View Full Version : Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
montanadave
04-29-10, 14:10
Gimme a break! These Wall Street ****s can't have it both ways--they game the system so they can privatize all the profits but "socialize" the losses by screaming "the sky is falling!" when their house of cards starts to collapse and expect the rest of us to bail 'em out.
And what choice do we have? My retirement accounts (and those of about a hundred million other folks) were gonna go up in smoke if somebody didn't try to put out the fire these greedy pricks started because they needed a second heliport for their beach house in the Hamptons or a hockey rink with a Zamboni garage on their Greenwich estate.
When these SOBs decided to game the system, package bundles of shit for client A and then sell it with a straight face to client B, taking a commission on the sale while actively betting against their own product, and then begging for bailouts so they could hand out multi-million dollar bonuses to the very bastards that created this steaming pile of shit, guess what? I think they've made enough money, too!
Naaaaahhhhh, he's not a socialist.....
Or a multi-millionaire himself. Hypocritical to say the least.
I think they've made enough money, too!
Let me know how your 401k does when they "stop making money", ok?
Well then he should push for a lower wage on his salary.
And what is with all the people clapping when he states something? He hasn't fixed any "problems", he's just acknowledging that they "exist".
Is this what our society is now?
I work in banking, I've worked in banking for 10yrs and I can tell you there are a lot of shady practices going on......
So you're guilty of profiting off of a corrupt institution? Fractional reserve banking trumps debit card charges in my book.
If you're a scumbag making 60million - 100million a year and you lay off 25% of your workforce just to keep the walstreet analysts, who don't know their heads from their asses, happy then yeah I think you're a douche bag. I work in banking, I've worked in banking for 10yrs and I can tell you there are a lot of shady practices going on......I think the shadiest is the over draft fees on debit cards....those cards and the software that supports them are setup to hit you with big overdrafts....i'm not talking 1 or 2 but in groups of 4 and 5. You see what they do is when you go over they pay the largest of first...this is because if you over have 5 charges of say 3.25, 5.00, 2.50, 50.00, and 2.25. That's 63.00 and let's say you have 45.00 in your account..well wouldn't it make sense to pay the 3.25,5.00,2.50,and the 2.25 first...then your overdrawn for the 50.00 and you're charged 38.00 dollars.....OUCH that sucks, my bad...I'll try to keep a better eye on my money. Well they don't do that.
Here's what the bank does: they take the 45.00 in your account and pay the 50.00 first, but hey there's not enough to cover this, so your get hit with a 38.00 overdraft and you still have the 3.25,5.00.2.50, and the 2.25 showing....well those are all overdrawn as well, so you get charged 38.00 bucks per over draft.....count em that's (5) OVERDRAFTS totaling 190.00 dollars!!! WOW it's amazing how just changing that one formula can make a bank 5 times more money!! Now let's put into the equations some more tricky shit, like the fact that the two most frequent charges on your card are for gas and food or drink.....did you notice that most gas charges show up initially as 1.00 dollar? Even if you bought 70.00 bucks in gasoline the charge on your card will be for 1.00 while it's pending....and then it will hit your account for the full 70.00 when it posts...hmm...if you buy anytihng else at teh gas station it's not going to show as a dollar, so why gas...it's to make you fail and hopefully overdraw your account. The same as food and drink charges where there is a tip space...when you put your tip on they run the charges to make sure it clears your account.....they get paid at the end of the night so you know the bar or restaurant has verified the funds through your card, but the card will show as a pending charge just the amount of the meal or the bar tab....and then when it posts..it will be for the full amount plus the tip.....they hope that with these shady practices you will not keep track of every charge and mess up once in while...and then WHAM they get you! To the tune of several BILLION a year.....yes BILLIONS of dollars of your hard earned money paid in FEES that were put in place to make you fail!!! These are institutions that are crying foul rigth now and trying to make changes so that congress doesn't put new laws on the books to force them to stop their underhanded silly shit. Hell I'm sitting here writing this on a bank owned computer as I'm revieiwing loan applications and putting notes in the system on how my bankers in my district can cross sell new bank products to these people....I hate what I do and I think banks are the biggest crooks in the world....
Don't spend money you don't have.
Be responsible, get a rewards credit card and pay it off at the end of the month. Get the rewards and pay no fees.
montanadave
04-29-10, 15:11
The rest: Personal responsibility doesn't end when it comes to stuff you aren't familiar with. You bear the burden to make sure you know what's going on with your money and that includes your retirement/investments etc. Just like I expect no one to feel sorry for me when I wade into something I'm unfamiliar with and get burned in the process, I don't feel a thing for those who didn't see this coming. Why do people involve their hard earned money in things they know absolutely nothing about and then feign surprise when it doesn't work out........? It is a shit situation to be sure but it's one of personal creation.
I appreciate your reply but disagree with the conjecture that the "shit situation" which I and countless others found themselves was "one of personal creation." I didn't invest in any collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps. I own my home free and clear and sure as shit didn't buy or sell any sub-prime mortgages. I just put my money away in my retirement accounts like my dad, my president and my financial advisor said I should, and spread it around in a half dozen no-load mutual funds comprised of stocks and bonds. Nothing exotic going on here. No get rich quick schemes. In fact, a fairly conservative investment portfolio, by most standards.
A portfolio that got shot to shit when the financial markets exploded and make no mistake about it--these Wall Street ****s lit the fuse. Honest folks (of which I am one) play by the rules and work towards securing their financial future, only to have pricks like these set the whole house on fire, indiscriminately taking down the good and the bad. And we couldn't try to salvage the "good" without saving the "bad" as well, as they had permeated the entire system with their "toxic" assets.
I've got nothing against people making money but I think we should make money by creating wealth, using capital to create tangible assets of proven worth. When it becomes nothing more than a zero-sum game and I can only make money by stealing someone else's, now that's a shit situation and one I want no part in creating or perpetuating.
Be responsible, get a rewards credit card and pay it off at the end of the month. Get the rewards and pay no fees.
Obama the idiot and his stupid remark aside...while you offer good advice you must have missed most of what HK wrote. It's not about the card with the most rewards, it's about a system that is often intricately designed to trip a person up when they either make a simple mistake or even worse are struggling financially.
As a supporter of Capitalism, I can't imagine wasting one keystroke to defend such blatant, sneaky, greedy crap.
Don't spend money you don't have.
