Post Left Wing looniness here

The administration has started that SVB deposit holders will be made whole without taxpayer assistance.

'Depositors of the Silicon Valley Bank will have access to all of their money – following the bank’s failure on Friday – at no loss to American taxpayers, the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) said in a joint statement Sunday."

Where do those three organizations get their funding???
 
Monahorns said:
There is now a bill in the Texas Lege to eliminate all DEI offices in public universities. I'll be praying that passes into law.
Click to expand...

As somebody who used to help lobby the Legislature about stopping leftism on campus, I wouldn't bet the house on it. Even Republican members were absurdly deferential to university administrators, and the House Higher Education Committee was run by blatant shills for the university bureaucracy like Geanie Morrison and Fred Brown, both of whom were garbage. (Morrison is still there and still garbage.) I looked at the Committee now, and it doesn't look good. Of the 11 members, five are rock solid liberal Democrats, and though there are six Republicans, I'd only consider one to be particularly conservative. The rest are go-along-to-get-along types who aren't likely to be willing to piss off the system.
 
Ok I don't get all this
BUT didn't the gov't shut SVB down because they didn't have enough assets to cover potential withdrawals?
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


The only risk I see here is hiring folks to hit the LBGT quota.

ViperHorn said:
The administration has started that SVB deposit holders will be made whole without taxpayer assistance.

'Depositors of the Silicon Valley Bank will have access to all of their money – following the bank’s failure on Friday – at no loss to American taxpayers, the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) said in a joint statement Sunday."
Click to expand...

The government is allowed to lie without repercussions.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I do not see how that's even possible.
Click to expand...
Please note that the bank had no loss of principal. The problem was that depositor money was in longer term interest rate bills (which has fallen in price when the fed raised interest rates), but when the depositors withdrew their money, the bank had insufficient money to pay them. This delta was the loss. The US government will likely loan money to the defunct bank with interest to pay back the short term loss.
 
Mr. Deez said:
As somebody who used to help lobby the Legislature about stopping leftism on campus, I wouldn't bet the house on it. Even Republican members were absurdly deferential to university administrators, and the House Higher Education Committee was run by blatant shills for the university bureaucracy like Geanie Morrison and Fred Brown, both of whom were garbage. (Morrison is still there and still garbage.) I looked at the Committee now, and it doesn't look good. Of the 11 members, five are rock solid liberal Democrats, and though there are six Republicans, I'd only consider one to be particularly conservative. The rest are go-along-to-get-along types who aren't likely to be willing to piss off the system.
Click to expand...

Bummer. I will still pray. God does impossible things sometimes.
 
mchammer said:
Please note that the bank had no loss of principal. The problem was that depositor money was in longer term interest rate bills (which has fallen in price when the fed raised interest rates), but when the depositors withdrew their money, the bank had insufficient money to pay them. This delta was the loss. The US government will likely loan money to the defunct bank with interest to pay back the short term loss.
Click to expand...

That helps, but what if the bank can't pay back the loan with interest?
 
That bank is dead. HSBC bought the UK affiliate for $1 and assumption of debt. They will find someone to buy the US side.

The issue is why have an FDIC when the US Government can unilaterally waive the limit?
 
335878443_506086921738104_7917943101652856030_n.jpg
 
ViperHorn said:
That bank is dead. HSBC bought the UK affiliate for $1 and assumption of debt. They will find someone to buy the US side.

The issue is why have an FDIC when the US Government can unilaterally waive the limit?
Click to expand...
There you go with the misinformation...

HSBC paid one pound. That is a buck and 21 cents in OUR money...

I'll duck and run now...

As to the second part...wholly agree.

And, as I noted on Twitter this AM...having a POTUS that says everything is find and ducks questions instills me with the same level of faith as acting on a Jim Cramer stock tip.
 
Mr. Deez said:
That helps, but what if the bank can't pay back the loan with interest?
Click to expand...
The fed will pay the difference but charge interest on it. How can the bank (in receivership) pay it back? Likely by using it’s future profits because prior commitments like paying interest on overnight accounts are likely not being honored.
 
mchammer said:
The fed will pay the difference but charge interest on it. How can the bank (in receivership) pay it back? Likely by using it’s future profits because prior commitments like paying interest on overnight accounts are likely not being honored.
Click to expand...

I see. I hope it works out, but I also know you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. If the bank doesn't become profitable, we could still get ripped off.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I see. I hope it works out, but I also know you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. If the bank doesn't become profitable, we could still get ripped off.
Click to expand...
I also read the government will raise the fdic premium that banks pay to offset the cost. Technically the tax payer doesn’t pay this, but all taxpayers pay for mismanagement of the Fed (rates too low for too long) in terms of inflation and all after effects.
 
mchammer said:
I also read the government will raise the fdic premium that banks pay to offset the cost. Technically the tax payer doesn’t pay this, but all taxpayers pay for mismanagement of the Fed (rates too low for too long) in terms of inflation and all after effects.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. The FDIC insurance is paid by bank depositers at a very small rate. That is the money that isn't tax related. But once the FDIC promises to pay above what money is in that insurance fund it is directly coming out of the taxpayer's wealth either through more taxes or price inflation. For the SVB deposits to be recouped in full all the money in the FDIC insurance fund will be spent just to cover the first 1% of the cost. The 99% will be out of taxpayer's backs.
 
mchammer said:
I also read the government will raise the fdic premium that banks pay to offset the cost. Technically the tax payer doesn’t pay this, but all taxpayers pay for mismanagement of the Fed (rates too low for too long) in terms of inflation and all after effects.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the same government tells banks they are charging customers too much in fees...and whine when banks try to limit lending to good risks.
 
A detransitioner is suing the medical providers who butchered her up as a teenager. Link. I doubt the California court system will allow the case, but it's a good start.
 
Horn6721 said:
There are no words for the horror these people are afflicting.
How many sickos can there be and
How can they be stopped?
Click to expand...

Obviously if a state supreme court decides that medical liability should be imposed for this, it's over in that state. Will that happen? In California, absolutely not. In states that haven't watered down medical liability too much for the cases to be viable but aren't woke left, then perhaps.
 
What apparently set up the freakout at Stanford Law School. This would have been massively frowned upon when I was in law school - not just because it's rude but because someone doing this kind of thing would look massively weak - both mentally and emotionally.

And I fear for the future of the legal profession. No client should ever trust a lawyer who's this weak. If you can't handle a speaker who disagrees with you, how will you handle things in the courtroom if they don't go as you expect? You have to keep your composure whether you're doing great or losing your ***. If you can't, then you shouldn't be in the profession.

What should happen? Not sure I'd expel the students. People in their early 20s do stupid things, and that generally shouldn't define their careers and lives. However, this DEI dean should absolutely be fired, because she encouraged and justified their behavior when what they need is a kick in the *** - for their own sakes. The Dean of the law school should call a school-wide meeting and ***** them all out and require all of these students to draft apology letters to the judge. The judge should be invited again, and any student who disrupts should expelled.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top