Featured Savings Rates

Popular Posts

Featured Accounts

Will Trump Make Deposit Rates Great Again?

POSTED ON BY

Will Trump Make Deposit Rates Great Again?

For savers who have lived with the ultra low interest rate environment for the last eight years, they may take some comfort that President-elect Donald Trump has said “Yellen is keeping rates too low, too long.” A Trump Presidency could speed up the pace of Fed rate hikes, and based on interest rate history, deposit rates do track Fed rate hikes and have often outpaced Fed rate increases.

The first way a Trump Presidency may speed up the pace of Fed rate hikes is by changing the Fed. The most obvious change would be to replace Fed Chair Janet Yellen who is considered to be dovish on the Fed hawk-dove scale. The earliest that Trump can replace Fed Chair Janet Yellen is February 2018 when her term ends. Trump could put pressure on Yellen to step down, but that doesn’t guarantee a change. Fed Vice Chair, Stanley Fischer, is also considered dovish. His term as Vice Chair is scheduled to end on June 2018.

The most important part of the Fed in terms of policy action is the seven-member board of governors. These are permanent voting members on the rate-setting FOMC. Most members of this group have long been considered dovish. Fed governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Currently, there are two vacancies. President-elect Trump will likely be able to fill these two vacancies in 2017 with hawks.

Even a new more hawkish Fed will find it difficult to raise rates if the economy isn’t growing. Higher rates will depend on a growing and strengthening economy. This Wall Street Journal article cites a survey of economists who forecast rising GDP, inflation and interest rates under a Trump Presidency. According to the article, this is due to “Republican’s proposals to reduce taxes and invest in infrastructure will amount to a substantial fiscal stimulus.” However, there are risks. Economists worry about the potential of a trade war.

Another thing that impacts not only the economy, but also banks’ decisions on deposit rates is financial regulation. According to this Wall Street Journal article:

President-elect Donald Trump vowed anew on Friday to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, at the same time his transition team is tempering expectations for a full repeal of the sweeping law.

It’s good to hear that a full repeal is unlikely. Don’t forget that the standard deposit insurance coverage increase to $250,000 was part of Dodd-Frank law. An important part of the regulation was to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. Hopefully, changes will only improve the regulation in that regard. Of course, the Dodd-Frank Act was massive, and bank industry argued that it was costly even to community banks. If changes can be made to reduce the cost for banks and to make it easier for them to lend, that may help push deposit rates higher.

Changes In Our Deposit Account Strategy?

After the last eight years of this ultra low interest rate environment, changes that give hope to higher interest rates are refreshing. As DA reader Lou commented in the forum “we might finally see a normalization of interest rates.”

Changes may not come fast enough for savers. Even a more hawkish Fed will probably not be in a rush to increase rates. Also, many fiscal policy changes will need Congressional approval, and that will likely not be fast with a Senate that only has a slight Republican majority. And once new laws are enacted, their effect on the economy can take awhile. In summary, I think it’s too soon to make major deposit account strategy changes. Rates may still rise much slower than we would like to think. The same strategies that I suggested in January still make sense today.

Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #1
Thanks, Ken. You do a wonderful job with your website.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #2
Fund Manager: Trump is 'the end' of central banking as we know it
Trump's policies are "about spending money and then printing money, so it's the end of central banking as we know it since the beginning of the (1980s)," Beat Wittmann, partner and chairman at Porta Advisors, told CNBC on Monday. The president-elect wants to provide the economy with a strong fiscal stimulus, promising to invest $1 trillion on infrastructure and cutting taxes. But, according to several analysts, this strategy is set to increase inflation as well as the U.S. budget deficit.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/14/trump-is-the-end-of-central-banking-as-we-know-it-fund-manager.html
hank
hank   |     |   Comment #3
Trump has said rates are too low and at other times he has said that they need to stay low so you can't put too much stock in what he says.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #4
Can't take it to the bank
me1004
me1004   |     |   Comment #15
Hank, you are very right. I was about to post similar, but you beat me to it.

In the primaries, Trump said he would replace Yellen, but he did not say it was because he wanted interest rates higher, he said he simply wanted his own person at the helm of the fed. He added that  he always favors low interest rates.

In the general election, he continued to attack Yellen, but only then said the opposite, that interest rates needed to go up.

