Glenn talks with Sarah Palin


Governor Sarah Palin

GLENN: Let me go to Governor Sarah Palin. Hello, how are you, governor?

GOVERNOR PALIN: I'm doing great. How are you, Glenn?

GLENN: Very great. If I call you Sarah, please don't take offense to it. I feel the strangest thing with you and I know my listeners feel the same way. You just, you're just like one of us. So? ?

GOVERNOR PALIN: Well, if you let me call you Glenn, I let you call me Sarah. I would just be comfortable with that.

GLENN: All right. First of all, are you clinging to either your God or guns currently right now?

GOVERNOR PALIN: No gun in my hand at this moment, but my God, yes.

GLENN: All right, good. You know, I have to tell you, I'm so glad to have you on the broadcast. You know, we spoke before they picked you and I've been saying for a long time that you are exactly the kind of person that we're looking for. I think you, in many ways at least for me, you represent hope that there is somebody out there that is normal, that hasn't over thought everything, that is not caught in this awful trap of, well, quite honestly? ?if you don't mind, let me just ask you this: At any time did you say to the handlers, just shut up and let me be me?

GOVERNOR PALIN: Oh, that's all that inside baseball stuff that, you know, hey. In these last two weeks we're going to do all that we can to get this message out there to American voters, letting them know what the choices are on November 4th. The choice is so clear, the contrast quite stark. So anything and everything I can do to get that message out, I'm going to do it.


GLENN: I don't know how America? ?what happened to us, Sarah, where you have a country that is willing to embrace socialism? Are we not embracing socialism with Barack Obama?

GOVERNOR PALIN: You know, maybe some voters have not realized what socialism entails and maybe young people brought up in some of the? ?under some of the curriculum in the schools are not quite aware that any hint at socialism really will punish productivity and hard work ethic and reward for that tough work ethic. Maybe just some voters aren't quite aware of where some of Barack Obama's, quote, tax cut programs could lead us, and it is a dangerous thing for our economy and for our country to be considering, though. We cannot flirt with this and now is not the time to experiment with, as Joe the plumber calls it, socialism.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I'm surprised that nobody has taken up the mantle, especially after you in the debate. I watched the debate and I saw the polling numbers, you know, the dial testing as you were going, and you started down this road that every single one of the politicians are saying, "Oh, well, these big evil people on Wall Street and, you know, these evil rich people" that we're duping people. But then you started in on? ?which I never heard and I actually cheered. It's time for some personal responsibility. It is time for people to take on the responsibility that they have for themselves. Why don't we talk about personal responsibility anymore? Why don't we reach out to the American people and say, "Hey, government is not the answer. Nine out of ten times government's the problem."

GOVERNOR PALIN: I know. Let us preach, reaching people when they know there is a candidate willing to talk about this. McCain talks about it, too, and in her rallies that, no, bigger government is the problem, it's not the solution. And we put government back on the side of the people in the state of Alaska by taking on corporate interests and taking on agenda that we're all about self dealing of politician, putting government back on the side of the people but still reminding Alaskans anyway that government is not the answer. Really it is the problem. And government can play an appropriate role in all the challenges, all the issues that we're dealing with today. But mainly government's got to get out of the way of the private sector and our families, their abilities and opportunities to grow and thrive and prosper. And you do that, federal level especially, by cutting taxes so that our small businesses and families can keep more of what they earn and produce and then reprioritize according to what they deem necessary and reinvest those dollars there instead of letting the politician do it for them. There's an appropriate role for government in meeting all the challenges that we face, but government is not the "Be all, end all."

GLENN: This is a Joe Biden gotcha question, just see if you're qualified to be President of the United States: How many letters in the words "Jobs."

GOVERNOR PALIN: Well, we got three letters in the word job. More importantly, four letters in jobs, and that's what we have to do, Glenn, is create jobs. You do that by letting our businesses keep more of what they earn and produce. That allows them to be able to afford more employees. That's how we get the economy back on track. That's just common sense stuff, common sense conservativism.

GLENN: What about the, what about the 95% of all Americans are going to get a tax cut? I mean, how do you get the message across to people that 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. And Barack Obama's saying, well, they pay Social Security tax. Well, so we're going to cut Social Security tax when Social Security's in the crapper? And that's not really income tax then that we're talking about, is it?

