Obamacare has another casulty

[BanginJimmy]

http://www.ajc.com/health/obama-pull...n-1201240.html


First it was the 1099 provisions for business, now the CLASS Act.

Also, even if Obama was correct and the healthcare takeover saved 120B on the deficit over the next decade, it amounts to less than 1 penny on the dollar for the deficit. With a 1.3T yearly deficit, the 12B in overall savings wouldnt even show up.

[.blank cd]

Also, even if Obama was correct and the healthcare takeover saved 120B on the deficit over the next decade, it amounts to less than 1 penny on the dollar for the deficit. With a 1.3T yearly deficit, the 12B in overall savings wouldnt even show up.

Wouldn't show up? That's like saying if I bought less groceries every week I wouldn't see the savings. Even thought I make 35k a year, 50 bucks here and there is still a relief. I don't know how you keep coming to those conclusions. A penny saved is a penny earned.

[BanginJimmy]

Wouldn't show up? That's like saying if I bought less groceries every week I wouldn't see the savings. Even thought I make 35k a year, 50 bucks here and there is still a relief. I don't know how you keep coming to those conclusions. A penny saved is a penny earned.

In this case you are wrong. You aren't going to see any difference with a 1 cent savings for every thousand dollars you spend.

5% savings is worth it. .1% savings is insignificant.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[STRteg]

In this case you are wrong. You aren't going to see any difference with a 1 cent savings for every thousand dollars you spend.

5% savings is worth it. .1% savings is insignificant.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

But.... savings are savings none the less, regardless of being able to immediately see the differences or not. Noticing the money being saved is insignificant, knowing the money is being saved is significant. Even at a supposedly 1%

[BanginJimmy]

But.... savings are savings none the less, regardless of being able to immediately see the differences or not. Noticing the money being saved is insignificant, knowing the money is being saved is significant. Even at a supposedly 1%

Not 1%. .1%

And in this case it is insignificant. If it was actually a surplus then I would agree because it could be used to pay down existing debt, but a .1% cut in the yearly deficit is not even worth mentioning.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[STRteg]

1% or .1% or .0000000001% - Doesn't matter savings are savings, and you must look at the bigger picture just how much is that .1% showing for the yearly deficit? Anything we can do in any way shape or form to satisfy the Government Budget deficit needs to be done, even if they are small steps

[Vteckidd]

1% or .1% or .0000000001% - Doesn't matter savings are savings, and you must look at the bigger picture just how much is that .1% showing for the yearly deficit? Anything we can do in any way shape or form to satisfy the Government Budget deficit needs to be done, even if they are small steps

while i somewhat agree, this is like paying your minimum payment on your credit card and it taking 23 years to pay off $3000. Paying the minimum payment is insignificant.


The overall problem is 12 billion amounts to barely any deficit reduction in the scheme of things, and its not serious about reducing the deficit. Thats like saying im $5000 in debt, i plan on paying/saving .05 cents a month to pay it off. its really a small step.

[BanginJimmy]

1% or .1% or .0000000001% - Doesn't matter savings are savings, and you must look at the bigger picture just how much is that .1% showing for the yearly deficit? Anything we can do in any way shape or form to satisfy the Government Budget deficit needs to be done, even if they are small steps

I agree if that .1% of the deficit was part of a much larger package, but it isnt. That was the entire package of cuts. That 12B a year, if that was ever remotely accurate to start with, was going to help pay down a 1.3T deficit? I wish I could do that kind of math with my finances.

12B sounds like a lot of money and it is to us normal people, but when you think in context, its nothing. Last years budget was 3.6T and we ran a 1.6T deficit. Like Vtec said, put it in terms you are more familiar with. Would you consider paying a penny a year more than interest payments on your 14K credit card bill as savings when you are still putting $1200 a year on the card? That is what the US is doing right now.

[STRteg]

I agree if that .1% of the deficit was part of a much larger package, but it isnt. That was the entire package of cuts. That 12B a year, if that was ever remotely accurate to start with, was going to help pay down a 1.3T deficit? I wish I could do that kind of math with my finances.

12B sounds like a lot of money and it is to us normal people, but when you think in context, its nothing. Last years budget was 3.6T and we ran a 1.6T deficit. Like Vtec said, put it in terms you are more familiar with. Would you consider paying a penny a year more than interest payments on your 14K credit card bill as savings when you are still putting $1200 a year on the card? That is what the US is doing right now.