So, which Trump  do you believe? People will tend to take notice only of the Trump they want  -- it  is very difficult to keep track of everything someone  says, and their history about following through with what they say. And someone taking an overview of Trump's approach and style will see he absolutely counts on that. He's a showman and used the smoke-and-mirrors approach. Its a strategy.

Reasonable people continue to try to take clues from what Trump says, but what Trump says is even less reliable that what you might hear from P.T. Barnum. Frankly, I seriously suspect that Trump has studied P.T. Barnum, and taken it to new heights.

So, if you try to draw conclusions from what Trump says, you will need to take a much broader look and far more than simply what he says.

Meanwhile, even the Fed is indicating it is now pretty much at its employment goals and ready to push rates up toward whatever it considers to be normal -- this before Trump won the election. So, rates going up in the next year will be misinterpreted as being done because Trump is pushing them. In reality, Trump's influence on the Fed this coming year might be only his dramatic plan to cut taxes, flooding the economy with money just when the Fed believes the economy is starting to take off, and even as inflation already was showing signs of starting to rise.

What the Fed will have to realize now is that it is in a dangerously low rate environment that will leave it unable to address the inevitable inflation from the huge tax cut. It will have to recognize it has rates in a very dangerously and irresponsibly and pointlessly low environment, and has a good way to go just to get to a place where it could possibly try to spring off to fight inflation. In the face of that, the only responsible action would be to raise  rates faster  than they otherwise would rise.

So, rates might go up regularly in the coming year, something that would have happened regardless  of Trump but faster in order to counter him, not to appease him. If they do not, the Fed is not going to be able to stop inflation from Trump's huge tax cut without crashing the economy, a crash that might be inevitable in the long run regardless.

That action on rates this year will not be to appease Trump, but to try to counter him.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #29
Trump didn't expect in his wildest dreams that he would ever be President. Now in that position he hasn't the slightest idea what to do. Probably his VP Mike Pence will be making policy.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #32
#29, Maybe not when Trump first through his hat into the ring.  Then he got serious and he is smarter than you think.  In any event, better Trump than Hillary!  Anyone but Hillary!
Bozo
Bozo   |     |   Comment #6
The roughly 20% increase in the yield on the 10-year Treasury over the past week does get your attention.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #7
The truth is one can only do so much to stimulate the economy. I voted for Trump but, candidly, if he can hit 3% growth within two years without busting the budget I'll be very surprised. 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #27
Well, his own Republican party has to give him more support for his programs as President than they did when he was running for the office.  The cowards were afraid to back him, being more concerned about their own re-election.   
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #28
All politics is local.
cumulus
cumulus   |     |   Comment #8
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Jeffrey Lacker said a possible fiscal stimulus under the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump could cause the Fed to raise interest rates faster than anticipated.   Full story.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #9
I'm not a fan of President Obama and, in fact, I voted for Mr. Trump.  Still, this could be a classic example of having voted contrary to one's best interests.  Obama has kept inflation under control.  Much credit to him for that.  Sure, Trump likely will ignite the economy and generate many jobs.  But almost certainly, Trump will also fire up the engines of inflation.  So in the future my CDs will be throwing off large numbers of "inflatodollars" which buy less all the time and which are taxed at ever higher rates of taxation.  And pay attention, I'm not thinking of FIT which might even be benign.  Instead, it is all the other nonlinear ancillary taxes out there today which erode one's wealth so effectively when dollar numbers become larger.

Bottom line, maybe tough for many Americans, but for me the Obama years have not been all that bad.  I'm concerned about Trumponomics because I've seen the movie before and it does not end well.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #10
I fondly remember the days of 20-22% six month money market rates....I did well then and would likely do so again, under similar circumstances. So, Mr. President Elect, bring it on....I, for one, am not doing all that well under the current status quo.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #13
Obama was a disaster. First, he's 50% Irish which means he should have brought this nation together and ended the "slavery" issue forever. Instead, he embarked on divisive policies that gravely harmed the nation. The Justice Department and the IRS were selectively used to foster hatred against conservatives and law enforcement officials across the land. He encouraged hatred and intolerance on the left to a degree not seen since reconstruction. His foreign policy was childish and ineffective. His utter disdain for existing law (e.g. ignoring immigration statutes and tolerating sanctuary cities come to mind) is perhaps the greatest threat our nation faces. He was an ineffective community organizer elevated to the presidency based solely on his skin color. Ann Dunham, his white, Irish-American mother is unknown to the vast majority. I guess it didn't fit the narrative.        
Trumpolini
Trumpolini (anonymous)   |     |   Comment #16
Quite the disaster, he was.  Stock market more than doubled, unemployment rate halved, health insurance for millions, no major terrorist attacks, meaningful consumer protection, went from losing 800,000 jobs a month to gaining 200,000+ a month.

