Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None of that is from the law itself but rather someone person's interpretation based on them not specifically mentioning FDIC insured accounts. That is a giant stretch on both your part and theirs.
Because we know what happens when something is not specifically spelled out to politicians. Why would they not specifically exclude these deposits?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Because we know what happens when something is not specifically spelled out to politicians. Why would they not specifically exclude these deposits?
Because It is in another part of the law, Did you want them just to repeat it so you can have a sound mind ????
Quote:
[[Page 124 STAT. 1540]]
SEC. 335. PERMANENT INCREASE IN DEPOSIT AND SHARE INSURANCE.
(a) Permanent Increase in Deposit Insurance.--Section 11(a)(1)(E) of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(E)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentences:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the increase in
the standard maximum deposit insurance amount to $250,000 shall
apply to depositors in any institution for which the Corporation
was appointed as receiver or conservator on or after January 1,
2008, and before October 3, 2008. The Corporation shall take
such actions as are necessary to carry out the requirements of
this section with respect to such depositors, without regard to
any time limitations under this Act. In implementing this and
the preceding 2 sentences, any payment on a deposit claim made
by the Corporation as receiver or conservator to a depositor
above the standard maximum deposit insurance amount in effect at
the time of the appointment of the Corporation as receiver or
conservator shall be deemed to be part of the net amount due to
the depositor under subparagraph (B).''
The purpose was to save the banking system so we didn't have a repeat of October 1929 and the Great Depression. The fact that the government not only recovered all the money but earned a profit is a very good thing, regardless of conservative sour grapes crying.
No, the purpose was to save government from bailing out the tens of trillions of dollars in mortgage backed securities they guaranteed..
What you pointed to is C8K statements about derivative instruments and the document says Citigroup has elected the fair-value option for those instruments.
The problem, of course, was that at the time there was no market for those instruments. That's why the government bought them -- to put money into the banking system that lacked assets and therefore couldn't lend. These were the toxic assets you may have heard about.
Did you seriously not know how high FDIC insurance went before i posted that ?
Yes, but a bank could not confiscate accounts to cover their losses before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because It is in another part of the law, Did you want them just to repeat it so you can have a sound mind ????
