Are Republicans still a National Party?

[Heavens_Myst]

How is this different than a credit union other than being state owned? (In terms of credit unions not being for maximization of profit.)

And how do you provide a competitive environment for all other banks trying to compete with your behemoths? Do you just take a shit on the shareholders of all private banks?

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Murphy Eeks Out Win in NY-20 Special Election

Four weeks after the ballots were cast, Democrat Scott Murphy finally declared victory today in an exceptionally close special election to represent upstate New York in the U.S. House, a race that had been turned into a referendum on President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

How is this different than a credit union other than being state owned? (In terms of credit unions not being for maximization of profit.)

It's pretty much a state-wide, giant credit union. I think credit unions are usually serving only locally. So they don't have a whole lot of assets; certainly not enough to stabilize the country's banking system.

I think there is a reputation effect, whereas people rather seek out commercial banks even though a credit union is offering better deals. Plus, you probably want to access your money throughout the country and not just at a local branch. A state bank should be easier able to offer that. (e.g. by working together with the other state banks to provide easy access throughout the country)

Credit unions and cooperatives (like the USAA) are awesome examples of "social businesses" though. Especially the USAA has, from what I have read, excellent service and great rates. Unfortunately, it is only open to members of the armed services and their families. Still, the idea of cooperatives is of course nothing new, it would just be on a larger scale.

And how do you provide a competitive environment for all other banks trying to compete with your behemoths? Do you just take a shit on the shareholders of all private banks?

Private banks all benefit from an explicit government guarantee through the FDIC and from an implicit guarantee through bailouts, as we have now seen. I think bank shareholders will do fine, although it is not the state's job to ensure and protect shareholder profit. On the contrary, I suppose: in a functioning market, which is what any free-market supporter assumes, profits are very low due to the competition on price. There is a sort of stalemate as banks don't lower rates knowing the competition would lower theirs in turn - leaving everyone off with less profits and no advantage. There has to be a big player to break this up; the current condition is detrimental to consumers, who are the only ones who really matter.

Although the major US banks are behemoths themselves. They should be able to find some venue to compete on, if only because the state banks would be more restricted in what sorts of risk they can take. If they can't compete on price, at least they have a major advantage by already being established banks. Maybe they can offer an outstanding online service or come up with something new - that's where the ingenuity of the market is supposed to kick in and show us who the real winners are. If it's the state bank, that would suck for shareholders, but be great for everyone who uses banking services. Not to mention great for taxpayers, who are essentially the stakeholders of a state bank. (If it helps people start businesses, that means fewer people depending on welfare and more tax revenue)

Within a 5 minute walking distance in midtown NY, I walked past 3 branches of Chase and a fourth (large one) in construction. This is prime real estate, not to mention there's staff that needs to be paid. The idea can't be that customers pay for a desire for prestige, simply so a bank can say they have x number of branches in the area - that's not efficient at all.

[Etoille]

I think Soriak is really Bernake.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

I like how Soriak's Socialism is more free-market than Heaven_Myst's free-market capitalism. That's pretty outstanding.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Within a 5 minute walking distance in midtown NY, I walked past 3 branches of Chase and a fourth (large one) in construction. This is prime real estate, not to mention there's staff that needs to be paid. The idea can't be that customers pay for a desire for prestige, simply so a bank can say they have x number of branches in the area - that's not efficient at all.

I notice this around here as well, driving to school I go by at least 10 branch offices of banks, and I wonder.. what do they do? Do people come in to make deposits/cash checks/withdraw money? Who doesn't have direct deposit and pay for everything with credit cards? Yet here all these bank branches are, nice buildings, usually empty. What is going on with these things?

[VariaVespasa]

The biggest irreplaceable function of the branches is to deal with the daily deposits by all the various stores around town. All of those take in sizeable amounts of physical cash every day, in all denominations including coins, and it has to be deposited into the bank for safekeeping, and you cant do that at a bank machine. Large stores may be able to do the whole armored car thing to a central location for their cash handling, but most regular stores cannot.

[Heavens_Myst]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

I like how Soriak's Socialism is more free-market than Heaven_Myst's free-market capitalism. That's pretty outstanding.

