Silicon Valley Bank Failure

@no1marauder said
Every bail out of the rich is excused in the same way with a kinda "reverse trickle down".

How many companies are keeping their payrolls in bank accounts with more than $250,000? And of those companies, how many don't have other sufficient assets to meet legally obligated payrolls?

Damn few I suspect.

Well I know of at least one company (as previously mentioned) and there are probably many others. They had enough to meet this weeks payroll in other places and that's it. If their deposit in SVB was not fully covered it would have put them out of business and 200+ employees abruptly put out of work. But who cares. Doesn't fit your ideology. Nice to see you in agreement with conservative wingnuts for a change.

@no1marauder said
I disagree. The depositors knew that any amounts over $250,000 weren't insured.

Yup and the employees of said depositors should have known better too right? Shame on them.

@ullr said
Well I know of at least one company (as previously mentioned) and there are probably many others. They had enough to meet this weeks payroll in other places and that's it. If their deposit in SVB was not fully covered it would have put them out of business and 200+ employees abruptly put out of work. But who cares. Doesn't fit your ideology. Nice to see you in agreement with conservative wingnuts for a change.

BS. My ideology is that the rich soak up enough in this capitalist system without their errors being 100% covered by everybody else. Sad to see you don't agree with that.

@ullr said
Yup and the employees of said depositors should have known better too right? Shame on them.

That's a dandy argument for every handout to the rich.

@no1marauder said
BS. My ideology is that the rich soak up enough in this capitalist system without their errors being 100% covered by everybody else. Sad to see you don't agree with that.

I do agree with that. I thought I made myself abundantly clear in my posts that my concern is for the employees of said companies of this disaster. Do you have reading comprehension problems? If you have some other solution as to how said employees could be protected from the fallout of this without backing the depositors, as they have done, I'd like to hear it. I'm just used to this type of callousness coming from others types of folks on this forum that usually differ from you.

@ullr said
I do agree with that. I thought I made myself abundantly clear in my posts that my concern is for the employees of said companies of this disaster. Do you have reading comprehension problems? If you have some other solution as to how said employees could be protected from the fallout of this without backing the depositors, as they have done, I'd like to hear it. I'm just use ...[text shortened]... is type of callousness coming from others types of folks on this forum that usually differ from you.

And furthermore where they hell do we get this idea that a company with a few hundred employees should only keep 250k in bank account to meet payroll? If you think they're just going to spread it out across 20 something banks and draw from 20 different places each pay period you're living in fantasy land. It's ludicrous and naive. A 200+ employee company payroll is well above 250k per pay period. Especially a tech company in California where wages are necessarily higher than elsewhere. This bank collapse was a serious threat for thousands of employees expecting to be able to pay their bills this week in California and across the country.

@woofwoof said
That's true.

And those risky investments were facilitated by the repeal of important guardrails provided by Dodd-Frank.

On 24 May, 2018...Donald Trump repealed those measures.

Donald Trump's deregulatory mantras have finally yielded predictable consequences.

1st it's Trains, now it's Banks: What's next Donald?
Critical Infrastructure like Buildings and Bridges? Or could it be the Air Lines?

Are you Conservachumps tired of winning yet?

You would naturally think Trump is responsible, you have no idea how boring you all have become about Trump. I would think that having to tolerate the Sonhouse screeds would be enough for you, but , nooooooo, you have to put your 2 cents in. Whatever.
It remains to be seen if Trump caused this problem (one out of a hundred) that happened on Biden's watch. How can y'all form these opinions when all of the evidence is not in? How can you do that? I do not see how that is possible. I'm sorry, I cannot put your baseless opinions in my journal, I just hate it..... 🙁 😕

@ullr said
And furthermore where they hell do we get this idea that a company with a few hundred employees should only keep 250k in bank account to meet payroll? If you think they're just going to spread it out across 20 something banks and draw from 20 different places each pay period you're living in fantasy land. It's ludicrous and naive. A 200+ employee company payroll is well above ...[text shortened]... of employees expecting to be able to pay their bills this week in California and across the country.

If a company can't pay its payroll, that is unfortunate but not a reason for other people to pay it for them. Businesses fail due to such incompetence all the time.

@ullr said
A rather strange and callous position you're taking here. Many of their depositors are companies that rely on those deposits to meet payroll. This won't just impact rich people but people who literally need their paycheck to pay their bills. I know this for a fact as I have a family member who was terrified because the company they work for was threatened with suddenly not be ...[text shortened]... y more employees who otherwise were facing an abrupt loss of their income that they need to survive.

