Bank collapse

[TexasTiger 12,967]

11 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Are you saying we should pay for those out of the Deposit Insurance Fund? 

Not even remotely.

But the well known rules of the game were that deposits exceeding insured amounts wouldn’t be paid out of it either. It’s not structured or funded for that.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Are you saying we should pay for those out of the Deposit Insurance Fund? 

No, I think what he and others are saying is, it rings hollow to say we (the Federal Government) cannot afford to forgive student loans up to $10k, or subsidize health care for those who can't afford coverage, or such things when we can just by executive fiat cover not only the $250k that the FDIC insures per account holder, but even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars - no problem.  Even though the rules with FDIC insurance are clear and some of these account holders should have known better than to have all their eggs in the basket of this one regional bank.  

And having done this, what will be the rationale for not doing the same for the next bank that goes down?  And the one after that?  And the one after that?  What amount of money will be too much for us to fully insure because folks with enough money to be able to hire financial managers and CFOs who know the rules and regulations aren't doing their jobs?  In other words, the precedent is a blank check for people with lots of money that don't want to have to do the work.  Is this a game of musical chairs where the music will stop and there actually won't be a seat for someone at some point?  Or are we telling people we'll always give them a seat?

Meanwhile, we're fussing in Congress over whether to extend the free lunch benefit for school children.  Or saying we can't afford to set up a program to get make paid maternity/parental leave a reality after the birth of a child.  There's a disconnect here.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

There is never a shortage of money for those with lobbyists. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by icanthearyou

[AUDub 11,158]

Privatizing the profits yet socializing the losses seems like a good way to run an economy. /s

[Mikey 16,655]

22 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Look, take this weird ADHD thing you've got going where you just flit from random flower to random flower unable to follow the actually subject somewhere else.  DeSantis didn't argue the bank failed because of Biden's "irresponsible spending woke economics."  But nice job cramming another goofy use of "woke" into an unrelated matter.

DeSantis specifically called out this bank's DEI efforts as the reason they weren't focused on banking fundamentals and why they got in bad shape.  Not a peep about Biden or spending or any such thing.

We sort of smile knowingly or spar a bit and let you get away with this bob and weave routine when the subject is just sports.  But if you can't offer something of more value than this pathetic tactic in here, you won't be in the political forums much longer.

 

I didn't "support Biden" the first time, so there is no "once again" to it.  Whether DeSantis can work his way into being supportable is up to him.  This kind of brain dead politics won't do it though.

 

You didn't support Biden last time? Did I mis use a term? Let me change that to "You recommended voting for Biden". As I recall, your statements were "for the good of the country" and "It's only four years so there's a limit to how much damage he can do." Probably paraphrasing a word or two, but that's what I saw here.

22 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Look, take this weird ADHD thing you've got going where you just flit from random flower to random flower unable to follow the actually subject somewhere else.

The subject is bank collapse. Government overspending is what caused it. I think my post that you are referring to is spot-on target.

 

[TexasTiger 12,967]

21 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Arguing about which party is more fiscally irresponsible is like arguing who is more promiscuous, Lindsay Lohan or Madonna.  It's pointless; they both are, it's just a question of who they cozy up to and who they screw.  That's only half the problem though. The other half is the Fed. Look at Japan to see where we are headed. They are further down the path than we are. Nobody will buy their debt because the rates are so low, so the government "buys" virtually all of it. Meanwhile the yen is falling, adding to the inflation problem. Japan tried hard for years to trigger inflation. Now they are wondering how the hell they are going to stop it.  In a capitalistic free market interest rates are set by the market. Historically, that has been about 3% above the inflation rate.  Today's interest rates are still absurdly low by those historical standards. Almost every bank bought treasuries paying a ridiculously low interest rate without hedging the position..  That is very risky when interest rates rise. So will the banks pay the price?  Likely not, the taxpayers will.  THE FED SHOULD NOT BUY TREASURIES. And they never did until about 14 years ago. It's the same as printing money.

They shouldn’t buy them for an extended period like they have. Short-term crisis intervention may require it, but not artificially manipulate the economy for more than a decade when the true crisis has subsided.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Mikey said:

You didn't support Biden last time? Did I mis use a term? Let me change that to "You recommended voting for Biden". As I recall, your statements were "for the good of the country" and "It's only four years so there's a limit to how much damage he can do." Probably paraphrasing a word or two, but that's what I saw here.

Nope.  Didn't recommend him either.  

