Comments on: FDIC tries another gimmick http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/29/fdic-tries-another-gimmick/ Option ARMageddon Thu, 09 Aug 2012 01:58:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Bob http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/29/fdic-tries-another-gimmick/comment-page-1/#comment-1980 Bob Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:48:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3816#comment-1980 So they pull forward $45B but will use it all in less than a year on upcoming bank foreclosures! Game the citizens into thinking it's just about over. How many banks do you think are going to fail over the next 4 years? What do you think the FDIC will have to pay out? Has the FDIC been anywhere close to honest on the expense of those already closed? Honestly and integrity are completely missing in true discussions with the citizens (taxpayers), imo. So they pull forward $45B but will use it all in less than a year on upcoming bank foreclosures! Game the citizens into thinking it’s just about over.

How many banks do you think are going to fail over the next 4 years? What do you think the FDIC will have to pay out? Has the FDIC been anywhere close to honest on the expense of those already closed?

Honestly and integrity are completely missing in true discussions with the citizens (taxpayers), imo.

]]> By: ML Reader http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/29/fdic-tries-another-gimmick/comment-page-1/#comment-1978 ML Reader Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:12:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3816#comment-1978 con'd And reduce Liabilities annually, being an overhead expense; the prepaid expense is clearly not a source of income. con’d
And reduce Liabilities annually, being an overhead expense; the prepaid expense is clearly not a source of income.

]]> By: ML Reader http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/29/fdic-tries-another-gimmick/comment-page-1/#comment-1977 ML Reader Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:05:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3816#comment-1977 Why not treat it as the prepaid expense that it appears to be? Why not treat it as the prepaid expense that it appears to be?

]]>