.

      Financial crises will always happen, but the solution to too big to fail was obviously to break up banks. This isn’t even an attack on capital, it’s just an attack on empire building CEOs.

      Thanks to asshole cuckservative Sam Brownback Dodd-Frank even imposed ridiculous “Conflict Minerals” rules on manufacturers like me. This was ruled unconstitutional in 2015, but corporations keep demanding the information anyway.

      Why aren’t you able to show work? Can you show income or assets?

      I mean obviously a lender is going to want to see proof of ability to pay, regardless of regulations.

  10. It doesn’t really matter if the bill is good or bad. All that really matters is if the *story* about the bill can be plausibly spun into an anti-Trump narrative that will give those looking to declare themselves defeated permission to throw up their hands and walk away.

    • Trump could cure cancer and the media would declare itself in support of cancer.

      Politically Wallance has a point–this bill will do nothing positive for Trump or the party in the upcoming midterm elections. Could even have a negative impact.

      But the bill itself is fine. Dodd-Frank is garbage and now only the top 25 banks will need to comply with most of it.

Comments are closed.