Leading up to the 2020 election, I said nothing had changed since 2016 so I would not and indeed still could not support Trump.  Someone may have responded that the result could be a Biden presidency and I may have remarked that if indeed the result of Republicans yet again backing a man unworthy of the office was that Biden won the election, it's not the end of the world.  He was facing a Republican majority in the Senate as well as a conservative leaning SCOTUS so there would be limits on his ability do all the much damage.  

I know critical thought isn't a strong suit of yours, but that is neither supporting nor recommending.  

 

1 minute ago, Mikey said:

The subject is bank collapse. Government overspending is what caused it. I think my post that you are referring to is spot-on target.

No, the post you responded to was one where DeSantis claimed the SVB collapse was due to their focus on DEI - saying they were paying too much attention to diversity efforts and not paying attention to the bottom line - and called it "woke economics."  He didn't make any comment about Biden or gov't spending.  So quit moving the goalposts, spinning and lying.  This isn't your personal playpen to bog down threads with the same bull**** you do when the subject is football.  You can stop it or I'll help you.

[Mikey 16,655]

19 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I would like to add to this. Going off of the Webster Dictionary definition of “woke”, it can be reasonable to assume that “woke economics” is the practice of including people of different racial and social backgrounds into economic decisions and policies. Now thatyou know this, Mikey, are you actually against this practice or do you just admit that you don’t know what tf “woke” means? It’s one of the two, buddy.

First, I don't agree with Webster's limited definition. "Woke" also means arresting and prosecuting one group of protestors while BLM and ANTIFA looters are bailed out of jail by prominent politicians. People of different racial and social backgrounds are already included into every decision the government makes. All Americans are. There is equal opportunity for all. We don't need woke favoritism for a certain group or groups.

20 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Of course. The government has saved tons of money, because the republicans have all but axed college loan forgiveness.

If that's who gets credit for axing the loan forgiveness foolishness, kudos to them. I used student loans while at Auburn. As a college student I had a clear understanding of what "loan" meant. I expected to pay that money back when I borrowed it. It took some time and no small amount of sacrifice, but I paid it back. Why should irresponsible college students/graduates have their loans paid back by people who either never had student loans or paid their own loans back?

I have a nephew, pushing age 50 now, who says he still owes enough on his student loans to buy a modest house in a nice neighborhood. He's a respected college professor these days. Throughout this nephew's adult life, I have never known him to be without a boat and two motorcycles. (dirt bike and road bike) He hasn't sacrificed anything to pay his loans back.  Why should we bail him out?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

22 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I have a nephew, pushing age 50 now, who says he still owes enough on his student loans to buy a modest house in a nice neighborhood. He's a respected college professor these days. Throughout this nephew's adult life, I have never known him to be without a boat and two motorcycles. (dirt bike and road bike) He hasn't sacrificed anything to pay his loans back.  Why should we bail him out?

Side note...if he still owes enough on his student loans to purchase a modest house in a nice neighborhood, no one was offering to "bail him out."  The max amount of student loan forgiveness was $10,000.  It wouldn't make much of a dent in your nephew's debt (and it doesn't appear he's done much either), but for many/most people, it would help a great deal.

I realize that probably doesn't make any difference to you, but for accuracy's sake, the student loan forgiveness plan the President pushed wasn't going to bail out people with anything near the amount of debt you're taking about here.

[Mikey 16,655]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Side note...if he still owes enough on his student loans to purchase a modest house in a nice neighborhood, no one was offering to "bail him out."  The max amount of student loan forgiveness was $10,000.  It wouldn't make much of a dent in your nephew's debt (and it doesn't appear he's done much either), but for many/most people, it would help a great deal.

I realize that probably doesn't make any difference to you, but for accuracy's sake, the student loan forgiveness plan the President pushed wasn't going to bail out people with anything near the amount of debt you're taking about here.

No, but in aggregate the amount is staggering. Billions? Trillions? Depends on who you ask. Why should the local plumber who never got a student loan have his taxes pay for a $10,000 write-off for thousands of irresponsible college types? That doesn't make any sense.  $10,000, or $10. It doesn't make any sense.

It's an effort to buy votes, nothing more. Did the talk about this die down immediately after the mid terms, or am I simply watching the wrong financial shows?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, Mikey said:

No, but in aggregate the amount is staggering. Billions? Trillions? Depends on who you ask. Why should the local plumber who never got a student loan have his taxes pay for a $10,000 write-off for thousands of irresponsible college types? That doesn't make any sense.  $10,000, or $10. It doesn't make any sense.

It's an effort to buy votes, nothing more. Did the talk about this die down immediately after the mid terms, or am I simply watching the wrong financial shows?

