Is the FDIC bailout a bailout?

One of the talking points of the, it's not a bailout crowd is that the FDIC is paid by other banks.

Peter St Onge, Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, explains that traditionally the FDIC only covers the first 250,000. And what they're doing now after the Silicon Valley Bank crash with these bailouts is extending that to all the rich guys.

LEARN LIBERTY:

[robertspencer]

There should be a market method for them to get their deposits insured appropriately. Sadly, everyone will now get to bail them out, with more funny money that will cause more inflation. It's a sad state of affairs

[paul_devos]

IF we get a recession -- given the Dodd-Frank says "no Bailout" (60% Senate vote to change if I read/understood it correctly) -- will there be a way where our politicians overturn that do a bailout?

IF so, those of us who have been trying to avoid the crash, missing this run-up in the markets -- are the greater fools as going in large and recklessly would be the much better financial play.

[funkydiscogod]

What was even the point of saying only the first 250 is insured when they're just going to pay everything anyway?

[terrancecloverfield]

Succinctly explained. Whoever thinks "this isn't a bailout" doesn't want to know the answer of where the money ultimately comes from, especially if the FDIC exhausts all funds, which they will.

[TXLionHeart]

The FDIC only has 1.2% of the money (i.e. deposits <$250k) they are supposed to be insuring

[gregmccaslin]

Cut them off . End the Fed . The planned Failures should be allowed to fail .

[JohnDeaux]

Typo in the middle of the video, it's FDIC not FTIC

[PaulLumen]

so any business with a commercial bank account with greater than the 250k FDIC limit for typical operating expenses, such as payroll, gets broadly swept into "rich guys"? give me a break.

[GregoryTheGrster]

Clearly, we need more banking regulations--LOTS more! Banking is capitalism at its "finest": pure greed running amok

[execrisiscoreonearth]

"is the bailout, a bailout?? 🤔🤔🤔"

(edit: my point is honestly going to be very hit or miss, depending on your individual perspective on the topic... My point is it's honestly more of a psychological conversation than the functional aspect of the issue at heart with this. Bailouts are simply beneath, or divorced, from the functioning of the entity in question... The bailout simply CANNOT be a bailout.)
Something tells me... The more appropriate discussion surrounding these sorts of situations where folks insist what's happening, isn't definitively what is happening (I. E. "This act of bailing out fdic, isn't a bailout. Despite being, step for step, a bailout" .).... It's a more psychological discussion, to me.

Cuz it's frankly just denying something "sacred" or "untouchable" couldn't POSSIBLY be doing something so frowned upon... And that's more or less it. A more controversial comparison, and don't murder me for bringing this one up, but calling the crucifixion of Jesus an act of martyrdom. It fits the basic definition of martyrdom, but because he is considered divine, the common practice that I've noticed is vehement denial of that definition that fits the base description of that story/event.

Jesus is too divine to *_commit_* an act of martyrdom. The fdic is too integral to our society to *_require_* a bailout.

[gorkie]

he wanna say: they just print more money

[anti_western_eugenicists]

Bailouts for rich people... Only in united States of Sodoma.