Be responsible, get a rewards credit card and pay it off at the end of the month. Get the rewards and pay no fees.
That's your answer? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the way debit cards are set up.....and yeah buddy a lot of people are living check to check in this economy, they don't need someone trying to screw their accounting up and then hit em with a couple hundred dollar charge. If you're going to respond at least be knowledgable or you're gonna sound like an asss.
From back when I was a branch manager 8yrs ago I would hear these stories, and in my experience, most of the time it was younger people trying to do the right thing and the average actual overdrawn amount were for less than 50.00 dollars, but the average ovedraft charges were greater than 300.00 dollars....WTF?
While I think anyone in America should be able to make as much as they can, I'm disinclined to feel sorry for the Goldman Sachs types when they went hat in hand for our money to bail out their shitty deals. I love how defensive they got before Congress when they invited this scrutiny upon themselves. Apparently they failed to take that into consideration along with all the other risks they failed to appreciate.
**** em' is what I say. :D
VooDoo6Actual
04-29-10, 16:08
insults most people's intelligence and I find it disgusting.
variablebinary
04-29-10, 16:20
Don't spend money you don't have.
Be responsible, get a rewards credit card and pay it off at the end of the month. Get the rewards and pay no fees.
That is not a problem.
The problem is companies that issue credit dont want to eat losses. They love to profit, but hate to lose.
If you loan out a shit load of money, and no one pays, you go out of business, and someone either buys your debts hoping for a profit, or lots of people get a free home because their debtor doesnt exist anymore.
That is what should have happened. Instead, that chimp Bush, and the buffoon Obama thought it was a good idea to bail out business entities to which they have strong political ties.
It's a scam. Our government is overrun with gangsters and crooks.
The very fact that they believe that they can knock on the Treasury door and expect to get funds for losses means we've failed pretty hard as a country.
I can't blame them though, they were flat out told to make more credit available by our federal government. Which implied that the government would back them if that credit went stale. It did, so they asked for the implied protection that was offered.
RancidSumo
04-29-10, 16:44
That is not a problem.
The problem is companies that issue credit dont want to eat losses. They love to profit, but hate to lose.
If you loan out a shit load of money, and no one pays, you go out of business, and someone either buys your debts hoping for a profit, or lots of people get a free home because their debtor doesnt exist anymore.
That is what should have happened. Instead, that chimp Bush, and the buffoon Obama thought it was a good idea to bail out business entities to which they have strong political ties.
It's a scam. Our government is overrun with gangsters and crooks.
Or the third and best option is you repossess their shit. If they don't pay for it they don't get to keep it.
That's your answer? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the way debit cards are set up.....and yeah buddy a lot of people are living check to check in this economy, they don't need someone trying to screw their accounting up and then hit em with a couple hundred dollar charge. If you're going to respond at least be knowledgable or you're gonna sound like an asss.
From back when I was a branch manager 8yrs ago I would hear these stories, and in my experience, most of the time it was younger people trying to do the right thing and the average actual overdrawn amount were for less than 50.00 dollars, but the average ovedraft charges were greater than 300.00 dollars....WTF?
You're right. My lack of knowledge of the banking system, bundled mortgages and credit default swaps was evident.
We are all victims and need to be protected.
Posting in GD indeed made me look like an ass.
RancidSumo
04-29-10, 17:24
That's your answer? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the way debit cards are set up.....and yeah buddy a lot of people are living check to check in this economy, they don't need someone trying to screw their accounting up and then hit em with a couple hundred dollar charge. If you're going to respond at least be knowledgable or you're gonna sound like an asss.
From back when I was a branch manager 8yrs ago I would hear these stories, and in my experience, most of the time it was younger people trying to do the right thing and the average actual overdrawn amount were for less than 50.00 dollars, but the average ovedraft charges were greater than 300.00 dollars....WTF?
Thats too bad but nobody made them spend more money than they had and they agreed to the conditions when they got the card.
Don't spend money you don't have.
This.
Also, as far as greedy Wall Street people "gaming" the system, I don't have a problem with them doing anything they can come up with short of fraud - and I mean REAL fraud, the legal definition of it and not what you subjectively think is "fraud" because you don't like it.
I do have a problem, as others have pointed out, with them expecting a bailout every time the downside risk hits them too hard. They took the risk to make huge returns, they can take it up the ass when it doesn't work, like the big boys that they think they are.
That's your answer? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the way debit cards are set up...
And what? The fact that you get charged an overdraft fee for OVERDRAWING YOUR ACCOUNT is some great mystery or travesty? It's common knowledge, it's common practice, it's right there in your account agreement, and it's AVOIDABLE.
So yes, the reply of "don't spend money you don't have" is a perfectly good one. If you are so daft that you find yourself regularly overdrawing via your debit card and getting hit with an "unfair' overdraft fee, then cash your paycheck and stuff it in your mattress instead so you can see exactly how much money you have and avoid the problem entirely.
The problem is companies that issue credit dont want to eat losses. They love to profit, but hate to lose.
Yes, that's sort of the idea behind EVERY business, isn't it? I don't really see that as a problem. The problem is that lenders got too eager to lend and too lax about the people to whom they extended credit, and now we have banks folding and cries for government help. So yes, it's their fault, but they are definitely eating huge losses now.
Why would the fed gov bail them out?
Now the "referee" is also playing the game.
I lost money too, but I don't want the fed gov anywhere near my retirement savings!
And what? The fact that you get charged an overdraft fee for OVERDRAWING YOUR ACCOUNT is some great mystery or travesty? It's common knowledge, it's common practice, it's right there in your account agreement, and it's AVOIDABLE.
So yes, the reply of "don't spend money you don't have" is a perfectly good one. If you are so daft that you find yourself regularly overdrawing via your debit card and getting hit with an "unfair' overdraft fee, then cash your paycheck and stuff it in your mattress instead so you can see exactly how much money you have and avoid the problem entirely.
As much respect as I have for your opinion most of the time, I am clueless as to where you are coming from here. This man works in the industry and he is speaking absolute fact. I don't work in it, yet I will verify almost every word via first hand experience. Yet you see no issue whatsoever? In fact we can no make a fool of him for shedding light on a situation that absolutely exists?
Maybe just one question for you, counsel. If I may, of course. Is it ok for any financial industry, this as a whole, to strategically take advantage of those who have made an accounting error or are already down financially? This via sneaky tactics?