Sad that so many people couldn't tolerate the idea of a black man in the WH and brought their racist tendencies back to the surface.  Sad that we now have a misogynistic, xenophobic, narcissistic sociopath about to embrace the swamp.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #20
Eight years. Fewer jobs than in 2007. Lost purchasing power due to stagnant wages. Employment gains do not keep up with population growth. Debt DOUBLED to 20 trillion. Terror attacks...are you kidding. Benghazi, Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando. Last, but not least, ACA has been a boon to the insurance and pharma companies. People lost their doctors and we're all waiting for the $2500 savings. I won't even mention cash for clunkers, Solyndra, "you didn't build that" or a host of other abysmal failures. Eight years and not one year of 3% growth. I know, I know...George Bush.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #33
You can say than again. Wake up America.
Jesperson
Jesperson (anonymous)   |     |   Comment #42
Wrong on every point.  And please stop with the racist fantasies.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #23
Trump has a place for someone who is as fluent in Trump speak.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #35
I tolerated Obuma, had no choice.  He won the election, twice even. 

It's Hillary I couldn't tolerate, that's why I voted for Trump.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #40
Obama was the worst president in U.S. history! When the economy improves inflation picks up and interest rates rise that's a good thing. Back in the 80's I was earning so much inflation beating interest that I could have cared less about inflation. I say bring it on. This last 8 years was a depressing liberal nightmare for me and many other patriotic Americans and this nightmare is finally over thank God!
Bozo
Bozo   |     |   Comment #24
To: Anonymous (comment #9).

I suspect the President-elect will face governance issues. In order to fulfill two of his major economic "promises" (more jobs and lower taxes), and his reluctance to reform entitlement spending, he will butt up against deficit hawks in the House who wield much more power on these matters than he seems to acknowledge. Then, of course, there's the minor matter of getting the Senate to approve the House bills without major concessions. A President Trump cannot sign a bill which does not reach his desk.

Moving right along, even if Congress can agree on a jobs bill, and a tax bill, the question is presented whether either would benefit Trump's base. For example, it's one thing to pass a huge infrastructure/jobs bill. It's quite another to match the jobs thus created with the skill sets and locale of the un- or under-employed. Similarly, tax cuts are great. Tax cuts funded by increased borrowing (with attendant debt and the prospect of inflation) are great for the net creditors out there, with paid-off mortgages, not so hot for the lower-to-middle class family with credit-card debt and a hefty adjustable-rate mortgage. Or renters, for that matter.

Stated another way, it's complicated.

 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #11
Isn't that what the FED has been supposedly trying to do all this time? I thought all that money printing was to increase inflation.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #12
Basic economics folks. Higher CD rates are the result of higher interest rates which are the product of growth which is the product of increased investment and expansion which is funded by borrowing which causes rates to rise which results in inflation which pleases the FED. CD's are at the very bottom of the interest food chain. They are a safe place to park money in the hope one can survive inflation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #36
I take it you're not old enough to remember "stagflation".  Inflation without any economic growth.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #48
Control energy prices (we can do that) and limit the FED (we could but haven't) and stagflation becomes moot.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #14
Given that just six months ago, Trump put into question the "full faith and credit" of US Treaury debt, we should be quite concerned about all forms of government backed debt.  If he's willing to apply that thinking to Treasury debt, why not the FDIC?

Trump has a well established history of throwing his debtholders under the bus.  It is not safe to assume he won't use the same tactics on a larger scale, especially since he said it.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #17
Uh, because he is not a dictator.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #18
Remember that great Russian word, "yet!"
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #21
Nyet and it means no.
Bozo
Bozo   |     |   Comment #31
To: Anonymous (comment #14).