Touche

[.blank cd]

I agree if that .1% of the deficit was part of a much larger package, but it isnt. That was the entire package of cuts. That 12B a year, if that was ever remotely accurate to start with, was going to help pay down a 1.3T deficit? I wish I could do that kind of math with my finances.

12B sounds like a lot of money and it is to us normal people, but when you think in context, its nothing. Last years budget was 3.6T and we ran a 1.6T deficit. Like Vtec said, put it in terms you are more familiar with. Would you consider paying a penny a year more than interest payments on your 14K credit card bill as savings when you are still putting $1200 a year on the card? That is what the US is doing right now.

Wait a second, did we forget about the multi-trillion dollar spending cut plan he proposed a couple months ago? So when he adds more to it, it's not enough? Seriously? It's like conservatives complain if he wants cut spending, they complain when he wants increases taxes. Is that how it works? I mean, what's it gonna be? Let's just stand stationary for a while. That'll boost our economy.

Oh. I get it. You guys want multi-trillion dollar cuts every year and zero tax increases. That's a significant number.

Lemme know how that works out for ya

[BanginJimmy]

Wait a second, did we forget about the multi-trillion dollar spending cut plan he proposed a couple months ago?

Can you post a link to the specifics. If it is the 3T plan I am seeing, it is nothing more than a tax increase plan. There arent any meaningful cuts in it. I cant find any real info on that plan though. Also, that is 3T over 10 years, that doesnt even cover 20% of the anticipated deficits over that same time period.

Oh. I get it. You guys want multi-trillion dollar cuts every year and zero tax increases. That's a significant number.

Not multi trillion, but a 1.6T cut would be nice. That would at least balance the budget.

Lemme know how that works out for ya[/QUOTE]

[Vteckidd]

Wait a second, did we forget about the multi-trillion dollar spending cut plan he proposed a couple months ago? So when he adds more to it, it's not enough? Seriously? It's like conservatives complain if he wants cut spending, they complain when he wants increases taxes. Is that how it works? I mean, what's it gonna be? Let's just stand stationary for a while. That'll boost our economy.

You mean the multi trilliion dollar cut over 10 years he had a DEAL on , then he decided to ask for 800 BILLION MORE IN TAX INCREASES? Get your facts straight. He and Boehner HAD A DEAL in place, it INCLUDED tax increases and reform that the GOP agreed to, and Obama had agreed to some entitlement reform. THen, when Obama found out that he might be able to get MORE tax increases, he threw those in. Boehner said NO, we have a deal, and Obama said no we dont. And it fell apart.

HE Changed his mind at the last minute buddy thats what cost him those cuts, and led to this retarded super committee.

Oh. I get it. You guys want multi-trillion dollar cuts every year and zero tax increases. That's a significant number.

yes i do. the 2007 BUDGET DEFICIT was 160 BILLION , 2011= 1.3 TRILLION. DO NOT TELL ME WE CANNOT GO BACK TO 2007 levels. that was 4 YEARS AGO! I do NOT accept the fact that we are throwing away billions on pet projects like Solyndra, passing more billion dollar stimulus aimed at hiring teachers?

His JOBS plan is to EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. THATS IT.

Lemme know how that works out for ya

Let me know how that economy is working out for you

[STRteg]

Honestly, everything being said here is of no significance because when the shit hits the fan (Real real soon btw) the US will be in poverty and our country will lose it's stability and it's political standing. Won't be long till our reality is equal to that of a 3rd world country if the economy continues to head the way that it is. Obama is not making big enough efforts to satisfy the debt, instead his approach is to sustain the public with relief efforts directed towards unemployment, and financial assistance. This ship is sinking and not enough effort is being made to bucket the water out

[BanginJimmy]

Honestly, everything being said here is of no significance because when the shit hits the fan (Real real soon btw) the US will be in poverty and our country will lose it's stability and it's political standing. Won't be long till our reality is equal to that of a 3rd world country if the economy continues to head the way that it is. Obama is not making big enough efforts to satisfy the debt, instead his approach is to sustain the public with relief efforts directed towards unemployment, and financial assistance. This ship is sinking and not enough effort is being made to bucket the water out

What Obama has done since he got into office is attack the private sector.

