Okay, so who wants to get rid of the FDIC?

[Le Jacquelope]

And if the FDIC didn't exist, how would we help people like Debbie Ingham who had $120,000 in the bank before this Andrew McCain (adopted son of John McCain)-run bank shut down? She participated with good faith in the market, and now $20,000 of her hard earned money is gone.

Libertarians would have abolished the FDIC and Debbie Ingham would have lost all $120,000 of her money.

So what would Libertarians have for people like that?

Would they hold a bake sale to reimburse her? Hardly. The Libertarian line is, "you places your money, you takes your chances." Especially true if your bank is run by a relative of the Keating Five. I guess Libertarians would say, "Too bad, Debbie... you shoulda known better than to put your money in the trust of a McCain or a Bush. Next time stuff it under your mattress."


No, really, Libertarians, what should happen if a bank goes down and threatens to take all your hard earned money with it?

I already know the laissez-faire answer: banks never go down if the Government isn't in any way involved. Uh huh. Anyone wanna bet that's how this'll go?


http://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=9029513&ClientType=Printable

How Silver State Bank's Closing Affected One Valley Woman

The ailing economy is affecting more than just the Presidential race.

From panicky brokers on Wall Street to broke bankers on Main Street, fewer and fewer people. are escaping the crunch.

No matter how careful you are, trying to understand the financial crisis we are in can be confusing.

Debbie Ingham says she did not get the right advice from her bank, the former Silver State Bank, that went under earlier this month.

Silver State Bank is just one in a series of faltering financial institutions and it is not just the Wall Street elite seeing their money disappear.

"I went to that branch of Silver State where I had deposited the money and brought my account up, and said oh no," said Debbie.

Oh no is right as Debbie Ingham had been very careful about where she put her money.

She made certain never to takeout certificates of deposit more than $100,000 because she knew that is how much the federal government insures.

It was not until Silver State folded that she found out, they add up all her deposits and only insure $100,000 total.

"We added the two accounts that were in your name, lopped off anything over the $100,000 and sorry," explained Debbie.

The money Debbie lost at Silver State was the proceeds from her house, money for their next home.

The FDIC Says, they will make what money they can from selling Silver State's assets and they will try to pay the Ingham's back but it will not come close to thousands they lost.

Debbie says she has lost faith along with her cash.

"At this point, that is the way I feel. Take it out and put it in your mattress. It is that scary," said Debbie.

Money in the mattress cannot be used to for the loans that banks need to make, to make a profit.

In 2006, the Federal Government realized that $100,000 is not what it used to be.

So they voted to tie that insurance limit to inflation.

Keep it tuned to Channel 13 Action News.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Presumably, if the first $100,000 wasn't insured, Debbie wouldn't have been so stupid as to put it all in a bank where it could be lost. As it was, Debbie's deposit was (knowingly or not) premised on the first 100K being insured. We can argue whether the FDIC made sense back in 1933 (If the FDIC didn't exist, people would probably keep their money in mattresses, or demand far better oversight of their banks to ensure that this sort of thing didn't happen), but your claim that today's Libertarians advocate the immediate abrogation of the premises underlying the current system seems a little silly.

 

[sr71plt]

And if the FDIC didn't exist, how would we help people like Debbie Ingham who had $120,000 in the bank before this Andrew McCain (adopted son of John McCain)-run bank shut down? She participated with good faith in the market, and now $20,000 of her hard earned money is gone.

Oh good grief, the banks have signs slapped all over the place that the accounts are only insured for the first $100,000.

If you wish to live in a community of morons who won't take minimal responsibility for themselves, that's your call, LaJoke. Don't inflict it on folks with at least half a brain.

 

[Liar]

I already know the laissez-faire answer: banks never go down if the Government isn't in any way involved.

No, that's the laissez-fairy answer. The real laissez-faire answer goes like this:

A bank is a company, a poorly run company will sooner or later go titsup. And if that hits a bunch of customers who weren't quick enough to jump ship, then tough titty.

And I'm not a deregulation fanatic. I'd rather have a visible than invisible hand. The devil you know, and all that. Jus6t thought I'd set the record straight on that common mispreception of yours.

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

Well, anyone who doesn't know by now that only the first 100K is issued by the FDIC, should know better.

Why do you think rich people invest in the market, have several accounts in several banks, and by real estate. Rich people are alway cash poor. No wealthy person ever leaves cash hanging around in a lowly bank.