It's an effort to mitigate the lasting burden that out of control, skyrocketing college tuition costs have placed on graduates.

And no, it didn't "die down" after the midterms.  In fact it was recently getting headlines again because a case against it was being argued before the SCOTUS just a few weeks ago.

Characterizing any program that helps people financially and has the biggest impact on those who need it most as "buying votes" is a lazy argument against something.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 hours ago, AUDub said:

Privatizing the profits yet socializing the losses seems like a good way to run an economy. /s

Still, not enough.  I'm going to need special taxing treatment, public investment.

The capitalists don't compete.  We compete for the capitalists.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

"Woke" also means arresting and prosecuting one group of protestors while BLM and ANTIFA looters are bailed out of jail by prominent politicians.

It only means that in your mind. Nevertheless, if that is what woke means to you, then it has nothing to do with the economy. You’re basically just regurgitating conservative terms and talking points without actually knowing what they mean or wtf you’re talking about, aren’t you?

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

First, I don't agree with Webster's limited definition. "Woke" also means arresting and prosecuting one group of protestors while BLM and ANTIFA looters are bailed out of jail by prominent politicians.

It's not up to your opinion.  "Woke" is a word that has a specific meaning.  It originated with a particular group of people and they were the ones who coined the term.  It was a term meant to convey someone who was aware or awakened to the existence of systemic racism - beyond just the kind of overt racism that happens from one individual to another.

Just because a bunch of loud mouthed, self-important white guys decided to commandeer the term doesn't mean it gets to be THE definition.  It's the far right version of "trans women are women."  A weaponized redefining of existing terms for ulterior motives.

We already have words and phrases to express when there is perceived unfair treatment for similar offenses.  Use those.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not up to your opinion.  "Woke" is a word that has a specific meaning.  It originated with a particular group of people and they were the ones who coined the term.  It was a term meant to convey someone who was aware or awakened to the existence of systemic racism - beyond just the kind of overt racism that happens from one individual to another.

Just because a bunch of loud mouthed, self-important white guys decided to commandeer the term doesn't mean it gets to be THE definition.  It's the far right version of "trans women are women."  A weaponized redefining of existing terms for ulterior motives.

We already have words and phrases to express when there is perceived unfair treatment for similar offenses.  Use those.

He won’t use any other words, because the nonsensical dipsh*it’s on Fox News that tell him what to think and say don’t use any other words. He’s not a free thinker. Hell, he’s not even a thinker. He’s just a mindless yakbak.

[Mikey 16,655]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Characterizing any program that helps people financially and has the biggest impact on those who need it most as "buying votes" is a lazy argument against something.

Our idea of those who need it most is very different. I suppose the billionaires that just got bailed out by the Biden Administration are also among "those who need it most"? I think they got bailed out because most of them are Democrat donors.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Mikey

[Mikey 16,655]

6 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

He won’t use any other words, because the nonsensical dipsh*it’s on Fox News that tell him what to think and say don’t use any other words. He’s not a free thinker. Hell, he’s not even a thinker. He’s just a mindless yakbak.

Actually, Fox News leans a little too far left for me. I prefer the Fox Business Channel. The personalities on there tell it like it really is without bothering to nod in the direction of the woke mob.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

7 hours ago, Mikey said:

Our idea of those who need it most is very different. I suppose the billionaires that just got bailed out by the Biden Administration are also among "those who need it most"? I think they got bailed out because most of them are Democrat donors.

Well if anyone here were arguing in favor of bailouts for billionaires this would be an awesome argument. But we were discussing up to $10k in student loan forgiveness. So instead it’s just the umpteenth instance of you flitting to any argument other than the one we’re having when you have no answer. 

[Mikey 16,655]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

when you have no answer. 

I was asking a question.  From bailing out irresponsible college students to bailing out Democrat billionaires isn't too far of a leap. I asked what the difference is. "Those who need it most" doesn't apply to most former college students any more than it applies to Silicone Valley billionaires.

This attempted bailout of the privileged classes by the blue collar workers, AKA college loan forgiveness, has two major problems. One, it's not fair to everybody else and two, the aggregate sum is huge at a time when irresponsible spending has already thrown the nation into inflation such as hasn't been seen since Jimmy Carter was President. Is throwing billions of dollars of gas on an already raging fire of inflation really a good idea? Most people without a vested interest would say no.

The Fed is already in a quandary. Keep raising interest rates to stem the tide of inflation or stop raising rates so there aren't more bank collapses. Increased spending that benefits the privileged few will only make this worse.

