Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OldBrownsFan

Fighting Back Against the Radical Left

Recommended Posts

Senate bill introduced to pull FDIC insurance from banks that shun ICE contractors

Social justice bankers are the latest tool used by radical progressives to apply pressure against conservative government principles. As insane as the notion may seem, some of the largest banks in America, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, are denying services to companies who provide services to certain government agencies, most notably Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Five Republican Senators have introduced a bill that would punish banks who deny law-abiding, creditworthy companies simply because they contract with the U.S. government.

Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton, and Kevin Cramer introduced the bill that would amend FDIC laws. The Financial Defense of Industrial Contractors (FDIC) Act, symbolically having the same initials as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that insures the money we keep in banks, would withdraw the issued insurance of banks that deny services based solely on affiliation with government agencies.

“It’s deeply concerning to see our country’s largest banks caving to the radical Left’s social agenda,” Cruz said. “Banks should be making decisions that are based on research and facts, not political pressure. I support our ICE agents and the contractors who work for them. They are risking their lives every day to keep this country safe. They deserve better.”

Six major banks operating in the United States—Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Bank of America, BNP Paribas, Barclays, and SunTrust—have announced they will no longer provide depository services to contractors which operate facilities on behalf of ICE. They’re acting on prompting from Democratic lawmakers, most notably state lawmakers in California, who are using the banks’ clout to damage those who contract with ICE and dissuade future cooperation from other companies.

“Some of our nation’s largest banks have decided to cater to the radical left’s ‘woke’ agenda by abusing their systemic influence in our economy to deprive law-abiding federal contractors of banking services critical to their business,” Rubio said. “Banks have a right to deny funds to certain businesses, but they shouldn’t enjoy taxpayer-provided guarantees if they are undermining the public policy of the United States.”

This bill was handled in the most appropriate fashion possible, staying true to limited-government federalism while applying the ultimate pressure to the banks. It would be catastrophic for these banks to lose their FDIC membership. The bill still allows for autonomy without government interference, opting to punish non-adherence instead of mandating adherence. They can still choose to do as they please as private corporations, but they cannot expect the U.S. government to cover them when they’re attempting to hinder one of the most crucial law enforcement agencies at the federal level.

 

https://noqreport.com/2020/02/14/senate-bill-introduced-to-pull-fdic-insurance-from-banks-that-shun-ice-contractors/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how the left operates. Behind the scenes they use threatening tactics to get their way. The left have people who listen to Rush and Hannity every day just in case they would say something that can be used against them. Something they can go after their sponsors with and have their programs lose their sponsorship. They want to shut them down. Time after time we see the left not wanting to discuss and debate issues they want to shut down opposite views.

I don't believe for a second these banks were not making political moves like this if they were not being pressured to do so. Glad to see some republicans show banks like this that for every action there is a reaction and it would be wiser for them to stick with banking and stay out of politics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

So again we want to control private business entities, comrade? 

LOL..see highlighted part comrade

“Some of our nation’s largest banks have decided to cater to the radical left’s ‘woke’ agenda by abusing their systemic influence in our economy to deprive law-abiding federal contractors of banking services critical to their business,” Rubio said. “Banks have a right to deny funds to certain businesses, but they shouldn’t enjoy taxpayer-provided guarantees if they are undermining the public policy of the United States.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said:

LOL..see highlighted part comrade

“Some of our nation’s largest banks have decided to cater to the radical left’s ‘woke’ agenda by abusing their systemic influence in our economy to deprive law-abiding federal contractors of banking services critical to their business,” Rubio said. “Banks have a right to deny funds to certain businesses, but they shouldn’t enjoy taxpayer-provided guarantees if they are undermining the public policy of the United States.”

 

 

That is a giant gulf of gray area. Does that mean every business or citizen (remember corporations enjoy the same rights as a citizen) must do business with a federal entity when confronted or else they no longer receive the protections of a tax paying US citizen? 
 

This is a rare instance when I defend US banking. They were welfare queens in the past who should have been subject to market forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

That is a giant gulf of gray area. Does that mean every business or citizen (remember corporations enjoy the same rights as a citizen) must do business with a federal entity when confronted or else they no longer receive the protections of a tax paying US citizen? 
 

This is a rare instance when I defend US banking. They were welfare queens in the past who should have been subject to market forces.

I think it means if a private business does not want govt interference in how to run their business than it has to stay clear of taking any tax payer govt aid as almost all govt aid comes with strings attached. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I think it means if a private business does not want govt interference in how to run their business than it has to stay clear of taking any tax payer govt aid as almost all govt aid comes with strings attached. 

If you are a private citizen who refuses to play ball with certain government entities, should they be able to yank your social security? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

If you are a private citizen who refuses to play ball with certain government entities, should they be able to yank your social security? 

The simple answer is if a private business does not want govt interference in how they run their business than they should not take any tax payer govt aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The simple answer is if a private business does not want govt interference in how they run their business than they should not take any tax payer govt aid.

If they are paying taxes into the system, wouldn’t it mean they are payrolling the aid like any other government aid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

If they are paying taxes into the system, wouldn’t it mean they are payrolling the aid like any other government aid?

The ICE agency being discriminated against are also tax payers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The ICE agency being discriminated against are also tax payers.

Is anyone stopping them from shopping to another bank? The banks only have one government to shop from and they are forced to pay taxes towards.

