Posted on 03/15/2023 9:10:40 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said the $250,000 cap on deposit insurance should be reexamined to better suit small business and nonprofit organizations.
“I think that we should reexamine, just overall, about why we have limits at $250,000 of protection,” she said on CNBC’s “Squawk Street.”
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures up to $250,000 for each depositor if a bank fails. Warren said this insurance was meant for individuals, and a similar level of protections would help small businesses and nonprofit organizations have more confidence when depositing money into a bank.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Hell, why not nationalize all banking?
Then Democrats will be happy. Right?
Break out the violins. We’re going to hear a sad song about how poor, hard-working minorities will be ruined if they can’t have their deposits in excess of $250,000.
Good memory! “Coverage was raised from $5,000 to $10,000 in 1950, to $15,000 in 1966, and to $20,000 in 1969.”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4138364/posts?
Silicon Valley Bank collapse: Moody’s puts 6 US banks under review
Back during the 1980s, with all the SNLs imploding, FDIC only insured ‘til 100,000.
While this sounds onerous to little leaguers like myself, a company of that size is already monitoring those vast amounts of $$. Using a multitude of banks, all done by computer, wouldn't be too tough when considering the alternative.
Elizabeth Warren’s brain has never been examined because there’s nothing there. Every claim in her resume needs to be re-examined.
I agree with him
You know they’d use that repository elsewhere is main issue I guess
Why not offer higher protection for a fee. I think that is called buying insurance or something.
“What needs to be examined is why the taxpayers are on the hook for the investments of banks.”
They aren’t.
“History: FDIC protection came out of the Great Depression. Banks had been too free with their investments and lost the public’s capital when the markets tanked”
The stock market crash of 1929 played no role in it. There was an unrelated system collapse in the American banking system 1930-33. The lack of protection for depositors made the situation much worse, impoverishing depositors and shrinking the US money supply by 30%. Read about it in Friedman and Schwartz.
“Now, banks reap the profits from profitable investments and the public bears the loss.”
SVB is out of business and its stock and bond holders get nothing. The only public bearing a loss in this one are depositors above the FDIC limit unless SVB’s assets are used to make them whole.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren pumping up the crowd for her next election.
Stings take a ling time to set up to get the mark to take the bait.
She said you can’t buy enough tepees for that anymore
“””Why not offer higher protection for a fee. I think that is called buying insurance or something.”””
I agree. If a person or a company regularly has a balance of a million or more dollars, then they can pay an extra fee to be insured for that amount above the $250,000 FDIC limit.
It seems so simple, of course, until the government gets involved and then it becomes complicated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.