Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He was against the bail outs. Seems to me that things aren't as black and white as you would like.
As opposed to just Wall Street?
I was/am against ALL the bailouts
why should the government bailout any FAILED entity...be it financial institutions, wallstreet, insurance companies (like aig), car companies (like GM), alt energy companies, fannie/Freddie, and THE POST OFFICE
and meanwhile flipflopper Bernie wants to increase the size and realm of the post office that is in the red......go figure
why should the government bailout any FAILED entity...be it financial institutions, wallstreet, insurance companies (like aig), car companies (like GM), alt energy companies, fannie/Freddie, and THE POST OFFICE
and meanwhile flipflopper Bernie wants to increase the size and realm of the post office that is in the red......go figure
It is typical. Make it bigger is the motto of liberals when it comes to government.
And it is the working class who pay taxes that have to cover the losses of the USPS. Why would we trust the USPS to manage loans when they can't manage the business the already have?
Why should it be that way? Ask at the career politicians that did it.
I answered this already......when you want something you negotiate......since many of the people that would benefit from this are the same people paying taxes to pay off the banks bad debts, lets just force the banks to do it.
I suspect this idea would not get the support of the powerful Chamber of Commerce lobby. They do not want government to compete with the private sector.
The problem here, as I see it, isn't some vast conspiracy among bankers in 3-piece suits; it's an unscrupulous group on the ragged edge of the market taking advantage of people who ought to have enough simple street knowledge to protect themselves better. Our supposed "educational" system has failed its most vulnerable, and captive clientele -- again.
Up until roughly the mid-Sixties, it was common knowledge that banks lent money to established, reliable customers at 6%, and paid 3-4% on passbook savings, covering their expenses on the differential between the two for the most part. The customer base was more limited, and some discrimination on various grounds might have been a factor, but the economy was growing and civil rights was gaining ground. And it hade been easier at a time when the more stable banks, usually in economically-diversified and successful communities, sometimes paid comparable, rather than "token" interest on checking deposits.
The loss of interest-bearing checking was a by-product of the failure of less-established rural banks during the Great Depression, and the destabilization of interest rates a consequence of the "guns and butter" strategy of financing the Vietnam debacle -- as opposed to the Korean action of the early Fifties, which was directly financed by a tax increase.
But the point remains, that when an unscrupulous operator in a rough neighborhood can prepare a possibly-fraudulent tax return, gull the customer into using much of the possibly-inflated refund for a down payment on a used car, then repossess the same vehicle within a few months, there is something very wrong with our credit system. The fault here doesn't lie with the banks, but I doubt that the Sanders populist crowd has much interest in assembling the muscle to fight it; class-warfare rhetoric works more quickly, and is a lot cheaper.
But the point remains, that when an unscrupulous operator in a rough neighborhood can prepare a possibly-fraudulent tax return, gull the customer into using much of the possibly-inflated refund for a down payment on a used car, then repossess the same vehicle within a few months, there is something very wrong with our credit system. The fault here doesn't lie with the banks, but I doubt that the Sanders populist crowd has much interest in assembling the muscle to fight it; class-warfare rhetoric works more quickly, and is a lot cheaper.
The good news is, Sanders' proposal - indirectly, admittedly - targets those exact scumbags. And as long as we have people willing to argue that any direct regulation is by its nature bad, well - I'll take it.
In each of these cases you present, the burden of responsibility falls upon the holder of the account to ensure funds are available *before* spending them. There is no such thing a "bank-assisted overdraw".
I worked for a few years at a bank when I was young and it was mind-boggling how many customers attempted to kite the system on a regular basis. Writing post-dated checks (which are payable upon sight anyway), depositing empty deposit envelopes into ATM machines back in the day when you could pull out a small amount of cash immediately upon receipt of a deposit, or writing checks against a deposit that was on hold and had funds not yet available. Banks are required to inform a client of a hold on deposits and the specific day that the hold will clear and the funds become available. If you choose to write checks against a deposit on hold, you are writing a bad check. It's not the bank's fault if you overdraft as a result.
People would call to stop payments on checks they'd written just because they didn't have any funds to cover the check, then complain that the service charge to stop the check would render their account overdrawn, and they'd then get assessed overdraft charges for any other debits coming in (that they also had no funds to cover) on top of the stop payment fee for a check they wrote (that they didn't have funds to cover) in the first place. Writing a bad check in a situation like this could easily end up costing $50 - 60 in fees and penalties ... often more money than what the original check was even written for.
It was always the bank's fault. Never theirs. These people would always cry the loudest any time their accounts were debited for fees incurred as a result of their irresponsibility. Eventually, they'd become a liability to the bank and have their accounts closed. Then they'll complain that they can't open a new account elsewhere because they've been reported to Chex Systems.
These are the same kind of people who will become 'victims' of payday loan centers. It's one thing to have compassion for people who are struggling to make ends meet, but they aren't deserving of pity when they continue to make foolish financial decisions that dig them deeper and deeper into debt.
Do you seriously believe banks process checks in the exact order received and not in the order which maximizes their fees?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