Example: Joe Johnson has $350 in his checking account, yet has a minor problem. Out of perceived necessity, he wrote out $370 in checks to his various utility companies. One was for maybe $200, one for $100 and the other $70. The bank gets all 3 in the same day and does the math.
Well, Mr. Johnson is $20 short, so what will we (the bank) do about his rare mistake? Remember, this as the financial institution who's very existence depends on such folks entrusting us with their monies. And this so we can then use their money as our leverage via other loans.
Instead of doing what hopefully you or I would, which is simply pay the the checks that are covered without issue, they would rather assess them as a group resulting in all 3 being returned with overdraft fees.
Now you tell me, what is the overall, long term benefit to taking such un-necessary, deplorable actions against Mr. Johnson? Their long time customer who's funds in fact make up their very fabric?
This man works in the industry and he is speaking absolute fact. I don't work in it, yet I will verify almost every word via first hand experience. Yet you see no issue whatsoever?
I agree entirely that it's a "fact" that many banks will charge you if you overdraw your account. That's not in dispute here. No, I don't see an issue. You agree to it in your account agreement, you are or should be aware of it, and you can avoid it by:
1. Not overdrawing your account
2. Getting a small overdraft line of credit (I've had one for years, even when I was a student and had no real income or credit to speak of)
3. Maintaining a savings account with an automatic overdraft protection link to your checking account.
Maybe just one question for you, counsel. If I may, of course. Is it ok for any financial industry, this as a whole, to strategically take advantage of those who have made an accounting error or are already down financially? This via sneaky tactics?
Pretty loaded question there. Aren't you taking advantage of the bank when you take an unauthorized loan from them by overdrawing your account?
What is "sneaky" about an overdraft fee when it's right there in the account agreement you signed and listed on the bank's brochures and website under their terms and fees?
Example: Joe Johnson has $350 in his checking account, yet has a minor problem. Out of perceived necessity, he wrote out $370 in checks to his various utility companies. One was for maybe $200, one for $100 and the other $70. The bank gets all 3 in the same day and does the math.
Joe Johnson needs to not overdraw his account and not "play the float" on checks, or not be surprised when he gets overdrawn or one of them bounces.
If you have a problem with your bank's policies, feel free to shop around. There's more than one retail bank out there, you know, and perhaps some are more lenient than others.
Joe Johnson needs to not overdraw his account and not "play the float" on checks, or not be surprised when he gets overdrawn or one of them bounces.
If you have a problem with your bank's policies, feel free to shop around. There's more than one retail bank out there, you know, and perhaps some are more lenient than others.
Well once again you are conveniently missing the boat, as I specified that most banks will in fact specifically look for and excuse to not only return all submitted items, but also charge a fee for them.
This is completely unnecessary and the absolute equivalent of a softened "****-you, but hope you deposit more money for us to utilize for our lending profit soon! And don't let the door hit you in the ass as you walk out justifiably frustrated, good sir."
What a pathetic joke. Can't believe anyone of intellect would support such garbage. But then again attorneys are often well paid for minimal work per case, this as they often comment on their own clients idiocy and do little to proactively help them beyond textbook tactics. No surprise here I suppose, but surely some very justifiable disappointment.
Well once again you are conveniently missing the boat, as I specified that most banks will in fact specifically look for and excuse to not only return all submitted items, but also charge a fee for them.
So? It's not "looking for an excuse" when your account agreement says that this will happen.
This is completely unnecessary and the absolute equivalent of a softened "****-you, but hope you deposit more money for us to us to utilize for our lending lending/profit soon! And don't let the door hit you in the ass as you walk out justifiably frustrated, good sir."
No, it's more like a term in a contract you signed, and it's there to discourage you from trying to take unauthorized loans. You're also free to take your money elsewhere (including your mattress if you want) or arrange various means of overdraft protection. I guess you'd rather just bitch about the big bad bank keeping you down, though.
I get so tired of this populist, proletariat bullshit. Overdrawing your bank account is a **** UP. YOUR **** up. It's avoidable in so many different ways and the consequences are spelled out for you in an agreement that you sign. It could not be any clearer. It's astonishing to me that anyone of intellect would think that being irresponsible is the bank's fault. I always thought that overdrawing your bank account was an embarassment, like having to file for bankruptcy, and that you should be the one apologizing and making things right.
What a pathetic joke. Can't believe anyone of intellect would support such garbage. But then again attorneys are often well paid for minimal work per case, this as they often comment on their own clients idiocy and do little to proactively help them beyond textbook tactics. No surprise here I suppose, but surely some very justifiable disappointment.
Yeah, we don't spend lots of money and time going to school or work long hours enforcing and protecting things like contract rights, something you seem to find offensive when you don't like the terms.
By the way, where can I find this "well paid for minimal work per case?" Also, where can I get a big book of these clients who will pay me lots of money to call them idiots and do nothing of value? Perhaps these are the same people who overdraw their accounts and then bitch about the fees instead of going and finding a new bank?
You see what they do is when you go over they pay the largest of first...this is because if you over have 5 charges of say 3.25, 5.00, 2.50, 50.00, and 2.25. That's 63.00 and let's say you have 45.00 in your account..well wouldn't it make sense to pay the 3.25,5.00,2.50,and the 2.25 first...
If you really worked in banking as you say you should know that if multiple items come in to be paid and there is not enough money in your account to pay them all that the bank can't pick and choose which to pay.
It is either a computer recognized pay order of high to low or low to high, and it is consistent for all customers as the compute has to be coded for one routine or the other. Some banks choose low to high and and some choose high to low.
The premise for high to low, the routine that you are ranting against, is that the larger checks on average are more important to the customer than the smaller checks and thereby more important to pay first.
Using your own example above, but changing the largest item to an amount of $2000, which is a mortgage payment. What if you have enough in the bank to barely cover your mortgage payment, but not cover the other 4 small checks. Do you honestly expect me to belive you would want the bank to pay the 4 small checks thereby bringing your balance below the $2,000 and then return your mortgage payment for NSF? Or your car payment?
And, as dbrown says, if someone wants to avoid the charges, all they have to do is keep enough money in the bank so that it doesn't happen. Or make other arranges for credit to cover such events.
I am by no means rich and I have never had a late payment charge or NSF check in my life. It is call personal responsibility and living within one's means.
