Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama Backs a Bailout, But Calls for More FDIC Insurance

Posted by Steven Rosenfeld at 5:56 AM on September 30, 2008.


Obama says why a Wall Street bailout is necessary, but calls for raising the FDIC insurance to $250,000 per account.
apobamaspeech071002ms

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Steven Rosenfeld in your
mailbox!

 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a statement early Tuesday saying why a Wall Street bailout was needed, but suggested that any new legislation include an increase in the federal insurance for bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000.

Here is Obama's statement in full:

"Yesterday, within the course of a few hours, the failure to pass the economic rescue plan in Washington led to the single largest decline of the stock market in two decades.

"While I, like others, am outraged that the reign of irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created the current crisis, I also know that continued inaction in the face of the gathering storm in our financial markets would be catastrophic for our economy and our families.

"At this moment, when the jobs, retirement savings, and economic security of all Americans hang in the balance, it is imperative that all of us – Democrats and Republicans alike – come together to meet this crisis.

"The bill rejected yesterday was a marked improvement over the original blank check proposed by the Bush Administration. It included restraints on CEO pay, protections for homeowners, strict oversight as to how the money is spent, and an assurance that taxpayers will recover their money once the economy recovers. Given the progress we have made, I believe we are unlikely to succeed if we start from scratch or reopen negotiations about the core elements of the agreement. But in order to pass this plan, we must do more.

"One step we could take to potentially broaden support for the legislation and shore up our economy would be to expand federal deposit insurance for families and small businesses across America who have invested their money in our banks.

"The majority of American families should rest assured that the deposits they have in our banks are safe. Thanks to measures put in place during the Great Depression, deposits of up to $100,000 are guaranteed by the federal government.

"While that guarantee is more than adequate for most families, it is insufficient for many small businesses that maintain bank accounts to meet their payroll, buy their supplies, and invest in expanding and creating jobs. The current insurance limit of $100,000 was set 28 years ago and has not been adjusted for inflation.

"That is why today, I am proposing that we also raise the FDIC limit to $250,000 as part of the economic rescue package – a step that would boost small businesses, make our banking system more secure, and help restore public confidence in our financial system.

"I will be talking to leaders and members of Congress later today to offer this idea and urge them to act without delay to pass a rescue plan,” said Barack Obama.

Digg!


See (Literally) Why Al Franken is Gaining Votes
Minnesota Public Radio's website has examples of the kinds of errors voters made when marking paper ballots.
November 20, 2008.
Convicted Senator Ted Stevens Now 814 Votes Behind in Alaska
With 40,000 ballots left to be counted, Democrat Mark Begich has pulled ahead of the incumbent Republican senator.
November 13, 2008.
Obama Transition Team Rejects Lobbyists: Why It Matters
Obama issues rules to limit the ability of lobbyists who give his Transition Team advice to make money off it.
November 11, 2008.
Obama Victory Boosts Gun Sales
According to Reuters, the Democratic victory on Tuesday is boosting gun sales in parts of the country that are fearful of new gun control laws.
November 9, 2008.
International Observers Give 2008 Election a Passing Grade
A report by the international election observers finds well-known problems, but approves of Tuesday's vote.
November 8, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Expanding the FDIC limit makes sense if...
Posted by: witchjug on Sep 30, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the FDIC actually had the money to insure the accounts it says it can. Why did JPM buy Wackovia? It's not cause JPM is interested in brick and mortor bank ownership, it's cause Paulson made the funds available to them to make the purchase at pennies on the dollar. The truth is that if the FDIC had to insure depositors after Wackovia failed they would have to start up the printing presses in order to do so. They (FDIC) simply do not have the money to cover deposits of a major bank failure like Wackovia. So who is next? Wells? BofA? Citizens? One will fall this weekend weather a bailout is passed or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Expanding the limit for the Average American?
Posted by: klmccaffery on Sep 30, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much money does the Average person have in the bank? Most Americans have $0 in the bank plus lots of credit card and other debt. So WHO does this benefit and how does it help?
Obama HAS to win this election. Your average Joe is NOT going to think Obama is representing the American people by raising the FDIC limit to the benefit of the wealthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing to do with the problem
Posted by: CTvoter on Sep 30, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This solution has nothing to do with the problem. As long as Obama is owned by the financial big players, he will continue to have this myopic view of the situation.
I heard one "expert" say that we citizens just don't understand how the financial market works, and that's why we can't understand the urgency of opening the wallets of our grandkids to the gubment. It wasn't me that got us into this mess, so I am not willing to trust these "experts" any more. They built a house of cards on the foundation of credit and debt (a ponzi scheme built huge), and now they want us to pick up the pieces. Just like my cousin who keeps borrowing money to support his gambling habit -- just give me enough chances, and I am bound to hit the big one!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uncle Tom Obama receives advise and money from Robert Rubin
Posted by: MeyravLevine on Sep 30, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rubin is one of the leading figures in the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act and behind the the growth of so-called 'innovative' financial products such as mortgage-based secruities.

No wonder Obama is behind the bailout.

Proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is not a dime worth of difference between Repugs and DEMs.

Fat, dumb, ignorant Americans continue to be deluded by the Establishment party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oh, oh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter...
Posted by: imors on Sep 30, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure changed his tune pdq the day after.

Hmmmmm....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CEO pay was NOT addressed in any meaningful way
Posted by: Symp on Sep 30, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless I misunderstood, the CEO pay restrictions were for UPCOMING executives, not the present lot of white-collar criminals!!! Also, there are so many loopholes in the working. Obama is already disappointing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PAULSON’S BAIL-OUT BILL IS UNDESIRABLE AND UNNECESSARY!
Posted by: Peter Mackrael on Sep 30, 2008 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Congress meets on Thursday, the Paulson Bail-Out Legislation should not be accepted in any form! Purchasing paper that the market says is worthless is no solution at all. Setting fair prices while avoiding graft and fraud will be very costly and probably impossible. Recent bail-outs have already cost the US taxpayers about $700bn. This bill will increase US debt to about $12 trillion while doing nothing to prevent further consolidation and restructuring by US banks.

Foreign lenders now hold about 40% of US debt. This bill may reassure them for a short while until they see that US debt continues to increase while GDP declines. It may delay but will certainly not prevent a recession in the US. This bill will reward and encourage further irresponsible behavior by bankers and investors. In effect this bail-out will transfer $700bn from the poorest 90% (taxpayers) to prevent losses incurred by the richest 10% (the wealthy investors who hold debt derivatives and shares in these investment banks). In addition to transferring public wealth to political friends of both parties in the Wall Street community (consulting fees will be huge), this bill will severely limit spending on social programs for many years to come! There is a better alternative.

Perhaps in anticipation of possible rejection of the Paulson plan, the five big investment banks: Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, have morphed into regular banks. In effect, the investment banks have increased their asset base while transferring their bad debt assets to commercial banks. I expect the bank executives believe the government will be less willing to allow these banks to fail.

The Paulson bill is not required! If these new banks require additional liquidity, existing regulations allow them to borrow from the Fed and/or sell assets to raise this capital themselves. If no private investors are interested and if one of these banks is unable to operate at a profit, we should allow that bank to fail and let any remaining assets be purchased by other investors. In the event that the remaining banks (including the many regional banks) are unable to provide consumer loans and adequate operating capital to US businesses, then and only then should the federal government buy or establish a national bank for this purpose.

Meanwhile we need to re-establish and enforce investment banking regulations. Also we need an independent investigation to understand how and why the investment banks and government got us into this liquidity crisis so it can be prevented in future. It is possible that stock manipulation and outright fraud has been committed in recent months.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]