Their money is always working for them. Besides, the FDIC is mainly for the average Joe to make them feel confident about saving accounts after the banks failed in 1929.

Certainly, though, the FDIC should be insuring deposits up to one million instead of one hundred thousand. It's not unusual for a small business to have a checking account with a balance of more than 100,000, at certain times of the year.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

There are also private insurers that will cover your losses over the 100,000 dollar amount.

But the smart money is in diversification.

 

[sr71plt]

Sounds like some folks around here can't get their heads around a sum like $100,000. All you do is put money in multiple bank accounts. You can just open up another account in the same bank, if you're lazy, although anyone who would put more than $100,000 in a single bank these days has the brain of a watermellon.

Duh.

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

Sounds like some folks around here can't get their heads around a sum like $100,000. All you do is put money in multiple bank accounts. You can just open up another account in the same bank, if you're lazy, although anyone who would put more than $100,000 in a single bank these days has the brain of a watermellon.

Duh.

I can't believe that I agree with you on something.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Oh good grief, the banks have signs slapped all over the place that the accounts are only insured for the first $100,000.

If you wish to live in a community of morons who won't take minimal responsibility for themselves, that's your call, LaJoke. Don't inflict it on folks with at least half a brain.

Okay shit for brains, if you want to get into name calling, two can play that.

Where the hell would she put her money if it wasn't going to go into a bank?

Do you realize what would happen to this economy if people didn't trust banks with their money and banks didn't have that money to invest?

Are you really flying that high without an oxygen mask?

 

[sr71plt]

Where the hell would she put her money if it wasn't going to go into a bank?

In separate accounts, dummy. Duh

Well, actually double duh, because I already pointed that out. So, duh, duh.

You really are a trip.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Okay shit for brains, if you want to get into name calling, two can play that.

Where the hell would she put her money if it wasn't going to go into a bank?

uhhh... a DIFFERENT bank? In a DIFFERENT acct?

It isn't brain surgery... jeeeez...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Sounds like some folks around here can't get their heads around a sum like $100,000. All you do is put money in multiple bank accounts. You can just open up another account in the same bank, if you're lazy, although anyone who would put more than $100,000 in a single bank these days has the brain of a watermellon.

Duh.

Multiple bank accounts at the same facility are usually aggregated under FDIC rules. Two accounts by the same person worth $100,000 each are aggregated to $200,000 and only the first $100,000 is protected. And what if the OTHER bank you have an account at, also goes under? That's a good risk nowadays.

And BFW, what do you mean buying real estate? Real estate is losing value right now. More ways to lose your savings.

Sr71plt, keep up with logic like that and you'll ensure the FDIC is called on to protect more money, not less. You scare rational people with the garbage "logic" you're peddling.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

In separate accounts, dummy. Duh

Well, actually double duh, because I already pointed that out. So, duh, duh.

You really are a trip.

That's no protection against the OTHER bank going under, too.

You didn't point THAT out, did you?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You didn't point THAT out, did you?

Yeah, but what are the odds? (paranoia notwithstanding...) If you're going to worry about that, you might as well put it under a mattress.

 

[sr71plt]

Multiple bank accounts at the same facility are usually aggregated under FDIC rules. Two accounts by the same person worth $100,000 each are aggregated to $200,000 and only the first $100,000 is protected.

Wrong.

(Obviously you've never actually done it.)

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Multiple bank accounts at the same facility are usually aggregated under FDIC rules. Two accounts by the same person worth $100,000 each are aggregated to $200,000 and only the first $100,000 is protected. And what if the OTHER bank you have an account at, also goes under? That's a good risk nowadays.

And BFW, what do you mean buying real estate? Real estate is losing value right now. More ways to lose your savings.

Sr71plt, keep up with logic like that and you'll ensure the FDIC is called on to protect more money, not less. You scare rational people with the garbage "logic" you're peddling.

So your covered to the first $100,000 on each account as each bank is a separate transaction. Now who's peddling garbage "logic"?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Wrong.

(Obviously you've never actually done it.)

 

[sr71plt]

That's no protection against the OTHER bank going under, too.

You didn't point THAT out, did you?

Well, yes I did. Up where I talked about watermellon for brains. Which reminds me . . .

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yeah, but what are the odds? (paranoia notwithstanding...) If you're going to worry about that, you might as well put it under a mattress.

