I too, while admittedly one the uninformed “people”, am glad that this failed. What happened to the idea floated by Schumer(not sure if he was the first with it) to just put up $150 billion now and revisiting it in January under a new President and Congress and with a ‘more thought, less shock’ crisis mode type of mindset?
This bill pits the haves against the have nots. They are going to fold an increase in FDIC into the bill, up to 250,000. They do not get it. A guy worried about keeping his home and jobs .gets an immediate ,what the fuck. They are slipping something in for the rich again. Whether or not it is good policy is another discussion. The fact is they keep exacerbating the distrust the poor feel. They will not get the people to back it ,if they keep fucking up.
Bullshit. The increase for the FDIC is for small businesses that need the money available primarily for payroll. My business would stay intact and my employees could still work for me and get a check that they could count on being there when payday arrives. This is the most sensible thing that has come since the first bill failed. Otherwise, if my bank failed and only $100K was insured (when my payroll is about $150K/month), then the have nots would be screwed instantly. Keeping small businesses running is what that FDIC bump was meant for. I have also looked into and got into CDARS to have the money split among other banks to spread the risk of being exposed to the $100K FDIC limit, although this program has it’s drawbacks as well. But keeping my employees employed is my first and foremost priority…so yes, this bill does help the have nots.
Payroll per what? year? month? I run a small company, I don’t carry one years worth payroll in the bank. 150k in payroll doesn’t match my concept of ‘small business’
$150k in monthly expenses is not too far off of what a small business can look like (with rent, payroll and other expenses). Depending on your AR/AP schedule, there are certainly times when a small business doing a few million a year in revenue needs to safely keep a couple hundred grand in the back to pay the bills.
post specified 150k in payroll.
Same answer, though I was going further on why a small business might need $150k sitting around safely in a given month.
$150k in payroll is what I cover for a small software company. We are certainly a small business, and those damned coders ain’t cheap.
What would you call me, with $150k in monthly payroll expenses? I sure as hell don’t have a big business (in the publicly traded sense). I am no longer a mom & pop. I consider a medium sized business to be in the tens of millions range in revenue.
In my original post, it specified monthly. I thought I was very clear on that. I have about 68 people on the payroll, on different hours, different rates, but nonetheless, we are a small business. I do have other routine expenses as well that run from 50K to 75K additionally and a cash reserve for business climate unpredictability (like California’s inability to pass a state budget on time). We have been warned by the quasi-governmental agency that we contract with to keep providing services, therefore to keep an additional 2 to 3 months operating expenses liquid in case they can’t pay us in a timely fashion. Hey, what’s another 450K to 675K to bank…it took us 15 years to build that up as cash reserves. Like others, I look for other solutions to keep this money safe and found CDARS a possible solution to keep the reserves safe. A bump in the FDIC to $250K would make my payroll and operating accounts safe for most of the month instead of the last few days of the monthly billing/pay cycle that we are reimbursed.
In theory, you are right; buy when stocks are down. However, it’s hard to catch a falling knife.
If you’ve had your eye on a stock or three for awhile, this might be the time; if you just want to buy something because the market is down, you’re probably best sticking to mutual funds.
I’m going to wait a bit, myself.
Sure read the world from your narrow viewpoint. Have you lost a dime in banks yet? The point is perception. The masses will not like the provision. They spoke to their congresscritters clearly and loudly. They see it as a rich giveaway. Like I said whether it is a good idea or not is not the point. It is attached to a bill the masses see as a rip off for the rich. They could have raised the FDIC limit tomorrow. Attaching it to this bill is a mistake.
Double Bullshit. Your viewpoint is the one that’s narrow. Did you know that a husband and wife can be insured for $200K in a single institution, but a small business is viewed as a single entity and is only covered for $100K at the same financial institution? Have you even considered that the limit has not been raised since 1980? Do you really think adjusting for inflation is a bad idea?
As for perception and masses, some of my sharper employees were asking me if the business money was safe. After some interaction with our business bank, I told them it was…for the time being. I guess their perception was not the same as the ignorant masses.
The rich have other saving vehicles at their disposal; small businesses need the cash liquid to operate day to day, month to month. Raising the limit does just that. The rich have IRAs, 401Ks, CDARS, SIPC, property and land, precious metals, offshore accounts, stocks, etc…they don’t need the FDIC as much…maybe for little Jimmy’s graduation party in Cancun.
Here’s a “brief” history of the FDIC. Why don’t you pay some particular attention to the tables on page 66 and onward (of that pdf file) and learn that people and business did lose substantial money waaaaaay back in the 1980s and early 1990s…1991 being particularly brutal.
Put your misguided anger somewhere else.
Is there going to be a corresponding increase in the NCUA amount?
Try and follow. I am not even arguing the raise in FDIC, I do not care if they make it unlimited. I think if we put money in the bank .we should be able to feel it is safe.
My point is that it should not be in this bill at this time. It is terrible PR. The repubs have been very good at hiding the true purposes of their policies by naming them well. A “Clear Skies Initiative” that allows more pollution is typical for them. But a bailout sounds like a bunch of money for the rich who schemed the system, So they are trying to reach the average citizen to let up on the congressmen ,so he will pass the bill. But when the citizen sees the addition of the FDIC raise ,he will see it as a giveaway to the rich. Most see no reason to elevate it. unless you want to give more to the wealthy. That is the perception. The FDIC raise should have been passed this morning all by itself. It has backing. But in this bill ,it is a mistake.
Then why did you waste your time and mine by posting this:
I responded to this particular post because you didn’t consider that its intent was to help secure business accounts that rely on the bank for day to day operations, including payroll. It would be impractical to bank at 3 different banks to secure $300K of coverage. When I was listening to many different news sources, including proponents of the bill, they stated that it was meant for businesses. That is a good thing. That’s the only thing that I feel positive about in the bill at this point in time.
Then it seems to be a bi-partisan mistake. I’m neutral on the bill, because we’re either going to swallow some bad medicine now or bad medicine later…but the raise of the FDIC for businesses is crucial and basically; and your post #102 spurred me to explain the real intention of the FDIC limit raise.