|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Chicago Times Dick Durbin: Bank of America customers should 'vote with their feet' By Lisa Mascaro and Michael Muskal 3:23 PM CDT, October 3, 2011 Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Bank of America customers who don't want to pay a new $5 monthly debit card fee should "vote with their feet" and find a financial institution that won't charge them for accessing their accounts. "Get the heck out of that bank," Durbin said Monday on the Senate floor. "Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month. ... What Bank of America has done is an outrage." Bank of America announced the fee days before new limits went into effect on the amount banks can charge merchants in "swipe fees" for debit card transactions. Durbin led the charge for limiting bank card swipe fees as part of the financial reform legislation approved last year, saying the charges were costing retailers too much. The new limits went into effect Saturday. When Bank of America announced the new $5 fee, it was quickly seen as a result of the swipe fee reform -- and dubbed the "Durbin fee" by some. Bank of America has said the reduced "swipe fees" would cost the institution $2 billion annually. The bank had previously announced it would be cutting 30,000 jobs. The senator stood proudly by the "Durbin fee" moniker Monday. "I am honored to be connected with this effort," he said. "What we are doing is fair." In an interview with ABC News and Yahoo on Monday, President Obama defended his administration's action to limit credit card fees in general and criticized the new fees being imposed by BofA and other banks. "What the banks are saying is that, rather than take a little bit less of a profit," the industry would prefer to charge its customers more, Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "This is exactly why we need somebody whose sole job it is to prevent this kind of stuff from happening." Obama said the new fees can be stopped through competition. "My hope is, is that you're going to see a bunch of the banks who say to themselves, you know what, this is actually not good business practice," he said. ---- Quote:
"What the banks are saying is that, rather than take a little bit less of a profit," the industry would prefer to charge its customers more, Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "This is exactly why we need somebody whose sole job it is to prevent this kind of stuff from happening."
Since when should businesses be forbidden to actually do what they are in business for, to make money? This really shows how Obama views business.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
We most definitely need more stringent and prudent banking regulation.
Unfortunately, it won't happen, as our government is inept and corrupt.
Beyond that ... $60 a year to have a debit card? GTFO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
Banks lost a tremendous amount of money when they stopped being able to charge people for bouncing checks.
They have had massive restrictions placed on what they can charge on other fees.
Banks make money in only 3 ways .... fees, transactions and interest on loans.
With rates what they are today, there is little money to be made in loans. No banks are going to get back into anything resembling sub prime stuff. Money of high quality loans will never approach what they made on the sub prime/marginal stuff. Credit cards can carry a higher rate, and most people do not pay them off every month, so they do make money here.
Banks have been restricted as far as what they can charge on transactions. This was another way that banks could make money.
They next, and really last way for a bank to make money is fees. Personally I won't ever pay a debit card fee. I don't think that my bank would charge me anyway. If they did, I would just use my Discover card. I pay it off every month anyway, and they keep sending those nice checks every time I charge a thousand dollars. Anyway .... some people would follow suit, most would either pay it or change banks. That's the market at work.
Banks are in business to make money .... same as any and every other business. If they can't make money in one way, they will cut costs to retain their margins. People will lose jobs ... and that's just what we need now.
The bottom line is that no one has to use a debit card. People can pay cash or write checks. With automatic clearing, checks are accepted more and more. For those with small amounts of savings, or no savings at all, then the choice may be open a savings account to cash their paychecks .....pay the fee to the bank ..... or pay a fee to WalMart or other businesses to cash their paychecks.
I worry that our entire system is under attack, and that the government is dictating to private businesses in areas they really have no business in. The government owns AIG .... they own GM ...... they own more and more businesses ... and that scares the hell out of me. What stops the government from legislating their competition out of existence?
Government should ensure that peoples' rights are not infringed upon. Government should make sure that people are treated equally under the Constitution. They should get the hell out of areas they don't belong ..... because it always has unintended consequences, and always winds up hurting more people than it helps. As far as banks goes, the government should ensure that no one's rights are infringed .... and no one has a right to a free debit card. No one has a right to a loan at any particular rate or terms. What people do have is the right to be treated equally by a bank with regards to race, creed, color and all other protected classes, to ensure that people are not discriminated against for Constitutionally protected factors. That's it. Get the hell out of the way as far as the rest goes. The marketplace will take care of the rest.
I am reminded of a bank that was going to charge people to talk to a live teller. That lasted about a week, because it was a horrible idea, and people voted against it with their feet. Those same banks then tried to charge people for using the ATMs. Same thing happened. The market has a remarkable way of weeding out really bad ideas.
Government just winds up creating more bad ideas.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Banks lost a tremendous amount of money when they stopped being able to charge people for bouncing checks.
As they should've. The overdraft systems most banks used were predatory policy that fed on the underclass.
Chase, for example, would tier purchase clearances to maximize penalty. There was a whole system that made sure the highest purchase amounts were processed first, even if they were made last, in order to get as many $35 dings as possible.
Quote:
The marketplace will take care of the rest.
Again, like I said in the other thread, these mantras hold no weight in practice. Our attempts to leave the market to it's own devices in the past were failures, and we are currently fighting against the currents of their principles in order to keep afloat.
My coffee hasn't set in yet, so I'll just copy and paste from the other thread...
Quote:
You and DC believe that the free market would right itself, or 'eventually figure it out', but frankly, I don't see how that would work, exactly.
The answers to the scenarios never make practical sense. 'Small businesses will crop up to replace the ones who failed'.
More likely is that larger companies from other countries will come and take over. If our titans of industry are killed off by foreign competition, how is it to be expected that U.S. small business with take the time to grow - undisturbed by the vultures of foreign competition - to the point where they themselves can take on what the large companies failed to do?
If we had a free market capitalist system, we would've been demolished as a superpower and an economy a long time ago. Foreign companies would've overrun the bulk of our major industries. We'd to an extent be serfs, a commodity that both toils for you and gives up it's income.
We have a long, storied history of protecting and bailing out our industries when they're on the brink of failure, and if we thought the little guy could step up to the plate, we wouldn't, but we know that foreign competition would blow ahead, and the more that happens, the weaker the nation gets.
Now, what I've described is pretty much what's been happening to us over time, and we have been ardently pushing against it, putting it off ... essentially we've been doing our best to fight free market capitalism, as it would probably be the end of us.
We're not #1 anymore, and we haven't been for a long time. In so many industries, we are bested by the foreign competition -- smarter, harder working, cheaper labor, cheaper materials, advanced innovation, better product ... what's the end result of that in free market capitalism?
A lot of major American industries would've had their last rites read decades ago if it weren't for government interference.
And all government interference has done is delay the inevitable.
Had we left Bank of America to it's own devices, it likely wouldn't exist anymore. And it's doubtful that the little guy wouldn't have stepped up in his place ... foreign titans would've likely gobbled up the scraps. The only way to stop it is to receive government assistance or for the government to legislate favor against foreign markets, both of which we've done since most of us have been alive.
Honestly - this free market that's always supposed to work itself out ... when has this ever happened? When has it been successful in history? Can you name even one American industry that thrived unfettered?
Just about any market you can think of -- banks, automobiles, technology, electronics, insurance, agriculture, textiles ... every single one has thrived as a direct result of collusion between government and private business.
I'm not saying that's how you should do things ... but that's how we do things. That's how we've done things for a very, very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,117
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,117 |
I am with Durbin. Some protections of businesses and consumers, the gouged herd, were being killed with fees. Not with those who cry about Bank of America being "hurt" by this. We voted with our feet and joined a credit union, and I am saving money and chucked a number of banking fees. His advice is worth considering, unless the post is limited to howling in public about this too is Obama's fault. Just fed up with cater4ing to cash crowd at every turn. Please pay the nice people if you support more of the same fees. 
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
That's just it, the government should be able to mandate the min/max charge for things, but rather should have regulated the way those fees could be implemented. Such as the order in which items are deducted from your balance to ensure your not hit with multiple overdrafts.
They were stupid to think the Bank wouldn't find another way to raise money.
now I think the debit card fees are stupid and will not help their business, and people are free to go find another bank who doesn't charge, but it should never have come to this.
