What happened to the end of bailouts Joe?

[Aldebaran]

Why is it so hard for his fans to accept that as the case?

Because his haters have always failed to establish it as the case.

 

[Aldebaran]

What would you prefer happen here? That a bunch of businesses lose their payroll money through no fault of their own? Only the depositors are being made whole, not the investors.

I'm not even blaming Trump (though the attempt to pin this on Biden is so asinine that it borders on dishonest). But the snarky tone suggests that you think these folks should just up and lose their money. Why?

Because they deposited their money knowing full well that FDIC insurance is only for the first $250,000, and then decided to deposit even more. Expecting the government to bail them out is like owning a home without homeowners insurance, and expecting to be covered anyway when their house burns down--and at the expense of those who DO buy and maintain their homeowners insurance.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Maybe you shoud try again without all the blatant and obvious political spin?

Mark T. Williams, a former bank examiner for the Federal Reserve, told Fortune that SVB’s failure had much to do with risk management, or lack thereof.
“The CFO and, I would argue, the board failed to adequately protect shareholder value,” Williams said. “The board-appointed risk management committee, which works closely with the CFO, should have done adequate scenario analysis to examine the deposit withdrawal risk. That, in fact, was the bank’s downfall.”


That has nothing to do with the political affiliation of the bank customers.

Peforming effective risk analysis applies to all banks...

Who spent $500,000,000 and eight year lobbying to get it changed?

That person is the one to blame. Why? Because he was also the President of the Bank.

Biden is the one who is using your money and mine to pay back the losses of Democratic mega donors. That is Biden's decision, and lies squarely on his shoulders.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Because they deposited their money knowing full well that FDIC insurance is only for the first $250,000, and then decided to deposit even more. Expecting the government to bail them out is like owning a home without homeowners insurance, and expecting to be covered anyway when their house burns down--and at the expense of those who DO buy and maintain their homeowners insurance.

It’s not “the government.” It’s an insurance fund with premiums paid by banks.

But who do you think the FDIC is that covers the first $250k? It’s not “Frank’s Deposit Insurance Corporation”. Anybody who had money at a failed bank got a “bailout” of the same sort.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Because they deposited their money knowing full well that FDIC insurance is only for the first $250,000, and then decided to deposit even more. Expecting the government to bail them out is like owning a home without homeowners insurance, and expecting to be covered anyway when their house burns down--and at the expense of those who DO buy and maintain their homeowners insurance.

And Employee bonuses were paid 30 days before the crash - also several of the key individuals pulled out millions of their own funds right before the crash also.

Bank leadership spends half a billion dollars over eight years lobbying congress for a change in the regulations, get what they paid for - then takes others money on high risk ventures - pulling out their funds and rewarding employees financially - then crashing and they look for a bailout.

But it is Trumps fault - welcome to the land of bizzaro!

 

[Always in His Presence]

It’s not “the government.” It’s an insurance fund with premiums paid by banks.

But who do you think the FDIC is that covers the first $250k? It’s not “Frank’s Deposit Insurance Corporation”. Anybody who had money at a failed bank got a “bailout” of the same sort.

Do you know what the F in FDIC stands for?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is a United States government corporation supplying deposit insurance to depositors in American commercial banks and savings banks. The FDIC was created by the Banking Act of 1933, enacted during the Great Depression to restore trust in the American banking system.

It's right there in the definition

 

[Aldebaran]

It’s not “the government.” It’s an insurance fund with premiums paid by banks.

But who do you think the FDIC is that covers the first $250k? It’s not “Frank’s Deposit Insurance Corporation”. Anybody who had money at a failed bank got a “bailout” of the same sort.

The word "Federal" usually indicates Federal government.

What is the FDIC?​

• The FDIC is an independent agency of the federal government that seeks to protect bank depositors against the loss of their insured deposits in the unlikely event of a bank failure.

How does the FDIC work

All eyes are on the FDIC after its takeover of Silicon Valley Bank. Here's what you need to know.

www.axios.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

And Employee bonuses were paid 30 days before the crash - also several of the key individuals pulled out millions of their own funds right before the crash also.