GOVERNOR PALIN: See, Glenn, people have got to hear his words, don't just be there at these rallies or anything else. Listening to what he's saying. You have to really, really hear what he is saying. Barack Obama claims that he will cut income taxes for 95% of Americans. The problem is more than 40% pay no income taxes at all. So how do you cut income taxes for folks who don't pay them? What he's going to do is write them a check and call that a tax cut, even though it's really a tax credit. And where is he going to get all the money for all those checks? By raising taxes on America's families and on our small businesses and folks just like Joe the plumber, and Barack Obama is playing with words to hide his real agenda of redistributing the hard earned money of American families and I mean, you've got to hand it to Joe the plumber in Toledo. He's the one who succeeded in finally getting Barack Obama to, in plain speak, explain what his intentions are for these quote/unquote tax cuts.

GLENN: Are you for this new stimulus package?

GOVERNOR PALIN: I say, you know, when is enough enough of taxpayer dollars being thrown into this bill out there? There's some points in it that make sense, some provisions in there that make sense, but how far are we going to go here in asking taxpayers to bail out even further, I guess entities, individuals, those who have made some poor decisions and then being able to kind of sit back and rely on others to prop them up and bail them out. This next one of the Democrats being proposed should be very, very concerning to all Americans because to me it sends a message that $700 billion bailout, maybe that was just the tip of the iceberg. No, you know, we were told when we've got to be believing if we have enough elected officials who are going to be standing strong on fiscal conservative principles and free enterprise and we have to believe that there are enough of those elected officials to say, no, okay, that's enough. We can use what we've already seen approved by congress and better use those funds even than how it's been laid out via the priorities that some in congress want to see the $700 billion spent. But when is enough enough.

GLENN: Barack Obama's running mate Joe Biden said yesterday that we're going to be tested with an international crisis in the next six months. He said that they are going to have to make some decisions that are going to seem wrong to the average person at first. Did you read this speech? He said that he was going to? ?that the decisions were going to seem wrong to the average American person in the first? ?in those six months and he was going to need people just to blindly stand by Barack Obama and Joe Biden and support those decisions because they would know better.

GOVERNOR PALIN: Okay. And? ?yeah, Glenn, I think that out of all the bizarre claims and proclamations in this entire campaign of Obama's and Biden's, that has to be the most bizarre talking point that I've heard yet.

GLENN: Do you think you'd get the same kind of treatment if you had said something like that?

GOVERNOR PALIN: Are you kidding? You know, have you noticed, though, that every time Biden wanders off message, he stumbles on the truth. And now, he didn't specify what the four or five scenarios for this international crisis that he says "Mark my word" is going to happen, he didn't specify what those scenarios are but, you know, all you have to do is review Barack Obama's foreign policy agenda to figure out what maybe one of those scenarios would be. And Biden did say, he told his Democrat donors at that fundraiser to mark his words, that those scenarios would place our country at risk in an Obama administration, and I guess we've got to thank Joe for the warning.

GLENN: Sarah, as a, not as a candidate but as an American, and I know you are an optimist and that's why I like you so much, but even if you weren't running, are we at a place in America, do you fear for the future of your country if people don't wake up?

GOVERNOR PALIN: I am puzzled by it. I think the tone of the campaign sometimes some days waking up looking at the direction of the campaign, puzzled there. Just take national security issues and then let's talk a little bit about energy independence issues, but national security. You know, for Barack Obama to have voted to cut off funding for our troops. My son's one of the troops over there. He's in Iraq today. To consider that Barack Obama had said? ?because he recognized it was the wrong thing to do, to try to cut off funding for our young men and women over there in a war zone. He said he wouldn't do it. Biden called him out on it and said, you know, this is political and this is going to cost lives. And Barack Obama, under political pressure, did it anyway, voted to cut off funding for the troops. Things like that puzzle me in terms of Barack Obama not having to further explain the decisions that he has made. Certainly we're perplexed by the associations that he's had and maybe has today and his record and not being called on these things. But specific issues that I think need to be talked about and questions asked of him, and we should be demanding answers also like the cutting off the troops' funding. It perplexes me the tone of the campaign where if we ask those questions, we're seen as mean spirited and negative campaigners and worse we're called. That's concerning to me.

GLENN: Sarah, Governor Sarah Palin, anytime that? ?and this is after the election, win or don't win, we would love to have you back anytime. The audience loves you. I think the average person in America is? ?just feels that, thank goodness, there is somebody that can walk onto the national scene for a lot of us just out of nowhere and not be a political machine. Don't get chewed up in it, Governor, and we look for you to serve our country for a long, long time ahead. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin hey, I appreciate that. Do we have one second to talk about energy independence?