It's one thing for the government to help protect it's citizens, it's another to tell a business how and what they can charge for things.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
j/c
About 9 years ago, I worked at a hotel here in the Keys that had their business account with BofA. At the time I didn't have my own checking account at a bank down here (still had the Dollar Bank account in Cleveland), and I walked in to cash my check....presented my ID, signed my check and was promptly told I had to give a fingerprint and pay a $5 charge to cash my check that was drawn on their bank. I had never heard of such a thing. When I politely protested the $5 charge, they of course tried to sign me up for a account, but prior to asking me to open an account, the lady who was there told me very simply that "Bank of America is huge, we don't need small accounts like yours. Suck it up and open an account." Needless to say I didn't open an account, lol. And I have never done business with BofA since, nor will I. Every time I look around, I see a new fee, or new charge, or new way of getting my money from my pocket to theirs. I am amazed they are as large as they are considering the crazy things they do.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
I'm with a small bank that has 3-4 branches. When you call, you get a real person and they address issues immediately. Once, my wife forgot to make a transfer and we could have had several overdraft charges, but they called us to see if we wanted to transfer some funds over the phone! They were also wonderful when I had an identity theft issue a while back. I didn't have to pay any of the fraudulent charges. This bank will have my business as long as I need a bank.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
We signed up with a local credit union a couple years ago. No fees on the account unless we don't meet the minimum monthly requirements -- one direct deposit, 12 debit card transactions, and another one I can't recall at the moment. We have never failed to meet those conditions AND they pay us something like 4% interest per month when we do meet the terms. I don't get it...they are paying US for banking with them and not making a dime.
I love it!!
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
And if BOA failed .... then it should have failed ....... I happen to think that they would not have failed ...... and that Bush was overly concerned about credit market liquidity, and he needn't have been. The credit markets largely froze anyway ...... so what was the point of
I was against the bailouts, banks especially, from the word go. However, BOA repaid it's TARP loans ahead of schedule. We're still waiting on GM ... and AIG .... and City Group .........
Personally I think that GM and Chrysler (and AIG and City as well) should have been allowed to fail too. Someone would have picked the bones, as the government wound up doing, or they would have restructured as GM wound up doing .... ..... but it wouldn't have cost the taxpayers billions we'll never see paid back ..... and it wouldn't have given the government/UAW appointed board of GM the ability to negotiate a new deal that basically starts the "new" company down the same old path that led to a taxpayer bailout to start with. How much would GM have "made" of they had to repay the $20-30 billion taxpayers will never see, because GM stock will never reach the necessary levels for it to bring that kind of money? The company should have out that money into a side fund that would be used to repay the government if the sale of stock didn't do so ..... but instead they gave the UAW a sweetheart deal just in time for the elections .....
That's always a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
I just hope these megabanks don't run the small guys out of business. Rather than bail them out, we should have let them fail, taken our lumps and gone into a depression....which is where we're headed anyway. It would have been much easier to climb out without the additional 1.4 trillion in debt.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,086
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,086 |
Hey,, love him or hate him, he's not wrong, if you don't like what someone is charging you for a product or service, go to another vendor.. I sure as hell would.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Hey,, love him or hate him, he's not wrong, if you don't like what someone is charging you for a product or service, go to another vendor.. I sure as hell would.
I'd agree except Durbin is the one who created the mess by trying to regulate the banks in the first place which got the ball rolling on these new fees. He's the one who kept on writing bills to take away cash flows from banks which enticed banks to find new ways to make it up and make money, like any good business's goal is to do.
Quote:
(from Phil) As they should've. The overdraft systems most banks used were predatory policy that fed on the underclass.
They were not predatory on the underclass. They were predatory on idiots who could not keep track of the account enough to not overdraft from their bank account. While some of the practices were shady, it was the consumers fault for overdrafting in the first place. Instead of fixing the shady portion, they just decided to ban them outright because after all stupid people most have someone watching over them.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
My girlfriend just switched over to ING. I agree with Durbin, don't put up with it. I hear that it may go on everywhere in due time, but for now, people can send the message by dumping BOA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
My girlfriend just switched over to ING. I agree with Durbin, don't put up with it. I hear that it may go on everywhere in due time, but for now, people can send the message by dumping BOA.
It's not that I don't agree with Durbin, it's the fact that he created this issue and now is trying to push his blame on them. I would change banks as well and have done so already when Chase started to charge fees on my checking account.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
I think they need to come to a happy medium with the swipe charges.
Taking it out on the customers is not the way to go. The economy is bad enough right now, the banks don't need to be taking anything more from the people.
I don't go political on this board, but it's pretty obvious that if you keep taking money like this from everyday people, that everyday people who by the way, make up the majority of this country, will not go out and spend their money.
I have my own issues with Durbin and his cohorts in the state of IL. Mainly the gigantic hike in state income tax they put in last January.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I think they need to come to a happy medium with the swipe charges.
Taking it out on the customers is not the way to go. The economy is bad enough right now, the banks don't need to be taking anything more from the people.
I don't go political on this board, but it's pretty obvious that if you keep taking money like this from everyday people, that everyday people who by the way, make up the majority of this country, will not go out and spend their money.