I doubt seriously a Steve Mnuchin-led Treasury would roil the financial markets by messing with debt obligations. Any major overhauls of FDIC or NCUA protection (or the limits of protection under Dodd-Frank, see Ken's comment in the main article) would need to come from Congress.  I think a good adage is that Trump supporters took him seriously, but not literally. Clinton supporters took him literally, but not seriously.

Both Mnuchin and Bannon know (or should know) that even a hint of "re-structuring" of federal debt would be read by holders of that debt as a hint of default. Interest rates on Teasuries would sky-rocket, and the interest-rate burden of outstanding debt (not to mention future borrowings required for any ambitious infrastructure/jobs bill) would become untenable without tax increases.

Both Mnuchin and Bannon know (or should know) that any proposed reduction in FDIC/NCUA protection (either as to scope or limits) will result in a major backlash from both issuers and holders of existing CDs, not to mention AARP. I just don't see any pro-reduction constituency.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #67
What we really need to put into question is the full faith and credit of Trump. He is totaslly unpredictable, and that's how he has always done business. Why should we expect him to be any more predictable in the White House than in the Trump House?
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #88
Well I can at least predict one thing about Trump he will put America and Americans first over the priorities of the globalists like Obama and Hillary. 
Smokeboat
Smokeboat (anonymous)   |     |   Comment #19
Hear that new giant sucking sound....that's the swamp draining.  Truth, justice and the American way prevails. 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #37
But it will take a little time and patience to occur.  Once that plug is pulled, watch out for that giant whirlpool.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #22
leesst not forget that the incompetent Republican watch destroyed the economy and CD rates probably forever. Trump is all about the1%! He has already admitted post election that his promises are un-achievable and were merely political posturing with no real substance aka liarliarliar/scumbag/narcissist. Our country is now Trumps unreality show. Trump, your fired! 
Gaelicwench
Gaelicwench   |     |   Comment #25
What people who voted for Trump are going to have to realize is that when the dog poop hits the fan, which it is, the simple answer to that will be: You OWN him. You wanted this guy, he's yours. I like the idea of higher interest rates, but of course, with that comes inflation. Putting this guy in office is going to come at a tremendous financial cost. But time will tell. DISCLAIMER! I did not vote for Hillary.
topkapi56
topkapi56   |     |   Comment #26
Yep, when you vote for someone, you cannot later disavow whatever follows.  You vote for it.  You own it.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #34
Sometimes it matters even more on who you did not vote for.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #38
Perfectly said, #34.  I didn't so much vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary.
#41 - This comment has been removed for violating our comment policy.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #43
you are an uneducated IDIOT!
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #87
I proudly voted for Trump and Romney and McCain. I have 0 regrets and would do the same tomorrow. Can you Obama voters say the same? If so thanks for 8 years of 0% interest rates. Thanks for higher mandatory health care costs. Thanks for low paying part time jobs. Thanks for under 2% GDP for 8 years. Thanks for Special bathrooms for the LGBT crowd(big priority for liberals obviously). Thanks for sending our tax dollars to Iran. Thanks for Benghazi. Thanks for Obama's all apologies world tour. Thanks for letting Muslim "refugees" into the country to collect a welfare check. I could go on all day but I hope you get the point. 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #89
hopefully its the last
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #30
How Trump Could Spell Trouble for the Fed
Research has documented that central banks around the world have been better able to control inflation if they enjoy independence from elected officials. The election of Donald Trump seems like a good time to remind ourselves that, historically, the executive branch has presented the greatest threat to the independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-15/how-trump-could-spell-trouble-for-the-fed
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #39
Nice article Ken although I believe that the $250,000 increase in the FDIC deposit insurance from $100,000 previously was done before Dodd-Frank. I think Dodd-Frank just made it permanent. Anyway I am changing my strategy by not locking in any more 5 year CD's as I feel these will be rising soon along with mortgage rates and treasuries. Also remember some of the same folks who caused the mortgage crisis which led to the financial crisis were allowed to write Dodd-Frank so I'm pretty sure some improvements can be made while leaving some protections in place. Hopefully my comment won't be deleted due to violating the comment policy this time! lol 
Frank Walker
Frank Walker   |     |   Comment #44
There is a lot of stuff going on and there is no question the election of Trump is behind it.  While little question remains interest rates will climb, as an older person it is very difficult for me to gauge timing.  When I was younger it took longer for trends to assert themselves.  Today things are different.  Is the American economy a compressed spring, just waiting for the right circumstances to uncoil itself very rapidly with great force?  It appears that might be the case:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/asia-shares-win-reprieve-bond-rout-pauses-now-004900870.html

After so many years of low interest rates, I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion of a rapid return to "normal".  I do vaguely recall something like this happening MANY years ago, but I was just beginning to have awareness of economics and markets back then and my recollections are frankly too vague to be useful.