Banking hasn't been a free market since Woodrow Wilson son; amplifying government control on that market through state owned banks that will doubtfully follow the same rules that private companies are supposed to will obviously move that system farther toward free markets!

[I'm Rich Bitch]

There is definitely a civil war within the Republican Party. The extreme Conservatives are winning the war since they have superior air power (Fox News and talk radio). The problem for the GOP as a whole is that limiting your party to a fringe group of nuts will not win elections except a few local ones in the South and fly over country.

In GOP base, a 'rebellion brewing'

But outside Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration.

The new fringe GOP will not tolerate anyone with an opinion that differs from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. By contrast the Democrat Party is opening it's doors to people with Pro-Life views and other contrasting views. For example a lot of Democrats believe in same sex marriage however, their elected President does not. They still voted for him. Do you think the Republicans would vote for a Presidential candidate who was "for" same sex marriage?

The end of the Republican Party is very near. I celebrate the end. Good riddance.

[Frax]

I always see this when I see an IRB post, it makes the thread more enjoyable

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

[Lleauaric~EW]

Rick Perry gets over his Confederate fantasy for a day.

[Itzena]

Originally Posted by Frax

I always see this when I see an IRB post, it makes the thread more enjoyable

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Attachment 107953

So you've actually got nothing left to say, then?

Anyway, the fundamental problem with the Republicans at the moment is that they have not (and possibly cannot) admit that they were wrong. Instead, they feel that Obama won because McCain wasn't 'conservative' enough. For the Republicans to return to being the sort of party that can reliably win, they need to do some self-examination and analysis of what works in their policies...and what doesn't work (which is always slightly harder for conservatives by definition). For that, they need to admit that their policies aren't perfect. And for that...they need to admit that they were, in part, wrong.

The Labour party had to do the exact same thing over here in the late-80s/early-90s, and then the Tories had to follow suit after Labour got back into power in the early 90s.

[Arbiter]

Originally Posted by Frax

I always see this when I see an IRB post, it makes the thread more enjoyable

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Attachment 107953

hahaha

[Knucklehead]

Originally Posted by Itzena

So you've actually got nothing left to say, then?

Anyway, the fundamental problem with the Republicans at the moment is that they have not (and possibly cannot) admit that they were wrong. Instead, they feel that Obama won because McCain wasn't 'conservative' enough. For the Republicans to return to being the sort of party that can reliably win, they need to do some self-examination and analysis of what works in their policies...and what doesn't work (which is always slightly harder for conservatives by definition). For that, they need to admit that their policies aren't perfect. And for that...they need to admit that they were, in part, wrong.

The Labour party had to do the exact same thing over here in the late-80s/early-90s, and then the Tories had to follow suit after Labour got back into power in the early 90s.

That's not the way it works on this side of the pond. Typical Republican strategy involves waiting until the other party shits the bed; then pile on to that failure non-stop until the general public has totally forgotten the giant load Republicans left behind the last time they were in charge. Between those events, however, is a lot of bitching, moaning, name-calling, chest-thumping, lies, and other such "political maneuvering".

It's pretty much the same thing when Democrats aren't in power. Except they usually try to grow the government while in power. Whereas Republicans try to walk a fine line between dismantling the federal government while shoveling money into the armed forces faster than Casey Jones on meth.

So when you see a mad hatter when IRB posts, I see this guy whenever Frax and co. post:

And some of us can recall how that ended.

[Borzak]

Originally Posted by Cad

I notice this around here as well, driving to school I go by at least 10 branch offices of banks, and I wonder.. what do they do? Do people come in to make deposits/cash checks/withdraw money? Who doesn't have direct deposit and pay for everything with credit cards? Yet here all these bank branches are, nice buildings, usually empty. What is going on with these things?

You can't do direct deposit unless you get a weekly check. Lots of people do contract work, payments to a business etc...Even if I had the opportunity I'm not sure I would. I wouldn't want every check going into the same bank.

Plus lots of people never use a credit card.

I'm 38 and do pretty well. I've never used a direct deposit and likely never will. Have 1 credit card for ordering stuff when needed for my company. It has never carried a balance.