So?
This classless, heartless reply speaks for itself. Congratulations on the accomplishment.
No, it's more like a term in a contract you signed, and it's there to discourage you from trying to take unauthorized loans. You're also free to take your money elsewhere (including your mattress if you want) or arrange various means of overdraft protection. I guess you'd rather just bitch about the big bad bank keeping you down, though.
No big bank is keeping me down, stop looking to make yourself appear smarter than you evidently are. I mean really, where are you finding this simplistic garbage? You apparently lack business ethics, yet since you are an attorney I suppose so it's no big surprise to anyone.
I get so tired of this populist, proletariat bullshit. Overdrawing your bank account is a **** UP. YOUR **** up. It's avoidable in so many different ways and the consequences are spelled out for you in an agreement that you sign. It could not be any clearer. It's astonishing to me that anyone of intellect would think that being irresponsible is the bank's fault. I always thought that overdrawing your bank account was an embarrassment, like having to file for bankruptcy, and that you should be the one apologizing and making things right.
This absolutely elitist comment is as shallow and simple as it is deplorable. You are breaking all kinds of records tonight.
Yeah, we don't spend lots of money and time going to school or work long hours enforcing and protecting things like contract rights, something you seem to find offensive when you don't like the terms.
How typical coming from a trail attorney. This is why you folks earn your bad names.
Elementary fact: Any institution that values their clients does their best to respect them while working with them fairly. Not **** them over when the opportunity arises for profit. I suppose Law school stripped you of this viewpoint, like many before you.
I now have less respect for attorneys overall than I did before thanks to your input this evening. But I always appreciate valuable insight, so thanks for that anyhow.
Personal attacks and blather
I'm not even going to bother responding to this nonsense, except to say that one of the cornerstones of "business ethics" is understanding and honoring basic terms of a contract - like not overdrawing your bank account or paying the penalties if you do.
While I do believe that the "system" is a failure, I want Barry O'Bomber to keep up with the verbal shenanigans..as he who speaks with a sharp tongue is apt to slit his own throat. His random "topic of the day" propaganda bitch fests are entertaining.
Safetyhit, You have far more bleeding heart tendencies than you realize.
At times perhaps, but that does little to do with my discussion of relevant facts right here and now. And really, my heart is not bleeding this evening ZDL, I am clarifying predatory business practices that I have experienced as well as heard about from numerous clients. My current financial situation is just fine, sir.
That coupled with a complete lack of objective experience in the area you are currently splashing around in.
Now this simply incorrect. I have given common, relevant examples that happen to good banking customers every day. Yet they are ignored by most here. But that's OK, I don't and never had to need to go with anyone's flow just because they believe I should.
I've experienced these shyster tactics myself and I know they are both real as well as wrong. In fact I have also spoken to bank employees such as HK who feel very much the same, but they need their paycheck so they play the game regardless.
And by the way, what is HK's motive for sharing this common knowledge (if you have been paying attention to the banking world) with us? Doesn't sound like he is or was down on his luck financially. Just sounds a bit disgusted and even feeling guilty for being part of the very real problem.
This thread is/was about Obama and his socialist viewpoints. All of which I could not agree with more. I want the man gone from office yesterday.
But to condone banks who gouge both because they can due so via strict adherence to fine print that they hope no one will read (for good reason, since it's border's on the unethical) as well as flat out being able to kick a man when he is down via that trash print, is no noble cause to take up to this length.
Lastly, anybody ever heard of cutting a good ****ing customer a break once in a while, or are we too hard and superior here to consider such things?
Bulldog1967
04-29-10, 20:50
FBO. :mad:
I have a beef with the underlying sentiment about earnings. Will BHO apply the same standard to NBA stars? Hollywood A-listers? I doubt it.
i just want to how he managed to split 5.5mil in earnings with the nutrition czar.
Business_Casual
04-29-10, 21:54
The very fact that they believe that they can knock on the Treasury door and expect to get funds for losses means we've failed pretty hard as a country.
I can't blame them though, they were flat out told to make more credit available by our federal government. Which implied that the government would back them if that credit went stale. It did, so they asked for the implied protection that was offered.
I agree. The guys that work on Wall Street are the best students from the best schools. Other people don't make the grade, literally.
They aren't stupid and they don't go risking huge sums of money without an idea of what can go wrong.
What has gone wrong is that the Federal Government is eliminating moral hazard for their classmates at Goldman Sachs. Ever heard of Lehman Brothers? Yeah, they are out of business because they weren't Paulson's classmates. Crony capitalism is as bad or worse than socialism.
B_C
dbrowne1 has a harsh way of delivering is view, but I believe he is correct.
I have lived by his basic "code" for my enitire life, no matter how rich or poor. I have never bounced a check or overdrafted, and have an outstanding credit score. I don't spend money that I don't have, and I don't expect anyone to let me do that for free.
This accomplishment involved things like walking to work instead of making car repairs or purchasing a car when I really wanted to, and eating PB&J instead of take-out. Some people might get screwed, but the majority could prevent it.
My only disclamer is that I did choose to stay single until I was stable. Having to go through that with kids would be painful.
variablebinary
04-29-10, 23:10
Yes, that's sort of the idea behind EVERY business, isn't it? I don't really see that as a problem. The problem is that lenders got too eager to lend and too lax about the people to whom they extended credit, and now we have banks folding and cries for government help. So yes, it's their fault, but they are definitely eating huge losses now.
Crock of shit. You play, you pay. Not the tax payer. These gangster dont have the balls or guts to play in a the capitalist system.
They aren't eating the losses sufficiently. As in going the hell out of business
PrivateCitizen
04-30-10, 01:26
dbrowne1 has a harsh way of delivering is view, but I believe he is correct.
I have lived by his basic "code" for my enitire life, no matter how rich or poor. I have never bounced a check or overdrafted, and have an outstanding credit score. I don't spend money that I don't have, and I don't expect anyone to let me do that for free.
This accomplishment involved things like walking to work instead of making car repairs or purchasing a car when I really wanted to, and eating PB&J instead of take-out. Some people might get screwed, but the majority could prevent it.
My only disclamer is that I did choose to stay single until I was stable. Having to go through that with kids would be painful.
I am gonna throw in here late in the game …
Dunderway, spot on.