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I was asking a question.  From bailing out irresponsible college students to bailing out Democrat billionaires isn't too far of a leap. I asked what the difference is. "Those who need it most" doesn't apply to most former college students any more than it applies to Silicone Valley billionaires.

Yes it is too far a leap and, yes, a graduate in a job with a typical middle class salary or entry level salary right out of college does "need it most" whereas a billionaire literally doesn't need it at all.  $10,000 to pay off loans can be life-changing for the former while $10,000 to a billionaire is like someone giving you or me $3.  It's nice, you won't throw it in the trash or anything...but it's not changing anything about your life.

And just because someone has student loan debt, it doesn't make them "irresponsible."  They are working with the cards they've been dealt.  College costs have skyrocketed (through no fault of their own) while the need for a degree to get good paying jobs has only increased compared to how things were 40-50 years ago.  Yes, there are some exceptions if you're good with your hands in a trade such as being a plumber or electrician.  But not everyone has those kinds of skills or interests.

When my dad was graduating Auburn back in the late 60s, having a college education was a bonus.  There were lots of good paying jobs out there for people to raise a family on with just a high school diploma.  By the time I graduated in the 90s, that was becoming much harder.  It's even moreso now.  But the price of getting to a place where you're not stuck in low paying retail and service jobs is astronomically higher than it was in the 60s and even the 90s, relative to what average wages are.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

This attempted bailout of the privileged classes by the blue collar workers, AKA college loan forgiveness, has two major problems.

Explain to me again how $10,000 is a bailout to millionaires and billionaires.  You just keep saying it without actually offering a reason for its validity.

 

 

[Mikey 16,655]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Explain to me again how $10,000 is a bailout to millionaires and billionaires.

Explain to me where I said  $10,000 is a bailout to millionaires and billionaires. I didn't say any such thing.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Explain to me where I said  $10,000 is a bailout to millionaires and billionaires. I didn't say any such thing.

Ok, you've said this:

"This attempted bailout of the privileged classes by the blue collar workers, AKA college loan forgiveness, has two major problems."

So who are these privileged classes?  Because the college loan forgiveness you've referred to is capped at $10,000.  How is $10k a "bailout" to the privileged classes?

[Mikey 16,655]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, you've said this:

"This attempted bailout of the privileged classes by the blue collar workers, AKA college loan forgiveness, has two major problems."

So who are these privileged classes?  Because the college loan forgiveness you've referred to is capped at $10,000.  How is $10k a "bailout" to the privileged classes?

Who are the privileged classes? The college educated students who don't want to pay their legal debts are one.

A second and totally different privileged class would be the millionaires and billionaires the Biden Administration is paying off by covering their losses in the inflation-caused bank collapse.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

43 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Who are the privileged classes? The college educated students who don't want to pay their legal debts are one.

Nice rhetorical bullshitting.

 

43 minutes ago, Mikey said:

A second and totally different privileged class would be the millionaires and billionaires the Biden Administration is paying off by covering their losses in the inflation-caused bank collapse.

Which, again, isn't something we're arguing in favor of.

[Mims44 1,882]

On 3/15/2023 at 11:12 AM, TitanTiger said:

It's an effort to mitigate the lasting burden that out of control, skyrocketing college tuition costs have placed on graduates.

And no, it didn't "die down" after the midterms.  In fact it was recently getting headlines again because a case against it was being argued before the SCOTUS just a few weeks ago.

Characterizing any program that helps people financially and has the biggest impact on those who need it most as "buying votes" is a lazy argument against something.

I haven't seen near enough talk about fixing the issue. I honestly care a WHOLE lot less about them giving me or my wife money to pay off our loans, and a whole lot more about my kids not needing to take out insanely large loans if/when they want to go to college.

However, if someone wants to take Mikeys money and hand it to me, I'll take it. I'll even post pics with it afterwards  

On 3/15/2023 at 1:11 PM, TitanTiger said:

It's not up to your opinion.  "Woke" is a word that has a specific meaning.  It originated with a particular group of people and they were the ones who coined the term.  It was a term meant to convey someone who was aware or awakened to the existence of systemic racism - beyond just the kind of overt racism that happens from one individual to another.

Just because a bunch of loud mouthed, self-important white guys decided to commandeer the term doesn't mean it gets to be THE definition.  It's the far right version of "trans women are women."  A weaponized redefining of existing terms for ulterior motives.

We already have words and phrases to express when there is perceived unfair treatment for similar offenses.  Use those.

Word homie, that's pretty boss of you to point out that definitions for words can not be commandeered or changed by other peoples or groups of peoples.

No cap on god frfr, that's a bussin reply.