quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, I used to actually try and correct people for it too, but I think it's one of those things that has entered the vernacular with a different meaning than its origin. It's not like there are a ton of people out there using "sea change" in its originally intended form. In it's original form, from what I've read and understand, it merely meant a change that took place at sea, or because of the sea, it was hydrologically related. Now it's used to mean either like kate said, a transformative change, or as many use it, to denote sweeping change. I've used it both ways. I've never heard anyone ever use it in reference to water.
The sea-related sense is archaic. I've never before heard it used to mean sudden change; just a really big change, like going in the opposite direction from before.
I've never heard it used to mean sudden change either, at least, not by itself. If a really big change comes suddenly, then it gets folded in, but a small sudden change wouldn't count.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The Rabbit: Well, from that perspective, an American with an investment in a domestic S&P500 fund such as SPY http://finance.google.ca/finance?q=AMEX%3ASPY could have lost more than $2000 with as little as $31,000 invested *today*
Yup! Every American with money in an IRA or a Pension fund ought to be screaming right now. The houses failure to pass this bill has just cost you more than the bailout.
Of course, you only loose this money if you sell today or if you sell at any time before the market recovers. Its hard to calculate the real long term impact of such things. We will never know how much more I would have had in my retirement fund 20 years from now if the house had passed todays bill. Nonetheless, I think its a pretty safe conclusion that if the house and senate can't agree on a bailout package that will stabilize the banks and markets, we can all kiss our comfortable retirement good bye.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yup! Every American with money in an IRA or a Pension fund ought to be screaming right now. The houses failure to pass this bill has just cost you more than the bailout.
Here's another point of view, if you're interested.
quote: Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
When's the last time you used "thither" or "thine" in a conversational sentence with friends?
I don't think the basics of his stories are archaic; we still find ways to make them relevent and important, but the language is most certainly archaic.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yup! Every American with money in an IRA or a Pension fund ought to be screaming right now. The houses failure to pass this bill has just cost you more than the bailout.
Here's another point of view, if you're interested.
quote: Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
--Ron Paul
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by memory FDR didn't take office until 1 1/2 years after the 1929 stock market crash so based on RP's assessment, the great depression was over before any of those destructive strategies were implemented.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: scholarette, you don't have an email listed, but if you'll email me, I might have some suggestions.
Thanks! I did find out that they are updating charges on October 1 (for like printing charges and stuff), so if they don't send my check then, I will definetely e-mail you. I really appreciate the offer of your expertise.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Republican House leaders may have signaled the new strategy for the party in a news conference moments ago when they blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for a partisan speech that, they argued, tanked the possible passage of the legislation.
McCain followed that lead in a statement by senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," said Holtz-Eakin. "Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome. This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
Ah, finger pointing. It brings a small amount of amusement to my life. A small amount.
Wow. What an absolute load of horse-puckey. Given that the Democrats rallied more than half their number in support of a bill that Bush favored and the Republicans failed to do so, about the best one can say is that some of the GOP are once again allowing the whole mess to burn because they feel someone slighted them on a plane. And McCain personally said he'd work to rally the Republican votes! You'd think they'd have the decency to blush.
Pelosi's uncanny ability to piss people off didn't really help, though, did it? Considering a sizable number of Republicans decided to drop their support *after* her speech, this seems to be a better example of the rhetorical tactic of "insult them until they agree with you" that seems to be so popular among democrats these days.
The Democratic party has an awful lot to learn about influencing the decisions of people. Frankly, attempting to prove that you're better than me just does not fly when you're not dealing with the type of people who don't give a crap about following the herd.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I did find out that they are updating charges on October 1 (for like printing charges and stuff), so if they don't send my check then, I will definitely e-mail you. I really appreciate the offer of your expertise.
Good luck. Just keep in mind that with the holidays my availability will be spotty in the next few weeks.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pelosi's uncanny ability to piss people off didn't really help, though, did it? Considering a sizable number of Republicans decided to drop their support *after* her speech, this seems to be a better example of the rhetorical tactic of "insult them until they agree with you" that seems to be so popular among democrats these days.
The Democratic party has an awful lot to learn about influencing the decisions of people. Frankly, attempting to prove that you're better than me just does not fly when you're not dealing with the type of people who don't give a crap about following the herd.
