No Hope

And this one is an idiot, too:

Banks make record profits discriminating against people of color and denying basic banking services to 63 million adults who are unbanked or underbanked.

We must allow every post office to offer basic, affordable banking services and end lending discrimination once and for all.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 9, 2019

We are so done in this election cycle.

Twenty+ candidates, and every one is a raving lunatic.


15 thoughts on “No Hope”

  1. I can understand discrimination by a bank and that a bank might make a profit, but how can a bank make a profit through discrimination?


    1. Yeah… I have no idea.

      Plus, the whole plan to get the Postal Service to issue what amounts to junk loans, nothing can go wrong there. It’s not like we had a recession recently precisely because of this kind of junk loans. And the postal service wasn’t even involved.



      1. The racial blabber is a distraction tactic. This is about the government issuing unsecured junk loans to create yet another bubble by feeding consumer debt.

        If people don’t see that this is a gift of taxpayer money to Facebook, they are completely blind.


        1. Brilliant, exquisitely educated people can’t read a tweet until the end, notice the sneaky use of the word “lending” and understand who will be lending what to whom and for what purpose. And all because they were consciously and deliberately blinded by appeals to utterly irrelevant racial narratives at the beginning.

          I truly despair.


  2. We must allow every post office to offer basic, affordable banking services and end lending discrimination once and for all.

    As I recall, this is precisely what the Japanese Post Office does.


    1. Basic banking services – sure. But placing lending among them is insane. A checking account, a savings account, check cashing – that’s eminently reasonable.

      But lending? To people who are unlikely to pay the loans back? That means the creditors will be you and me with zero power over the transaction.


  3. If you think Biden and Bernie are saying nutty things, just wait until another famous “B” politician — NYC’s absolutely crazy mayor Bill de Blasio — jumps into the race! 🙂 🙂


  4. I think you’re misreading the comment, and also taking it out of its historical context. Sanders is old enough to know, as I am, that until the Reagan era, banks had to seek regulatory approval to open and close branches. Part of the approval process required demonstration of need for services in the local market and that the market was not already adequately served by other institutions. Since those regulations disappeared, banks have routinely shuttered facilities in rural and lower income locations, to the extent that some small towns have NO banking facilities at all — and that absence is impacting the viability of other businesses in the community. Driving three hours to make a business deposit or cash a payroll check is a problem. So rather than reimposing old regulations on the banks, Sanders is proposing an alternative to provide services to the underserved. In the correct context, this is a perfectly reasonable option. And David is correct, this is done in other countries.


  5. If Bernie decides to embrace SJW rhetoric in order to convince voters that his platform does not overlook race, gender, etc., then I’m going to lose my respect for him.


  6. “Brilliant, exquisitely educated people can’t read a tweet until the end”
    “not even mentioning the egregious part of it, which is lending”

    I think this is more pseudo-religion for the post-religious…

    Non-discrimination is invoked specifically to give credence to the rest, and those that share the pseudo-religion know what part is meant to be taken seriously (basic services) and what is meant to be ignored (lending).

    It’s also possible that this is a brain fart on Bernie’s part, it’s possible to interpret
    “We must allow every post office to offer basic, affordable banking services and end lending discrimination once and for all”
    as “We must allow every post office [to offer basic banking] services and in addition we must do something [else] to end lending discrimination”.

    Twitter does not lend itself to subtle fine-grained expression so it might be good to see if he links the two ideas elsewhere or not.

    I agree that having post offices offer basic banking services makes a lot of sense (that happens in many countries including Poland) but the idea of them becoming lenders is crazy town banana pants.


    1. God, I hope you are right. This is a very optimistic explanation that I want to believe. But I fear that the tweet is too perfectly constructed, with the emotional manipulation at the start and the sneaky use of “lending” in the end.

      I hope you are right, though, and this is a mistake.


      1. OK, I finally googled my way to the truth. Bernie is proposing legislation together with AOC. The legislation proposes normal banking activities to be done at post offices and not lending. (I actually read the proposal to make sure.) But! AOC is pushing to add banking to the package.

        Here is one link: “According to Ocasio-Cortez’s office, the freshman representative plans to suggest postal banking as a public option for consumer lending, though that is not in the legislation. A postal lending option would in theory minimize the impact on access to credit from the rate cap. Sanders endorsed postal banking during his 2016 presidential campaign.”

        So as usual, Bernie is being influenced by the radicals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.