Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (421367)	10/1/2008 2:23:26 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575396

That doesn't change the fact that the FDIC didn't have enough money to cover WaMu. Oh wait......I know.....we can give the $700 billion to the FDIC......and we can call it an FDIC bailout. Does that make you all feel better? Because you know what, dude, there is going to be a need for bailout monies somewhere in the system or the American financial system will go into total collapse. As a CPA, you should understand that prognosis. You are presuming there will be a run on banks that cannot be handled. Banks are not short of reserves. The ONLY reason for the [otherwise 100% meaningless] increase in the FDIC max is to prevent a run on banks. No person has ever lost one nickel on a federally insured deposit, even if they were over 100K. The 250K is totally an attempt to prevent people from reacting to the cash flow crisis by going to their banks and withdrawing funds.