That's possibly true, I haven't seen the actual speech she gave yet though. Even if it is true, it's damn thin excuse. How anyone can justify not voting for a measure that they were previously going to vote for, especially when it's arguably the most important piece of legislation since the Iraq War resolution of 2003, just because a fellow Congressperson hurt your feelings is beyond me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A sizable number of Republicans may say they dropped their support after Pelosi's speech. An NPR analyst stated that it seemed that a number of the GOP voted against it thinking there would be enough votes on the table for it to carry anyway, hoping they could use their votes as populist, "sticking it to the rich" credentials in their home states while still allowing the necessary act to go through.
Acting against your interests because you're miffed is bad. Hoping someone else will take the blame for doing what you think is necessary is worse. And frankly, even if they were angry at Pelosi, that's an incredibly contempable excuse. They're public servants. They're supposed to do what they think will best serve the public, not what will stoke their egos- or even what will get them elected next term, as rare as I grant such a genuinely self-sacrificing and public-minded view is these days on either side.
I'm sure the Democrats weren't thrilled by a bill backed by this administration, or the prospect of giving Bush's people what some might see as a win right now, but they still came through with a majority. And they're being lambasted for playing politics? Tripe. Jackals would sneer.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Initial memo inviting analysts to join in. Apparently about 800 people nationally participated, according to the first link above. The memo states "This call is specifically for analysts," but there is no specification of secrecy, or the like.
rivka [Edit: does not note] that "tranching" is currently the top Google hit. [rather, the wikipedia page is the top hit, as it seems likely that a lot of non-finance types are currently googling and finding the most accessible source -- namely, Wikipedia]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Then rivka was unclear. The wikipage is the top hit for tranching; normally I'd expect a financial site to be for such a specialized term.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that might be an oldie from a few years back because $1000 of Nortel should be worth $138 even after today's joyous events and Enron should be long dead.
Nonetheless, it is certainly amusing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress appears to have demonstrated either a remarkably dysfunctional level of Epic Fail, or else courage and principle in difficult days. I wish I knew which.
Actually, if the Republicans really did change their votes in response to Pelosi's speech, that's despicable. I hope they're only using that for an excuse.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Congress appears to have demonstrated either a remarkably dysfunctional level of Epic Fail, or else courage and principle in difficult days. I wish I knew which.
Actually, if the Republicans really did change their votes in response to Pelosi's speech, that's despicable. I hope they're only using that for an excuse.
That's one of the failings of poor leadership. The speaker of the house is responsible for ensuring that debate is honest and that the work done there is as bi-partisan as possible. Not furthering their own career by bashing the opposing political party. Pointing fingers about who is responsible is completely useless in a crisis. You dig in, do your work, get it done, and see what happens. You don't use the opportunity to grand stand and vie for the alpha male position. But then, Pelosi has always been a power hungry she-wolf. It isn't like it surprises me that she took the opportunity to turn what should have been a bi-partisan ignorance of the average American's opinion into an opportunity to further her own career.
Seriously. Do you expect to be able to spit in someone's face and then have them do what you want them to? That's just pure idiocy. If anything, Pelosi's speech probably served to push the ones that were just barely into accepting out of a feeling of need (and ignoring the cries of their constituents, no less) right back into reality, where this bail-out is as ill-conceived an idea as it could ever be.
If the banking industry were intelligent, it would make every effort in the world to turn those poisonous loans into good ones by renegotiating percentage rates, or even leveraging the number of homes in receivership by getting people out of homes they can't afford and into homes they can. But, no. The idiot CEOs are waiting for the government to bail them out so they don't have to worry about losing all that money they've made over the past decade.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The speaker of the house is responsible for ensuring that debate is honest and that the work done there is as bi-partisan as possible.
I agree on principle, but I'm not sure if that's ever been the actual case in the House of Reps. Speakers often use the position as a bully pulpit to control the House for their own party's benefit. That's been the case at least for the last 30 years, and I suspect that if I really researched it, it'd be the cast for the last 200 years.
So, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of her behavior, it's nowhere near unique in historical context.
But I still wouldn't put most of the blame on her for this one. Changing your vote on something like this because of a hissy fit is just as irresponsible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE]But I still wouldn't put most of the blame on her for this one. Changing your vote on something like this because of a hissy fit is just as irresponsible.