I've two words for you: chain reaction. The more banks that fail, the more deposits get centralized in fewer banks, which means when they fail, even more depositors lose their money. The odds of you losing money despite diversifying banks has probably gone up 100% nowadays.

But the fundamental issue that you have militantly discounted here, is the danger that society faces when people cannot trust banks.

You're going right back to the logic that brought us the destruction of confidence in the banking system in the 1920s.

We need TRUST in our economic system, Selena Kitt, not your outdated, worthless, irrelevant mindset of rugged cowboy yeehaw'ness. You may want to go back to the 1920s but that just shows how crazy you are.

Thank God most Americans stand with me and not you, or we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I've two words for you: chain reaction. The more banks that fail, the more deposits get centralized in fewer banks, which means when they fail, even more depositors lose their money. The odds of you losing money despite diversifying banks has probably gone up 100% nowadays.

But the fundamental issue that you have militantly discounted here, is the danger that society faces when people cannot trust banks.

You're going right back to the logic that brought us the destruction of confidence in the banking system in the 1920s.

We need TRUST in our economic system, Selena Kitt, not your outdated, worthless, irrelevant mindset of rugged cowboy yeehaw'ness. You may want to go back to the 1920s but that just shows how crazy you are.

Thank God most Americans stand with me and not you, or we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

What makes you think that people trust banks nowadays?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Wrong.

(Obviously you've never actually done it.)

You're a flaming retard, vacuum head. Debbie Ingham found out the hard way that you're clueless about finance. She did exactly what you said, having 2 accounts at the same bank, and that is exactly how she lost $20,000.

Care to try again, asshole?

 

[sr71plt]

I've two words for you: chain reaction. The more banks that fail, the more deposits get centralized in fewer banks, which means when they fail, even more depositors lose their money. The odds of you losing money despite diversifying banks has probably gone up 100% nowadays.

But the fundamental issue that you have militantly discounted here, is the danger that society faces when people cannot trust banks.

You're going right back to the logic that brought us the destruction of confidence in the banking system in the 1920s.

We need TRUST in our economic system, Selena Kitt, not your outdated, worthless, irrelevant mindset of rugged cowboy yeehaw'ness. You may want to go back to the 1920s but that just shows how crazy you are.

Thank God most Americans stand with me and not you, or we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

And your problem is that you pick the stupidest issues to go postal over. Only people with the brains of jellyfish would get in this sort of predicament. Yes, you can have more than one account at a single bank, with each account insured up to $100,000 (all you have to do is set the accounts up right--just ask about it when you set the acocunts up). Or you can put the money in separate banks (which is the wisest thing to do). And yes, banks slap notification of the $100,000 limit all over their walls, on top of the counters next to the tellers, and on your bank account statements. If you are so dumb that you can't minimally take responsibility for yourself on something like this, I see no reason why Darwin's Law can't kick in.

But I sorta think you are that dumb, LaJoke.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Thank God most Americans stand with me and not you, or we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

Yes, I can see them crowding around you from here...

Don't mind those white coats, though, friend--they're definitely going to be 100% behind ya...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Since sr71plt insists upon being an idiot, let's put an end to this multiple accounts bullshit once and for all:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=9021326

Immediately Ingham put the money in Silver State Bank.

"I knew there was a $100,000 insurance under FDIC, so I split it into two accounts. One large and one smaller one." On September 5th, with no warning, the bank went under and the federal government took over.

When Ingham went to check on her money, FDIC regulators had added her two accounts together and told her she lost more than $20,000 for being over the insurance limit.

Now that's enough of your blustering about having multiple accounts. It doesn't work. Fact of history, NOT subject of debate.

 

[sr71plt]

Since sr71plt insists upon being an idiot, let's put an end to this multiple accounts bullshit once and for all:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=9021326

Now that's enough of your blustering about having multiple accounts. It doesn't work. Fact of history, NOT subject of debate.

My wife did it last month when she cashed out on her retirement before all this crap started. After a couple of weeks she diversified. But, yes, she got the money into separate accounts in the same bank, each account insured to the $100,000.

All you have to do is actually do it, rather than bluster around reading Internet rumors and going postal just because you have the brains of a watermellon.

Your citation isn't the ending of anything. Just because they told her that (which is highly doubtful to being with), that would hardly be the end of the story. If she didn't go through the procedures of getting the accounts set up right, then it could be true.

But, as usual, you're just doing your usual "the sky is falling" routine.