Bank Integritas - Alpharetta, Kagagalan Bank Georgia - Episode 351

Freesia Brindisi (0:01)

Good morning. Good morning. Thank you so much for joining me. This is the podcast, The Endurance of Labor Laws. I am your lovely host, Freesia Brindisi. Today is episode 351, and we're going to take a look at another failed bank. So let's go ahead and dive into this puppy here. So we're going to take a look at Integrity Bank. That name might sound familiar, but the reason why is because the word integrity gets used quite a bit in different bank names, even though they don't always have integrity. Unfortunately, these things happen. Not a fan of it, but it does happen. They can always do better in the future. But today we're going to talk about Integrity Bank, and this one failed, and this one was located in Alpharetta, Georgia. The acquiring financial institution was Regions Bank, and the Integrity Bank, this one particularly failed August 29th of 2008 I do have a little bit of background information regarding this one. So let me pull up that information here. This is directly from the FDIC.gov website. It says, on Friday, August 29th, 2008, Integrity Bank was closed by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance. The FDIC was named receiver. Regions Bank of Birmingham, Alabama acquired all deposit accounts. The FDIC as receiver for Integrity Bank in Alpharetta, Georgia has taken all necessary actions to terminate the receivership, which is what they should do, because again, the FDIC is not a bank, it's just the middle man in this particular regards. Goes on to say, the receiver published a legal notice of intent to terminate the receivership on August 11th in 2022, so quite a few years later. So I have a feeling there's a different acquisition going on here in regards to that. So the receivership was terminated August 11th in 2022 and has made all dividend distributions as required by law. So again, if it is not, excuse me, required by law, then they're not going to do it. The FDIC, much less any government agency, whether federal or state, they are not going to do things out of the kindness of their heart. They're going to do the bare minimum and that's just kind of how it is. Even though, let's say you know someone that works for the government and they are your next door neighbor. In regards to public sector workers, their job typically comes before their god, their faith, their neighbor, and their country, which is why communism and socialism, and sometimes fascism, are a big problem because people tend to put government ahead of god, so then you are worshiping your government and not your god, and that is a big problem with that. And that does tend to be a problem with federal workers. That's why typically I don't get along with people that are federal workers or even state workers because they typically are democrat, they are typically unionized, and they do not understand supply and demand, they do not understand that when you raise taxes, that creates a huge burden on the people because they think they should have access to your money and that's a big problem. So they're not always operating in the best interest of the United States. And when I'm talking about federal or state workers in terms of the public sector, I'm not always talking about leadership in terms of like the president or the vice president or even people in Congress or the Senate. I'm talking about the people that you would have no idea who they are or their name because you never meet them, you don't know them. And typically, you know, for example, we don't know all the names of the people that work for the IRS. I mean, you know who is running the IRS, like who is the big cheese. But a lot of these workers that are below the higher ups, they're just as big a snobs as the people that are higher up within these federal agencies. So it's one of those things that I've said times past. The biggest problem that we have within our government, whether federal or state, is that we don't know who these people are at all that are appointed or that are hired for these different positions. It's one thing if you vote for someone. It's one thing when you vote for the president, the vice president, and you vote for your different judges or whatever, basically within your state and things like that. Most people you know or you can look them up and read about them and decide whether or not you're going to cast your vote for them or for their opponent. In regards to these positions that are appointed, that's very dangerous there and those need to be limited. Like for example, Dr. Fauci, who has been given a pardon, which just sickens so many people, he should not have been given a pardon, but anyway, he is a 80-something-year-old bureaucrat that has worked for the CDC probably since the 80s and he was appointed to that position. So it's not like he has actually been seeing or diagnosing patients for probably 40 years or something, if not more. So these are professional paper pushers, they're bureaucrats and they're overpaid. They don't really do, I would say they don't really do good work because they don't have, well, they don't have the integrity that it takes to work in that role. And so that's why I think that if a position is appointed, it needs to have a term limit.