My wife and I have for over 15 years made every credit payment on time, cleared every check, and busted ass to see that it is this way. Really busted ass …
We have had who knows how many arguments over it at times, frustrated & angry that we are seemingly up agains a wall … but we always managed to make it work?
Why? Because I put my word, MY NAME, to a promise that said I would abide by terms … and damnit I did. That signature means something to me.
If you have 200 bucks in your pocket you don't walk into Walmart and get to spend 250. Your checking/debit account is no different. No amount of oiling it up and rubbing it down with tears will change it. Buck up and wear a cup.
If I ever screw up and over draw my account or pay late I know exactly what to expect and I am not gonna get all 'big banks hate me' …
VooDoo6Actual
04-30-10, 03:16
Doing this from iPhone so bear w/ me....
America is clearly changing.
Imo, this thread is clearly vitriolic & has a short fuse.
Greedy, corrupt, evil spirited, cunning people coupled with tactics like deception, convoluted syntax, obfuscation, prevaracation, non disclosure, breech of fiduciary duty, detrimental reliance, fraud by inducement etc. are in vogue. Proving any of those in a court of law is difficult, discovery & forensically intensive, time consuming and COSTLY. Unless you have a big legal War Chest to fund it's not efficacious. Corporations by design have no soul or ethics generally win by attrition or are liquidated by the usual means.
Imo ethics are done for now, autonomus, financially liquid & technologically savy will survive
Those that play high stakes finance games will take bigger risks when the opportunity presents itself to recoup their loses imo & create / look for new frontiers to perpetrate & peddle their fraud to imo.
Gov. is reactionary instead of being pro active in placing/creating a prophylaxis by anticipating the corruption/collusion imo.
Done bou coup investigations, enough litigation to know the system, how it works & had several corrupt Attorney's disbarred. Seen them lie before and they continue to no surprise there.
It is SAD no doubt.
IMO, feeding frenzy of greed has been going on & history will reveal it as such.
Nothing to do with party affilation from my end. I'm independant orientated more than anything else.
IMO, we collectively need to galvanize (not be so polarized) & codify.
Don't loan money to people who can't pay you back, or you're going to be the one in bankruptcy court. Unless of course you can bribe enough people in the government to give you a bailout.
Bachman had it right, Gangster Government.
Your money and your rights, hand 'em over.
This thread just screams gun owners are redneck idiots that hate the government. This is sad.
Really?
I think this thread is about understanding capitalism, and the risks associated with it.
This thread just screams gun owners are redneck idiots that hate the government. This is sad.
This post screams liberal big government fanboy. You are sad.
Look, I can do it too! :D
PrivateCitizen
04-30-10, 09:23
Really?
I think this thread is about understanding capitalism, and the risks associated with it.
Yet, what Obama and the current Wall Street clowns are currently engaged in is FAR from capitalism.
I agree.
But where it started was banks, under pressure from the fed gov, lending money to people who they knew, for all intents and purposes, were not going to be able to pay it off.
Banks knowing that, then bet against it, knowing full well it was going to happen, while still pretending it wasn't to other investors.
The fed gov had no buisness in it, and just like most things they attempt to manipulate, either by design or happenstance, it crashed.
Now, instead of finally let the free market fix it, which it could have, they bail them out under the guise of again trying to "protect" us.
While I agree capitalism needs a "referee", the referee has to follow the rules already in place.
Making them up as you go along, and then directly participating, is a form of socialism.
I do not hate the fed gov, I hate that it is operating outside of clearly defined laws set forth in the constitution.
If people can not filter their derogatory comments, I will start being the external filter. If you choose to have me filter your comments, a 15pt infraction will be the price of admission. That will typically result in a vacation from the site.
Tread lightly everyone. :)
Greedy, corrupt, evil spirited, cunning people coupled with tactics like deception, convoluted syntax, obfuscation, prevaracation, non disclosure, breech of fiduciary duty, detrimental reliance, fraud by inducement etc. are in vogue. Proving any of those in a court of law is difficult, discovery & forensically intensive, time consuming and COSTLY. Unless you have a big legal War Chest to fund it's not efficacious. Corporations by design have no soul or ethics generally win by attrition or are liquidated by the usual means.
Very well said, my friend. Brilliant in fact.
Yet astoundingly we have a long line of otherwise intelligent folks here looking to defend them, their tactics and even their corrupt mindset. This in the blind defense of the overall good that is capitalism, like it should have no bounds or ethics.
Would seem unthinkable, but so be it I suppose.
If the founders wanted unfettered capitalism, they wouldn't have set up a patent office. Of course if they wanted the federal government and not the states regulating all aspects of the market(s), they probably would have put that in the constitution too (and no, interstate trade and minting doesn't cover the current idiocy). The states would have taken action long before the feds against degenerate usury schemes.
I don't think anyone here is advocating unregulated capitalism, as a matter of fact, I stated such.
VooDoo6Actual
04-30-10, 16:26
The states would have taken action long before the feds against degenerate usury schemes.
I'm curious respectfully as always,
How does this same statement and logic apply to the current Fed Immigration issues regarding Arizonia as well ?
How does this same logic apply to the fact that the SEC was notified many years before Madoff took his nose dive high into infinity pool of corruption ?
Crock of shit. You play, you pay. Not the tax payer. These gangster dont have the balls or guts to play in a the capitalist system.
They aren't eating the losses sufficiently. As in going the hell out of business
You must not have read where I agreed that they shouldn't be getting taxpayer bailouts. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that more than once in this thread.
Exactly what is it that you think is a "crock of shit?"
If the founders wanted unfettered capitalism, they wouldn't have set up a patent office.
What? How is a system of intellectual property inconsistent with capitalism?
You'll have to explain this one.
Very well said, my friend. Brilliant in fact.
Yet astoundingly we have a long line of otherwise intelligent folks here looking to defend them, their tactics and even their corrupt mindset. This in the blind defense of the overall good that is capitalism, like it should have no bounds or ethics.
Would seem unthinkable, but so be it I suppose.
I'm not defending the bailouts, because that's a whole different ballgame. I'm just abiding by my contractual obligation to a privately owned company, and not expecting anything if I fail to do so.
Everyone has shady tactics. Should I eat a Snickers Bar everytime I'm hungry? The commercial says I should, and has athletes in it. I probably don't need to read the fine print on the wrapper and figure out what it means to me.
But hey, what the hell, here is the big one, pssssttt! Guess what???!!! There are other banking institutions.... Shhhhh don't tell anyone!