GLENN: I'm on your? ?I'm already five minutes over. I don't want your handlers to yell at me, but I? ?you got it. You go ahead. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin I'll take care of that. Listen. There are national security issues that have to do with energy independence. Biden and Obama say no, no, no to the domestic solutions that we already have here. We can say yes to the drilling. We can say yes to the offshore drilling. We can say yes to the alternative sources of energy, nuclear and all these. Now, Biden and Obama have continually said no, which should send that message that they are fine, beholden to and reliant upon foreign sources of energy. Some of these countries we purchase energy from that can use energy as a weapon and they don't necessarily like America. That is one of those issues, Glenn, where the American voter had better be asking these candidates. Because we're trying to, as the opposition ticket, we're trying to ask the questions, but we're not getting a whole lot of help and follow-up through the media, of course, but from you and a couple of others. But what truly is their plan to get us firmly on that path towards energy independence in our country. They flip flopped all over on the specifics in their plan.

GLENN: No, they said they're willing to look at it. They're willing to look at drilling.

GOVERNOR PALIN: Right. Exactly. So people have got to hear what Barack Obama is saying, not just listening to those words and understanding that they are prettied up and packaged up to look like maybe mainstream policies, but you've got to hear what he is saying, the nuances. And he's very sharp there in his choice of words used even there on saying we'll look at such and such. But we have got to be an energy independent country and we can do this. And we have the ingenuity and we have the workforce. And instead of those hundreds of billions of dollars, U.S. dollars being circulated in foreign countries to purchase energy sources, they should be produced here, and they can be. We do have the resources in this country.

GLENN: Governor, thank you so much.

GOVERNOR PALIN: Thank you.

GLENN: And we hope to talk to you again soon.

GOVERNOR PALIN: I would love to. Thank you so much, Glenn. Bye.

On Monday, Biden exercised his veto powers for the first time to strike down a bill that would ban states from taking ESG into consideration when investing state pension funds. In his veto message, Biden said:

Retirement plan fiduciaries should be able to consider any factor that maximizes financial returns for retirees across the country. That's not controversial — that's common sense.

At the risk of using the loaded word "gaslit," it continues to be the operative word in describing the policies coming out of the Biden White House. It is painfully obvious that ESG itself inhibits investors from "maximizing financial returns." That was never ESG's goal in the first place. Yet Biden said the opposite.

ESG aims to incentivize investors to make "socially conscious" (a.k.a woke) investments, even if they are at odds with the greatest return on investment. It has enabled state governments and investment firms to use their monopoly over the investment space to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment. Isn't there a word for that? Extortion? Or modern-day politics?

ESG enables state governments to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment.

That is the sole reason why Republicans brought the bill to his desk in the first place: As Glenn said, "ESG poses a clear and present danger to the American way of life, the soul of our nation and every sector of our economy. ESG was never about ROI. It was always about pushing a leftist agenda.

And Biden knows this.

Why would he want to give up something that enables his political party and corporate elites to control and manipulate the political affiliations of their people? Who would want to give up that power? Biden certainly doesn't.

And he didn't.

Instead, he boldly asserts the exact opposite: that ESG itself "maximizes financial returns," relying on the divided American people to debate the policy into oblivion, while he gets exactly what he wants: the retention of power over the American consumer. Dare I say again that "gaslit" is the operative word here?

If one thing is clear, it is that we cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people. However, in this critical moment, the state governments are stepping up to do what the federal government refuses to: protecting the rights of the American consumer.

In a joint resolution led by Florida Governor Ron Desantis, 19 states have pledged “to protect individuals from the ESG movement" at the state level. This is critical.

We cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people.

Florida leads Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming in signing the historic policy agreement among all 19 states, pledging to ban ESG practices within their jurisdictions.

The anti-ESG alliance calls ESG what it is:

A direct threat to the American economy, individual economic freedom, and our way of life, putting investment decisions in the hands of the woke mob to bypass the ballot box and inject political ideology into investment decisions, corporate governance, and the everyday economy.

This alliance takes aim at two specific practices used by left-leaning states to force companies to adopt ESG-approved practices.

First, the alliance promises to protect "taxpayers from ESG influences across state systems."

While other states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund pro-ESG corporations, these states pledge to BAN this practice to ensure "that only financial factors are considered to maximize the return on investment."

The chief factor behind any investment should be determining whether that investment yields the maximum return on their investment. However, many states are using YOUR taxpayer-funded pension and retirement funds to invest in ESG-approved businesses. This not only forces businesses to consider adopting ESG standards in hopes of obtaining investment. Moreover, states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund them! Would you want your government to invest your hard-earned money for partisan purposes?

