“Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said on Sunday that his fellow lawmakers should “talk” more about changing the retirement age for people currently in their 20s in part due to longer life expectancy.
During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” anchor Shannon Bream asked Kennedy if he thinks there should be “conversations” in Congress about changing the retirement age and if that means changing it for people who people not yet paying into such benefits.
“Well, of course, we ought to talk about it. I mean, the life expectancy of the average American right now is about 77 years old,” Kennedy told Bream. “For people who are in their 20s, their life expectancy will probably be 85 to 90.”
“Does it really make sense to allow someone who’s in their 20s today to retire at 62? Those are kind of things that we should talk about,” Kennedy added. “There are changes in Medicare we should talk about. Let me say it again, Medicare pays much more for the same surgical procedure in a hospital as it does in a private outpatient clinic. Why?”
“In the 20th Century, the average IQ rose, in a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. But over the last 15 years, the trend has reversed, and people are getting dumber.
A Spring 2023 study indicates that, for the first time in a century, Americans’ average IQ is falling. The academics who conducted the study hypothesize that a declining quality of education may be reversing the IQ gains experienced by earlier generations.
The recent study, published in the journal Intelligence, measures IQ test results among 18- to 60-year-olds to examine the inversion of the phenomenon first described by philosopher James Flynn.
Professors from Northwestern University and the University of Oregon explain the Flynn effect: starting in 1932, average IQs rose around three to five points per decade. In other words, “younger generations” were “expected to have higher IQ scores than the previous cohort.”
Recent data from American adults, however, find a reverse Flynn effect. From 2006 to 2018, they generally experienced declines in the IQ test used by the study, the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR).
All age groups had overall declines, after controlling for educational attainment and gender, but the loss in cognitive abilities was sharper for the youngest age cohort. “The greatest differences in annual scores were observed for 18- to 22-year-olds,” the study observed.
Exposure to education seemed to mitigated the loss of IQ points somewhat. But not for the youngest age group. “Exposure to education may only be protective for certain age groups,” suggested the authors of the study.
They hypothesize that “a change of quality or content of education and test-taking skills” may explain the differential impact of education on the IQs of younger versus older Americans.
Millennials–the largest age cohort getting both their K-12 and college education during the study– experienced a very different education system than their elders. They learned to read — often poorly — using an influential but defective curriculum that devalues phonics, and massive grade inflation at the college level. Grade inflation is partially a response to the idea that all students–no matter their ability or preparedness–must attend college, and it helps keep underqualified students from failing out of college.”
——-
“Democrats Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public”
“It’s a strange time in the United States, where one political party is actively engaged in a series of actions to keep as many people as possible ignorant. Ignorant not of one particular event, study, or story, but of so many topics that reality itself” is what they’re ultimately attempting to obscure. It’s evil, honestly, and it begs the question “What are Democrats so afraid of?” The only answer is simple: an informed public.
Communists in the old Soviet Union were terrified that their citizens would discover how well people in the free west were living. There were no bread lines, there were options – lots of options, for everything. This reality worried the communist leadership and would have confused their subjects, much like Bernie Sanders in 2015 lamented the idea that there were too many choices for deodorant and shoes. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he famously said.
The great thing about capitalism is you can have both choices and charity. Options matter, and an educated public, free from government tyranny, make choices about those options that is best for them rather than a faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away imposing what they think is best for you.
The only way that second prospect gains any traction is ignorance. Ignorance of history and how that model has failed every time it’s been tried, and ignorance of information where people are kept in the dark about reality and, therefore, draw manipulated and pre-selected conclusions and act accordingly. This is where Democrats live.”
It’s barely 24 hours later and what’s shaking out so far is pretty scary. Is the federal reserve ready to handle something of this magnitude? Janet Yellen? Forces are already in motion trying to mitigate some of the damage and panic sure to ensue when the financial markets and banks open Monday morning, but there’s turning out to be an awful lot of scrambling to CYA.
One top investment bank sent a note to clients advising what could happen if no buyers steps in, according to a transcription reviewed by The Post.
The note outlined how the FDIC is spending the weekend assessing the value of SVB’s assets. It will pay out up to $250,000 in insurance coverage for accounts at that level or below on Monday. The agency will also make a payment, called an advanced dividend, to uninsured depositors as quickly as possible.
“The rest may take anywhere from 60 days to 2 years to get paid out,” the note said, adding that companies waiting for payouts will find investors and lenders available to try to finance the amounts the FDIC says they will get. Ultimately SVB clients could get 80 to 90 cents for each dollar they had on deposit, but it could take years for that to happen.
And that may be too late for many small businesses with ties to the bank.
Uninsured – over $250K – investors “could” see 80-90¢ on the dollar. That’s a mighty big “could.””