The negative traits discussed are epidemic in the banking industry, especially the larger institutions. Would you care to prove otherwise?
And don't bother asking me to do the reverse, as you know that such practices are fact. You are doing nothing more than taking the stance that "Well, since they haven't unethically shafted me yet, I don't see the problem. And further more, you negligent dopes are just a bunch of crybabys."
This is brilliant logic until your dept is the next to have a round off layoffs, and your on it. Maybe at some point then you will have another dimension added to your psyche as well as degrees of both humility and understanding.
Jay Cunningham
04-30-10, 23:35
I am about to bring the hammer down.
If you have guilt feelings - it's because you are guilty.
Don't make me be mean.
When I retired from the US Army, I went to work as an executive with a large US Bank (still around). I saw firsthand the results of the CRA (Community Reinvestement Act) and how local community groups and left wing politicians put pressure on the banking and mortgage industry to originate substandard home loans. When the banks balked, they were offered an out by tranferring these "assets" to Fannie or Freddie.
I watched the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 2000 by Clinton, and how Wall-Street took these weak loans and bundled them into new types of investments. I also saw how George W. Bush and a handful of Republicans fought to put greater control on this in 2004-2006, only to be shut-down by Democrats.
Sure there were crooks who have always screwed things up. Remember MCI-Worldcom, Enron, Madoff? You bet there has been greed. There always have been rotton apples who operate in a Free Market System. It does have some warts and some serious blemishes, but this sytem created our economic superpower status, and it needs to be cleaned up, bandaged up and protected.
What is disturbing is a President who has never worked a real job telling America that at some point, you've made enough money. Now who is he to deccide this in a Free Market system. I forgot, he is not really a fan of our Capitalist system. He is a hybrid Progressive/Neo Marxist who really doesn't care much for this Country.
I left the Fortune 500 World and now own my own business in addition to ranching, and am facing all the wonderful things our new President wishes to force feed us. I make a good living, but I want to make more money and expand my business. If I do well, I want to keep doing better and better, and that means I need to hire more people and let them share in the wealth of an expanding business. Remember, you'll never get a job from a poor person. They don't hire anyone.
No Chicago Thug, Community Organizing, Marxist, America Hater (who happens to be President) has any business telling anyone in America that they have made enough money.
Wow, that felt good....and I didn't get ugly with anyone who had posted previously.
God Bless America!!!!!
OH58D
CarlosDJackal
05-01-10, 00:33
FNF had Larry Gatlin as a guest this morning and he had a very good point in response to what this moron of a POTUS said. He basically stated that what obambam said was ridiculous.
He stated that he doesn't know of anyone who would work for someone who was poorer that they were. He even said that he bets that his Base Player would want for him (Larry Gatlin) would do well.
He makes a good point, IMHO.
I'm curious respectfully as always,
How does this same statement and logic apply to the current Fed Immigration issues regarding Arizonia as well ?
How does this same logic apply to the fact that the SEC was notified many years before Madoff took his nose dive high into infinity pool of corruption ?
Immigration didn't become a huge issue in Arizona until the tail end of Janet Napolitano's career. We were some of the first to go after employers hard at the state level. Thankfully through direct action at the state level, we are now beginning to see some major changes. The states used to have varying degrees of usury (interest) laws to protect idiots and idiot bankers, but the supreme court invalidated this, they said the interest rate of the credit card company in the state the bank is headquartered is the rate you pay.
Madoff essentially bribed everyone in charge of auditing him. If memory serves, one of the watchdogs ended up becoming a son-in-law. Ironically it was the federal government and not Madoff that was throwing up every roadblock they could in the end. Those people will never be punished for their very real misdeeds.
What? How is a system of intellectual property inconsistent with capitalism?
You'll have to explain this one.
Capitalism is just about maximizing profit, making something at an output and price point that gets you the most dough. Roughly it's retaining accumulated wealth. It combined with the theory that men have certain inalienable rights creates a pretty good combination for success. If you didn't have intellectual property, some other capitalist could run you out of business by making knockoffs which are a little cheaper.
If Capitalism was self-regulating in the context of excellence in maintaining individual liberties, you wouldn't need a patent office.
Guy's just think about this....I'm not going to beat a dead horse....but I've seen a lot of stories like this. these are the stories I refer to when I say that I think the system is a bit rotten.
Lesson learned - if you are going to scam the bank and create an unauthorized loan, do it with a check as the bank won't know you wrote it until it shows up for clearing.
Debit cards operate in real time. Duh!
When I retired from the US Army, I went to work as an executive with a large US Bank (still around). I saw firsthand the results of the CRA (Community Reinvestement Act) and how local community groups and left wing politicians put pressure on the banking and mortgage industry to originate substandard home loans. When the banks balked, they were offered an out by tranferring these "assets" to Fannie or Freddie.
I watched the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 2000 by Clinton, and how Wall-Street took these weak loans and bundled them into new types of investments. I also saw how George W. Bush and a handful of Republicans fought to put greater control on this in 2004-2006, only to be shut-down by Democrats.
Sure there were crooks who have always screwed things up. Remember MCI-Worldcom, Enron, Madoff? You bet there has been greed. There always have been rotton apples who operate in a Free Market System. It does have some warts and some serious blemishes, but this sytem created our economic superpower status, and it needs to be cleaned up, bandaged up and protected.
What is disturbing is a President who has never worked a real job telling America that at some point, you've made enough money. Now who is he to deccide this in a Free Market system. I forgot, he is not really a fan of our Capitalist system. He is a hybrid Progressive/Neo Marxist who really doesn't care much for this Country.
I left the Fortune 500 World and now own my own business in addition to ranching, and am facing all the wonderful things our new President wishes to force feed us. I make a good living, but I want to make more money and expand my business. If I do well, I want to keep doing better and better, and that means I need to hire more people and let them share in the wealth of an expanding business. Remember, you'll never get a job from a poor person. They don't hire anyone.
No Chicago Thug, Community Organizing, Marxist, America Hater (who happens to be President) has any business telling anyone in America that they have made enough money.
Wow, that felt good....and I didn't get ugly with anyone who had posted previously.
God Bless America!!!!!
OH58D
Excellent post!