The anti-ESG alliance is taking the politics out of investment and putting consumer power back in the hands of the American people. These state governments pledged to make investment decisions based solely on maximizing the return on investment, not in using your taxpayer dollars to fund their political agendas.

Second, the alliance promises to protect "citizens from ESG influences in the financial sector."

ESG standards force businesses to consider the political leanings of their customer base. For example, Discover announced they will begin tracking its customers' gun-related purchases. One of the leaders behind this push is Amalgamated Bank, which boasts on their website that their institution "supports sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice." Amalgamated Bank CEO Priscilla Sims Brown said:

We all have to do our part to stop gun violence and it sometimes starts with illegal purchases of guns and ammunition The new code will allow us to fully comply with our duty to report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales to authorities without blocking or impeding legal gun sales.

This virtue signaling at the cost of your privacy is earning both Discover and Amalgamated ESG brownie points.

There are countless stories of Americans, like YOU, getting locked out of their bank accounts, dropped as clients, tracked and targeted, all because their personal political beliefs don't align with big corporations' ESG goals. Their individual privacy and dignity as a consumer aren't worth the risk of lowering the company's ESG score.

That's why the anti-ESG alliance is pledging to protect the residents in their states from this corrupt ESG exploitation. The alliance promised to ban "so-called social Credit Scores' in banking and lending practices aimed to prevent citizens from obtaining financial services like loans, lines of credit, and bank accounts."

They also promised to stop "financial institutions from discriminating against customers for their religious, political, or social beliefs, such as owning a firearm, securing the border, or increasing our energy independence."

In short, they have targeted the political extortion hidden behind the virtuous ESG veil to protect citizens from being discriminated against based on political affiliation.

It's time to step up.

Biden may have struck down the effort to restore the freedom of the American consumer at the federal level. However, these states are taking it upon themselves to do what they ought: to ban practices that threaten the freedoms and privacy of their citizens.

If your state did not joining the anti-ESG alliance, it's time to demand that they step up and do their job to protect you and the rest of your fellow citizens from corrupt ESG practices. As Glenn said, "The conservative movement is best when it moves in unison." We must act and unison and push our states to protect our economic freedom and our way of life.

How prepared are YOU to weather a future crisis? We recently published a brand new quiz so you can find out exactly how prepared you are. Whether you're a "prepper" with a bunker fit for the apocolypse or just want to feel more secure for the future, there is always something more to learn. That's why Glenn wants to give his newsletter subscribers his "Ultimate Preparation Guide," filled with practical tips for building a solid foundation to weather future crises. And let's face it—in our crazy world right now, who couldn't use a bit more peace of mind?

Enter your email below to get "Glenn's Ultimate Preparation Guide" sent straight to your inbox!

Editor's Note: Arizona House Bill HB2770 has since been shut down! AZ Rep. Rachel Jones tweeted that the AZ Freedom Caucus shut down the bill before it could reach the board. It is encouraging to see states stepping to protect the American people from getting one step closer to a Central Bank Digital Currency. Hopefully, Arizona will be a precedent for the other states!

On today's radio broadcast, Glenn warned about dangerous Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) language being smuggled into routine legislation in REPUBLICAN-led states. This is unacceptable, and as Glenn said, we can't let this legislation pass as it now stands.

The legislation being used to smuggle in this CBDC language is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a routine piece of legislation passed on the state level that helps standardize commercial and business transactions. However, a new round of UCCs being deliberated RIGHT NOW amongst a swath of Republican-led states anticipate the use of "electronic money." In a public letter sent to the Republican states currently deliberating this legislation, the Pro-Family Legislative Network said this can only refer to the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) under consideration and testing by the Federal Reserve. Biden's Executive Order 14067 issued in March of 2022 started the push for CBDC, and now these states, knowingly or unknowingly, are laying the legislative groundwork for making CBDC a reality.

There is absolutely no reason why Republican-led states should aid in laying the foundation for CBDC, yet 12 of them are deliberating it RIGHT NOW, with one UCC bill already on one GOP governor's desk! We have to act NOW to stop these UCCs in their tracks and demand our lawmakers amend the bills without the "electronic money" language.

If your state is listed below, contact your representative NOW to put an end to CBDC language.

1. North Dakota

North Dakota House Bill HB1082 passed BOTH chambers and is now sitting on Governor Burgum's desk. Burgun has 3 DAYS to veto this bill once it's placed on his desk—if not, it will pass automatically. If you are a North Dakota resident, it is absolutely CRUCIAL that you contact Governor Burgum's office NOW and demand that he veto this bill and re-introduce it without the "electronic money" language.