 If anything this draws attention to why they shouldn’t have bailed the banks out. It would have dispersed the number of major banks and given consumers, thus ICE contractors options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are pros and cons about the bank bail outs. I thought they were necessary at the time and arguments can be made either way.

https://moneyweek.com/494957/ten-years-on-was-it-right-to-bail-out-the-banks

The banks did not wake up one morning and decide to discriminate against ICE they did it because of democratic pressure so for these same banks to get pressure from republicans (because they do receive tax payer govt aid) to reverse their discriminatory lending is fair play. Right now it is being proposed and I hope it passes and becomes law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

If you are a private citizen who refuses to play ball with certain government entities, should they be able to yank your social security? 

With each  post logic and reason diminishes and absurdity takes over..... from the guy with "logic" in his name.

This is a black and white issue, no gray areas.. It is the duty of the Federal government to protect it's citizens. ICE is a federal law enforcement agency. Laws prohibiting attempts to undermine whether directly or indirectly are legit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gorka said:

With each  post logic and reason diminishes and absurdity takes over..... from the guy with "logic" in his name.

This is a black and white issue, no gray areas.. It is the duty of the Federal government to protect it's citizens. ICE is a federal law enforcement agency. Laws prohibiting attempts to undermine whether directly or indirectly are legit.

Disagreeing with someone or a govt agency and choosing to withhold your business should be the right of every citizen/business. Whether that be having to bake a cake or offer banking services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Disagreeing with someone or a govt agency and choosing to withhold your business should be the right of every citizen/business. Whether that be having to bake a cake or offer banking services.

not in violation of federal immigration policy. by your...logic, Logic, businesses have the power to coerce the federal government to fail if they have a chance. Federal law, unless unConstitutional, rules. You can't not pay taxes because you "disagree with the gov".

Banks are not a stand alone business - the loans are federally backed up. There are plenty of laws regulating the banking industry.

Banks don't get to refuse to cooperate with the feds based on a dishonest whim of disobedience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, calfoxwc said:

not in violation of federal immigration policy. by your...logic, Logic, businesses have the power to coerce the federal government to fail if they have a chance. Federal law, unless unConstitutional, rules. You can't not pay taxes because you "disagree with the gov".

Banks are not a stand alone business - the loans are federally backed up. There are plenty of laws regulating the banking industry.

Banks don't get to refuse to cooperate with the feds based on a dishonest whim of disobedience.

So Cal, if you ran a business and a Democrat in office needed supplies from your store to help them enforce gun laws (say supplies for building an ATF facility), you would do it and not ask them to maybe move along to another vendor?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I didn’t know so many comrades were here.

Next we're going to be told an individual needs to house troops in their home if the govt asks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

So Cal, if you ran a business and a Democrat in office needed supplies from your store to help them enforce gun laws (say supplies for building an ATF facility), you would do it and not ask them to maybe move along to another vendor?

 

you have to read my posts, Logic. the gun laws would be unConstitutional - further past where they are, they would be violating our Constitution. Illegal aliens violated our law by illegally coming here. Trying to stop ICE from enforcing perfectly justifiable law over left wing politics is just dangerous and corrupt.

   you are trying to defend a business refusing to do biz with ICE over politically leftwing refusal to abide by Constitutional Law.

   and "a democrat" is not a major Dept of our Government. I wouldn't do business with bloomberg, say, regardless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

you have to read my posts, Logic. the gun laws would be unConstitutional - further past where they are, they would be violating our Constitution. Illegal aliens violated our law by illegally coming here. Trying to stop ICE from enforcing perfectly justifiable law over left wing politics is just dangerous and corrupt.

   you are trying to defend a business refusing to do biz with ICE over politically leftwing refusal to abide by Constitutional Law.

   and "a democrat" is not a major Dept of our Government. I wouldn't do business with bloomberg, say, regardless.

 

If the gun laws were passed, they were clearly able to pass the constitutional sniff test. Cal, you are playing mental gymnastics because the banks are opposed to laws you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

If the gun laws were passed, they were clearly able to pass the constitutional sniff test. Cal, you are playing mental gymnastics because the banks are opposed to laws you like.

no, I'm not. "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "whatever gun control you want, it's fine.".

you know that. Here:

If ICE was acting illegally, beating up innocent people, raiding homes based on false red flag reports and kidnapping women, etc...

I certainly would not contribute to that.

But ICE is following our justified immigration law. There is no legit claim of objection. Corrupt political motives are not allowed.

Try this:

   In the military, you are not to follow an illegal order. Now, if a commander says "shoot that innocent boy over there", of course, you tell him you will not, why,  and refuse.

   but you can't refuse to dig a ditch because you don't want to, by saying it's an illegal order. that is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

Disagreeing with someone or a govt agency and choosing to withhold your business should be the right of every citizen/business. Whether that be having to bake a cake or offer banking services.

Disagreeing based on what reasons tho?  Behind every disagreement there are reasons. If there was compelling rationale behind the banks refusal to withhold business, then I would listen. But there aren't any.

Feelings, compassion, emotions toward those (as Nany Pelosi put it) "little bundles of love" aren't sufficient enough reasons.

But I know what you're going to say...that there doesn't have to be a reason.

And baking a cake has nothing to with providing for common good (for the benefit of all) of all citizens...as does military, law enforcement..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×