But stuff is popping, there is no question of that.  Trump is acting very deferential and restrained because he's WELL aware Obama is still POTUS, and also because he is still in process of getting his ducks lined up.  But commencing January twentieth, only about two months from now, there is high likelihood Trump will explode with announcements of positive changes for the American economy.  After all, it's what he promised during the campaign.  Trump is a very smart and cagey guy.  He didn't become a billionaire by being a dummy.  The guy is dead-on serious and even now, still with two months to go, real change is saturating the wind.  It's rather exciting, but also scary at the same time, because you just do not know exactly what is coming.
  
Gaelicwench
Gaelicwench   |     |   Comment #45
Emphasis on: "....because you just do not know exactly what is coming." THAT is what's scariest of all. It'll be interesting to see who sleeps well at night under the trump luna.....er....presidency.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #46
I sleep better already, just knowing Hillary was defeated.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #47
I actually feel sorry for Mrs. Clinton because I believe she is not well.  I watched closely her concession speech, especially her eyes.  There is CLEARLY a problem.  It simply could not be more obvious.  I hope Mrs. Clinton, without the burden of the presidency, is able to rest and spend time with her grandkids and thereby have opportunity to extend her life.  As Trump said, Mrs. Clinton has served her country for many years.  Had she won, I think Kaine would have become POTUS sooner rather than later as she either became too ill to serve or even passed away.  And I do not like Kaine at all!!
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #50
Rumor has it she threw a major tantrum. She served herself at our expense so whatever good she did (we all do good) is overshadowed by decades of criminal and unethical behavior. 
topkapi56
topkapi56   |     |   Comment #52
Is that something "many people are saying?"  ROFL
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #49
Trump reminds me of the parent who says, "stop crying or I'll give you something to really cry about", to a petulant child. On cue, our colleges and universities provided crying rooms.  
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #51
It cracks me up that people are "worried" about Trump. Stop watching the liberally biased news and you will quickly see that you have nothing to worry about. Did these same people worry when Obama the Socialist came into power like I did? Probably not. To #47 Awww poor Hillary after spending 30 years destroying the country with liberal bs she can now take a break from politics! After the election she was throwing a temper tantrum(as were most liberals) and crying unstopably to the point where she was unable to give a consolation speech until the next day! This is the same Hillary that was questioning Trump's temperament..............give me a break. We certainly made the right choice America.  
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #53
Anonymous post #49, 50, & 51 really nailed it.  My sentiment exactly!
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #54
Lighten up, #51.  I'm not nuts.  I voted eagerly for Trump and I wanted Mrs. Clinton to be defeated.  But I do not want her dead.  The woman is obviously ill.  We won!  Show a little compassion and try to curb the blood lust.
Ed
Ed (anonymous)   |     |   Comment #56
How was that post bloodlust??? Show compassion for the ill woman?.....Wow, what about the media propaganda she used 24/7 to smear Trump....all to no avail.




People are not so dumb and brainwashed like she think we are.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #61
I certainly agree with Ed.


What ever condition Hillary is in, ill or not, she did to herself with her ego driven self enrichment plan that failed.   Thank God!  Does anyone think she was putting what was best for our country first, ahead of her own personal thirst for power and wealth?  No need to feel sorry or compassion for her.  It was all her own choice. 

Save your compassion for all our dedicated service men and women who honorably served/are server our country. 
Ed
Ed (anonymous)   |     |   Comment #55
The question is whether Yellen will stay or not.

With Clinton, Yellen will have another 4 or more years.

With Trump, Yellen will be gone in a year.