Obamacare, massive taxes on businesses, especially small to medium sized ones.
Dodd-Frank, massive new regulation and rules. How is everyone going to enjoy that new fee on debit cards?
EPA, strangling the energy sector with new regulations. What should we expect from a President that said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry and has an energy secretary that wants the US to pay european prices for gas?
Bailouts, GM HAS to play by govt rules now or they lose their limitless line of credit. Dont get facts skewed either. GM wasnt going anywhere if they went into bankruptcy. In fact, GM likely would have come out of bankruptcy in much better shape than they are now. At the very least they cold have dumped the union contracts and started over. Chrysler got it even worse. the Obama admin forced majority bond holders and secured debt holders to take a back seat to the Union which violated bankruptcy laws. Union got off great in the deal, they just negociated a very nice new contract with themselves.

[.blank cd]

What Obama has done since he got into office is attack the private sector.

Obamacare, massive taxes on businesses, especially small to medium sized ones.
Dodd-Frank, massive new regulation and rules. How is everyone going to enjoy that new fee on debit cards?

You can't really blame Obama for the debit card/checking account fee increase. Do some more research before making outlandish claims like this.

The last minute amendment of the Dodd/Frank act-the Durbin Amendment, named for senator Dick Durbin of Illinois-was aimed at capping the fees credit card companies were charging in an attempt to help lower prices at retailers and spur economic growth. The banks got "greedy" and said "we don't like your economic growth. We'll pass all this profit we're loosing across to our customers" and thus debit fees and no free checking were born.

But hey, "FVCK OBAMA" is a lot easier to say, isn't it? Lol

[Vteckidd]

You can't really blame Obama for the debit card/checking account fee increase. Do some more research before making outlandish claims like this.
The last minute amendment of the Dodd/Frank act-the Durbin Amendment, named for senator Dick Durbin of Illinois-was aimed at capping the fees credit card companies were charging in an attempt to help lower prices at retailers and spur economic growth. The banks got "greedy" and said "we don't like your economic growth. We'll pass all this profit we're loosing across to our customers" and thus debit fees and no free checking were born.

But hey, "FVCK OBAMA" is a lot easier to say, isn't it? Lol

Uhh, yeah you can. well maybe not HIM personally but his party. The Checking Fee Increase was due to Dodd-Frank bill. I can wikipedia too. But, that regulation which limits the fees bank of america can charge for merchants using their debit cards, made them add a fee.

This is TEXT book example of what happens when you increase a businesses COSTS AND THEY PASS IT ONTO THE CONSUMER.

So lets get this straight. You want to regulate the banks and tell them what they can charge. Ok. Then, when they add a fee to combat that , you get upset they raised their bottom line? You cant have it both ways. What do you want to do now? Tell them they cant charge the $5 /month fee?

see what happens when the govt tries to artificially stimulate economic growth? They dont know what they are doing

[BanginJimmy]

You can't really blame Obama for the debit card/checking account fee increase. Do some more research before making outlandish claims like this.

The last minute amendment of the Dodd/Frank act-the Durbin Amendment, named for senator Dick Durbin of Illinois-was aimed at capping the fees credit card companies were charging in an attempt to help lower prices at retailers and spur economic growth. The banks got "greedy" and said "we don't like your economic growth. We'll pass all this profit we're loosing across to our customers" and thus debit fees and no free checking were born.

But hey, "FVCK OBAMA" is a lot easier to say, isn't it? Lol

Now dont you feel like an idiot?


Dont worry, I dont expect you to answer with anything intelligent.

Keep trying to find something wrong with my statements though. I enjoy it.

[.blank cd]

Uhh, yeah you can. well maybe not HIM personally but his party.

Thank you for proving my point......? Lol.

The Checking Fee Increase was due to Dodd-Frank bill.(Indirectly, maybe, if you wanna look at it that way.) I can wikipedia too. But, that regulation which limits the fees bank of america can charge for merchants using their debit cards, made them add a fee.
This is TEXT book example of what happens when you increase a businesses COSTS AND THEY PASS IT ONTO THE CONSUMER.
So lets get this straight. You want to regulate the banks and tell them what they can charge. Ok. Then, when they add a fee to combat that , you get upset they raised their bottom line? You cant have it both ways. What do you want to do now? Tell them they cant charge the $5 /month fee?