Bank leadership spends half a billion dollars over eight years lobbying congress for a change in the regulations, get what they paid for - then takes others money on high risk ventures - pulling out their funds and rewarding employees financially - then crashing and they look for a bailout.

But it is Trumps fault - welcome to the land of bizzaro!

…because started this whole stupid thread trying to point the finger at Democrats.

If you want to blame bankers, then blame bankers. But if you want to blame politicians while ignoring Republicans’ contribution via loosening banking standards, then you’re just being dishonest.

Do you know what the F in FDIC stands for?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is a United States government corporation supplying deposit insurance to depositors in American commercial banks and savings banks. The FDIC was created by the Banking Act of 1933, enacted during the Great Depression to restore trust in the American banking system.

It's right there in the definition

Right, I should have said that it’s not taxpayers bailing them out, any more than it’s not taxpayers bailing out the first $250k.

 

[Always in His Presence]

…because started this whole stupid thread trying to point the finger at Democrats.

If you want to blame bankers, then blame bankers. But if you want to blame politicians while ignoring Republicans’ contribution via loosening banking standards, then you’re just being dishonest.

Who spent $500,000,000 and eight year lobbying to get it changed?

That person is the one to blame. Why? Because he was also the President of the Bank.

Biden is the one who is using your money and mine to pay back the losses of Democratic mega donors. That is Biden's decision, and lies squarely on his shoulders.

Why are you ignoring this?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Who spent $500,000,000 and eight year lobbying to get it changed?

That person is the one to blame. Why? Because he was also the President of the Bank.

The head of the bank. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make with it.

He lobbied a lot of people. That lobbying didn’t pay off until Republicans were in control to give him what he wanted.

Biden is the one who is using your money and mine to pay back the losses of Democratic mega donors. That is Biden's decision, and lies squarely on his shoulders.

Why are you ignoring this?

1.) Because you haven’t actually established that these people are “Democratic megado ors.” One lady’s comments on msnbc aren’t proof. Peter Thiel had a load of money there and he sure as heck isnt a lefty.

2.) Because “your money and mine” is the same insurance fund used to pay out depositors at every failed bank. Pretending as if this is somehow different except in scope is incorrect.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The president of the bank. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. I have no idea what you’re trying to make with it.

Right - he is the one paying for the action that you are blaming on Trump. He wanted it, paid for it - got it and was crushed by it.

Thank you for finally recognizing this.

1.) Because you haven’t actually established that these people are “Democratic megado ors.” One lady’s comments on msnbc aren’t proof. Peter Thiel had a load of money there and he sure as heck isnt a lefty.

2.) Because “your money and mine” is the same insurance fund used to pay out depositors at every failed bank. Pretending as if this is somehow different except in scope is incorrect.

Already covered in linked articles showing that the Biden rescue will cause

 

[Always in His Presence]

SVB, Signature Bank and Credit Suisse donated $1.2M to Dems since 2017

Struggling Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and Credit Suisse bet big on Democratic candidates over the past three election cycles, according to a Post review of fundraising data. The banks &#82…

nypost.com

Obama official, Hillary donors, improv actor: Meet SVB’s board of directors

Among the 12 directors who were supposed to oversee fallen Silicon Valley Bank — and prevent the catastrophic errors on Friday threw the entire banking system into jeopardy — there’s only one…

nypost.com

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Who spent $500,000,000 and eight year lobbying to get it changed?

That person is the one to blame. Why? Because he was also the President of the Bank.

Biden is the one who is using your money and mine to pay back the losses of Democratic mega donors. That is Biden's decision, and lies squarely on his shoulders.

Why are you ignoring this?

All that lobbying and money would have been meaningless if he bill dies in the at the time Republican controlled Congress or it gets vetoed by at the time President Trump. If Republicans and Trump are so awesome, why didn’t they shut this bill down when it came across their path? Were they bought off? Are they weak willed?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who spent $500,000,000 and eight year lobbying to get it changed?

Isn't that the swamp that Trump was supposed to be draining? Instead of doing its bidding with the help of Congressional Republicans?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thank you for finally recognizing this.

So then, now that you've figured out who to blame, are we all eager for some roll-up-the-sleeves bipartisan Congressional legislation increasing regulations on banks to protect account-holders and We The People?