As long as Yellen is Fed Chief, you will get sub-1% interest (0.25% rise a year if lucky). Yellen don't care about savers. She worries about keeping the stock market sky high and Wall Street.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #57
Yellen will raise rates at the next FED meeting possibly by as much as .5% in order to make Trump look as bad as possible just before Socialist Obama tap dances out of the white house. Yes it's political and always has been. Then Trump will tell Yellen "You're fired!" and replace the dove with a hawk.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #58
And inflation, deficit, etc. will rise and then homeloans and car sales will be non-existant...all b/c "some" want to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of those coming behind them!  Go back to work if you "need" the interest income!
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #62
What is someone smoking?  Home loans and car sales will always exist,  just as they did in the 70s and 80s during a period of time when we saw some of the highest interest rates in our lifetime. 

No need to keep feeding people who want something for nothing.  (pay little to no interest rates on loans).   Way past to cut the handouts! 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #68
Yellin is not the problem. The banks are. They are nowhere near being out of the woods after the sub-prime meltdown fiasco and even now many of them have resorted to other betting strategies like interest rate swaps. The Fed Reserve has been propping them up by forcing interest rates down to historically low levels while allowing historically high spreads between borrowing and lending rates - especially on credit card debt. Even if Yellin is replaced, that will not make the underlying bank problems go away. If interest rates are allowed to rise too much too soon, it could well cause massive bank failures. It could also wreak havoc on bond prices and on the stock market - as rates rise, interest-bearing investments become more attractive even while lending becomes more expensive for corporations carrying large debt.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #59
Unfortunately, reading comments on internet forums like this one really put our faith in humanity into question.  There is so much hate and vitriol out there.  
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #63
Faith in humanity questioned.  Your right.  Look no further than what's being taught in most of the top colleges in the U.S. today.  They are our country's future?   God help us. 
Bozo
Bozo   |     |   Comment #64
Don't be so pessimistic. I was taught lots of crap at Stanford in the late 60's, shrugged it off, joined the Navy, commissioned in 1970, then went back to Stanford in 1973 for law school. Die-hard Republican. I was that future you worried about.

What you "should" be worried about is that nothing ever really changes. Kids who go to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and such, are going to be influential in this country's future for as far as the eye can see. Even Trump, who went to an Ivy-league school and then to Wharton.  The real "swamp" to be drained starts with Yale's "bones" men, Harvard's lock on Goldman Sachs, and Stanford's links to Silicon Valley.

We, as a country, have much more to worry about than what is taught. We have to worry about the elites we create, and what they do.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #65
I stopped worry about any of that of which I personally have absolutely no control. 

It is the younger generations that will have to live with what they have created for themselves and their children's futures.   A world full of greed and corruption, lacking any resemblance of ethical and moral standards.  It is spreading like a cancer on what was a civilized society.  "Me first, I want it all NOW" 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #66
Now?  Give "me" higher interest rate CDs now.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #69
I long for the good old days...Stalin, Mao, Genghis Kahan and all the other guys who lived in peace and harmony!
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #70
Not to worry.  If you live long enough you may see history repeat itself.................civil war, world war, etc. 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #60
LOL. We are all living within a reality show now.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #71
I think the likely hood of Trump being Impeached before he finishes his term is pretty huge. He is a total con man and the definition of a sociopath!
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #72
We now live in a nation where school children portray the killing of a president-elect. The philosophy that fosters this level of absurdity comes from the self-proclaimed all-loving, all-tolerant left. Keep this up and your CD's will be the least of your problems.  
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #73
And don't forget all those wimpy college students that need their safe places and coloring books to cope with election results.   
Bozo
Bozo   |     |   Comment #74
All politicians, by definition, are con-men (or women). They say what they need to say to get elected, then they go about the business of governance. Mr. Trump was not exactly my first choice for our party's nominee, but I have to give credit where credit is due. His inner circle thus far mirrors Lincoln's cabinet of 1860, with many divergent views. Reince Priebus, the pillar of establishment Republicans, who throws oil on troubled waters. Steve Bannon, who brings a torch to set the oil on fire. General Flynn, the NSA appointee, a fire-brand, and Mike Pompeo, a level-headed professional, for the CIA, are illustrative. Mitt Romney or Nicky Haley as Secretary of State with Jeff Sessions as AG?  OMG, what's next? My guess is Ted Cruz (Lyin' Ted) for that vacant spot on the Supreme Court? An originalist in the Scalia tradition. So he hates Trump, and Trump hates him, it would get him out of the Senate. He would be confirmed in a nano-second. Rudy Guiliani, for Court jester. Requires no Senate confirmation.