Swipe fees are charged to businesses who agree to pay them so they can get more customers who pay by debit. The people arguing for lower swipe fees are doing so on the assumption that these businesses will pass the savings onto the consumer, which probably will only go towards lining their profits instead.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
I think they need to come to a happy medium with the swipe charges.
Taking it out on the customers is not the way to go. The economy is bad enough right now, the banks don't need to be taking anything more from the people.
I don't go political on this board, but it's pretty obvious that if you keep taking money like this from everyday people, that everyday people who by the way, make up the majority of this country, will not go out and spend their money.
I have my own issues with Durbin and his cohorts in the state of IL. Mainly the gigantic hike in state income tax they put in last January.
Who do they take take it from? Charge the store for when customers use their debit cards, which in turn just raises their cost of business and in turn raises the price on all their goods to cover it.
No matter who changes what, in the end, it's the consumer who will foot the bill, but our politicians are good with buzzwords and double speak so the weak minded in our country will believe the politicians are looking out for them.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,086
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,086 |
Quote:
Quote:
My girlfriend just switched over to ING. I agree with Durbin, don't put up with it. I hear that it may go on everywhere in due time, but for now, people can send the message by dumping BOA.
It's not that I don't agree with Durbin, it's the fact that he created this issue and now is trying to push his blame on them. I would change banks as well and have done so already when Chase started to charge fees on my checking account.
Blame schlame... the point is, if you don't like what your bank is charging you, change banks..
Banks are not the rosey little children in this mess either. I know you don't think that Tux, but Banks aren't your best friends.. They will take every one of your dimes if you give them half a chance..
Example: Go to an ATM other than at your bank.. I've paid as much as $3.50 to pull cash out. Then I've had my bank charge me another fee for using an ATM other than thiers. That stopped the moment I saw it and complained. But if I hadn't, they'd have kept on charging me. (my argument was that they didn't have a branch within 5 miles of where I was)
I find $3.50 to be too high for any bank fee for ATM use, but if you need the cash and your bank doesn't have an ATM handy, you gotta do what you gotta do.. so when that happens, I pay it, cringe a little and move on. But there isn't ANY good reason for my bank to add a charge on. NONE.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
They were not predatory on the underclass. They were predatory on idiots who could not keep track of the account enough to not overdraft from their bank account. While some of the practices were shady, it was the consumers fault for overdrafting in the first place. Instead of fixing the shady portion, they just decided to ban them outright because after all stupid people most have someone watching over them.
This is not entirely true. They were predatory on the underclass because they are the ones living paycheck to paycheck and day to day.
I've give you some examples that happened to me.
Example #1
I have x amount of dollars in bank and have about an extra 80$ in there.
I use my debit card for some bills and depost my check that day.
next day Im overdrawn by a couple hundred for some reason and the day after its up to 400 and some change.
I go into bank to find out whats going on.
They say well you made these charges on your debit card so we put a hold on that money. Ok so what?
1 we processed you largest check first. Which left me with 5 overdrafts of alll under 30$
Then we deposited your check. And subtracted all the fees.
The we processed the next day all the debit card stuff (that they put the hold on in the first place) and bounced all those as well.
When they simply could have
Step #1 cashed the check.
Step # 2 deducted the checks.
No overdraft.(I left that bank btw)
Another time they mistakenly took my morgage payment twice.
1st time correctly then hit my account again 5 days later.
Bounced checks everywhere.
Then proceed to tell me it was a BANK ERROR but because its direct withdraw/depost I have to get the money and fee's back from my morgage company because they cant just take it back.
Took me about a month just to get the money back from the morgage company and they gave me the same line. It wasnt our fault you need to get the bank to drop those fee's.
I have a 3rd that was worked out just the other day. The teller put my check into the wrong account. Again bounced stuff everywhere. Dumb part is the teller asked me which account and still put it the wrong one.
So no, its not all people that dont pay attention. Banks did shifty things to ensure they could gauge the most money out a person as they could.
They also will charge you a fee for excessive overdrawn even though the reason for it was all the charges for being overdrawn then start to charge you every day you are overdrawn.
The Gov did the correct thing in correcting that practice by banks IMHO.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Blame schlame... the point is, if you don't like what your bank is charging you, change banks..
That's NOT the point, as you like to think. You need to reread everyone's comments, and you will see we aren't complaining that the bank is charging fees. In fact we all agree that we knew it was coming.
We are discussing the governments mandates which in cause banks to find a new way to make up for the lost revenue, the same mandates this guy was part of and is now acting like the big bad banks are screwing the consumer. While they are and always have, they are doing it in this manner BECAUSE of what this blowhole was part of mandating.
