I have a question, and I'm not trying to be contrary.
So for the sake of argument, if there were no cabal, no deepstate, no one who is going to 'perfect their own', etc.
Why, if deposits are insured up to a set amount (whether 250k, millions/billions, or even only $100), should the fed protect uninsured deposits anyway? Isn't the whole point of the FDIC to insure "up to x" amount? Beyond that, it shouldn't matter who you are. Uninsured is uninsured, right? Wanting the fed to assist or cover loss when there's a lack of insurance (whether deposit insurance, health insurance, car insurance, etc) just screams liberal/progressive, welfare, and "muh gibs".
If I'm wrong or not understanding, I'm willing to be schooled.
You are right. The issue is the fed is bailing out losses that are way above and beyond the insured amount. Millions beyond. Because they're famous people, like Oprah and Harry and Meghan. 🙄
I have a question, and I'm not trying to be contrary.
So for the sake of argument, if there were no cabal, no deepstate, no one who is going to 'perfect their own', etc.
Why, if deposits are insured up to a set amount (whether 250k, millions/billions, or even only $100), should the fed protect uninsured deposits anyway? Isn't the whole point of the FDIC to insure "up to x" amount? Beyond that, it shouldn't matter who you are. Uninsured is uninsured, right? Wanting the fed to assist or cover loss when there's a lack of insurance (whether deposit insurance, health insurance, car insurance, etc) just screams liberal/progressive, welfare, and "muh gibs".
If I'm wrong or not understanding, I'm willing to be schooled.
You are right. The issue is the fed is bailing out losses that are way above and beyond the insured amount. Millions beyond. Because they're famous people, like Oprah and Harry and Meghan. 🙄
The federal reserve should insure their cash.
The federal government on the other hand, if it insists on using fiat, should not have that responsibility or obligation.