The Trump administration wants to revert to the days when everyone lost all of their money when their bank went under. This worked out so well in the 1930s. 'Disaster': Trump allies said to be mulling 'one of the dumbest ideas anyone could have https://www.rawstory.com/trump-fdic-2670487557/ Donald Trump's allies have discussed dismantling a Depression-era reform intended to prevent bank failures and maintain trust in the financial system, according to a report. Sources told CNN that the president-elect's allies are interested in shrinking or even closing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and giving the Treasury Department oversight of deposit insurance, but former regulators and academics say that makes little sense and questioned whether Congress would go through with that plan. “This idea would pose an enormous risk of terrifying Americans about the safety of their deposits and triggering bank runs,” said Patricia McCoy, a law professor at Boston College and former federal regulator. The FDIC provides a safety net funded by the banking industry that protects customers from their bank going belly up with at least $250,000 in insurance provided to every depositor at each insured bank where they've got money, and while some believe there are too many bank regulators, experts doubt lawmakers would close this one. “This has as much logic as asking if Trump can abolish Wednesday, and split it between Tuesday and Thursday,” said Aaron Klein, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Treasury Department official who helped craft the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. “The FDIC’s brand value to consumers is immense. Millions of Americans trust the FDIC insures their nest egg.” The FDIC receives no congressional appropriations, and its deposit insurance fund covering trillions of dollars of deposits is instead funded by charging premiums on banks, not taxpayers, but sometimes those costs are passed on to bank customers through fees. “This is one of the dumbest ideas anyone could have, and it’s a reflection of how incredibly out of touch billionaires are,” said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of the government watchdog Better Markets. “In 2008, the FDIC was absolutely pivotal in stabilizing the financial system and making sure the Great Financial Crisis didn’t become a second Great Depression. Eliminating the FDIC or cutting it back would be a disaster for the American people.” The idea of ending or shrinking the FDIC has echoes of the right-wing Project 2025 blueprint for Trump's second term, but Congress has historically opposed calls to consolidate bank regulators, and experts think the threat against the agency is intended as a not-so-subtle message to the president-elect's appointees. “If they don’t go along with the regulatory agenda of Donald Trump, there is an existential threat in the background that could be triggered,” said Mills. “In my mind, this is a way to work the umpire – before the umpire even takes the job.”
Trump thinks that threatening the EU with tariffs will force them to buy more U.S. oil and gas. Obviously -- even the application of a minimal number of brain cells -- will demonstrate this bullying proposal will never work. Trade wars are never helpful to the U.S. Donald Trump tells EU to buy more US oil and gas or face tariffs President-elect reignites fears of a trade war as he says bloc must make up its ‘tremendous deficit’ with US https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/20/donald-trump-tells-eu-buy-more-us-oil-gas-tariffs
Now Trump is threatening to take back the Panama Canal and turn it over to his cronies. 'We will demand that the Panama Canal be returned': Trump issues threat to local officials https://www.rawstory.com/trump-panama-canal-threat/ 'Lie to sell his story': Critics outraged after Trump reveals plan to 'invade Panama' https://www.rawstory.com/trump-invade-panama-critic-reactions/
Donald Trump’s transition team seeks to pull US out of WHO ‘on day one’ https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/ot...-to-pull-us-out-of-who-on-day-one/ar-AA1wiyGy
My family in Panama is loving the news coverage this is getting haha..... even better is watching the number of uneducated americans (far greater than we care to admit) jumping on board as though the canal is something to take back and trump is a genius...
"If other countries or their people don't respect borders, then why should we"? Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and invasion of illegals into the US comes to mind. Many in the US were critical of Jimmy Carter ceding the mostly US built Panama Canal to Panama. Now that China is apparently gaining influence in the region, geopolitical imperatives are seemingly being challenged. I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here, as my mind is not made up on this. Actually, I'm leaning more towards maintaining the status quo, especially if we have hopes of China being willing to delay, or at least consider special provisions with their eventual reintegration with Republic of China.
Maybe crack a book and you won't think silly things about Panama... China's influence has nothing to do with the Canal nor does issues of Israel or Ukraine... also more Panamanians died building that Canal than Americans. Please.....dont be a typical American and speak off the top.of your head with little kmowledge.... Canal belongs to Panama and trump can't touch it.
Well... you voted for this. FAFO. 'Please take care of us': Pennsylvania Trump voter begs GOP not to cut Social Security https://www.rawstory.com/trump-pennsylvania-2670681371/
"While we voted for the Leopards Eating Faces Party, we have high hope that they will not eat our faces in particular." These MAGA farmers could be ruined if Trump follows through with mass deportations California’s farm owners bet on President-elect Donald Trump and won. His campaign promise of mass deportations could ruin them. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/26/california-farmers-trump-water-workers-00195839
Your often used "crack a book" is a non sequitur here. Maybe instead of being intellectually lazy, crack open a post before responding. My mention of China's influence was based upon a article I read on Realclearpolitics.com. There can be practical benefits for the US to control the Panama Canal and to apply the Monroe Doctrine again under certain circumstances. A perceived change in the geopolitical status quo based upon territorial expansion of a rival may justify such action, especially strategically important locations. The downsides of changing the status quo is the worsening of relations with many countries and in your face hypocrisy when attempting to tell other countries they shouldn't invade their neighbors. Of course, this can work both or multiple ways in the case of the US, China, and Russia. An interesting idea, ethics aside, is if the major powers each engaged in a land grab within their respective spheres of influence, what the net effect would be upon balance of power and risks of getting ganged up on? Typically, if one major power did a land grab, the other powers would gang up on that power, often resulting in a net loss, either in land or influence, sooner or later. There is also long term civil unrest within the targeted country, maybe beyond, to contend with. As far as "can't touch it", I thought Russia and Ukraine had an agreement in place before 2014, before the first invasion... There was a bit of expansion from the original 13 colonies to the present US. Not all of that expansion was respectful of El OchoCinco's "Can't Touch It" doctrine, was it? What is optimal f concerning policy in geopolitics? Is it situational? This seems to be the underlying question of the subject. Does a rival's horrific action justifies our own?