fdr passed this act, after the depression. this act gurantees that your money is guranteed from the federal goverment regardless if the bank goes bankrupt or if we face a depression.
2006-07-18 02:22:35 · 4 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
democrats the party of the working man.
2006-07-18 02:23:50 · update #1
johncondo2001-thanks for the compliment, i might run for office one day.
2006-07-18 03:30:47 · update #2
David another good question ,but your stepping on the right winger toes.people clan they love there 401k there not guarantees.In Enron case the right winger claim they were greedy the people who lost there money.people love to talk about Democrat and there entitlement program.how about public school there run in tax money the roads.I know I got off the question but i get sick and tired if these holy than god right winger who love to talk tough.but like my republican next door neighbor who in food stamp state insurance david run for office it nice to see someone some brains out there
2006-07-18 02:32:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Politics aside,
The FDIC is largely a token organization. It does not have the funds available if a large bank should go under, and usually - for example, during the great S&L Crisis of the 90s - it took an act of Congress to be able to bail out all the customers who lost their money.
In the event of a depression, we are better off - but take a look at how much cash a bank must have on hand (the rest they are free to loan out), it is a VERY small percentage.
It's naive to think we are totally safe now.
And I am being honest, this is the truth politics aside.
2006-07-19 00:04:46 · answer #2 · answered by Zach 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let us look at the banking act. I take it you mean the backing of up to 100,000 of your money, right? Or the federalization of th ebanking system? The insurance part of it is OK, but the federal regulation of it allows the government to access your financial data, seize your assests, and not even give you due process. So yet again the democrats are the party of anti-liberty.
Under the banking statute, assests are frozen and the burden is on the individual, not the government. It is one of the few areas where the government interest trumps the individual.
2006-07-18 09:30:49 · answer #3 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Be careful...a lot of the republicans in here won't like the idea of anyone getting that money. Unless it's them, of course. And if we were to get in another depression, I'm sure they would find another way to blame Clinton.
2006-07-18 09:26:54 · answer #4 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