THE POINT IS, government should not be telling businesses what they can and cannot charge. The only regulation they should have if any is to ensure the business isn't using unscrupulous procedures to maximize the fees they can charge (ie: debiting the largest to smallest causing many overdrafts on an account, versus debiting the smallest to largest, lessening the number of overdraft charges.)
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My girlfriend just switched over to ING. I agree with Durbin, don't put up with it. I hear that it may go on everywhere in due time, but for now, people can send the message by dumping BOA.
It's not that I don't agree with Durbin, it's the fact that he created this issue and now is trying to push his blame on them. I would change banks as well and have done so already when Chase started to charge fees on my checking account.
Blame schlame... the point is, if you don't like what your bank is charging you, change banks..
Banks are not the rosey little children in this mess either. I know you don't think that Tux, but Banks aren't your best friends.. They will take every one of your dimes if you give them half a chance..
Example: Go to an ATM other than at your bank.. I've paid as much as $3.50 to pull cash out. Then I've had my bank charge me another fee for using an ATM other than thiers. That stopped the moment I saw it and complained. But if I hadn't, they'd have kept on charging me. (my argument was that they didn't have a branch within 5 miles of where I was)
I find $3.50 to be too high for any bank fee for ATM use, but if you need the cash and your bank doesn't have an ATM handy, you gotta do what you gotta do.. so when that happens, I pay it, cringe a little and move on. But there isn't ANY good reason for my bank to add a charge on. NONE.
Your example is why I always use my bank's ATM and try never to use another bank's ATM. If I'm forced to do so, then it's convenience fee for me not carrying cash on me, or I try to avoid it further and buy something at a store and ask for cash back. It's not like these ATM fees were some secret charge. You should know what your bank charges you for doing such things.
And the issue here is not about the banks charging more and what you should do, which if your bank does charge you more, you should go find a new bank. The issue is that you have the person, who created this extra regulation on banks that got the banks to look for new revenue streams, pushing things onto the banks for his actions which were to the extreme. After all, overdraft fees were not punishing poor people, but those being stupid with their money. Heck, I overdrafted a few times myself and after getting charged enough I was more careful when I had low balances. The trouble with that was he went from one extreme to the other. Instead of just saying that banks can only charge a single overdraft fee, he's saying they cannot charge them at all. Then he's lowering fees the banks can charge other businesses to accept debit, which they agree to in the first place to gain more customers who pay with debit, on a poor assumption that these businesses will pass their new savings back to their customers rather than line their own pockets with this newly found profits.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think they need to come to a happy medium with the swipe charges.
Taking it out on the customers is not the way to go. The economy is bad enough right now, the banks don't need to be taking anything more from the people.
I don't go political on this board, but it's pretty obvious that if you keep taking money like this from everyday people, that everyday people who by the way, make up the majority of this country, will not go out and spend their money.
I have my own issues with Durbin and his cohorts in the state of IL. Mainly the gigantic hike in state income tax they put in last January.
Who do they take take it from? Charge the store for when customers use their debit cards, which in turn just raises their cost of business and in turn raises the price on all their goods to cover it.
No matter who changes what, in the end, it's the consumer who will foot the bill, but our politicians are good with buzzwords and double speak so the weak minded in our country will believe the politicians are looking out for them.
The swipe fees are in addition to the % that is charged to the merchent. This is an added on fee and just for pure profit. The consumer is paying for in the end but the problem is all customers are paying that fee even if paying cash.
IE go get a pizza and use a card. Go buy the same pizza using cash. Price is the same but cost of using a CC/Debit card is worked into that price and the cash paying customer is being overcharged.
They (the gov) wanted a cashless monetary system and we are paying in the end for that system even though it makes it easier and cheaper for them.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
Quote:
I find $3.50 to be too high for any bank fee for ATM use, but if you need the cash and your bank doesn't have an ATM handy, you gotta do what you gotta do.. so when that happens, I pay it, cringe a little and move on. But there isn't ANY good reason for my bank to add a charge on. NONE.
ever been to vegas? those cash machines in the casino charge a lincoln for using them. it's ridiculous. one of these days it's gonna cost 20$ to take out 20$
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,086
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,086 |
I really don't need to reread anything, I knew what the point was and to me it's a non starter. Banks were overcharging, congress took steps to halt those practices they deemed usury.
You may not agree with congress, you may feel that banks should be allowed to charge whatever they want.. and to an extent, I agree, but when it's clearly usury and deceptive and pointed at the lower middle to lower income brackets (and it clearly is) that's not right either.