Im having a tough time believing that you actually are believing what you're saying, unless your name happens to be Richard P. McBillionaire. What interests do you really have in defending these guys when its obvious they really dont care about you? I mean you defend them so vehemently, have they ever went to bat for you? I mean, I know theoretically this is how its supposed to be, but it doesnt work in reality, because in reality, people are flawed and greedy and they lose sight of their main objective.

So yes. we can have it both ways. Raising your bottom line on the backs of the middle class is despicable, and frankly against any political parties principles. Conservatives themselves complain about people taking money and taking money and not working for it. How is this different? Its not. A couple guys way high up decide they dont have a big enough bottom line, so they stroke a pen, change their policies, and now they want me to pay 60 more bucks a year? To use my own money? Thats absolutely fucking hilarious! All because they wanna raise their bottom line? Pretty audacious if you ask me, but its a pretty common double standard with conservatives. How come poor people have to work harder and bust ass to get their money, but not banks? How come its ok for THEM to NOT WORK and get their money? Even OTHER BANKS are laughing at this new policy, not to mention credit unions. Policy change is not work. Innovate something, come up with something worth my 60 bucks and I'll pay you.

Now dont you feel like an idiot?

Nope, not really

Keep trying to find something wrong with my statements though. I enjoy it.

So you enjoy it when I point out when you're wrong? You make it so easy for me. Lol.

[BanginJimmy]

Im having a tough time believing that you actually are believing what you're saying, unless your name happens to be Richard P. McBillionaire.

What interests do you really have in defending these guys when its obvious they really dont care about you? I mean you defend them so vehemently, have they ever went to bat for you? I mean, I know theoretically this is how its supposed to be, but it doesnt work in reality, because in reality, people are flawed and greedy and they lose sight of their main objective.

So yes. we can have it both ways. Raising your bottom line on the backs of the middle class is despicable, and frankly against any political parties principles. Conservatives themselves complain about people taking money and taking money and not working for it. How is this different? Its not. A couple guys way high up decide they dont have a big enough bottom line, so they stroke a pen, change their policies, and now they want me to pay 60 more bucks a year? To use my own money? Thats absolutely fucking hilarious! All because they wanna raise their bottom line? Pretty audacious if you ask me, but its a pretty common double standard with conservatives. How come poor people have to work harder and bust ass to get their money, but not banks? How come its ok for THEM to NOT WORK and get their money? Even OTHER BANKS are laughing at this new policy, not to mention credit unions. Policy change is not work. Innovate something, come up with something worth my 60 bucks and I'll pay you.

What is so hard to believe about any regulation that costs a business money is simply passed onto consumers? This is no different than a roofer charging you for the shingles he is putting on your house.

Before Dodd-Frank the businesses were paying the complete costs for the convenience of you using your debit card. Now that Congress has determined what a bank if allowed to charge for their debit card service, and that charge doesnt cover their costs plus their profit, they are going to recoup those profits from their customers. You have a choice whether you want to pay that fee or not pay it. Dont use your debit card and you wont pay the fee.


Apparently a Forbes Columnist saw this coming back in June.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtou...urt-consumers/

NY Post doesnt agree with you either.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...JTR79g8s8go06H

The CEO of Cardhub.com saw this happening back in December of '10.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...terchange-fees

Nope, not really

Is that right? I guess when you are wrong as often as you are you just get used to it. Then again, there is no limit to the depths you will go to to protect the name of your messiah in the Whore House. In your eyes he can do absolutely nothing wrong. Anything that doesnt go perfectly is the fault of others because Obama is all powerful and infallible in your eyes.

So you enjoy it when I point out when you're wrong? You make it so easy for me. Lol.

You havent pointed out a case where I was wrong. I get it though, I really do. If you ignore pointing out where I am wrong you can claim it and never have to back it up.

[.blank cd]

What is so hard to believe about any regulation that costs a business money is simply passed onto consumers? This is no different than a roofer charging you for the shingles he is putting on your house.

Huh? This is called a materials charge. When you call a roofer and you want new shingles on your roof, they bring the shingles and you pay for them. This is how it works ALL of the time unless you bring your own shingles, which is sometimes more expensive.

