[marckhoury]

> If people with over 250,000 in deposits are covered, the once again the the rich is allowed to avoid all risks for bad decisions.

I feel like putting your money in a bank should not be considered an obviously bad decision. The risk profile your bank takes on with your deposits is largely opaque to you, and it’s not feasible to expect every depositor to do due diligence on it. Even if you understood their portfolio you might not be able to understand the implications as market conditions change. It’s also not feasible to expect people to split up their deposit into multiple 250k accounts.

[jmclnx]

If you can have more than 250,000 in a bank account, you are rich. You should know and accept the risks you are taking. If you do not like the FDIC insurance laws, get it changed.

In 2008, people lost their houses and many their savings because they were not rich. And these people were not bailed out even though it was due to issues they had no control over. Most of these losses were a lot less than that 250,000 you have. But you are saying "because I have 250,000 I deserve a bailout, screw the people who are not rich because that is their fault."

[UncleEntity]

If you want the taxpayers to assume the risks maybe don’t allow the CEO to lobby to be excepted from the regulations which prevent this risk?

This whole situation is dodgy and I’m the last person to be calling for government intervention.

[nickthegreek]

It is very feasibly for people to split their deposits into multiple accounts. My mother does it and her savings total are a fraction of $250k.