WTF ?
They are talking about raising the insured deposit limit to $200,000.00.
C'mon. When banks fail, are they gonna print new dollars to reimburse us. Like that will do a heck of a lotta good, .
In this whole economic mess, I say, let the chips fall where they may. It is opportunity knocking on doors. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. It is precisely that which made America great.
Yeah, people are gonna lose, so what ? Tough titties I say. I am gonna lose also but, it is my fault.
I see all kinds of new investment opportunities. For the common man. All this talk of credit getting scarce, so what ? The talk before was that we should save save save. I have done just fine without credit and, I also have a high credit score. Question. Where is all that money that was being lent go ? Answer. It will get lent.
All this monetary loss. Did the money disappear ? Perhaps, it will get invested elsewhere. So what ? A lender will still lend money on a sure bet. Here or there. Me thinks that we will have a stronger system if the chips fall.

huh?

The money is in a fund. If a bank fails, money comes out of the fund.

I don't understand why that's bad. Personally I think the limits should be a lot higher. $10M. If I hand my money to someone for safe keeping, and they spend it, and jump a train to mexico, shouldn't I get my money back?

Inflation I guess means the money does disappear.

Bad debt, I assume means debt that cannot be paid back, thus no money to pay it = missing money.

Raising the FDIC limits is simply a diversionary tactic IMO, how doing that is going to help our current financial situation is beyond me. Most folks that have assets approaching $100K have those assets spread out in many different investments, not sitting in a savings account. We are being shown a red flag like a bull in the ring, something to distract us makes us think there is something there for us but in reality, it does absolutely nothing for 99.99% of the US population.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-30-2008).]

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: huh? The money is in a fund. If a bank fails, money comes out of the fund.

So, for every dollar in the bank, there is another dollar in a fund, ?
Perhaps I do not have a grasp on the concept.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Raising the FDIC limits is simply a diversionary tactic IMO, how doing that is going to help our current financial situation is beyond me. Most folks that have assets approaching $100K have those assets spread out in many different investments, not sitting in a savings account. We are being shown a red flag like a bull in the ring, something to distract us makes us think there is something there for us but in reality, it does absolutely nothing for 99.99% of the US population. Ron

Sorry, I don't pretend to be an Economist, someone please show me how raising the FDIC limits on each banking account is going to make this whole mess go away. How is this going to make folks want to borrow money and how is it going to encourage lenders to lend. Just doesn't make sense to me. Smoke and mirrors.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-30-2008).]

Because smoke and mirrors work alot of the time. If you trick people into throwing money in the right places, it could help us swing back. Its the fear of what is about to happen thats making this whole mess worse, people pulling cash out etc. Do the opposite and hope it goes back the other way.

Just my take on it, I don't know if the actual proposal would work.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: So, for every dollar in the bank, there is another dollar in a fund, ? Perhaps I do not have a grasp on the concept.

#1 - banks shouldn't fail.
#2 - if they do, there is money in the fund.

If all the banks fail at the same time, we're ****ed anyway.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Sorry, I don't pretend to be an Economist, someone please show me how raising the FDIC limits on each banking account is going to make this whole mess go away. How is this going to make folks want to borrow money and how is it going to encourage lenders to lend. Just doesn't make sense to me. Smoke and mirrors. Ron

It's for next time, not this time. A lot of people lost money because they had more than $100k. What happens if you just sold your house and your bank disappears? "OOPS, our bad. Here's $100k. The other $200k is gone." That's just not right.

[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 09-30-2008).]

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: It's for next time, not this time. A lot of people lost money because they had more than $100k. What happens if you just sold your house and your bank disappears? "OOPS, our bad. Here's $100k. The other $200k is gone." That's just not right.

Not arguing the point, but how many folks do you think might have been affected by that scenerio? Enough to change a national standard? I still think it's smoke and mirrors.

Ron

1. $100K is not very much for most people to have in deposits if they are age 50 or above. That amt will not last them long at all if they retire. Raising the insured amt, even doubling it will do 2 things. It will help prevent runs on the banks, because many people will raid thier accounts for everything over $100K, which brings even a good bank's balance sheet down. Wachovia probably could have weatered the storm alone, except for a run on thier bank last Friday afternoon, after it was apparent Wamu was going under. The other thing raising the insured cap does is that it would flat calm people down a bit.

2. The fund we think of as FDIC does in fact, not exist. There is no big govt account strictly for this. This trust fund, like all govt trust funds is just a finite amt available to the FDIC that can be drawn upon by FDIC out of the General Fund at US Treasury. The amt allowed for availability is backed by US treasury securities--for wahtever that is worth. This fund is similar to the "Social Security Fund", if you are familar with that.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-30-2008).]

the base problem here is that everyone started using credit to get things NOW! and pay later.
instead of save and buy when you can afford it.
well guess what LATER is here!
I have always saved and then bought except for 2 things in my life my car at 0%
and my house at 4% and I pay double payments almost every mounth to pay it down fast because like others I did not buy too much house that I could not afford.
everyone needs to stop the credit BS and get back to paying cash when they can afford it!
just my thoughts!

In my younger days, my dad had a wealthy friend, the man had banking accounts in every bank in our town, he told me once the reason. The FDIC only insured his money up to $100 K per account, so he kept his money in different accounts and in some cases, different banks. As Forrest Gump said, I'm not a smart man but I know this............

Yes, a $100 K isn't really big $$$$ now for some folks but, those folks should know how to protect their assets. As I said, it's dark down here, pass me a dish of mushroom food.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-30-2008).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: In my younger days, my dad had a wealthy friend, the man had banking accounts in every bank in our town, he told me once the reason. The FDIC only insured his money up to $100 K per account, so he kept his money in different accounts and in some cases, different banks. As Forrest Gump said, I'm not a smart man but I know this............

Heh....

quote Originally posted by cliffw: C'mon. When banks fail, are they gonna print new dollars to reimburse us. Like that will do a heck of a lotta good, .

quote Originally posted by cliffw: So, for every dollar in the bank, there is another dollar in a fund, ?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: 2. The fund we think of as FDIC does in fact, not exist. There is no big govt account strictly for this. This trust fund, like all govt trust funds is just a finite amt available to the FDIC that can be drawn upon by FDIC out of the General Fund at US Treasury. The amt allowed for availability is backed by US treasury securities--for wahtever that is worth. This fund is similar to the "Social Security Fund", if you are familar with that.

Yep, cash is needed. Taxation is not an option. Smoke and mirrors is.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: This trust fund, like all govt trust funds is just a finite amt available to the FDIC that can be drawn upon by FDIC out of the General Fund at US Treasury. The amt allowed for availability is backed by US treasury securities--for wahtever that is worth. This fund is similar to the "Social Security Fund", if you are familar with that.

Double quote, purposely.
You know who might be able to solve this mess ? Jerry Jones. Owner, CEO, and General Manager of the Dallas Cowboys, .

Well, you guys saying if your over 50 you should have 100k in the bank makes me feel better.
Because it makes me realize that I can`t get very much further to the bottom of the barrel considering I live paycheck to paycheck.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: In my younger days, my dad had a wealthy friend, the man had banking accounts in every bank in our town, he told me once the reason. The FDIC only insured his money up to $100 K per account, so he kept his money in different accounts and in some cases, different banks. As Forrest Gump said, I'm not a smart man but I know this............ Yes, a $100 K isn't really big $$$$ now for some folks but, those folks should know how to protect their assets. As I said, it's dark down here, pass me a dish of mushroom food. Ron

Just different accounts does not cover it as I understand it. You have to use different banks altogether.

Brad

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: It's for next time, not this time. A lot of people lost money because they had more than $100k. What happens if you just sold your house and your bank disappears? "OOPS, our bad. Here's $100k. The other $200k is gone." That's just not right.

Yes. The poor always get shafted, that's part of being poor. The Super Wealthy are untouchable. The wealthy and middle class - the bulk of voters in this country I guess - they are feeling it right now. Raising the limit reduces devestating runs on banks, and assures those people with a decent amount of savings they won't be destitute. $100,000 savings accounts aren't squat in the long run if you have no other income.

quote Originally posted by TXGOOD: Well, you guys saying if your over 50 you should have 100k in the bank makes me feel better. Because it makes me realize that I can`t get very much further to the bottom of the barrel considering I live paycheck to paycheck.

Never said I was in that group. Do you like mushrooms?

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Do you like mushrooms?

I might have to, .

quote Originally posted by TXGOOD: I live paycheck to paycheck.

You sir, are also a survivor. If these big conglomerates could just do the same thing. If the government could just do the same thing.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: As those that told Forrest said, "Run Forrest run", .

EDIT
This sounds better.
As those that advised Forrest suggested, "Run Forrest Run".

The issue is not whether or not banks will fail and you will have money, it is how quickly are they going to devalue our dollar? Only 10% of the money in our supply is backed by gold. Therefore, if the money became worthless, only 10% of the money would be backed by FDIC.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Raising the FDIC limits is simply a diversionary tactic IMO

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Diversionary tactic, yes.

Don't you two know the difference between a tactic and a strategy? God... Obviously you need a lesson from Obama.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Don't you two know the difference between a tactic and a strategy? God... Obviously you need a lesson from Obama.

Are you asking in jest or are you serious? Senator Obama could probably teach me many things though, I'm not sure I'd be proud of what I had learned.
I would politely suggest that this is a tactic of some one's illicit strategy. The problem is, I don't believe they know what the goal is.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-30-2008).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Are you asking in jest or are you serious?

I'm guessing you didn't watch the debate?

quote Originally posted by TXGOOD: Well, you guys saying if your over 50 you should have 100k in the bank makes me feel better. Because it makes me realize that I can`t get very much further to the bottom of the barrel considering I live paycheck to paycheck.

Right now, living payday to payday only on cash from wages is not such a bad thought at all.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: I'm guessing you didn't watch the debate?

Every squirming moment of it. But, not really knowing you, I wasn't sure.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: Just different accounts does not cover it as I understand it. You have to use different banks altogether. Brad

Not exactly true AFAIK.. Same bank-differnt names on the accounts. Husband, wife, daughter, son=$400K
There is an age requiremnt I believe.

I lied, the FDIC holds half of 1% of all the deposits it insures.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Right now, living payday to payday only on cash from wages is not such a bad thought at all.

Until you lose your job.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Until you lose your job.

Or prices double or triple.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Until you lose your job.

Then get another one, .
Seriously, I have learned that no one is irreplaceable. I have been replaced. I also learned that every job is replaceable. As I said earlier, opportunity is knocking for those that can answer.

Well, ya, if you can get one the same week. Usually in this climate if it comes to layoffs not many will be hiring.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Well, ya, if you can get one the same week. Usually in this climate if it comes to layoffs not many will be hiring.

In Cliff's line of work, you can usually get one the same day. If you haven't heard, there's a shortage of workers in "da ahl bidness".

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Usually in this climate if it comes to layoffs not many will be hiring.

Hmmm....the illegal aliens seem to be able to get hired. Hmmm, maybe this is the governments answer to handling the illegal alien problem, .

I think there is probably good reasons to raise the FDIC limit, regardless of the current crisis. It was last increased 28 years agoin 1980, to the current $100,000. Even though $100,000 is still a decent amount of money to have in one bank, it is far less than it was 28 years ago. Prior to that, it had seen more frequent increases although there were still many years between increases, with raises in 1934 (doubled in that year from 2500, to 5000), 1950 to 10,000 (16 years), 1966 to 15,000 (another 16 years), then '69, '74, and 1980.

Just to keep pace with inflationary rates, and increase would be more than warranted at this point.

However, to make this the main push of what should happen now by both candidates is a way to make themselves appear to be "leading."

On retirement accounts, maybe this is not what the above folks meant, but insured IRA's have a seperate, 250,000 balance from regular deposit insured accounts.

[This message has been edited by Fformula88 (edited 09-30-2008).]

Honestly, i don't have an issue with raising the FDIC Limit but, I see no related reasoning on why that would have a significant impact on our current credit crisis. The number of folks that have that kind of money sitting in a bank account has got to be minuscule in comparison to the rest of the nation. That's why I'm calling it smoke and mirrors, a distractor to what Congress is trying to do.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: . That's why I'm calling it smoke and mirrors, a distractor to what Congress is trying to do. Ron

Not really Ron, when you consider that the #1 thing congress and the financial sector wants to see happen and soon, is for the public to have some confidence. Yes there are real and serious problems with the financial system, but I believe about 70% of the problems could have been managed if the public (myself included) had enough confidence in the banking facilities to let them sort it out on their own. The media is certainly a part of it as well, as was greed, but as long as depositers leave their money in place, only the bad banks will fail. Raising the cap will instill enough confidence to help make that happen.