Before Dodd-Frank the businesses were paying the complete costs for the convenience of you using your debit card. Now that Congress has determined what a bank if allowed to charge for their debit card service, and that charge doesnt cover their costs plus their profit, they are going to recoup those profits from their customers. You have a choice whether you want to pay that fee or not pay it. Dont use your debit card and you wont pay the fee.

Not using your debit card isn't an acceptable choice, it really isnt a choice period. Too many retailers are moving towards plastic, some towards plastic only. I walked into Apple with a fist full of cash for a 3GS and they wouldnt take it. Let's take your debit card away for a month and see how you fare. Would you use your credit card? Pay interest on a 20oz coke and dinner at Moes? Lol. Write checks? Withdrawl money from an ATM (remember, you cant use your card)? Dont forget, your paycheck is deposited directly into the bank, so you gotta get your money out somehow!

So since we know you're ok with banks not working and bolstering their multi-billion dollar profits on YOUR back, where does it end? What if they say "oh our profits are not enough, lets charge 10 bucks a month; thats not enough, lets charge 15, 20 bucks a month. You'd still be ok paying $240 a year to USE YOUR MONEY? (All the while they're ALREADY making money off of your money) or would you pull your money and stick it under your mattress, or in a credit union? Mind you this is only from policy change, not from them innovating anything, not from any hard work, this is stroke-of-the-pen profit increase.

[Vteckidd]

Thank you for proving my point......? Lol

My point is dont act like he had nothing to do with it. THis is his agenda, he wasnt the only person responsible for it. He is the man in charge, and hes done nothing despite UE raising since he took office. Hes embraced the OWS movement which is upset because of most of HIS policies (and some of the past administrations). Sorry if you didnt connect the dots.

Im having a tough time believing that you actually are believing what you're saying, unless your name happens to be Richard P. McBillionaire. What interests do you really have in defending these guys when its obvious they really dont care about you? I mean you defend them so vehemently, have they ever went to bat for you? I mean, I know theoretically this is how its supposed to be, but it doesnt work in reality, because in reality, people are flawed and greedy and they lose sight of their main objective.

The difference between me and you is i dont hate someone because they have more money than me. I dont think anyone owes me anything. I ASPIRE to be rich through my own actions, not given wealth because i deserve it.

I also understand that RICH people hire poorer people. Its been this way for hundreds of years. So while i do find it despicable what guys like Bernie Madoff did, and some other people, i recognize that our society needs rich people just as much as it needs poor people. You cant have a "top" without recognizing there has to be a "bottom".

Youre just ranting now and have no facts to back it up. Lose sight of their main objective? I dont know if you know this but let me let you in on a little secret

PEOPLE GO INTO BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT

Shocking i know, but you are in no position to tell the CEO of a bank what his "salary" should be because you have neither the work experience, education, nor work ethic to make that decision. I would bet $1000 any CEO you "hate" is far more qualified than you are at what they do.

So yes. we can have it both ways. Raising your bottom line on the backs of the middle class is despicable, and frankly against any political parties principles. Conservatives themselves complain about people taking money and taking money and not working for it. How is this different? Its not. A couple guys way high up decide they dont have a big enough bottom line, so they stroke a pen, change their policies, and now they want me to pay 60 more bucks a year? To use my own money? Thats absolutely fucking hilarious! All because they wanna raise their bottom line? Pretty audacious if you ask me, but its a pretty common double standard with conservatives.

Lucky for you we live in this place called America where you have free choice. you can walk into bank of america tomorrow and close your account. If enough people do it, theyll make adjustments. How do you think we got free checking? Banks started charging fees for using their bank accounts. Smaller banks started giving away free checking accts, know what happened next? EVERYONE GAVE OUT FREE CHECKING. SHOCKING.

The fact they passed a fee is THEIR BUSINESS, they can do whatever they want. You dont have to use it. Im just telling you the reason their fee was enacted was because the Dodd Frank bill told them they had to charge 50% LESS for debit/credit transactions (.44 to .22). They made that revenue up by charging a fee.

Do you know what % of profit BOA makes? I do:
Bank of America Corporation Profit Margin: 17.41%

So for every dollar it makes, 17 CENTS is profit. The rest go to operating costs, divdends paid to investors, etc.

SO its easy for you, the $10/hr guy to say that BOA makes too much money, when in reality, they make about what any small business wants to make .....20%. Who are you to tell them what is "fair".

