I'm really irritated - Banks, all of them

Florida Sportsman

Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Senior Member mikev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,429

    I'm really irritated - Banks, all of them

    Nothing has happened to me, but I keep reading about the banks and what they are doing to people. First, the bailouts, which I vehemently disagree with. I just keep reading stories about what they are doing to people. For example, Wells Fargo is getting sued in California because of the over-draft fees. One person was charged $560 in fees for a $120 overdraft. Seems that Wells Fargo was not making the transactions in the order they were received. They would make a transaction for the largest one, and then all the smaller amounts they would charge them the fees. That's just criminal, and BS. Bank of America is another one charging all of these fees. I know folks should be responsible for their actions, but sometimes mistakes happen (or times are really tough), but the only people making that profit are the banks.

    Vent over.
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    376
    Unfortunately, the bailouts were necessary to prevent a full scale economic meltdown. Politicians as disparate as GWB and Barack Obama agreed, as did economists of all political stripes. Maybe the size and scope was off... and maybe the banks shouldn't have been allowed to grow "too big to fail" in the first place - these are good debates to have.

    As for fees... consumer protection laws limit them, which many consider "over-regulatrion" of private enterprise, And, of course, you can vote with your wallet and close your accounts. Most credit unions are far more consumer friendly.
    Qui audet adipiscitur

  3. #3
    Senior Member Big Battery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Central NC
    Posts
    12,739
    Quote Originally Posted by arbitrageur View Post
    Unfortunately, the bailouts were necessary to prevent a full scale economic meltdown. Politicians as disparate as GWB and Barack Obama agreed, as did economists of all political stripes. Maybe the size and scope was off... and maybe the banks shouldn't have been allowed to grow "too big to fail" in the first place - these are good debates to have.

    As for fees... consumer protection laws limit them, which many consider "over-regulatrion" of private enterprise, And, of course, you can vote with your wallet and close your accounts. Most credit unions are far more consumer friendly.
    Bull!
    "....once the glitches get worked out." ~gunby31

  4. #4
    Senior Member Michael Repper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,904
    Quote Originally Posted by arbitrageur View Post
    these are good debates to have.
    Gut god forbid anyone question the merits of bailing out crooked bankers who set up the collapse in the first place!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Battery View Post
    Bull!
    Yeah, that $140 billion pulled out of money-market accounts was an accounting error.

  6. #6
    Senior Member mikev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Repper View Post
    Gut god forbid anyone question the merits of bailing out crooked bankers who set up the collapse in the first place!
    100% agree. They were lending exorbitant amounts of money to anyone that wanted or applied for it. They made the mistake. We paid for it. Anyone remember the days when credit was hard to get? Now days, anyone and anything can be approved. No job? OK. Not even living? OK. Not human? OK.
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."

  7. #7
    Senior Member Michael Repper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,904
    Quote Originally Posted by mikev View Post
    100% agree. They were lending exorbitant amounts of money to anyone that wanted or applied for it. They made the mistake. We paid for it. Anyone remember the days when credit was hard to get? Now days, anyone and anything can be approved. No job? OK. Not even living? OK. Not human? OK.
    I agree with your post except for one point. It was not a mistake. They were heavily invested in the collapse of the housing market. The payoff of their investments DEPENDED upon the collapse.

  8. #8
    Senior Member CaptTater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Jupiter
    Posts
    20,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Repper View Post
    Gut god forbid anyone question the merits of bailing out crooked bankers who set up the collapse in the first place!
    Or the politician(s) that mandated whom they would loan to despite their proven inability to pay and allowed illegal mergers.

    http://www.ickypeople.com/2008/04/bi...-subprime.html

    "When Bill Clinton was President in 1998, Citibank, by then called Citicorp, was trying to merge with Traveller's group (the investment firm with the ads with the red umbrella). Under the Glass-Steagall Act, this was prohibited. Way back in 1933 FDR and Co. were wise enough to know that commercial banks shouldn't own investment banks, it leads to all sorts of illegal shenanigans.

    But years of bribing, er, lobbying Congress had done it's trick, and Citicorp's CEO Sandy Weill said he was assured by Federal sources the merger would be approved, which it was in 1998. (Technically the merger was illegal in 1998 as the law wasn't repealed until November, 1999.) Renamed Citigroup after the merger, they have gone on to purchase other investment firms.
    .
    .
    .
    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (called the Financial Services Modernization Act at the time) repealed 66 years of consumer protections and paved the way for financial mergers and the introduction of new investment products. The Act was written by Republican Senators including Phil Gramm, and early voting was split down party lines until President Clinton forced a rewrite of the bill.

    Clinton vowed to veto the Senate version of the bill unless it was re-written to include "requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers, and others who have had little access to credit." The new version passed 90-8 in the Senate, passed the House, and Clinton signed it into law. Clinton's required reworking of the bill should be studied closely to see what role, if any, it played in illegal, often racist, subprime loans at higher rates than Caucasian borrowers were offered.."
    Last edited by CaptTater; 05-03-2012 at 10:27 PM.
    I did not read the story but if you take tax payers money maybe you should be held to some standards.-Cyclist
    when we say the same thing about welfare recipients, you cry like a wounded buffalo Sopchoppy
    It's their money, they spend it how they like. Truth and honesty have nothing to do with it. - Mr Jr
    "A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government. "

  9. #9
    Senior Member Michael Repper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,904
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptTater View Post
    Or the politician(s) that mandated
    American Dream Downpayment Initiative

    Summary

    The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorized up to $200 million annually. Funds were appropriated for fiscal years 2004-2008. ADDI provided funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that had a population of at least 150,000 or qualified for an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI is administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program.
    Purpose

    ADDI helped first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

    http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affor...ams/home/addi/

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Battery View Post
    Bull!
    Wow, that's a convincing and well reasoned argument. So much pithier than those smarty pants folks in New York with their fancy PhD's from MIT and Harvard!

    How would you have handled things differently than Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke in 2008, when the entire financial system was teetering on the brink?

    Is it that you don't believe it was on the brink, or do you feel it should have been allowed to topple over, or do you see some other solution that the smartest people in the country didn't see?

    Enlighten, please.
    Qui audet adipiscitur

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •