FDIC insurance and the US economy.

Discussion in 'Economics' started by SouthAmerica, Sep 30, 2008.

  1. .
    September 30, 2008

    SouthAmerica: The scoundrels on Wall Street are trying every way possible that they know to get the US government to bank their out of control gambling habits.

    I was watching CNBC television this morning and some old fart was suggesting that the FDIC insurance should be increased from the current $ 100,000 limit to $ 250,000 limit per account.

    They keep saying that corporations need to keep more than $ 100,000 on their bank account to be able to pay its employees. The only excuse that they have for this account limit insurance increase it is the payroll argument.

    My question is: why increase the FDIC insurance for all types of banking accounts when the average American has very little money on their bank accounts and certainly their average balance is below the current $ 100,000 limit regarding FDIC insurance.

    By the way, companies have a separate account that handles only payroll. Why they don’t increase the FDIC insurance limit only for payroll accounts?

    It does not make sense to raise the FDIC insurance limit to all the other types of bank accounts since most people don’t keep $ 100,000 on their bank accounts.

    During the Reagan years one day very late in the evening they attached in one bill the increase of FDIC insurance from $ 25,000 to the current $ 100,000 limit per account – they attached to a bill in the middle of the night and without any prior debate because they did not want people to discuss the pros and cons of this issue.

    By lifting the amount of insured money on individual accounts the savings and loans got more US government insured money to gamble in what became the savings and loan scandal of the late 1980’s.

    The only thing that increasing the FDIC insurance limit does is supply more US government insured money for the people on these banking institutions to gamble it away.

    Increasing the limit of FDIC Insurance on all types of banking accounts is a terrible idea.

    Only scoundrels would come up with solutions like that at this time.

    If the problem is the amount of money that certain corporations need to keep on their payroll account – then increase the FDIC insurance limit only to specific payroll accounts.

    Basically the FDIC insurance limit of $ 100,000 per account is more than enough for most Americans.

    Most Americans don’t have $ 100,000 on their checking account and if you have more than that amount just open another account or multiple accounts to spread your money to multiple banks for you to be protected under the FDIC $ 100,000 insurance limit.

  2. Arnie



    This post is like a giant exclamation point to your continued stupidity. :D
  3. :D hahahahaha hahahhaaha i needed that
  4. LOL!!!!

  5. .
    September 30, 2008

    SouthAmerica: 3 of the usual suspects answer to my posting: Arnie, ElCubano, and Ivanovich the Bolshevik

    And here is their argument:

    1) This post is like a giant exclamation point to your continued stupidity.

    2) hahahahaha hahahhaaha i needed that

    3) LOL!!!!

    The 3 stooges (Larry, Curly and Moe) would have better arguments than that.

  6. Actually, you've been pretty much a gasbag ever since I got to this site. Arnie's comment was hilarious because it was what the rest of us were thinking.

    Perhaps this should be moved to chit-chat with your other rants.
  7. .

    September 30, 2008

    SouthAmerica: Reply to Ivanovich the Bolshevik

    The increase in FDIC insurance from $ 25,000 to $ 100,000 limit per account gave an incentive to people who run the Savings and Loans companies (like Lincoln Savings) to give all kinds of loans to people who was not supposed to qualify for these loans under normal circumstances the reason why they did gambled and they did not use the same conservative criteria to lend money for people was because the money was insured by the FDIC.

    I know why you want to bury this thread in the Chit Chat forum you probably have been involved in the sub-prime mess.

    The logic behind this increase in FDIC insurance is similar to the logic of the people who lent money to people who should not have qualified for a loan under normal risk circumstances. You want the US government to increase the insurance of money that would be gambled away.

    It took 100’s of billions of taxpayer dollars to clean up the massive savings and loan scandal of the 1980’s.

    After Wall Street gamblers lose their shirt on bad bets then they come crying for the American taxpayer to bail them out.

    To avoid massive bailouts in the future this issue of increasing the limit on FDIC insured accounts we should have an open debate before such a mistake is done and not when the entire house is on fire.

    Maybe the reason why you want this thread to be moved to chit chat is because you don't have a clue about the economic consequences on the US economy of this issue.

  8. Yes, I was in the vote yesterday. Didn't you see me on C-Span?
  9. I thought that was Pelosi??:D
  10. .

    Ivanovich: Yes, I was in the vote yesterday. Didn't you see me on C-Span?


    September 30, 2008

    SouthAmerica: If you think that the sub-prime mess happened yesterday on C-Span then what else can I say?

    Then El Cubano add to the discussion: “I thought that was Pelosi??”

    I believe I am having a discussion about the increase on the limit of FDIC insurance with the “Brain Dead” members of this forum.

    #10     Sep 30, 2008