See, that depends entirely on whether or not you believed what you were voting on was a good thing in the first place. If someone told me that I had to get in line and follow the crowd, I'd be much less inclined to do so if
1. I didn't believe I needed to do that thing they wanted.
2. They just insulted me and everything I believed in.
edit to add: I think that for the most part, the people who changed their minds after Pelosi's speech were probably the ones who didn't want to vote for the resolution in the first place, but got coerced into doing so in whatever manner they do such things. I would *hope* that they would refuse to accept it out of an understanding of the average American's view of this debacle. Such people would be very justified in choosing not to follow behind a poor leader.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm truly enjoying the mass delusion that politicians can be effective at anything but getting themselves reelected and lying.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: I'm truly enjoying the mass delusion that politicians can be effective at anything but getting themselves reelected and lying.
Ha ha. Seriously though. It is not impossible and is in fact fairly common for politicians to be effective administrators of governmental affairs.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the banking industry were intelligent, it would make every effort in the world to turn those poisonous loans into good ones by renegotiating percentage rates, or even leveraging the number of homes in receivership by getting people out of homes they can't afford and into homes they can.
Not having been on the loans side of things, I'm not even sure it would be legal for us to try to help folks find a new house. You have to remember, banks aren't just acting on their whims here. There's a massive amount of federal, state, and local laws we have to follow before we cash a check let alone negotiate hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of loans. We can't give folks advice on how to invest, I doubt we can give them advice on which house to buy.
As for the interest rates, I'm not sure why that would be the problem. Interest is still low. And if you bought your place for one price and it goes up in value, we don't get to charge you more.
I think the problem there is the property taxes on the new, larger value of your home. That's your county government right there. Talk to them. (Unless you live in Florida where the Save Our Homes ammendment required taxes to go up even if the value of your home fell. Law of Unintended Consequences, indeed.)
[ETA] I just saw aspectre's post in the election thread. I work for a reputable credit union that serves it's membership with quality products. We offer fixed rate and the normal kind of adjustable rate mortgages. I've never heard of a product with a 25% interest rate. I'm not sure how that isn't usury, but yes, those kinds of notes should be renegotiated if the business wants to stay open. Especially if they sold folks the loan with the expectation of refinancing anyway.
posted
The issue is that many people with the worst loans just cannot afford to own houses in their area. It doesn't matter what terms there are. Indeed, the only reason they had a chance of getting a home loan in the first place was the ridiculous housing market increases that would let them refinance later based on equity from rising prices and rainbows, probably into another ARM that they'd have to restructure again several years down the road.
Additionally, if a home loan defaults or is significantly restructured in certain ways, the bank will owe a payment to those holding securities based on the loan.
Not to mention that a lot of the problem is too many people in homes with too little equity. As some recent research shows, the biggest factor in determining the percentage value of a home loan is the fraction the owner has in equity. No restructuring is going to give the particularly troubled owners much equity, so there is no restructuring that significantly improves the value of loan portfolios.
One of the better suggestions I've seen is to create a federal housing authority to buy up home loans, and then to restructure those loans . . . but since most of the loans they'd be buying up are just infeasible, they should be 'foreclosed' (perhaps not in a real foreclosure, but in some sort of buying out, to preserve personal credit) but converted into rental properties for the families currently occupying them, getting those families out of the impossible to sell due to lack of equity hole and restoring mobility. As rental properties they could then be re-sold with riders ensuring minimal occupancy lengths at reasonable rates (not that rates are going to be very high anywhere with all the available housing stock).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blame can go all around on this issue. I think Pelosi was foolish to put such a partisan spin on such an important bipartisan effort. I think some house Republicans were even more foolish if they voted against such an important bill just because of something as trivial as a speech.
But really, the biggest problem is that the Bush administration is the boy who cried wolf. They've spent their political capital elsewhere, and now can't rally the support needed when they truly do need it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
If that is what people are all up in arms about, then I'm even more firmly planted in the camp that thinks they're being beyond silly. That isn't some hyper partisan speech, and it's absolutely no worse than anything Republicans have been saying over the weekend.