If the middle class dont want to pay $5 a month, then they can CHOOSE NOT TO. But you want to tell the banks what they can charge and how they can charge it. I really hope that someone like BOA decides to call all your guys bluffs and lay EVERYONE OFF and shut down. See what happens then.

How come poor people have to work harder and bust ass to get their money, but not banks?

Because they are poor. Because you you have to make SHIT and work your way to making BANK. Because traditionally the majority of this country is not born into wealth, so you have to work HARD to acquire it. If it was easy, everyone would do it. Its not. Certain people must fail.

You act like banks are 1 billionaire. You know how many people a bank employs? from the teller to the loan people to the financial traders, investors, managers, etc. Your signaling out the people at the top .5% of a banks employee system and acting like they represent the other 50,000 BOA employs.

How come its ok for THEM to NOT WORK and get their money? Even OTHER BANKS are laughing at this new policy, not to mention credit unions. Policy change is not work. Innovate something, come up with something worth my 60 bucks and I'll pay you.

Define "not work". Do you know the day to day dealings of running and operating a billion dollar business in the financial sector? I didnt think so. I dont pretend to know HOW HARD it is for a nuclear scientist to earn his paycheck, you shouldnt act like you have a mouses fart of an idea what its like to run a multi billion dollar financial conglomerate.

Actually you are dead wrong, EVERY bank is going to start charging these fees. Citi, Chase, JP MOrgan, Wells Fargo all stated their own fees are coming ranging from $3+.

They ARE INNOVATING. I dont know if you know this or not but in the old days you couldnt deposit a fucking check from your smartphone. You had to , you know, actually walk into the bank and wait in line to do it. They are constantly investing in new technology, from smart cards, to mobile deposit apps, to fraud protection, etc.

You wanna know who the REAL culprits are? not the banks! its the OTHER corporations who are SAVING money by having THEIR costs cut in HALF! Walmart used to have to pay .44 cents per transaction. now they pay .22. Have they passed their savings onto you? NOPE.

So maybe YOU should learn more about the issues before you spout off your MSNBC talking points that really, have no place in a relative discussion.

[.blank cd]

The difference between me and you is i dont hate someone because they have more money than me. I dont think anyone owes me anything. I ASPIRE to be rich through my own actions, not given wealth because i deserve it.

I dont hate rich people, I hate some of rich peoples methods of getting rich

Youre just ranting now and have no facts to back it up. Lose sight of their main objective? I dont know if you know this but let me let you in on a little secret

PEOPLE GO INTO BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT

Yeah, sometimes

Shocking i know, but you are in no position to tell the CEO of a bank what his "salary" should be because you have neither the work experience, education, nor work ethic to make that decision. I would bet $1000 any CEO you "hate" is far more qualified than you are at what they do.

There you go off on a tangent again.

You act like banks are 1 billionaire. You know how many people a bank employs? from the teller to the loan people to the financial traders, investors, managers, etc. Your signaling out the people at the top .5% of a banks employee system and acting like they represent the other 50,000 BOA employs.

As long as they want to claim corporate personhood, then I will refer to them as a person. So yes, Bank of America is "one person", then continue on down the list

Define "not work". Do you know the day to day dealings of running and operating a billion dollar business in the financial sector? I didnt think so. I dont pretend to know HOW HARD it is for a nuclear scientist to earn his paycheck, you shouldnt act like you have a mouses fart of an idea what its like to run a multi billion dollar financial conglomerate.

I guess the difference here is that you cant kiss ass enough to be a nuclear scientist. Scientists are also producers, financial conglomerates are consumers.

Actually you are dead wrong, EVERY bank is going to start charging these fees. Citi, Chase, JP MOrgan, Wells Fargo all stated their own fees are coming ranging from $3+.

ORLY?


Dead wrong eh? LOL This is why I love my bank. You can thank me when you switch.

They ARE INNOVATING. I dont know if you know this or not but in the old days you couldnt deposit a fucking check from your smartphone. You had to , you know, actually walk into the bank and wait in line to do it. They are constantly investing in new technology, from smart cards, to mobile deposit apps, to fraud protection, etc.

They already charge (in a way) for check image deposits from your phone. You have to qualify (make enough money) to use it. And you already pay for fraud protection.