—–
“Here in the States, the reach of the failure isn’t just depositors and tech companies. It’s online marketplaces like Etsy, that used their payment processing. Now those people can’t be paid for sales from the website. A toy store chain in New York City is begging people to come buy toys for 40% off using a special code, so they can at least generate some sort of cash flow, or they’ll go under.
…The venture capital-backed retailer Camp fired off an email Friday to customers, saying it was slashing prices and plans to use sales revenue to continue operating, after much of its cash was tied up in the second-biggest bank casualty in U.S. history.
“Unfortunately, we had most of our company’s cash assets at a bank which just collapsed. I’m sure you’ve heard the news,” co-founder Ben Kaufman said in an email to customers, according to CNN.
Kaufman asked customers to use the code “BANKRUN” to save 40% off all merchandise — a likely nod to the run on the bank that may have helped bring down the Silicon Valley lender. The company also said customers could pay full price, adding that would be appreciated.
Better drink up, Shriners, while you can. SVB was THE bank for the better part of the wineries in California…thousands of wineries.”
—-
The gov’t has about 48 hours to fix a-soon-to-be-irreversible mistake. By allowing @SVB_Financial to fail without protecting all depositors, the world has woken up to what an uninsured deposit is — an unsecured illiquid claim on a failed bank. Absent @jpmorgan@citi or… https://t.co/SqdkFK7Fld
the Fed removed Reserve Requirements for banks during the pandemic. And have not reinstated them. Normally reserve requirement is 10%. Meaning that the Federal Reserve is not requiring banks to hold cash reserves right now. Monday is gonna be bad, remember toilet paper hoarding
“A second bank has been taken over and shut down by the FDIC in less than a week, just days after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.
Now, regulators have shut down New York’s Signature Bank, which they have cited as having “systemic risk,” forcing them to get involved. In a press release, the Federal Reserve Board announced the move, also promising that both SVB and Signature depositors would have full access to their money come Monday.
After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.
We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer.
Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.
Signature Bank, like SVB, had ties to the tech industry – though, instead of focusing on tech start-ups, Signature was almost exclusively a cryptocurrency firm, according to CNBC.
Signature is one of the main banks to the cryptocurrency industry. As of Dec. 31, Signature had $110.4 billion in total assets and $88.6 billion in total deposits, according to a securities filing.
It was also the bank that Democratic politician Barney Frank joined after leaving Congress.”
—-
Dodd/Frank anyone?
Yeah…..
The bank that was just closed, Signature Bank, is the one that Barney Frank joined after retiring from Congress pic.twitter.com/25TNEFn3GK
You know who’s fault this is according to Dems and media frauds, right? 😂🤣😂🤣
Biden has been president for more than 2 years. His appointees control all regulatory agencies. Until 2 months ago, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
So whose fault is this week's collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank? Obviously: Trump's (probably Putin's, too). 🌊 https://t.co/2VCxgJFQce
“In my last column, I compared Fox News host Tucker Carlson to the CBS journalist Edward R. Murrow, who used his reporting in the 1950s to change the course of history.
For that comparison I apologize.
It is now apparent that Carlson far exceeds Murrow in his courage, his thoughtfulness, and his stubborn refusal to accede to pressure.
Let’s get this straight. Murrow was a brilliant journalist, but his reputation as a dedicated war correspondent during the Battle of Britain also made him a beloved figure to his fellow reporters and to the politicians whom he covered. Thus, when he stood up against the bullying tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Murrow knew he could count on the support of CBS, other journalists, and even senators who had been the target of McCarthy’s blind rage. In a very real sense, it was McCarthy’s own character flaws that brought him down, to the detriment of his anti-Communist crusade, which had accurately identified the very real threat of Soviet sympathizers who had infiltrated the federal government. Murrow was just the catalyst, and he was lauded for his efforts.
On the other hand, Tucker Carlson’s decision last week to air previously unseen video of the Jan. 6, 2021, confrontation between protesters and Capitol Police put his own career at risk and has made him the subject of bipartisan scorn. Some even speculate that he was silently punished by his bosses at Fox News, but Carlson doesn’t seem worried about being fired, and the condemnation he has received from both the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate has only emboldened him.
It will probably take years to fully understand the importance of Carlson’s challenge of the “official Washington” narrative of Jan. 6 as a “deadly insurrection,” but Carlson wasted no time last Monday in laying out the framework of his complete rejection of the “accepted truth” pushed by the Biden Department of Justice, the House Select Committee on January 6, and the mainstream media.
Only a tiny fraction of the thousands of hours of surveillance video released to Carlson by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was shown last week on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” but you only need a small pin to burst a large balloon, and by the time the week was over, all the president’s men couldn’t put the Humpty-Dumpty story of a “Trump-surrection” back together again.