 I find it illustrative that both Ben Carson and Newt Gingrich declined positions in the new administration after (and only after) the new Trump policy on no lobbying for five years after service was announced. Hmm, see a connection?
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #75
Who would enforce the 5 year bar?   Right!  All part of the emperor's clothing!
Bozo
Bozo   |     |   Comment #78
To: Anonymous (comment #75).

This is a valid point. I guess the new Administration will first have to define "lobbying" so as not to run afoul of the First Amendment. Assuming that can be done, I'm making a great leap of faith to assume that Congress will either enact the ban into law, or the new Administration will do it by simple contract law (similar to an employment agreement), and it will then be up to the Courts to enforce. By the way, I personally think it's a great idea.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #79
Definition of lobbying is part of the statutory lore...registration of same also required.  But no one is going to enforce it
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #76
Someone may not be a real clown, but his comments are really comical.  More entertainment than substance. 
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #77
Articles of Impeachment must be initiated in the House and voted upon by the Senate.  The House is going to be under Republican control for the foreseeable future.  Still, it could happen.  But the Senate contains a significant number of liberal Democrats.  Not a single one of those individuals would want to place Pence into the big chair under any circumstances.  NEVER!

Hence, Trump is safe from impeachment.  Maybe, instead, they will impeach only Trump's hair!  Heck, such hair is self-evidently impeachable!!  OTOH, that hair does seem to work for Melania . . . who is not exactly the worst looking woman I ever saw.  So I dunno.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #80
The idea that if Dodd-Frank were repealed, the $250K FDIC coverage might go with it, is a bit unnerving for those of us who have our retirement funds in long term CD's over 100K. .  It would leave some people quite exposed with no good way out, without losing interest and having to pay penalties.  Do you think a repeal is an actual possibility?
paoli2
paoli2   |     |   Comment #81
I cannot believe that Trump would repeal Dodd-Frank and take our $250K insurance away from us.  That could be devastating after we spent all these years suffering from such low interest rates!  That would be a blow even worse!  Frankly, I would rather have 2% interest and know the funds are insured that higher interest rates and end up losing a large amount due to bank failures.  It seems savers can't win these days.  I guess I'll be getting more emails off to Washington after Trump takes his oath in January and I know who to best gripe to!
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #82
Forget FDIC limits and start worrying about Bail-Ins.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2015/01/the-bail-in-how-you-and-your-money-will-be-parted-during-the-ne...
Now there's something to keep you up at night!
paoli2
paoli2   |     |   Comment #83
Well I checked out the  article and could not find what type of precious metals they were selling or in fact, WHAT were they selling?  I have read the same type info many times but at the end it was always a sales pitch for buying gold etc.  It won't keep me up at night (at least for now) because last month I finally cleaned out everything from Chase and found a place that wasn't a bank to use instead.  These articles "could" all be just another way to sell something but when it comes to our savings, I prefer to take extra precautions.  I now only keep a basic checking account in a local bank I have more confidence in.  This is not something we should laugh about anymore.  People are literally beginning to have the "old time" fear of banks.    Any seniors on DA might still remember how it was after the Great Depression.  Somehow after they started insuring our money, we forgot our fears and went back.  Now, I think we need to hitch up our horses to the wagon and  find some place else to go to.    Thanks for sharing.
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #85
The article was not selling anything but information. Every deposit you make surrenders your money to the bank or CU. You simply get an IOU in return. Banks have learned they can privatize gains and socialize losses. If a major collapse occurs (and it can) there won't be enough government cash to cover the bets. They can print more, tax more or confiscate a portion of deposits to right the ship. The guarantee is that you, the little guy, will suffer the most. Why, afterall, does the hedge fund manager want to net a billion dollars this year? Because they need $500M to support their lifestyle and they know how easy they could instantly lose 50%. The guy making 50K/year is not so fortunate!      
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #84
Use to be only 10k...was 100k in 2008.  Merely means more accounts and headaches for cu and banks
Anonymous
Anonymous   |     |   Comment #86
No way would Trump be taking the $250,000 FDIC insurance away even if he did repeal Dodd-Frank. Why do people post such fear mongering nonsense about Trump? The stock market was supposed to collapse if Trump won and we are now at all time highs.