Funding Terrorists via Bailouts

Bloomberg notes, “The insurance law, enacted after the 2001 attacks, authorizes the government to provide financial support for insurance companies in the wake of terrorism. It is up for renewal this year. Under TRIA, insurers cover a fixed amount of losses from terrorist attacks with the government backstopping additional costs up to $100 billion. The law gives the Treasury secretary broad latitude to invoke the backstop.”

When U.S. banks are hacked by terrorists or by the cyber-nefarious, and the FDIC or another federal entity bails out the theft and makes the banks whole again, what is the net result?

Bankers and U.S. officials have warned that cyber-terrorists will try to wreck the financial system’s computer networks. What they aren’t saying publicly is that taxpayers will probably have to cover much of the damage.

Answer;  the money they hacked stays with the hackers, the money lost is reimbursed to the banks, and the holders of dollars and the American citizen lose.  A transfer.  Minus to the American citizen, plus to the terrorists.  Brilliant.  An indemnified arrangement that takes from us and gives to our enemies.

The government response ... might be more akin to that following the 2008 credit meltdown, when the Federal Reserve invoked “unusual and exigent circumstances” to lend billions of dollars.

Far-fetched? 

In this Bloomberg article, the realities and the possibilities are large and undeniable.  “And bank security officials believe the hackers may have been aided by the Russian government, possibly as retribution for U.S. sanctions over the Ukraine war.”

It is clear that the Russians have not reset, but seem to be engaged in upsetting.  The Russian hackers and the waves of Russians in our country who have overstayed their visas are a clear and present danger.  Our eyes are off the ball with the Hispanic influx. 

Is Putin using the Russian hackers to submarine our economy?  Will Putin be using the Russian mob to create havoc in the United States?  Just asking.

Bloomberg notes, “The insurance law, enacted after the 2001 attacks, authorizes the government to provide financial support for insurance companies in the wake of terrorism. It is up for renewal this year. Under TRIA, insurers cover a fixed amount of losses from terrorist attacks with the government backstopping additional costs up to $100 billion. The law gives the Treasury secretary broad latitude to invoke the backstop.”

When U.S. banks are hacked by terrorists or by the cyber-nefarious, and the FDIC or another federal entity bails out the theft and makes the banks whole again, what is the net result?

Bankers and U.S. officials have warned that cyber-terrorists will try to wreck the financial system’s computer networks. What they aren’t saying publicly is that taxpayers will probably have to cover much of the damage.

Answer;  the money they hacked stays with the hackers, the money lost is reimbursed to the banks, and the holders of dollars and the American citizen lose.  A transfer.  Minus to the American citizen, plus to the terrorists.  Brilliant.  An indemnified arrangement that takes from us and gives to our enemies.

The government response ... might be more akin to that following the 2008 credit meltdown, when the Federal Reserve invoked “unusual and exigent circumstances” to lend billions of dollars.

Far-fetched? 

In this Bloomberg article, the realities and the possibilities are large and undeniable.  “And bank security officials believe the hackers may have been aided by the Russian government, possibly as retribution for U.S. sanctions over the Ukraine war.”

It is clear that the Russians have not reset, but seem to be engaged in upsetting.  The Russian hackers and the waves of Russians in our country who have overstayed their visas are a clear and present danger.  Our eyes are off the ball with the Hispanic influx. 

Is Putin using the Russian hackers to submarine our economy?  Will Putin be using the Russian mob to create havoc in the United States?  Just asking.