“The images you will see were recorded 26 months ago today on January 6, 2021,” Carlson began. “Until now, politicians have kept this tape hidden from the public. There is no legitimate justification for that and there never has been.”
The powers that be would have you believe that Carlson had jeopardized national security by playing the tapes – probably 30 minutes out of the 41,000 hours. Now, it is true the tapes provided some interesting counterbalance to the non-stop harassment of Trump supporters that has taken place for the past two years, but if truth be told, the evidence on the tapes was much less significant than the reaction to them. What you really want to know now is, if 30 minutes of video has the Uniparty crowd so scared, what else are they hiding?
I think much more than the video, the Censorship-Industrial Complex (as journalist Matt Taibbi has accurately tabbed it) wants to shut down any information or even belief that goes counter to the official narrative, and that’s where Carlson got so deep under their skin that they were willing to rip themselves to shreds in an effort to get at him.
Everything Carlson said about Jan. 6 for three days last week was a threat to their power, and he knew it.
“The protesters were angry. They believed the election they had just voted in was unfairly conducted. They were right. In retrospect, it is clear the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of American democracy.”
He didn’t go beyond that in explaining the illegitimacy of the election, but he didn’t have to. The “it is clear” speaks volumes to those who haven’t bought into the official narrative that the 2020 election was “the most secure” in the nation’s history. Yeah, it was secure if you don’t believe the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that election law was violated en masse in those states. It was secure if you don’t have any concern about billionaire Mark Zuckerberg spending hundreds of millions of dollars to gain access to voter rolls and ensure that likely Biden voters were goosed to get their butts out of the chair and their ballots in the drop boxes. It was secure if you don’t care about Twitter and Facebook colluding with the federal government to make sure that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop was falsely painted as Russian disinformation in the weeks leading up to the election.
Although Democrats and the rest of “official Washington” claim the election was secure, they spent zero hours proving that case. Instead, they seized on the disruptions on Jan. 6 as the real threat to democracy and gave their clients in the lapdog media the spectacle of the select committee’s show trial. What is most hurtful to the Democrats and RINOs who wrote the narrative is that their two years of work propping up the infrastructure of a “deadly insurrection” was undone in less than 60 minutes by Carlson, who didn’t deny that violence had been done on Jan. 6, but committed the unforgivable sin of putting it in perspective.
Thus, where the Jan. 6 committee saw the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War, Tucker Carlson showed pictures of protesters walking in the door of the Capitol and milling around, as he said, like sightseers. No matter how many times Carlson said he was not excusing any violence, the proponents of the “deadly insurrection” narrative claimed that showing non-violent protesters was an affront to their efforts to demonize Trump voters as terrorists. And, of course, they were right to worry.
But it wasn’t just the images by themselves that overturned the official narrative; it was the muscular words of Carlson as he held to account not just the select committee, but also congressional leaders, Capitol Police, and the Department of Justice. This was a rarely seen J’accuse moment in which the system’s irresponsible scapegoating of the Deplorables was held up to the light.
“Committee members lied about what they saw,” Carlson said, “and then hid the evidence from the public as well as from Jan. 6 criminal defendants and their lawyers. That is unforgivable.””
“Trans is a hot topic in journalism at the moment. Whether the angle is personal or political, there’s always a juicy or outrageous story to be found. However, while this grisly cultural car crash can make for engaging reading, the families torn apart by trans ideology are often overlooked. Dead Name, an American indie documentary released at the end of last year, seeks to redress this, giving a voice to parents who are sceptical of their children’s trans identities. Their powerful, poignant testimonies deserve to be heard.
Not everyone agrees, it seems. With depressing predictability, video platform Vimeo removed Dead Name in January, just 34 days after it was first published on the site. Vimeo apparently does not trust audiences to make up their own minds on this issue.
Undeterred, the team behind Dead Name hastily ‘re-platformed’ the film within four hours, on deadnamedocumentary.com. The film’s director, Taylor Reece, told me that the attempt to suppress the film had in fact sparked a surge in interest, driving sales ‘through the roof’.
Dead Name is a raw, intimate portrait of three parents whose children were labelled ‘trans’. A ‘dead name’ refers to the birth name that is discarded when a person begins to identify as nonbinary or as the opposite sex. In polite dinner-party circles, it is considered both poor manners and potentially traumatising to ‘deadname’ a trans-identified person, by using their former name. Yet, to many parents, their child’s rejection of his or her birth name, often the first gift a baby is given, can be hard to bear. As Reece told the Christian Post last year: ‘It feels like a gut-punch to parents because it’s like the child saying, “I’m trying to cancel my childhood”.’
