I'm really irritated - Banks, all of them

[mikev]

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.

[arbitrageur]

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.

[Big Battery]

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!

[Michael Repper]

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!

[Deep Dropper]

Bull!

Yeah, that $140 billion pulled out of money-market accounts was an accounting error.

[mikev]

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.

[Michael Repper]

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.

[CaptTater]

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.."

[Michael Repper]

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/

[arbitrageur]

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.