Irony: Republican Doesn’t Rule Out Bank Nationalization. Democrat Says No.

February 16th, 2009 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

With all that was said during the election and continues to be said now, you might think that the new Democratic majorities in Congress and the presidency are going to take us to the brink of socialism.  That’s what we’ve been told.

But what if they had some friends for the ride?  Or maybe some who’d make the initial push.

Like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for instance, who said today on ABC’s “This Week” that the idea of nationalizing the banks was not off the table for him:

“This idea of nationalizing bank is not comfortable but I think we have got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community throughout the world that we’re going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes,” he said.

“To me banking and housing are the root cause of this program,” Graham said. “I would not take off [the table] the idea of nationalizing the banks.”

Meanwhile, Graham’s colleague, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is saying, “no way:”

“You can have a big, bold plan without nationalization,” Schumer said.

It’s ironic, isn’t it?  The Republican calls for something no Democrat would ever seriously talk about.

The Democrats obviously want to prevent any accusations of socialism from the Republicans.  About a week ago, Obama gave his own reasons for not pursuing nationalization, as seen in the clip below.  They know they’d be ripped apart if the even hinting at such plans.  Yet the Republicans seem to get a softer treatment on this.  Well, sometimes, but not always.

Consider that even though there was a lot of grumbling about the government buy-in of banks last year, it’s mostly died down.  No, “OMG!  Capitalism is being destroyed by those dirty commies!” that we seem to enjoy whenever a Democrat brings up an economic initiative.

Obviously, the plans being called for are not permanent nationalization in the Soviet Union sense.  The idea is that the banks would be cleaned up and then sold back into the private sector in a couple years.  The everything presumably goes back to normal.  Presumably.

Still, it’s rather amusing to see a Republican seriously consider nationalization while two Democrats have dismissed it completely, especially after all the time the Republicans have spent trying to portray the Democrats as Marxists.

YouTube Preview Image
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. AC
    February 16th, 2009 at 04:38
    Reply | Quote | #1

    How about nationalizing health care, too – as long as you’re in the neighborhood?

  2. ChrisWWW
    February 16th, 2009 at 17:30
    Reply | Quote | #2

    It’s not surprising that Senator Schumer would back his Wall Street buddies.

  3. c3
    February 16th, 2009 at 19:18
    Reply | Quote | #3

    I believe part of the problem is we’ve lost sight of “the line”. When you bailout an institution that was about to go under, and as part of that agreement you get to reap some profit in the future, if any, and you have say as to executive pay and input into other “daily” functions, do you “own” the bank?

    Speaking for myself I’m getting confused.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.