Those profiled in Dead Name are not campaigners. They are relatable people struggling to make sense of a nonsensical ideology. In Reece’s words, ‘they’re simply parents who’ve dared to raise questions, who have struggled with being marginalised and being silenced’.
The first to speak is Amy, a mother whose teen daughter began identifying as a boy at 15, following a break-up with her boyfriend. She went from being a youngster interested in performing arts to becoming introverted, increasingly distressed and ‘cloistering herself in her room’. What Amy describes of her child’s behaviour sounds like normal adolescent angst. Yet, after a single remote consultation with a clinic, she was prescribed testosterone. This mother will never again hear her daughter’s voice as it was before it was altered by hormones. She has not seen her daughter for years.
Then Helen tells her story. Helen is a lesbian whose ex-wife decided to socially transition their child, Jonas, when he was just four years old. The first Helen knew of this was when a letter from Jonas’ preschool informed her that ‘one of our students is now trans, and we would love for you all to celebrate and support her’. Jonas’ name was changed to Rosa on the register. Helen had to fight a legal battle for two years to prevent her son from being socially and medically transitioned, eventually winning custody. Initially, she struggled to find an attorney who would even take on the case.
Last is Bill. Bill’s son, Sean, began to identify as trans shortly after he enrolled at college. Just months later, he was dead. As a child, Sean suffered the loss of his mother from illness and his brother from a heroin overdose. He was diagnosed with cancer both as a toddler and then as an older teenager. Bill believes that Sean had been buying hormones online and that these interacted with his cancer medication, hastening his death. His request for a proper autopsy was refused.
This story is particularly haunting because of the chances that were missed to set Sean on a different path. Bill took Sean to a psychiatrist in the year before his death. Bill trusted that a medical professional would help Sean understand that his mental distress was caused by his childhood bereavement and his illness, not his gender identity. Instead, Bill was told that his son was ‘definitely trans’ – and that, for questioning this, he was an ‘unsupportive, abusive father’. But as Bill reflects with poignant directness, he ‘was just trying to keep him alive’.
Bill’s pain didn’t end there. When the police arrived to inform him about Sean’s death, he assumed they had made a mistake – they told him his ‘daughter’ had died. Bill then contacted his son’s friends on social media to tell them about memorial arrangements. But rather than offer condolences or support, they mobbed him for referring to Sean by his ‘dead name’. Today, Bill hopes that telling his story might at least stop other parents from going through what he has.
Ultimately, the only mistake made by any of these loving parents was to have faith that those in authority would do the right thing by their kids.”
@7:56 “How about Congress just pay back the billions they’ve pillaged over the last several decades instead.”
HA! What a novel idea, AJ. I suspect the reason they want to raise the retirement age is so they can justify further pillage.
But seriously, I agree they’ve raised the retirement age enough. It’s just my opinion, but I do not think our lifespans are going to continue to increase at this point; I think we’ve peaked. According to the CDC (if you believe they can do anything right anymore) the lifespan has decreased for the last 2 years with men at a little under 74 yrs, and women just under 80– averaging together 76.4 yrs. Some ideas for the current decrease are covid and drug over-dose. Hopefully covid has already done most of its damage, but I’m afraid the increase in drug problems are going to be with us for a very long time.
In addition to drug use (and probably related to it) mental illness is apparently rampant in the young. And we are actively increasing it through our education system which often encourages children to deconstruct their very being. The mentally ill are not stable or long-lived as a rule. Even those who survive drug use and abuse will not be as healthy in old age—assuming they get there. I just don’t see us providing a mentally and physically stable environment for people to survive longer and longer. So I don’t want to see our current crop of yahoos in congress damaging SS any more than they already have.
Agree, Debra, about life expectancy taking a dive. It shouldn’t but with healthcare so driven by profits rather than best care, even with knowledge to prolong life, the dollars won’t be there to do so. I heard that interview and thought how misguided the thinking was, the utopian mindset that never faces reality.
Wow, from one who doesn’t watch any news, I am grateful. That academy award speech, amazing. The article on Carlson was extraordinary. Thanks, Aj for sharing.
Wandering Views 
How about no.
How about Congress just pay back the billions they’ve pillaged over the last several decades instead.
And other than well off workers, no one is eligible to retire at 62 without financial penalties. Most now must wait until 67 at least.
Just because someone lives to 80, doesn’t mean they’re still healthy and able to work longer.
“GOP senator says lawmakers should ‘talk’ about changing retirement age”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senator-says-lawmakers-talk-204418951.html
“Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said on Sunday that his fellow lawmakers should “talk” more about changing the retirement age for people currently in their 20s in part due to longer life expectancy.