So maybe YOU should learn more about the issues before you spout off your MSNBC talking points that really, have no place in a relative discussion.

Nor do Faux news talking points, so I guess the circlejerk continues huh? Lol.

[Vteckidd]

Good read , not really biased, maybe some right leaning, but read the meat and potatoes

http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/why-y...ging-more-fees

[.blank cd]

Good read , not really biased, maybe some right leaning, but read the meat and potatoes

http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/why-y...ging-more-fees

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: FREE MARKET AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

Hmmmmmmm. Ok, but I'll read it anyway

[Vteckidd]

Hmmmmmmm. Ok, but I'll read it anyway

i said SOME bias, but the MEAT AND POTATOES is absolutely correct. He also lists the GOP people that voted for this bill.

Look, you wanna have regulation thats fine, but you CANNOT COMPLAIN about its consequences.

[Vteckidd]

Christ you picked the one bank I didn't post. I have usaa fyi, but once again you missed the entire point.

Not even worth arguing at this point ill continue to further myself while you wait for the handout

[.blank cd]

And your concept of banking is that of an elementary school child. The infrastructure you use to be able to swipe your debit card costs money. That's why they charge you the fee

Lol. You can try to attack my knowledge of the banking system all you want. You know I'm right. The plastic infrastructure costs money and you well over pay for it BEFORE this fee is tacked on. Since you have USAA, I know you know I'm right.

[Vteckidd]

Lol. You can try to attack my knowledge of the banking system all you want. You know I'm right. The plastic infrastructure costs money and you well over pay for it BEFORE this fee is tacked on. Since you have USAA, I know you know I'm right.

god damn you are so stupid. How do we OVERPAY for it? youre just assuming , you have no fucking clue what it costs to run their debit card infrastructure! how can you make blatantly false statements like this? Who are you to say they are charging too much? The market will tell us if we are or not. not some kid on a import car forum.

What is your degree in? what jobs have you held? that makes you qualified to determine the price and rates of a financial institution? thought so.......


you were paying for the debit card before, you just didnt know it. You can thank the GOVT for the $5 fee, not BOA. USAA doesnt have to charge the fee because they have 1/100th the overhead costs of any other branch i listed so you provided a shitty comparison. USAA doesnt have walk in branches, or tellers, its all online. They dont have to charge the $5 debit card fee because they dont have:
buildings to pay taxes/rent on
tellers to pay salaries for
physical equipment used at said locations (computers, desks, etc)

USAA offers a great alternative, and i love them, but i keep an in town bank account (CHASE) in case i need to run to the bank and retrieve my money. you cant do that with USAA

[Browning151]

This whole debit card thing is really quite simple, I don't get why it's so hard to understand.

Bank builds infrastructure for electronic payments, bank charges to use that infrastructure. Pretty damn simple. They used to charge the merchants, the gov't stepped in and capped that so they pass the cost on to you, simple economics. But I suppose you think they should just never recoup any of their investment on that. Also that whole "they use my money to make money and make money on loan interest etc." argument is absolutely 100% irrelevant. The banks have been doing that since they've existed, LONG before debit and credit cards existed, that's how banks work. That aspect of the bank has absolutely no bearing on debit cards and electronic funds transfer infrastructure.

Why don't we just go ahead and pass legislation that caps all profit across the board at 5%, anything above and beyond that must be surrendered to the gov't to be redistributed to the "poor" and see where that gets us. At least you won't have these "greedy" banks and corporations making too much money anymore right?

[bu villain]

I think Vteckidd and blank.cd both have some good points. I agree with Vteckidd that we should expect banks to pursue profits in the face of any regulation and if people don't like a bank's policies, customers must vote by switching banks. The free market is built this way and there is nothing wrong with the bank's new policy in my opinion. The banks being forced to charge directly for debit cards is a good thing because that cost went from an invisible cost to a visible cost for consumers. Transparency is a good thing!

blank.cd makes a good point in that financial services (such as debit cards) are becoming more and more of a necessity these days. The government should be watching the financial industry to make sure this particular market which has become such an integral part of modern society is acting fairly and transparently. Furthermore, we don't have a perfect free market. Free market principles rely on the ability for companies to vigorously compete. However, there are huge barriers to entry to compete with these massive banks. The government must ensure that these banks are truly competing and not simply muscling out smaller banks.