I have to say I buy gas all the time, with debit cards and credit cards, and I have NEVER seen it post $1.00. It goes pending in my account as soon as it hits the system, with the exact amount.
montanadave
05-01-10, 09:19
I watched the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 2000 by Clinton, and how Wall-Street took these weak loans and bundled them into new types of investments. I also saw how George W. Bush and a handful of Republicans fought to put greater control on this in 2004-2006, only to be shut-down by Democrats.
Sorry, but this has to be some of the worst historical revisionism I've seen yet. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress led by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Representative Jim Leach (R-IA). Clinton signed the bill, following the guidance of his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, an ex-Goldman Sachs exec who took over the chairmanship of Citigroup after Clinton left office, driving that company off a cliff and retiring with a massive golden parachute. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, an Ayn Rand acolyte, also advised Clinton to sign the repeal.
Bush urged greater restraint by the financial services industry? Sure he did. When Hank Paulson, then head of Goldman-Sachs, led the consortium of investment banks that lobbied the SEC to exempt them from the net capital rule (allowing the big boys to leverage their assets to the hilt with all manner of derivative bullshit), the Bush administration not only gave them everything they wanted but rewarded Paulson by making him Secretary of the Treasury.
Feel free to grind your political ax, but let's not rewrite history to make your case.
Bush urged greater restraint by the financial services industry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs
I have to say I buy gas all the time, with debit cards and credit cards, and I have NEVER seen it post $1.00. It goes pending in my account as soon as it hits the system, with the exact amount.
Pending CHECKCARD KROGER FUEL
#1416 FLOWERY BR GA... -$1.00
No dog in the hunt, but this was a $50 gas purchase yesterday.
I have not purchased gas from kroger so I cant comment on it, but buying food from them it is always the exact amount. Not disputing what you are saying but is the gas station doing it or the bank?
Pending CHECKCARD KROGER FUEL
#1416 FLOWERY BR GA... -$1.00
No dog in the hunt, but this was a $50 gas purchase yesterday.
I get a similar "pending" charge all the time, usually on gas purchases where I pay at the pump.
It's a quick check to make sure there is actually a real account, with real money, behind your card. When the transaction actually settles it's for the actual, correct amount and not a penny more. Seen this hundreds of times on my own account.
What's your point?
RancidSumo
05-01-10, 14:16
I don't think anyone here is advocating unregulated capitalism, as a matter of fact, I stated such.
I am.
I
Capitalism is just about maximizing profit, making something at an output and price point that gets you the most dough. Roughly it's retaining accumulated wealth. It combined with the theory that men have certain inalienable rights creates a pretty good combination for success. If you didn't have intellectual property, some other capitalist could run you out of business by making knockoffs which are a little cheaper.
If Capitalism was self-regulating in the context of excellence in maintaining individual liberties, you wouldn't need a patent office.
How would I be able to make profit if I had no ability to protect my inventions and creations? Also, who would ever invest capital in a company or person developing any new product or concept without that protection? Capitalism exists only on paper without property rights.
Intellectual property (and every form of property rights, in fact) isn't a "philosophical" part of capitalism if you look at it as narrowly as you've done above, but it's a necessary element to allow a capitalist system to function. I don't see how this is even debatable. Nobody would want to spend resources creating new things and nobody would give them the capital to do it without those property rights.
I get a similar "pending" charge all the time, usually on gas purchases where I pay at the pump.
It's a quick check to make sure there is actually a real account, with real money, behind your card. When the transaction actually settles it's for the actual, correct amount and not a penny more. Seen this hundreds of times on my own account.
What's your point?
My point was that it is obviously an Illuminati conspiracy to establish a NWO one dollar at a time. :D
Bobvila mentioned that he had never seen a charge for a dollar and I was showing him that they do in fact exist. Nothing more, nothing less. I should have posted the explanation for the charge as well.
Pending CHECKCARD KROGER FUEL
#1416 FLOWERY BR GA... -$1.00
No dog in the hunt, but this was a $50 gas purchase yesterday.
I wonder if it has to do with your institution ?
Ive used a debit card for fuel for the last 8-10 years and Ive never seen a $1 charge ?
I use a credit union, but I dont fuel up at krogers. interesting...
How would I be able to make profit if I had no ability to protect my inventions and creations? Also, who would ever invest capital in a company or person developing any new product or concept without that protection? Capitalism exists only on paper without property rights.
Intellectual property (and every form of property rights, in fact) isn't a "philosophical" part of capitalism if you look at it as narrowly as you've done above, but it's a necessary element to allow a capitalist system to function. I don't see how this is even debatable. Nobody would want to spend resources creating new things and nobody would give them the capital to do it without those property rights.
There in lies the question, if Capitalism is regulated, how much regulation and who regulates it? Besides property rights, and the right of the federal government to coin money, the actual regulation of markets is better left up to the states who can determine what regulations or lack there of creates the best environment for economic success.
VooDoo6Actual
05-02-10, 12:25
armakraut,
This is the first statement I was asking for a response to:
the current idiocy). The states would have taken action long before the feds against degenerate usury schemes.
Here is your response to my query:
Armakraut writes:
"Immigration didn't become a huge issue in Arizona until the tail end of Janet Napolitano's career. We were some of the first to go after employers hard at the state level. Thankfully through direct action at the state level, we are now beginning to see some major changes. The states used to have varying degrees of usury (interest) laws to protect idiots and idiot bankers, but the supreme court invalidated this, they said the interest rate of the credit card company in the state the bank is headquartered is the rate you pay."
I live in a border state as well. I'm well versed on the history and continuing escalation of a problem that's solution has basically been to place a bandaid on it for well over 20 years. I would disagree w/ your assertion that immigration has become a huge problem ONLY since the end of Napolitano's tenure. In 1993, Napolitano was appointed by President Bill Clinton as United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. She was aware of the immigration problems of border states even before that appointment. Those facts & stats are well poplulated all over google archived headlines. In fact, her career & Sherrif Joe's conflicts are epic regarding their difference of opinions and dealing with immigration issues long before the end of her tenure there.
Her approaches & the fed. gov.'s have been ineffective or else the current administration would not have felt the need to act w/ it's current newly passed law. As is California's, New Mexico's Texas's etc.
I know several BP Agents/ICE who can attest to the ineffectiveness after multiple arrests of same perps, kidnappings, murders etc. The stats are staggering. They won't go on record for fear of job retaliation etc.