During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” anchor Shannon Bream asked Kennedy if he thinks there should be “conversations” in Congress about changing the retirement age and if that means changing it for people who people not yet paying into such benefits.
“Well, of course, we ought to talk about it. I mean, the life expectancy of the average American right now is about 77 years old,” Kennedy told Bream. “For people who are in their 20s, their life expectancy will probably be 85 to 90.”
“Does it really make sense to allow someone who’s in their 20s today to retire at 62? Those are kind of things that we should talk about,” Kennedy added. “There are changes in Medicare we should talk about. Let me say it again, Medicare pays much more for the same surgical procedure in a hospital as it does in a private outpatient clinic. Why?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Related?
“American IQs are falling as education system fails to teach skills or stimulate minds”
https://libertyunyielding.com/2023/03/12/american-iqs-are-falling-as-education-system-fails-to-teach-skills-or-stimulate-minds/
“In the 20th Century, the average IQ rose, in a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. But over the last 15 years, the trend has reversed, and people are getting dumber.
A Spring 2023 study indicates that, for the first time in a century, Americans’ average IQ is falling. The academics who conducted the study hypothesize that a declining quality of education may be reversing the IQ gains experienced by earlier generations.
The recent study, published in the journal Intelligence, measures IQ test results among 18- to 60-year-olds to examine the inversion of the phenomenon first described by philosopher James Flynn.
Professors from Northwestern University and the University of Oregon explain the Flynn effect: starting in 1932, average IQs rose around three to five points per decade. In other words, “younger generations” were “expected to have higher IQ scores than the previous cohort.”
Recent data from American adults, however, find a reverse Flynn effect. From 2006 to 2018, they generally experienced declines in the IQ test used by the study, the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR).
All age groups had overall declines, after controlling for educational attainment and gender, but the loss in cognitive abilities was sharper for the youngest age cohort. “The greatest differences in annual scores were observed for 18- to 22-year-olds,” the study observed.
Exposure to education seemed to mitigated the loss of IQ points somewhat. But not for the youngest age group. “Exposure to education may only be protective for certain age groups,” suggested the authors of the study.
They hypothesize that “a change of quality or content of education and test-taking skills” may explain the differential impact of education on the IQs of younger versus older Americans.
Millennials–the largest age cohort getting both their K-12 and college education during the study– experienced a very different education system than their elders. They learned to read — often poorly — using an influential but defective curriculum that devalues phonics, and massive grade inflation at the college level. Grade inflation is partially a response to the idea that all students–no matter their ability or preparedness–must attend college, and it helps keep underqualified students from failing out of college.”
——-
“Democrats Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public”
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2023/03/12/democrats-are-terrified-of-an-educated-and-informed-public-n2620495
“It’s a strange time in the United States, where one political party is actively engaged in a series of actions to keep as many people as possible ignorant. Ignorant not of one particular event, study, or story, but of so many topics that reality itself” is what they’re ultimately attempting to obscure. It’s evil, honestly, and it begs the question “What are Democrats so afraid of?” The only answer is simple: an informed public.
Communists in the old Soviet Union were terrified that their citizens would discover how well people in the free west were living. There were no bread lines, there were options – lots of options, for everything. This reality worried the communist leadership and would have confused their subjects, much like Bernie Sanders in 2015 lamented the idea that there were too many choices for deodorant and shoes. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he famously said.
The great thing about capitalism is you can have both choices and charity. Options matter, and an educated public, free from government tyranny, make choices about those options that is best for them rather than a faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away imposing what they think is best for you.
The only way that second prospect gains any traction is ignorance. Ignorance of history and how that model has failed every time it’s been tried, and ignorance of information where people are kept in the dark about reality and, therefore, draw manipulated and pre-selected conclusions and act accordingly. This is where Democrats live.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Biden and leftist policy did that.
“Gird your loins: I’m not sure “bloodbath” will be descriptive enough for Silicon Valley Bank failure
Update: Yellen says no bailout, focus on depositors MORE: Auction underway”
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/03/12/gird-your-loins-im-not-sure-bloodbath-will-be-descriptive-enough-for-silicon-valley-bank-failure-n536385
“HO-LEE-SMOKES and pucker up.
It’s barely 24 hours later and what’s shaking out so far is pretty scary. Is the federal reserve ready to handle something of this magnitude? Janet Yellen? Forces are already in motion trying to mitigate some of the damage and panic sure to ensue when the financial markets and banks open Monday morning, but there’s turning out to be an awful lot of scrambling to CYA.
One top investment bank sent a note to clients advising what could happen if no buyers steps in, according to a transcription reviewed by The Post.