Or maybe placing limits on corporate lobbying and 'free speech' (aka $) in the wake of the Citizens United decision?

 

[disciple Clint]

Newsmax? Yikes!
1. The fantasy that any withdrawal from Afghanistan would be as smooth as closing a former SAC base in CONUS simply was never going to happen. Since Pompeo had negotiated directly with the Taliban them taking over the country was an inevitability. Sadly ISIS-K was able to inflict 13 deaths on us as we left, but it was actually quite a success given that Americans and others who should have evacuated earlier waited until the last minute. 130,000 evacuated in a few weeks is a success by any measure.

2. No President has direct control over energy prices. We have a capitalist system and our oil and gas producers are private companies. They mention Keystone XL which had ZERO effect on oil and gas prices in 2021 since it wouldn't exist until 2024. Oil production in 2022 neared that of 2019 and we're going to exceed that in 2023.

3. Inflation has largely been demand and energy prices driven.

4. The immigration "crisis" is largely fueled by Article 42 which is a Covid policy of returning migrants to Mexico rather than to their country of origin. That's why there's been an increase in "contacts" that Conservisphere shriekers have mischaracterized as individuals. There are some individuals having 4 or more contacts as they are detained, dropped on the Mexican side, and then attempt crossing again.

5. The Covid section is laughable. President Biden made getting shots in arms a priority while the Conservisphere and traditional, apolitical anti-vax influencers amassed against him.

6. The "terrorists will be using Apache's against us" argument in this section is just embarrassing. The heavy, sophisticated equipment need parts and maintenance that they don't have access to. China's choice of target for target practice says nothing about our military readiness. The sniping at General Milley is just embarrassing culture was nonsense.

7. More Laffer curve nonsense from the usual suspects.

8. Police State? My favorite was Jim Jordan's whistleblowers that we now know weren't whistleblowers. They were just ex-employees with grievances and had watched to many crazy Rumble videos.

So you asked for fact that you could fact check and then you respond with excuses not facts. Any president who is foolish enough to go against the advice of the senior military commanders for potential political gain has no excuse for the resulting disaster and loss of lives. End of story

 

[RocksInMyHead]

One question no one in this thread has asked: Is this actually a bailout?

In 2008, the government bought up toxic assets from the banks, giving them an influx of cash so that they didn't collapse. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, Morgan Stanley, etc - all of those banks still exist. SVB isn't being saved - the government has seized control of their assets and is selling them off. The investors in SVB aren't getting their money back. All that's being done is making the depositors whole - if you deposited your own money at SVB, you will get that money back. Because it's yours. That's the express purpose of the FDIC (which is paid into by the banks) - to make sure that those who deposit their money in a bank do not lose their money due to the bank's failures.

 

[essentialsaltes]

One question no one in this thread has asked: Is this actually a bailout?

It will be interesting to see how it all works out. There is now a SV Bridge Bank, which is using the news that everything is 100% FDIC insured to try to encourage people to put their deposits back. If they can reverse the run on the bank, maybe it can go into normal operations, and hopefully the new management can unwind any problem in its assets over some period and right the ship.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It will be interesting to see how it all works out. There is now a SV Bridge Bank, which is using the news that everything is 100% FDIC insured to try to encourage people to put their deposits back. If they can reverse the run on the bank, maybe it can go into normal operations, and hopefully the new management can unwind any problem in its assets over some period and right the ship.

My understanding is that a bridge bank is an FDIC-operated institution that's meant to be a "bridge" between the former customers of a failed banking institution and wherever they end up in the future. It assumes the assets and contracts of the failed bank and continues to operate them under new management while the FDIC tries to sell them. Presumably, if it stabilizes, someone may be interested in buying the whole operation, but that's not guaranteed.

 

[USincognito]

So you asked for fact that you could fact check and then you respond with excuses not facts. Any president who is foolish enough to go against the advice of the senior military commanders for potential political gain has no excuse for the resulting disaster and loss of lives. End of story

I asked for blunders. I received an opinion piece from a right wing rag. My responses were factual and salient given the material upon which I was commenting.