Safety Net. You know, Marauder is partial to safety nets. It is not good to fool mother nature, Ullr. It is not natural in a society of independent people to introduce government solutions for every happening.
Ullr, it is not rationale, and it is illogical. How can we be a society of independent people when a huge number of the people look to the independent people to cover their messes?

@no1marauder said
If a company can't pay its payroll, that is unfortunate but not a reason for other people to pay it for them. Businesses fail due to such incompetence all the time.

Can we agree that Urll, with whom I am unfamiliar, is a socialist? Or worse?
I would love it if he would engage with you about this stuff, I would observe from the sidelines!! You two could enlighten us, if you would just be realistic. This bank thing would be a good place to start.

@ullr said
I do agree with that. I thought I made myself abundantly clear in my posts that my concern is for the employees of said companies of this disaster. Do you have reading comprehension problems? If you have some other solution as to how said employees could be protected from the fallout of this without backing the depositors, as they have done, I'd like to hear it. I'm just use ...[text shortened]... is type of callousness coming from others types of folks on this forum that usually differ from you.

.But Maruauder is a bit more realistic than you are. He may know that to have our govt pay salaries of tanked companies is probably not a good idea.
So, ball is in your court? Do you think the govt should step in and cover salaries of the bank? If my lumber mill shuts down tomorrow, should the govt pay those salaries? Please get your feet back on the ground for a nice discussion.

Edit : The 'status', if you will, of the employees of whom you speak is not the same as that of the depositors.

@averagejoe1 said
Any help beyond the $250k is a travesty. In no circumstances should the govt help past 250, and they should not help the banks. The shareholders took a risk, why help the shareholders of the bank. Jesus

Agreed, Joe.

Free market is just that - free to rise or fall.
Remember Obama bailing out those huge Wall Street banks...? What a travesty.
So much corruption, it was a big plan all the way where everyone got rich at the expense of the taxpayer.

That's one of the reasons why I am a Libertarian.

@earl-of-trumps said
Agreed, Joe.

Free market is just that - free to rise or fall.
Remember Obama bailing out those huge Wall Street banks...? What a travesty.
So much corruption, it was a big plan all the way where everyone got rich at the expense of the taxpayer.

That's one of the reasons why I am a Libertarian.

Those Wall Street banks were bailed out BEFORE Obama became President. https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/troubled-asset-relief-program

@no1marauder said
Those Wall Street banks were bailed out BEFORE Obama became President. https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/troubled-asset-relief-program

I won't even dignify your ignorance by reading your link because I have firm grasp of the event in my memory.
---------------------------------------------------

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/20/sotu-fact-check-obama-bailed-out-banks-on-the-backs-of-the-middle-class-n1945592


Conn Carroll - January 20, 2015 9:24 PM
SOTU Fact Check: Obama Bailed Out Banks On The Backs Of The Middle Class

In reality, not only are the nation's biggest banks now bigger than ever, thanks in no small part to Obama's Dodd-Frank law, but consumers have seen almost none of the financial relief Obama promised them, and during the peak of the crisis Obama actually used middle-class homeowners to prop up Wall Street banks.
---------------------------------------------


EDIT: I get tired fighting over the most obvious of facts. EVERYONE knows that bail out happened on Obama's watch.
You're a watt on the ass of progress

@earl-of-trumps said
I won't even dignify your ignorance by reading your link because I have firm grasp of the event in my memory.
---------------------------------------------------

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/20/sotu-fact-check-obama-bailed-out-banks-on-the-backs-of-the-middle-class-n1945592


Conn Carroll - January 20, 2015 9:24 PM
[b]SOTU Fact Check: Oba ...[text shortened]... facts. EVERYONE knows that bail out happened on Obama's watch.
You're a watt on the ass of progress

What a brainwashed fool you are.

No, don't even look at the date TARP was passed.

"In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was signed into law by President George W. Bush. TARP was born out of this act, which was initially proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

The goal of TARP was to mend the financial situation of banks, strengthen overall market stability, improve the prospects of the U.S. auto industry and support foreclosure prevention programs.

TARP funds were used to purchase equity of failing business and financial institutions. The Treasury Department also utilized TARP money to buy stock or make loans to other groups and businesses. In all, TARP created 13 different programs.

The program was originally authorized to spend $700 billion, but that amount was reduced to $475 billion when another bill, the Dodd-Frank Act, was signed into law in 2010."

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/troubled-asset-relief-program

I guess everybody who just reads right wing propaganda like yourself "knows" a lot of things that aren't true.