The note outlined how the FDIC is spending the weekend assessing the value of SVB’s assets. It will pay out up to $250,000 in insurance coverage for accounts at that level or below on Monday. The agency will also make a payment, called an advanced dividend, to uninsured depositors as quickly as possible.
“The rest may take anywhere from 60 days to 2 years to get paid out,” the note said, adding that companies waiting for payouts will find investors and lenders available to try to finance the amounts the FDIC says they will get. Ultimately SVB clients could get 80 to 90 cents for each dollar they had on deposit, but it could take years for that to happen.
And that may be too late for many small businesses with ties to the bank.
Uninsured – over $250K – investors “could” see 80-90¢ on the dollar. That’s a mighty big “could.””
—–
“Here in the States, the reach of the failure isn’t just depositors and tech companies. It’s online marketplaces like Etsy, that used their payment processing. Now those people can’t be paid for sales from the website. A toy store chain in New York City is begging people to come buy toys for 40% off using a special code, so they can at least generate some sort of cash flow, or they’ll go under.
…The venture capital-backed retailer Camp fired off an email Friday to customers, saying it was slashing prices and plans to use sales revenue to continue operating, after much of its cash was tied up in the second-biggest bank casualty in U.S. history.
“Unfortunately, we had most of our company’s cash assets at a bank which just collapsed. I’m sure you’ve heard the news,” co-founder Ben Kaufman said in an email to customers, according to CNN.
Kaufman asked customers to use the code “BANKRUN” to save 40% off all merchandise — a likely nod to the run on the bank that may have helped bring down the Silicon Valley lender. The company also said customers could pay full price, adding that would be appreciated.
Better drink up, Shriners, while you can. SVB was THE bank for the better part of the wineries in California…thousands of wineries.”
—-
LikeLiked by 2 people
Looks like another domino has fallen….
“Feds Shut Down New York’s Signature Bank, Citing ‘Systemic Risk'”
https://redstate.com/joesquire/2023/03/12/feds-shut-down-new-yorks-signature-bank-citing-systemic-risk-n715525
“A second bank has been taken over and shut down by the FDIC in less than a week, just days after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.
Now, regulators have shut down New York’s Signature Bank, which they have cited as having “systemic risk,” forcing them to get involved. In a press release, the Federal Reserve Board announced the move, also promising that both SVB and Signature depositors would have full access to their money come Monday.
After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.
We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer.
Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.
Signature Bank, like SVB, had ties to the tech industry – though, instead of focusing on tech start-ups, Signature was almost exclusively a cryptocurrency firm, according to CNBC.
Signature is one of the main banks to the cryptocurrency industry. As of Dec. 31, Signature had $110.4 billion in total assets and $88.6 billion in total deposits, according to a securities filing.
It was also the bank that Democratic politician Barney Frank joined after leaving Congress.”
—-
Dodd/Frank anyone?
Yeah…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know who’s fault this is according to Dems and media frauds, right? 😂🤣😂🤣
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Heilemann, NBC News and MSNBC analyst, is just another liar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seeing the problem with education and educators yet?
“Genderqueer shapeshifter witch hired to train school district staff”
LikeLiked by 1 person
No!
You call him Dr. Jones!
This is nice for him. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
We need more wood and gas.
“Tucker Carlson Unbound: Setting Fire to the Uniparty”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/03/13/tucker_carlson_unbound_setting_fire_to_the_uniparty_148971.html
“In my last column, I compared Fox News host Tucker Carlson to the CBS journalist Edward R. Murrow, who used his reporting in the 1950s to change the course of history.
For that comparison I apologize.
It is now apparent that Carlson far exceeds Murrow in his courage, his thoughtfulness, and his stubborn refusal to accede to pressure.
Let’s get this straight. Murrow was a brilliant journalist, but his reputation as a dedicated war correspondent during the Battle of Britain also made him a beloved figure to his fellow reporters and to the politicians whom he covered. Thus, when he stood up against the bullying tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Murrow knew he could count on the support of CBS, other journalists, and even senators who had been the target of McCarthy’s blind rage. In a very real sense, it was McCarthy’s own character flaws that brought him down, to the detriment of his anti-Communist crusade, which had accurately identified the very real threat of Soviet sympathizers who had infiltrated the federal government. Murrow was just the catalyst, and he was lauded for his efforts.
On the other hand, Tucker Carlson’s decision last week to air previously unseen video of the Jan. 6, 2021, confrontation between protesters and Capitol Police put his own career at risk and has made him the subject of bipartisan scorn. Some even speculate that he was silently punished by his bosses at Fox News, but Carlson doesn’t seem worried about being fired, and the condemnation he has received from both the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate has only emboldened him.