2. Arizona

Arizona House Bill HB2770 has been SHUT DOWN! See the above editor's note for more details.

Arizona House Bill HB2770 passed the House majority and minority caucuses. Arizona residents, contact your representative's office NOW so that they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

3. Arkansas

Arkansas House Bill HB1588 is in committee, and if passed, will head to the House floor. Though the bill is only in its beginning stages, it's important for Arkansas residents to stop this bill in its tracks and amend it without the "electronic money" language.

4. Missouri

Missouri House Bill HB1165 is also in its beginning stages in committee. That means it's important to contact your representative as soon as possible to amend it without the "electronic money" language.

5. Oklahoma

Oklahoma House Bill HB 2776 passed the House Committee and will go to a chamber vote soon. If passed, it will go to the Senate, then the governor's desk. If you are an Indiana resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6. Indiana

Indiana Senate Bill SB0486 passed the Senate and is headed to the House. Republicans control Indiana's executive office and BOTH chambers of the legislature. There is no excuse for this bill to pass. If you are an Indiana resident, it's vital you contact your representative NOW and demand they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

7. Kentucky

Kentucky Senate Bill SB64 passed the Senate and is now being deliberated in the House. If you live in Kentucky, contact your representative's office to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

8. Montana

Montana Senate Bill SB370 passed the Senate and was sent to the House on March 3rd. If you are a Montana resident, contact your representative's office NOW so that the bill doesn't without changing the "electronic money" language.

9. Nebraska

Nebraska's Legislative Bill LB94 passed committee and the first floor vote. As Nebraska only has one legislative chamber, this bill is dangerously close to passing the legislature and being sent to the governor's desk. If you are a Nebraska resident, contact your representative's office NOW and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

10. New Hampshire

New Hampshire House Bill HB584 is currently in House committee deliberations and has not yet reached the House floor. If you are a New Hampshire resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

11. Tennessee

Tennessee House Bill HB0640 didn't successfully pass the House. However, it was deferred to a Senate committee and has now taken the form of Senate Bill SB0479, which is now in committee. This bill is still alive, and it's important for you, Tennessee residents, to stop it before it reaches the floor! Contact your representative to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

12. Texas

Texas House Bill HB5011 was filed and is ready to be taken up by committee. Fellow Texans, let's not let this bill progress any further! Contact your representative and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6 things you NEED to know about the Silicon Valley Bank collapse

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is sparking traumatic memories of the 2008 financial crash. Should we be worried SVB is signaling a similar economic catastrophe, or is everyone overreacting to the media's hype? Glenn told his listeners to be "healthily terrified." This event is sure to have ripple effects throughout the economy, but the more you are informed about it, the more you can prepare. Here are 6 things you need to know about Silicon Valley Bank's crash—explained in simple words.

1. The short answer to what happened: SVB didn't have enough money to pay its depositors.

Remember the scene from It's a Wonderful Life when all of the residents make a run on George Bailey's bank demanding their money? Fortunately for them, their money was in the altruistic hands of George Bailey, who used his honeymoon savings to give the depositors the money they demanded.

Silicon Valley Bank's depositors weren't so lucky.

In short, the depositors made a run on Silicon Valley Bank, demanding the withdrawal of their money. But SVB simply didn't have the liquid money available to give their depositors, causing regulators to shut down the bank shortly afterward.

2. It all started with COVID...

Why didn't SVB have enough money for its depositors? To explain this, we have to go back to the pandemic era.

The pandemic saw a rapid decrease in spending and a massive increase in bank deposits. Due to the uncertainty of the future and lockdowns limiting ways to spend money on recreational activities, like restaurants, bars, and other outlets, many Americans stocked up money in their accounts. In fact, SVB's deposits doubled in 2021 alone, bringing in more money than they could lend out to their clients.

To make a return on their available cash, SVB wanted to invest it, as many banks do. Since they had reached their lending limit, they decided to invest it in U.S. Treasury Securities, which are the government's means of funding itself without using taxation (in a nutshell). These are considered "ultra-safe" investments because they are backed by the "full faith and credit of the federal government."

Unlike other forms of investments, investing in Treasuries means the government will do everything within its legal power to pay back the money used to fund itself. In other words, it is typically very safe... so what happened?