But as banks always do, they will find another way around it.. My bank sent me a letter saying that if I didn't agree to overdraft fees, they couldn't guarantee they'd pay out when/if I overdraft. Oddly enough, they wouldn't guarantee they would pay out if I agree to allow overdraft fees either.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Personally I think that GM and Chrysler (and AIG and City as well) should have been allowed to fail too. Someone would have picked the bones, as the government wound up doing, or they would have restructured as GM wound up doing .... ..... but it wouldn't have cost the taxpayers billions we'll never see paid back ..... and it wouldn't have given the government/UAW appointed board of GM the ability to negotiate a new deal that basically starts the "new" company down the same old path that led to a taxpayer bailout to start with.
But it would have destroyed the American auto manufacturing industry. That's what I'm getting at. 'Someone would have picked up the bones', yes, and it would most likely not be not be the United States.
We don't want free market capitalism, as it would destroy us as a superpower and an economy.
I ask again:
This free market that's always supposed to work itself out ... when has this ever happened? When has it been successful in history? Can you name even one American industry that thrived unfettered?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
very few people actually want a completely free system. it doesn't entirely work. just like any system really. however, it is the one system that seems the easiest to branch out from. it rewards the harder workers while allowing paths for upward mobility in the class ranks. yes, there needs to be some regulation (how much is where the arguments begin), but I have yet to see a better starting point.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
A Chinese company wanted to buy the "new" GM anyway. Fiat bought Chrysler. US companies ...... whatever. GM will soon be an international concern. The government cannot hold onto its shares forever, and they also cannot say who can, and cannot buy those shares. Who has the money right now? For all we know, Ford might have leveraged and bought up the profitable parts of GM had they failed. Another manufacturer may have as well. There is value in the GM nameplate. Even if a foreign company had bought them, they probably would have restructured what GM had .... similar to what the government wound up doing ...... except for the fact that the government poisoned things so that no one but the government could come in and break out the profitable from the unprofitable. The whole thing with GM had one agenda .... and that was to protect the unions and their contracts. That was it. There are 48,500 union workers in the US at GM plants. In an era where million of jobs are being lost, that's a pretty small percentage. I believe that, until the government poisoned GM, they could have gone through bankruptcy, and emerged leaner, and more capable ... without government ownership. There was no need whatsoever for the government to take over a private company and dictate who would be in charge. None. There was no need for the government to make policy concerning the bankruptcy proceedings. The government could have said: "OK GM, you go through bankruptcy, and when you are clear of your bad assets and debts, then we will have a sparkling, beautiful loan waiting for you. But no ..... the government had to get their hands in there ..... take over the company ..... and make it clear that unless it happened this way, if GM filed bankruptcy without that agreement, there would be no government assistance. The government steered GM and Chrysler both into bankruptcy. The government insisted t=on the terms of those bankruptcies. The government, instead of doing a loan, took ownership of the company. (something that was unheard of before this) The government sold Chrysler, a US company, to a foreign automaker and called it a victory. Of course the government still owns a controlling share in Chrysler .... and while they are "silent" ... you can be sure that the union will get a sweetheart deal from them as well. It just amazes me that, in a time where people are losing their jobs ... wages are falling .... and we have record poverty, the government decided that GM workers ............ after the US taxpayers bailed them out and saved their jobs to start with, with money that the taxpayers will never see returned ..... that those workers deserved raises and bonuses. I don;t care what they had to "give up" over the time since the taxpayers bailed their asses out .... they didn't have to give up their jobs. That's a whole lot better than many people are doing these days. People complain about Wall Street. No one at GM or Chrysler, from the CEO down to the part time janitor should have seen a raise until every penny of taxpayer money was repaid. Now we know that the taxpayer money will never be repaid from the remaining shares of GM the government owns ... because the price would have to more than double for that to happen. That's not going to happen when the economy sucks, and the government is forcing bad labor deals down the taxpayers throats. Once the taxpayers were repaid, then I don't care what the new owners of GM wanted to pay their workforce. However this was a political payback from the word go, and it stinks to high heaven. As far as the free market .... someone would have bought up GM, most likely in pieces, as happened in the bankruptcy deal anyway. The nameplates have value, and someone would have bought them. What they would not have bought was the labor agreements, and the massive pension debt. The "new" GM didn't buy those either. However, the government gave the union a preferred seat at the bankruptcy table, and placed their pensions 100% ahead of other creditors and shareholders. That's crap. It was just the start of crap. If the free market had been allowed to operate, GM would have gone bankrupt much as they did anyway. They would have then had to look for a partner. That partner would have restructured the company much as the government did. They would have rid themselves of their toxic and unsustainable debts, restructured the rest, and moved on. The government made sure that couldn't happen, and the rest is history.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
[QUOTE]People complain about Wall Street.