It will probably take years to fully understand the importance of Carlson’s challenge of the “official Washington” narrative of Jan. 6 as a “deadly insurrection,” but Carlson wasted no time last Monday in laying out the framework of his complete rejection of the “accepted truth” pushed by the Biden Department of Justice, the House Select Committee on January 6, and the mainstream media.
Only a tiny fraction of the thousands of hours of surveillance video released to Carlson by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was shown last week on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” but you only need a small pin to burst a large balloon, and by the time the week was over, all the president’s men couldn’t put the Humpty-Dumpty story of a “Trump-surrection” back together again.
“The images you will see were recorded 26 months ago today on January 6, 2021,” Carlson began. “Until now, politicians have kept this tape hidden from the public. There is no legitimate justification for that and there never has been.”
The powers that be would have you believe that Carlson had jeopardized national security by playing the tapes – probably 30 minutes out of the 41,000 hours. Now, it is true the tapes provided some interesting counterbalance to the non-stop harassment of Trump supporters that has taken place for the past two years, but if truth be told, the evidence on the tapes was much less significant than the reaction to them. What you really want to know now is, if 30 minutes of video has the Uniparty crowd so scared, what else are they hiding?
I think much more than the video, the Censorship-Industrial Complex (as journalist Matt Taibbi has accurately tabbed it) wants to shut down any information or even belief that goes counter to the official narrative, and that’s where Carlson got so deep under their skin that they were willing to rip themselves to shreds in an effort to get at him.
Everything Carlson said about Jan. 6 for three days last week was a threat to their power, and he knew it.
“The protesters were angry. They believed the election they had just voted in was unfairly conducted. They were right. In retrospect, it is clear the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of American democracy.”
He didn’t go beyond that in explaining the illegitimacy of the election, but he didn’t have to. The “it is clear” speaks volumes to those who haven’t bought into the official narrative that the 2020 election was “the most secure” in the nation’s history. Yeah, it was secure if you don’t believe the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that election law was violated en masse in those states. It was secure if you don’t have any concern about billionaire Mark Zuckerberg spending hundreds of millions of dollars to gain access to voter rolls and ensure that likely Biden voters were goosed to get their butts out of the chair and their ballots in the drop boxes. It was secure if you don’t care about Twitter and Facebook colluding with the federal government to make sure that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop was falsely painted as Russian disinformation in the weeks leading up to the election.
Although Democrats and the rest of “official Washington” claim the election was secure, they spent zero hours proving that case. Instead, they seized on the disruptions on Jan. 6 as the real threat to democracy and gave their clients in the lapdog media the spectacle of the select committee’s show trial. What is most hurtful to the Democrats and RINOs who wrote the narrative is that their two years of work propping up the infrastructure of a “deadly insurrection” was undone in less than 60 minutes by Carlson, who didn’t deny that violence had been done on Jan. 6, but committed the unforgivable sin of putting it in perspective.
Thus, where the Jan. 6 committee saw the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War, Tucker Carlson showed pictures of protesters walking in the door of the Capitol and milling around, as he said, like sightseers. No matter how many times Carlson said he was not excusing any violence, the proponents of the “deadly insurrection” narrative claimed that showing non-violent protesters was an affront to their efforts to demonize Trump voters as terrorists. And, of course, they were right to worry.
But it wasn’t just the images by themselves that overturned the official narrative; it was the muscular words of Carlson as he held to account not just the select committee, but also congressional leaders, Capitol Police, and the Department of Justice. This was a rarely seen J’accuse moment in which the system’s irresponsible scapegoating of the Deplorables was held up to the light.
“Committee members lied about what they saw,” Carlson said, “and then hid the evidence from the public as well as from Jan. 6 criminal defendants and their lawyers. That is unforgivable.””
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The families destroyed by gender ideology
A new documentary, Dead Name, reveals the inhumanity of trans activism.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/13/the-families-destroyed-by-gender-ideology/
“Trans is a hot topic in journalism at the moment. Whether the angle is personal or political, there’s always a juicy or outrageous story to be found. However, while this grisly cultural car crash can make for engaging reading, the families torn apart by trans ideology are often overlooked. Dead Name, an American indie documentary released at the end of last year, seeks to redress this, giving a voice to parents who are sceptical of their children’s trans identities. Their powerful, poignant testimonies deserve to be heard.
Not everyone agrees, it seems. With depressing predictability, video platform Vimeo removed Dead Name in January, just 34 days after it was first published on the site. Vimeo apparently does not trust audiences to make up their own minds on this issue.
Undeterred, the team behind Dead Name hastily ‘re-platformed’ the film within four hours, on deadnamedocumentary.com. The film’s director, Taylor Reece, told me that the attempt to suppress the film had in fact sparked a surge in interest, driving sales ‘through the roof’.
