From : pomi
Subj : Current event
Date : Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:18:50 -0500 (EST)
In today's NY Times appeared the following on the first business page.
BANKS' BONUS: NO PREMIUMS
The FDIC decided to end deposit insurance premiums for most
commerical banks, on the grounds that the insurance fund has
enough money to cover any bank failures. Banks will save
nearly $946 million in yearly premiums.
-NY Times, 9/15/95, p.D2.
A story inside lays out more details, including criticism by Ralph
Nader that $25.08 billion now in the fund could be exhausted by a
large failure. (I remember that the S and L debacle cost $200 billion
or more.)
The article says that banks have reached their requirement of having
$1.25 in reserves for each $100 of insured deposits.
I can't believe this ! It seems highly irresponsible and an invitation
to disaster. How can banks not pay insurance when the fund only has
around $20 billion it it? This amount insures almost nothing.
What this move does is place taxpayers at much greater risk as the
insurer for bank bungling, misdeeds, etc. I see no reason to move the
burden of protecting depositors' money played with by banks to anyone
other than the banks. What could be going on here ?
This announcement comes at an interesting time, with this manufactured
government shutdown. I am becoming suspicious of the underlying
reason that this stalement is being created. The full faith and
credit of the United States is underwritten by the tangible assets in
this country.
As has been noted elsewhere, this shutdown may be the PRETEXT for the
liquidation of the personal property of the citizens of this country
and even the transfer of real property of the United States to private
international creditors. It could be the financial meltdown that many
have been predicting as the precursor to the national emergency that
we've all been dreading.
Please look at the demands of both sides. Republicans say they only
want a commitment from the President for a balanced budget in seven
years. They will then send him the "clean" bill he wants.
What's so difficult about that? Why can't Klinton agree to that?
Nothing Klinton says means anything anyhow. So let's say he agreed.
So what? It's not a binding and enforceable contract. It's nothing,
a political promise, of no value at all.
So what is the purpose of refusing to say words whose principle he has
said elewhere he endorses? The whole government stops because
Republicans want the president to say that he's committed to a
balanced budget and he refuses to say that he's committed to a
balanced budget in seven years ?
I find the particulars in this situation completely implausible. Such
a senseless rationale makes me look elsewhere for the real reason.
---SnetMgr 0.60 [r0001]
* Origin: snet-l@world.std.com <-> FidoNet (1:330/202)
|
|
Disclaimer: The file contained in the
box above or displayed in a separate window from a link in the
box above is NOT owned nor implied to
be owned by BeYoND THe iLLuSioN. Most files at BeYoND THe
iLLuSioN are originally from public Bulletin Board Systems
(BBS) which were popular in the days before the Internet or
from gopher, web, and FTP sites from the early days of the
Internet which no longer exist today. Essentially, all files
were acquired from the public domain in one for or another.
However, there have been occasions when copyright protected
material has appeared on BeYoND THe iLLuSIoN without permission
of the copyright holder. In these instances, we have and will
continue to remove the copyright protected file as soon as it
is brought to our attention. This can now be done using our Report Copyright Material form. Fill
out the form, and the webmaster will be notified of the
situation.
There are also times when files found on BeYoND THe iLLuSioN
have a real home somewhere else on the Internet. In these
instances, we will gladly replace the file with a link to its
true home whenever it is brought to our attention. If you know
of the true home of any of these files, you can use our Report Original URL form to bring it yo our
attention.
|
