51% Lack Confidence in the US Banking System...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...2009/51_lack_confidence_in_u_s_banking_system

Confidence in the U.S. banking system has fallen again despite billions in federal bailout funds and record profits being declared by two of Wall Street’s top financial firms.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Americans are now at least somewhat confident in the the stability of the U.S. banking system, down five points from 48% in April. In early February, just 39% felt that way.

Only nine percent (9%) of adults are very confident in the banking system, but that’s up slightly from the two previous surveys.

However, the majority of Americans (51%) lack confidence in the stability of the banking system. This compares with 46% in April and 57% in February. Forty percent (40%) now are not very confident and 11% are not at all confident, the latter figure roughly comparable to both previous surveys.

More at link...
 
Well with over 2 banks a day failing so far this year....


The costs to us of the bank failures will dwarf TARP.
 
This is indeed puzzling?

Why would the public express a lack of trust in an industry which, while it may have had some small hand in destroying the world economy and countless lives, has said it was sorry and even thanked the taxpayers for handing over all their money in a timely fashion?

Perplexing.
 
charver said:
This is indeed puzzling?

Why would the public express a lack of trust in an industry which, while it may have had some small hand in destroying the world economy and countless lives, has said it was sorry and even thanked the taxpayers for handing over all their money in a timely fashion?

Perplexing.
Click to expand...
Puzzling indeed.
 
Onceler said:
Should TARP have been bigger?
Click to expand...

No , tarp was a directed bailout of a handful of big boys. It should not have happened Nature would have taken care of the ones that were too big to let fail.
They would have failed and been broken up.
 
uscitizen said:
No , tarp was a directed bailout of a handful of big boys. It should not have happened Nature would have taken care of the ones that were too big to let fail.
They would have failed and been broken up.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. The failures as they exist now are costing more than TARP. The additional failures we would have seen without TARP would have cost that much more.

I think we'd be in a bad spot right now without TARP; much worse than where we are.
 
Onceler said:
I disagree with that. The failures as they exist now are costing more than TARP. The additional failures we would have seen without TARP would have cost that much more.

I think we'd be in a bad spot right now without TARP; much worse than where we are.
Click to expand...

Bailing out the big guys will be more costly to us in the long run than if they had failed.
But just keep putting gas in that old 2 mpg guzzler if your want.
 
Onceler said:
I disagree with that. The failures as they exist now are costing more than TARP. The additional failures we would have seen without TARP would have cost that much more.

I think we'd be in a bad spot right now without TARP; much worse than where we are.
Click to expand...
So you think Bush did a good thing?
 
Actually I was wrong. Latest FDIC bank failure costs are projected at a mere 80 billion or so. We may not spend any more on them this year than we will on Iraq.
 
Onceler said:
I disagree with that. The failures as they exist now are costing more than TARP. The additional failures we would have seen without TARP would have cost that much more.

I think we'd be in a bad spot right now without TARP; much worse than where we are.
Click to expand...

I agree with your above comments. However, the part that annoys me is that these 'too big to fail' banks are getting bigger and bigger as they are allowed to buy up other distressed banks.

Just look at the two in the front of the line to swipe Citi..... JPM and Goldman.

Both of these banks need to be broken down to the point that no one component is 'too big to fail'. If you are too big to fail... you are too big to exist as you are. Hatchet time.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree with your above comments. However, the part that annoys me is that these 'too big to fail' banks are getting bigger and bigger as they are allowed to buy up other distressed banks.

Just look at the two in the front of the line to swipe Citi..... JPM and Goldman.

Both of these banks need to be broken down to the point that no one component is 'too big to fail'. If you are too big to fail... you are too big to exist as you are. Hatchet time.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I agree with that, as well. It's one of the key lessons we should be walking away from this crisis with....
 
Onceler said:
Yeah - I agree with that, as well. It's one of the key lessons we should be walking away from this crisis with....
Click to expand...
This is something we all seem to agree on, yet we continue to let these behemoths grow instead of taking them apart. What is wrong with us?
 
Damocles said:
This is something we all seem to agree on, yet we continue to let these behemoths grow instead of taking them apart. What is wrong with us?
Click to expand...

I can't even remember; what happened to Geithner's plan regarding "too big to fail" companies?

I know that when it first came out, the usual cries of "socialism" rang out, because it called for a fed takeover of a company if a collapse threatened the economy...
 
Onceler said:
I can't even remember; what happened to Geithner's plan regarding "too big to fail" companies?

I know that when it first came out, the usual cries of "socialism" rang out, because it called for a fed takeover of a company if a collapse threatened the economy...
Click to expand...
You don't need a Fed takeover to break up and sell off pieces of a company. There is no reason that the Fed needs to own the business in order to get this done. Why is it that the only solution that comes to the mind of big government cronies is the government owning things it shouldn't?

When Ma Bell was broken up, there was no fricking government takeover. When monopolies were broken up, there were no government takeovers. Why would it have to happen now? First, stop letting them buy new things, their collapse already threatens the economy, don't let them get even larger. Next, require them to sell of portions of the company until any portion would not effect the whole economy if it collapsed.
 
Damocles said:
This is something we all seem to agree on, yet we continue to let these behemoths grow instead of taking them apart. What is wrong with us?
Click to expand...

On the whole, people are either complacent or too overwhelmed by their current personal financial positions to pay attention to what the idiots in DC and NYC are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top