I was expecting some fire and brimestone speech about the evils of Republicanism. They've got to be kidding.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Come on folks. The fiscal conservatives, the liberal-anti-rich folks, and those needing to save themselves from the ire of their blue-collar voters said No. Some were brave to do so. Some were cowardly to do so.
Nobody said no because Madame Pelosi was mean to them, and you will get no House Member to admit that is why they did it. They'd sound like weak childish brats.
Yes, Pelosi's grandstanding was a mistake. The Dems were having a field day watching the Reps disintegrate between the Fiscal-cons and the Pro-Biz-Cons. She gave them a partisan way out. That is all.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Seriously. Do you expect to be able to spit in someone's face and then have them do what you want them to?
To the extent that both they and I believe that what I want done is necessary for the good of the nation, yes, I do expect exactly that. If the Republicans believed that the bailout bill was genuinely required to save the economy from a Great Depression, they should have voted yes if they had to crawl through broken glass to do so. That is why they were elected. This is not to say that Pelosi's actions were any less despicable. Nobody covered themselves in glory here. But Pelosi is one step removed in the causal chain; she gave the Republicans a chance to show themselves as the better men, and they blew it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
However, considering the Fed pumped 630 billion into the economy recently, we have had a host of other bail outs, this bill will likely pass this week or next week, and we are going to have huge deficits because of our foreign interventions, I am not all that hopeful that this is a sign of fiscal responsibility.
quote:The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
quote: Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.
quote: Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.
quote: So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
quote:Do you expect to be able to spit in someone's face and then have them do what you want them to?
Something about this seemed to be bothering me for a while. It seemed to slick and quick.
Then I remembered. This isn't Ms. Pelosi's bill that is getting approved. It's the bill and bail out wanted by the Republican administration. They begged, pleaded, and argued Speaker Pelosi into agreeing to it, only after she got a few of her demands put in the bill.
If you force a Republican Administration sponsored bill on a Democrat, you know what? They may make some disparaging remarks about that administration. Now when that Republcian Administration sponsored bill is not passed because a vast number of the Republican representatives don't vote for it, why do we blame the Democrats again?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Although I still think it wasn't a classy (for more or less obvious reasons) or smart (gives people a ducking excuse) move for Pelosi, I still think you're making a good point, as well.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The very loose language concerning any sort of protection, guidelines of how this money would be spent, the pricing/bargaining of the assets that were going to bought along with the "You need to pass this now without consideration or even time to read it." fear mongering makes it so I will never support this bill, even if I agreed with what they say it is supposed to do.
Congress and the Bush administration has the choice to play this on straight and go to appropriate lengths to show to the public that this is the case, that they are not trying to sneak thinks like pay outs and unjustified support of the big money men in. I doub that this will happen. I expect that they'll keep hammering away with a very flawed version until they can wear people down.
---
If this is such an important thing to John McCain, I've got to wonder why he seems to be spending all his time trying to play politics with it as opposed to saying "I'm going to leave my presidential ambitions aside here. I won't reference my opponent. Instead, I am going to explain why this is necessary and why we are doing the way we are." That would be a "suspending" of his campaign that I could respect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think everyone sees it as an 'evil necessity', with no one questioning the first part and a minority questioning the second part.
No one LIKES it, but the selling is based on how necessary this hated thing is.
Right. I'm just pointing out that some of that minority is on the left. I am on several mailing lists and some of them are planning protests.
'Course with some of these groups, isn't much that they won't protest.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one LIKES it, but the selling is based on how necessary this hated thing is.
The people who are largely responsible for this mess and will be saved by the government intervention seem pretty happy with it.
If they were upset with it, I don't think there would be as much opposition to it.
---
While it does seem to me that something needs to be done, I am skeptical that this plan is necessary.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a perspective on the current crisis.
If the Teamsters (or some other major union) acted in a way that hurt the economy as much as the greedy irresponsible bankers have, they would call out armed National Guard. They would be ready to shoot Teamsters in the streets. Major labor disputes have frequently been resolved by calling out the Guard and the use of force.
So, rather than call out the Guard and declare martial law on what is essentially an act equivalent to terrorism, we are going to give the greedy bastards $700 billion dollars instead.
Seems very much like a double standard to me.