Your second response to my query:
"Madoff essentially bribed everyone in charge of auditing him. If memory serves, one of the watchdogs ended up becoming a son-in-law. Ironically it was the federal government and not Madoff that was throwing up every roadblock they could in the end. Those people will never be punished for their very real misdeeds.
Regardless of how madoff accomplished his magnificent smoke & mirrors fraud, how did the state take action at all regarding your first statement of "The states would have taken action long before the feds against degenerate usury schemes." The bottom line is they did not.
Whether it is not their territory, jurisdiction, responsibility etc. The state neither did nothing or had the power to do nothing.
I agree that those SEC fed people will never be punished for their misdeeds.
That being said, the bottom line is, the FED who commands & oversees the SEC failed regardless of the ruse & those invovled.
Imo, even the states had not been taking action or else they would have collaboratively acted in synergy earlier. Only now after the murder of a Rancher (a US citizen & been there since 1907) etc. & crime stats have hit quantum critical mass. The states all have agendas to include monetary inducements such as FED funding, political alliances and allegiances etc. that curtail common sense efficacious solutions like finishing the wall(s) w/ surveillance and staffing.
I submit, the continuing financial drain coupled w/ the staggering crime stats on our structure are the catalyst for the recent immigration laws specifically Arizonia. Only in America can an alien (undocumented worker) et alia get medical care, produce offspring that entltles their progeny to get full benefits of a US citizen including tuition aid, medical care, food stamps etc. No other country in the world does this.
At what costs ? Do the ends justify the means ?
That is a continuing, growing problem & suck hole to those who are working hard, fiscally and financially responsible good citizens paying into the system.
Respectfully, I'm interested in discussing solutions to a ongoing problem that historically has proven to date ineffective. I appreciate the exchange & dialogue.
Conceptually, a free market/free exchange system isn't really "free" if it's controlled/sensored/regulated (51% or more) by one entity is it ?
That is a continuing & growing problem & suck hole to those who are working hard, fiscally and financially responsible good citizens paying into the system.
Respectfully, I'm interested in discussing solutions to a ongoing problem that historically has proven to date inefective. I appreciate the exchange.
If you want solutions...
The very best thing you could do for the working poor, the working and the middle class is to get rid of no-fault divorce. I've had so many of my employees stripped to the bone because of it. It bankrupts people and destroys children, pretty much destroyed the middle class. You could effectively ban it overnight if you allow people the option to have a fault-based marriage contract that lets people out only by joint agreement or some sort of transgression proven in front of a judge and jury. The current systems turns successful middle class mortgage owners into apartment renting indentured servants. I've never seen an institution destroy people more quickly or reliably. You can do this as a state initiative. A lot of religious organizations would jump on it.
The AZ immigration enforcement law as the best most hopeful thing I have seen since prop 187.
Washington DC attracts a lot of weird types because they have a green light to regulate everything because of the twisted current interpretation of the commerce clause. Many of these people would return home to terrorize their own states if they went to DC and found out they could only negotiate treaties, set import taxes and manage the post office. We'd get better people up there if we got folks who were stuck fulfilling constitutional roles.
The states have to start nullifying federal law and fighting it with more than mere words. Historically this is the best way to make your voice heard when the feds refused to hear it. From the Whiskey Rebellions and Rebellions against debtors prisons, to the Fugitive Slave Act, and Tariff of Abominations, it generally got federal attitudes turned in the right direction. That means drafting and electing dynamic people like Joe Arpaio or Andrew Napolitano. People well liked who can articulate and act on their beliefs. Too many republicans have the Obama wine & dine mentality. If they came for the perks, they can enjoy the curb.
RancidSumo
05-02-10, 23:35
The first part of that post sounds like one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Why not just get rid of all government recognition of marriage and the special privileges it entails? Make it a solely religious institution and don’t have the government trying to force people to live the lives they deem necessary or “moral”
In a lot of respects, that might be even better.
Paraclete comes
05-03-10, 00:57
America is a land of opportunity, not the land of entitlement!!!!!!!!!
The idiot in the white house is very foolish. All the wealthy people I know are first generation. They have worked there asses off to make something that will sustain there families. So it seems like such a slap in the face to take a higher percentage of there income just because they are successful! Our country is moving in a very bad direction very quickly!
not sure who made this statement but it went something like this. "when the government takes from daniel and gives to pedro, it can always expect pedro's support"
we all know this one "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike" RICHARD JACKSON commonly thought as a statement by Thomas Jefferson
I can't help but think you guys are arguing while missing the point.
The issue isn't that there is a problem with overdraft charges. We can all agree that they are spelled out in the contract and the bank is 100% entitled to charge them, per the contract. This is a settled point.
The issue is the order in which the bank processes the overdraft fees.
Suppose you have $100 in your account. Now for whatever reason, you make 4 charges: $10, $20, $30, and $95, all on the same day.
There are 2 ways the bank can process these charges:
Way One:
First $10, leaving $90
Second $20, leaving $70
Next $30, leaving $40
Last $95, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.
Way Two:
First $95, leaving $5
Second $10, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.
Next $20, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.
Last $30, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.
If the bank chooses to do via Way Two, they make three times as much money via the exact same set of circumstances. However, this method will strike most people as unfair. Now, there is nothing explicitly prohibiting this conduct and the contract doesn't speak to the matter. So you are left with a judgment call here: is Way Two an ethical way to treat your customers?
Or if you know you live check to check and bounce checks/overdraft monthly, pay for overdraft protection. If your bank does not offer it find a new bank.
As others have said, just be responsible. Either keep a log of your cash flow, use checks and keep a log, or just use cash. Anyone that pays overdraft fees more than once is not learning the lesson and costing themselves money. I also want to point out that if you are a good customer that most companies will work with you on late fees and stuff like it.
RancidSumo
05-03-10, 08:36
There is nothing ethically wrong with that. However, it isn't a good way to treat a customer if you want them to continue being a customer. What all of this comes down to is bad business practices, there is no ethical question involved. The only reason that these bad business practices haven't been weeded out is because most people are too stupid to see what is being done and take their business elsewhere.
I do not see it that way. Banks are in business to hold your money and invest it, and they make money from that. The people that are constantly in the negative means they are not making any money, and they are just a free check cashing service.
Im sure the banks would rather those people just use check cashing places because they are not making them any money if they are responsible, the irresponsible ones do pay but that is thier own fault.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.