I have to disagree with you!! Most banks are not insolvent. In fact thousands are doing just fine.

Also I was correct about their ability to borrow money.

WASHINGTON –– Congress on Tuesday signed off on allowing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to borrow as much as $100 billion from the Treasury Department and extending the agency's new deposit-insurance limit of $250,000 through 2013.

While the move increases the FDIC's potential liability, the agency's enhanced financial maneuverability is expected to help quell fears about the rising cost of bank failures, which have drained the agency's fund. The decision to prolong the higher insurance cap also reflects how many of the emergency measures taken as the financial crisis swelled last fall are starting to become longer-term fixtures.

The House of Representatives voted 367-54 for a bill containing the latest steps on Tuesday, and the Senate quickly followed suit. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation into law in coming days.

The measure is meant to boost confidence in the FDIC's dwindling deposit-insurance fund, which after a string of 25 bank failures at the end of 2008 fell to just $19 billion from $52.4 billion at the end of 2007. Thirty-three banks have failed so far in 2009.

The legislation also keeps in place the $250,000 insurance limit created last year when depositors were pulling funds from banks across the country due to fears about the solvency of U.S. financial institutions. The higher limit was set to expire at the end of 2009 and fall back to $100,000 for depositors in most cases.

The bill addresses a range of other issues as well. It would make it easier for borrowers to qualify for federal foreclosure-prevention programs, give loan servicers more protection from investor lawsuits once mortgages are modified, and provide the Government Accountability Office with more powers to investigate the way the Treasury and Federal Reserve use funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program set up in October to buoy the financial sector.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair pushed for months for the enhanced borrowing authority, which had been capped for years at $30 billion. Her requests received little attention on Capitol Hill until she unveiled a plan in February to assess more than 8,000 banks with a one-time fee to bulk up the deposit-insurance fund. Community bankers immediately lobbied Congress to boost the FDIC's borrowing authority so they wouldn't be hit so hard.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) said the bill was "very important to those smaller financial institutions that are the lifeblood of our communities and which have been unfairly tarnished in this most recent debate over financial institutions."

Ms. Bair said she would reduce the assessment if Congress passes the law, and she is expected to announce a plan to cut the proposed levy on Friday. FDIC officials have said the enhanced borrowing authority would give them more "breathing room," though they haven't said whether they expect to need it.

The legislation also allows the FDIC to borrow as much as $500 billion from the Treasury until the end of 2010, as long as the FDIC has the consent of the Treasury and the Fed.
Artical was in the Wall Street Journal May 21st of this year.

They are solvent only by using the cooked book method. Assets don't have to be marked at actual values in order to bolster the amounts banks can loan out currently. So...... Yes, using that flawed method they are solvent.

Ghost013,
That WSJ article is badly dated regarding failures. They have been moving fast.
Reason I say that is because a handcount from the list below shows 95 bank failures in 2009 so far. Maybe more this weekend. They seem to move on Fridays.
FDIC Failed Bank List

The FDIC has been slowing down in the closing of bad banks because they do not have the money to cover the deposits. They closed one bank last Friday. The bank had 2 billion in deposits and cost the FDIC over 800 million. That is almost 50% lost. It should not have gotten that high.

All banks are tied to each other via interbanking system. If one bank fail it will affect all the banks.

You are correct. I was only quoting that article to show that they have been approved to borrow money from the fed and may borrow up to 500 billion if done by 2010 after that it drops to 100 billion. (not saying this is a good thing, just clearing up the facts)

I have been in the banking industry for almost 10 years now. The bank I work for has not taken TARP funds nor will we. We just purchased another small bank in Oregon that went under.
We are being hit by loan loss however we have always had strict credit guidelines for loans so the loss is minimal compared to banks who took risky loans. We have been able to offset loan loss through normal income channels, we are not making a lot of money however we are growing and not losing money.

People who say "most banks are involvement or only show not insolvent because of shady math" don't seem to comprehend how many banks are actually out there. My bank is a fairly small community bank who as indicated is branching out as opportunities arise.  As of June 2009 the FDIC lists a total of 7000 Commercial banks nationwide (not listing savings and thrift banks) back in 1990 there were over 12000  commercial banks. I believe we have seen a little over 100 bank closures this year, some were part of the thrift/savings banks.

The drop in banks from 1990 to now include a % of FDIC closures, mainly however we see Large commercial banks buying up smaller banks.

I point out these numbers only to show even if we close 1000 banks this year (to me would be a high number) that would still leave 6000 commercial banks as well as thousands more savings and thrift banks. This to me indicates the majority of banks are doing ok and will survive without bailout money.

My point of view.
The bailouts are killing the normal process of things and actually hurting stable/strong banks. Normal business is for the strong to buy out the weak and then move forward. With the government stepping in it has greatly hindered that process and hurt through delaying the inevitable strong small to mid sized banks.

The people (not on this site really) need to understand this. WE DONT NEED ALL THE BANKS WE HAVE. Let the normal process take place, stop bailing banks out and let the FDIC take them over. The FDIC will broker deals with well capitalized banks to take a portion of the loss, have them pay a % of money for the deposits that the acquiring bank will take over and then move the fuck on to the next one. YES it will cost the tax payers money however after a year or two of this you will see a stronger banking institution.

What were seeing now is tax payer money spent to keep banks open through the bail out plan AND then tax payer money being spent through the FDIC to cover bank takeovers/closures.

The Government if fucking up strong banks buy paying for weaker competitor banks to stay open....

Was your bank ever dinged by FedGov for not making enough loans to certain segments of the population?

No, our cra file has always received high ratings. CRA regulations have no control over credit worthy clients. You (banks) are no bound to grant loans to unqualified candidates.