Too many people are complaining about Wall Street IMO and are putting their problems on them. When a bunch of them made their own mistakes like getting an art degree and expecting a job to appear after they graduate. No one has self-responsibility anymore and expect things to be handed to them. That is what I'm seeing from these Occupy Wall Street protests.
They want Free Healthcare, Free Education and want to get rid of Oil instantly without a viable replacement in the name of AGW and want to place everyone ("We are the 99%") into their group, whether they like it or not.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I don't particularly like this line of inquiry (I think it's childish and obtuse, but you guys love to do it to mac when he has weak arguments that can easily be debunked...)
I ask a third time ...
This free market that's always supposed to work itself out ... when has this ever happened? When has it been successful in history? Can you name even one American industry that thrived unfettered?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Too many people are complaining about Wall Street IMO and are putting their problems on them. When a bunch of them made their own mistakes like getting an art degree and expecting a job to appear after they graduate. No one has self-responsibility anymore and expect things to be handed to them. That is what I'm seeing from these Occupy Wall Street protests.
OK, let me give you a personal example ...
We'll keep it John Q. for purposes ... John Q. works for the railroad for over 30 years. He saves his money. He invests his money. Wall Street burns his investment like it's Monopoly money.
John Q., a low educated military man (Korean War) who earned his blue collar living on the railroads and "wisely" invested in low-risk mutual funds, loses $70,000 in retirement savings in 2008 due to Wall Street's attempt to get quarter profits a bit higher.
Is he an idiot? Is he to blame?
(He exists. PM me if you want to give him a shout and get his opinions on Wall Street)
Your argument focuses solely on the lowest common denominator. It's a hollow point made by reducing the field.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
* For the record, I think these Wall Street protests are as misguided, uninformed, and idiotic as the Tea Party rallies.
Both are earnest in spirit, but naive in practice and voice.
If you look at one of these things as being dumb, and the other being inspiring, you need to take look in the mirror.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
Can you name one industry that would not have thrived more without any government interference?
Can you prove it?
Of course you can't. It's impossible to prove either way. You can cite some examples where government intervention has helped industries, and where government contracts have helped businesses thrive .... but regulations also cost money, so is it a gain, a loss, or a draw?
As far as businesses that thrive unfettered, most small businesses thrive when not subjected to punitive regulations. If a person owns a small business, and works on his own, he could work for whatever he can earn, or in some cases, whatever he can trade for.When he must follow laws relating to taxation, regulations regarding licensing, etc., this becomes far more difficult.
Small businesses sometimes grow to become larger businesses, and then industries. Most major manufacturers followed this path over the years. Many that survived the Great Depression did so by virtue of manufacturing ramping up for war production. However, many of those businesses originally grew to prominence because of the free market.
If you go back further to the earlier days of this country, farmers thrived without government interference. Some used vile practices like slavery, but they did well without an abundance of government regulations.
Looking at what hurt businesses like GM, and brought about their government created bankruptcy and takeover, in many ways it was government regulations that hurt them. Requiring fuel economy standards despite what customers want hurt. Safety standards may help, but the market drives those as well. One company creates a new safety feature, and everyone else starts including similar equipment in their vehicles. Government standards may try to force the issue, but people want to be safe, and the market would force features people want into vehicles. Government forces vehicles onto people that they do not want.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
Also, look at what the Lacey Act is doing to the Guitar industry.
Gibson is in real danger of either going out of business or moving out of the country. It is almost impossible to import/export many musical instruments because of materials used 100 years ago that are no longer legal to import/export. These items were perfectly legal at the time.
Just another example of regulation run amok. Gibson Guitars is paying the price.
I hear the DOJ is planning on raiding Sesame Street next week.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Too many people are complaining about Wall Street IMO and are putting their problems on them. When a bunch of them made their own mistakes like getting an art degree and expecting a job to appear after they graduate. No one has self-responsibility anymore and expect things to be handed to them. That is what I'm seeing from these Occupy Wall Street protests.
OK, let me give you a personal example ...
We'll keep it John Q. for purposes ... John Q. works for the railroad for over 30 years. He saves his money. He invests his money. Wall Street burns his investment like it's Monopoly money.