Dead Name is a raw, intimate portrait of three parents whose children were labelled ‘trans’. A ‘dead name’ refers to the birth name that is discarded when a person begins to identify as nonbinary or as the opposite sex. In polite dinner-party circles, it is considered both poor manners and potentially traumatising to ‘deadname’ a trans-identified person, by using their former name. Yet, to many parents, their child’s rejection of his or her birth name, often the first gift a baby is given, can be hard to bear. As Reece told the Christian Post last year: ‘It feels like a gut-punch to parents because it’s like the child saying, “I’m trying to cancel my childhood”.’
Those profiled in Dead Name are not campaigners. They are relatable people struggling to make sense of a nonsensical ideology. In Reece’s words, ‘they’re simply parents who’ve dared to raise questions, who have struggled with being marginalised and being silenced’.
The first to speak is Amy, a mother whose teen daughter began identifying as a boy at 15, following a break-up with her boyfriend. She went from being a youngster interested in performing arts to becoming introverted, increasingly distressed and ‘cloistering herself in her room’. What Amy describes of her child’s behaviour sounds like normal adolescent angst. Yet, after a single remote consultation with a clinic, she was prescribed testosterone. This mother will never again hear her daughter’s voice as it was before it was altered by hormones. She has not seen her daughter for years.
Then Helen tells her story. Helen is a lesbian whose ex-wife decided to socially transition their child, Jonas, when he was just four years old. The first Helen knew of this was when a letter from Jonas’ preschool informed her that ‘one of our students is now trans, and we would love for you all to celebrate and support her’. Jonas’ name was changed to Rosa on the register. Helen had to fight a legal battle for two years to prevent her son from being socially and medically transitioned, eventually winning custody. Initially, she struggled to find an attorney who would even take on the case.
Last is Bill. Bill’s son, Sean, began to identify as trans shortly after he enrolled at college. Just months later, he was dead. As a child, Sean suffered the loss of his mother from illness and his brother from a heroin overdose. He was diagnosed with cancer both as a toddler and then as an older teenager. Bill believes that Sean had been buying hormones online and that these interacted with his cancer medication, hastening his death. His request for a proper autopsy was refused.
This story is particularly haunting because of the chances that were missed to set Sean on a different path. Bill took Sean to a psychiatrist in the year before his death. Bill trusted that a medical professional would help Sean understand that his mental distress was caused by his childhood bereavement and his illness, not his gender identity. Instead, Bill was told that his son was ‘definitely trans’ – and that, for questioning this, he was an ‘unsupportive, abusive father’. But as Bill reflects with poignant directness, he ‘was just trying to keep him alive’.
Bill’s pain didn’t end there. When the police arrived to inform him about Sean’s death, he assumed they had made a mistake – they told him his ‘daughter’ had died. Bill then contacted his son’s friends on social media to tell them about memorial arrangements. But rather than offer condolences or support, they mobbed him for referring to Sean by his ‘dead name’. Today, Bill hopes that telling his story might at least stop other parents from going through what he has.
Ultimately, the only mistake made by any of these loving parents was to have faith that those in authority would do the right thing by their kids.”
———
It’s abuse.
LikeLiked by 4 people
@7:56 “How about Congress just pay back the billions they’ve pillaged over the last several decades instead.”
HA! What a novel idea, AJ. I suspect the reason they want to raise the retirement age is so they can justify further pillage.
But seriously, I agree they’ve raised the retirement age enough. It’s just my opinion, but I do not think our lifespans are going to continue to increase at this point; I think we’ve peaked. According to the CDC (if you believe they can do anything right anymore) the lifespan has decreased for the last 2 years with men at a little under 74 yrs, and women just under 80– averaging together 76.4 yrs. Some ideas for the current decrease are covid and drug over-dose. Hopefully covid has already done most of its damage, but I’m afraid the increase in drug problems are going to be with us for a very long time.
In addition to drug use (and probably related to it) mental illness is apparently rampant in the young. And we are actively increasing it through our education system which often encourages children to deconstruct their very being. The mentally ill are not stable or long-lived as a rule. Even those who survive drug use and abuse will not be as healthy in old age—assuming they get there. I just don’t see us providing a mentally and physically stable environment for people to survive longer and longer. So I don’t want to see our current crop of yahoos in congress damaging SS any more than they already have.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Agree, Debra, about life expectancy taking a dive. It shouldn’t but with healthcare so driven by profits rather than best care, even with knowledge to prolong life, the dollars won’t be there to do so. I heard that interview and thought how misguided the thinking was, the utopian mindset that never faces reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow, from one who doesn’t watch any news, I am grateful. That academy award speech, amazing. The article on Carlson was extraordinary. Thanks, Aj for sharing.
LikeLiked by 2 people