3. Then came the magic cocktail—record-high inflation and rising interest rates...

Interest rates ruined the typically "ultra-safe" investment. Due to 40-year record-high inflation, the Fed lifted rates eight times by a total of 4.25 percentage points in 2022, raising interest rates from 0.25 percent to 4.375 percent. This means the value of U.S. Treasuries investments plummeted rapidly. SVB reported that it lost $1.8 billion due to the decreased value of its Treasuries investments after a year of rising interest rates.

This raises the following question: why didn't SVB just weather the storm and wait for interest rates to decrease? There are two issues with this. The first is that, with so many of their assets held up in Treasuries investments, SVB still wouldn't have enough liquid assets to give their depositors during the bank run.

The second issue is that Treasuries investments have a ten-year limit. In 2021 during the Trump administration, interest rates were at an all-time low of 0.125 percent.

The record-fast increase of interest rates in 2022 caused very little chance for rates to go back down to their historic 2021 lows within ten years for banks to make their money back on their investments.

To avoid this, SVB planned to sell their investments at a loss and re-purchase Treasuries investments at the decreased value, giving them an extra ten years to bet on decreased interest rates in the future.

But people caught on to SVB's plan and didn't want to ride with the risk.

4. Account holders withdrew their money... FAST.

As aforementioned, SVP lost $1.8 billion when it sold its depleted Treasuries investments. While they were betting on being able to re-purchase the devalued securities, hoping that they would go up in value in the future with lowered interest rates, investors were worried about the risk.

Once they made the announcement of their $1.8 billion loss, their stocks began to drop, and venture capitalists warned the companies they invest in to pull out of SVB. This had a snowball effect, leading to a "bank run" of depositors demanding to withdraw their money from their SVB accounts.

This led to the perfect storm: SVB's investment losses coupled with the influx of withdrawals were so immense that regulators had to step in and shut the bank down to protect depositors. The government currently "running" SVB, for all practical purposes, is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC closed SVB on Friday and reopened the bank on Monday, March 13th as the Deposit Insurance Bank of Santa Clara.

5. Some people may lose their money. 

Banks insure accounts with $250,000 or less with FDIC insurance. That means, in cases of bank failure, exactly like this one, the FDIC covers all accounts less than $250,000. The FDIC said SVB customers who had less than $250,000 in their accounts will have access to all of their money when the bank reopens. Since it reopened this week, they should have access to their funds.

However, many of SVB's depositors had more than $250,000 in their accounts—it is Silicon Valley after all. Therefore, their accounts were not covered by FDIC insurance. Will they get their money back? There is a chance that they will not.

It is unclear how much SVB currently has to cover uninsured deposits. It is likely not enough. The FDIC has issued a "Receiver's Certificate" to the uninsured account holders with the amount in their account that is not covered by FDIC insurance.

The FDIC said it will pay some of the uninsured deposits by next week by liquidating any additional assets held by SVB. However, if the liquidated assets are not enough, many of SVB's uninsured account holders could lose their money for good.

6. Is this 2008 all over again?

SVB's collapse was the largest bank failure since 2008, when Washington Mutual failed with $307 billion in assets. Its failure, along with the collapse of the Lehman Brother's investment bank, triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Are we in danger of repeating 2008?

Some argue that we are not in danger of another economic catastrophe, simply because SVB holds less than 1 percent of the nation's assets. However, as Glenn warns, there is a danger of banks repeating the same mistakes as SVP.

SVP wasn't the only bank to use its surplus deposits to invest in U.S. Treasuries, which means that other banks are wrestling with the depleted value of their securities investments due to rising interest rates.

Bank of America, for example, lost $109 billion in their securities investments due to rising interest rates, the most among its peers—and Bank of America is no small fish in the ocean of assets.

Other major banks recorded other massive losses in their securities investments due to rising interest rates. JP Morgan Chase lost $36 billion, Wells Fargo lost $41 billion, Citigroup lost $25 billion, and Goldman Sachs lost $1 billion. If the little banks collapse, will they get the same effort and attention from the federal government as the "big guys?"

The critic may argue that these are still small values given the incredibly large amount of assets held in banks nationwide. However, this is missing the point. Major banks have majorly invested in securities since the pandemic-era skyrocketing rate of deposits. Now those investments are depleted in value.

They can either sell those investments at a loss, or they can wait and hope that they will recover over time. However, if those investments are no longer liquid, what happens when their depositors come knocking? Will they have enough liquid assets to cover a massive bank run? These are the lingering questions that our banks need to address.

As Glenn says, this will impact you—it is only a matter of time. What will you do to prepare?