John Q., a low educated military man (Korean War) who earned his blue collar living on the railroads and "wisely" invested in low-risk mutual funds, loses $70,000 in retirement savings in 2008 due to Wall Street's attempt to get quarter profits a bit higher.
Is he an idiot? Is he to blame?
(He exists. PM me if you want to give him a shout and get his opinions on Wall Street)
Your argument focuses solely on the lowest common denominator. It's a hollow point made by reducing the field.
So investing in Wall Street is a sure thing? It isn't and it has been a risk and always has been a risk. Unfortunately, he along with many others got burned by it. Of course, he's going to be upset at it, but he's the one who choose to invest the money in a risky venture. Low risk, High risk, it's all a risk.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
Quote:
So investing in Wall Street is a sure thing? It isn't and it has been a risk and always has been a risk. Unfortunately, he along with many others got burned by it. Of course, he's going to be upset at it, but he's the one who choose to invest the money in a risky venture. Low risk, High risk, it's all a risk.
Wow, you're cold hearted. A lot of middle class people, who for years were continuously told that investing in safe, blue chip funds was a wise investment strategy, lost their retirement savings. It wasn't due to ignorance or taking foolish risks. It was due to mismanagement by Wall St. and the government that didn't allow for a level playing field for the small investor. Attitudes like that are what turn people away from the conservative movement.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
Wow, you're cold hearted. A lot of middle class people, who for years were continuously told that investing in safe, blue chip funds was a wise investment strategy, lost their retirement savings. It wasn't due to ignorance or taking foolish risks. It was due to mismanagement by Wall St. and the government that didn't allow for a level playing field for the small investor. Attitudes like that are what turn people away from the conservative movement.
I disagree .... the only investments that are "safe" are the FDIC investments at the bank ... the ones currently paying what? A quarter of a percent of interest?
The first thing that they tell you when you try to invest is that you are rewarded for the amount of risk that you bear. You could gain the world or you could lose it all. By simple mathematics people should see that if investments were EVER guaranteed then they wouldn't be worth anything because ... anyone could get them. That's why TBills and bank deposits pay so little.
Sure the markets crashing in the last decade (twice ... perhaps three times if you give it another 6 months) were harder than average ... but investments aren't guaranteed! I don't think he was being cold, he was just saying that it's not guaranteed by definition of investing.
Investing is like the draft. Even competent GM's will miss sometimes and even "sure thing" blue chip players won't pan out. It doesn't mean that the system doesn't work ... in fact it reinforces the idea that you need to be wise with your investments and not just assume that they will all pay back 5 to 10% annually ...
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
There were an awful lot of people affected, and it wasn't due to being wise with their money.These people were being wise by what they were taught.....don't put all of your eggs in one basket, spread your risk, etc. That's what blue chip and index funds were supposed to do....be the lower risk safer investments. The funds themselves were supposed to diversify their own portfolios....and for what they were paying vs. the high return riskier funds, they should have been very safe investments.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
There were an awful lot of people affected, and it wasn't due to being wise with their money.These people were being wise by what they were taught.....don't put all of your eggs in one basket, spread your risk, etc. That's what blue chip and index funds were supposed to do....be the lower risk safer investments. The funds themselves were supposed to diversify their own portfolios....and for what they were paying vs. the high return riskier funds, they should have been very safe investments.
Low risk does not mean that there is no risk at all. While they might be safer than high risk investments, they still were never "safe" investments. What happened was that the market crashed, which was from a lot of reasons. Look at the housing market, a lot of people treated that as a safe investment as well and got burned because they thought there was no risk, because after all "housing prices always go up."
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Not disagreeing with you at all. I apologize if it sounds like I was or attacking you.
I've come to realize finance and economics are very difficult to deal with for some because if it's only numbers then it makes sense ... but people's mindsets become clouded when it's not X% lost X% ... rather when it's "my dad" or "my brother" or "my mom" or even "me."
People were hurt and many in a way that they obviously didn't deserve. Corporations and government both screwed up and forced many problems onto people who were working and investing diligently. However ... even if something has a 99% safety net ... our economy (and in some essence the globe) hit that 1% opportunity / scenario over the last few years.
Everyone trusted the monte carlo simulation methods. They work. BUT ... we invest under the premise that nothing is true ... even if it's 99.999999% perfect ... there is STILL margin for error and for crash. That's all that happened.
Not arguing people deserved it, just arguing that it will happen and that by definition of risk some items will come back down and crash except for guaranteed bonds and bills ... and those have a MUCH lower rate of return.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Dick Durbin vs. Bank of America
|
|