Here is what I want. First I'm not against using federal money to stabilize the economy in a time of crisis. But I am very much against that happening to preserve the wealth of the already extremely wealthy. Especially when it was their corruption and irresponsibility that caused this crisis.
So, I want them to pay and pay big. I want them to feel financial pain as punishment for their irresponsible behavior. I want civil and criminal penalties for all those who perpetrated this act of terrorism on the American people. The greedy bastards on Wall Street have come close to bringing the world economy to its knees. They do not need to and certainly should not profit from such gross level of irresponsibility.
Also, I don't think the penalty should just be applied to the people currently in power on Wall Street. I want all people past and present, government and civilian, who have a hand in causing this problem, to pay a severe penalty for such dangerous and irresponsible action.
They have hurt the USA and the world far worse than any act of terrorism that has occurred so far in history.
We go to war with terrorists, we lock people up without bail or trial or access to representation, we torture and kill. But the far greater world threat of greed, is rewarded by giving away a massive pile of money to people who are already rich. (Slight exaggeration, but metaphorically true.)
I want some assurance that the people responsible for this problem are first punished, and then most assuredly do not profit for their blatant level of irresponsibility.
Again, in my mind, they have committed an act equivalent to financial terrorism, and I see no reason to reward that.
I was some assurance that the people's money is protected.
I was some assurance that ALL THE PEOPLE who are responsible are punished.
I want some assurance that already rich people are not going to profit from their irresponsibility.
I want consequence to the rich equivalent to the consequence that would be faced by any other aspect of American society that cause such massive damage to the safety of the country.
This level of damage would never be tolerated from Labor. This level of damage would never be tolerated from farmers. This level of danger and damage to the USA and the world would never be tolerated from a foreign government. That would be the equivalent of an act of war.
I'm not throwing money at rich people.
Also, I want to know what the people and organizations who cause this problem are going to do to fix it. They need to take action. they need to accept responsibility. They need to devise their own plan to save the economy.
What I've seen so far from Big Business, is scheming to protect their own wealth. They are willing to let the country crumble as long as they still walk away rich.
Satisfy these requirements, then you can dole the money out with EXTREME caution and oversight.
posted
I simply don't believe we should be a real estate based economy. If the bailout came with provisions guiding private industry to transition a healthy share of those real estate jobs(i.e. construction) into energy related fields, I'd support the bailout because it would serve as the first step to a planned, healthier economy. At least the Internet boom created Google, all we got with this real estate mess was urban sprawl, McMansions, and a sense of entitlement among housing speculators. You don't get 700b without strings, if you want the money, suffer the strings.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:After one spectacular failure, the $700-billion (U.S.) financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, passing through the Senate and gaining ground in the House where conservative opposition seemed to soften. ... House GOP opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $100-billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance. They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market. ... Tax cuts new and old are favourites for most House Republicans, the main target of intense lobbying to gain support for the measure. Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West, while disaster aid was a top priority for lawmakers from across the Midwest and South.
Another addition, to extend the deductibility of state and local taxes for people in states without income taxes, helps Florida and Texas, among others.
And there were plenty of obscure tax breaks to go around, like one for certain wooden arrows used by children, and another benefiting litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
posted
I think raising the FDIC insurance is probably a good thing for banks more than individuals. All this really does is let people keep more of their money in one place.
Say you have an account, your spouse has an account, and you have one together. Each individual account is insured for $100,000 and each of you get $100,000 for joint accounts. (The 100,000 is split between all joint accounts you hold at one institution.) With three accounts in two account types, you're insured for $400,000 between you.
Now say we do the same thing but with $250,000 each. That would let you keep $1,000,000 in three accounts with insurance. Instead of three banks sharing the money if you want your insurance, now one bank can gain the benefit.
Advantage for the customer? A little less paperwork. You can see what you have without looking in as many places. Better interest.
It's probably not going to hurt anything, but I don't think that's really going to be the benefit that I expect politicians to play it up as.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, if FDIC works the same way as CDIC in Canada, you can simply use one investment account but split up your investment in groups of $100,000 each in a different GIC issued by a different insured entity.
e.g. Have $400,000 in one account at RBC Direct Trading, which holds four GICs at $100,000, one issued by RBC, one by CIBC, one by TD, and one by BMO.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
