Where the government should get involved

Where the government should get involved (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Vaughner -> Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 11:59:44 AM)
I wish to draw from the peanut gallery. So I will propose this. First off I am a believer in small government. That is I believe the government should get involved to solve a problem only when no other entity is capable (or willing) to do so. One place I believe the government needs to get involved is banking practices. No I am not refering to the major collapses currently going on, this is a different issue. Where I see a need to get involved is predatory practices by these banking instutitions. For example A credit card says your bill is due the day of the 21st. On the 21st you call and pay them with a check by phone. The problem is the 21st is a Saturday, and since they only process on business days your account does not post until Tuesday. Bam they smack you with a late fee, and raise your rates. Despite the fact you did make your payment on time. Another one, where banks withdraw from and overdraft your account should you cash a check that bounces. You were not the wrong-doer, yet you are now the one being punished fo rit. Or perhaps these banks that like to overdraft based on your "available balance" rather than your total balance. These are preadatory practices that bilk people out of untold sums of money each year, with few institutions that do not follow this practice. In fact the only one I know of that does none of these three is Ford Credit. If politicians really cared about people, rather than the corporations and the wealthy it seems to me that these are the kinds of banking issues that would be focused on. Those that are most relevant to the folk, which affect them most. What sayeth the peanut gallery?

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:05:24 PM)
And on top of that some of these agencies such as HSBC who back numerous specialty credit cards (Alienware, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe's etc) is now forcing customers to accept a major increase in minimum rates regardless of payment history or have their accounts closed. All of this while they are being showered with money from Washington.

YoursMistress -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:11:43 PM)
I can't say that I agree with each of your specific examples. The due date, business day thread will ultimately go away, I believe, as we get further into a global economy with no ""business days" or "business hours" and round-the-clock virtual business displacing traditional practices. The concept of ATM fees is one that just kills me. My guess is that the average American pays at least twice in ATM fees what they make in interest, and would love to hear real data on that one. I also understand that the banks will cash checks in order of descending value so that once a check bounces, the maximum number of overdrafts will occur. I suppose I could be persuaded to "look the other way" while you sicked the gubment on banks for a while. yours

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:13:30 PM)
Dont forget that many banks do all deductions from your account before making any deposits to it, that way they can overdraft you even if within the same period enough money is technically there to cover the gross numbers.

YoursMistress -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:17:17 PM)
Well, if banks are the new devil, who is the new God?

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:18:01 PM)
Think I'm going to have to whip out my Neitzche (sp?) on this one

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:19:00 PM)
I totally agree with you, as does about 90% of the American people. The problem is that the banking industry has a much better lobby than the American people.

FullCircle -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:21:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vaughner Where I see a need to get involved is predatory practices by these banking instutitions. For example A credit card says your bill is due the day of the 21st. On the 21st you call and pay them with a check by phone. The problem is the 21st is a Saturday, and since they only process on business days your account does not post until Tuesday. Bam they smack you with a late fee, and raise your rates. Despite the fact you did make your payment on time. Banks make a great amount out of people that can't be bothered to check such things in advance or pay promptly when the bill arrives. quote: Another one, where banks withdraw from and overdraft your account should you cash a check that bounces. You were not the wrong-doer, yet you are now the one being punished fo rit. Hardly the banks problem if people you have dealings with are insolvent. You cash a cheque that bounces and the money has to come from somewhere, the bank expects you to rectify the situation with the person that gave you the cheque. To avoid going overdraft ensure an adequate float, one cheque should not be the difference between the account going overdraft, that is poor accountancy or business practice. i.e. not managing the account or accepting large cheques at the end of a business deal rather than small deposits at each stage of work. quote: Or perhaps these banks that like to overdraft based on your "available balance" rather than your total balance. That is fine if you don't want interest on your savings but most people expect a bank to invest their money rather than leaving it dormant. quote: These are preadatory practices that bilk people out of untold sums of money each year, with few institutions that do not follow this practice. In fact the only one I know of that does none of these three is Ford Credit. You want government to be a nanny state for people that are ignorant of financial contracts so I expect you also want government to act as a nanny state in other areas such as drugs, gun control etc? This is hardly the definition of small government. quote: If politicians really cared about people, rather than the corporations and the wealthy it seems to me that these are the kinds of banking issues that would be focused on. Those that are most relevant to the folk, which affect them most. There are far worse practices going on than you realise; do some research on JIT where manufacturers will hold off paying suppliers and at the same time accept money from clients, the difference they will invest and profit on whilst the suppliers will suffer. +'t

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:28:06 PM)
Oh Circle, do not profess to have knowledge of my views simply by one post. As this is obviously the only one you have read. My point if not worded clearly enough is one of attention. If the politicians in office really cared about the folk, these are the kinds of issues their focus would be on. One point I have to remain firm on however is that one should not be penalized for paying on time just because an insitution does not do their paperwork for a few days. One check being the difference between overdraft and not is not necessarily an example of bad practice or ignorance of money matters, often it is the definition of living paycheck to paycheck. In so far as bouncing checks I can see more eye to eye with you on that one, as the issue is between you and the proginitor of the check. I believe a limit must be placed here, requiring you to return the money you cashed out, that I have no trouble with. But overdrafting you is another story. These fees should be levied against the person who contracted the bad debt, and duped the bank into giving out too much money. In so far as guns and drugs and a "nanny state" as you put it. I do hold that the right to bear arms is an individual right, so I am not a big fan of government there (except to prevent transfer to convicted felons, and mentally unstable, laws which are and have for a long time been in effect). As far as drugs go, I'm all for the Fed and State doing everything they can to stop the illegal trafficking and distribution of these substances. If there is no authoritative presence whatso ever things eventually devolve into tribalism and pure darwanism if no one else is able to step in. Case in point, the fracturing of Europe with the fall of the Roman Empire. EDIT: Expanded on details.

UncleNasty -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:36:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I totally agree with you, as does about 90% of the American people. The problem is that the banking industry has a much better lobby than the American people. The American people could and should be the most powerfull lobby. Sad that so few are educated and informed regarding 1) their own power, both individually and collectively, 2) the limits and disabilities on governmental officials and governmental power. I've been an advocate for citizen militias for several years now as a means of holding our elected officials accountable to "We the people..." The housing debacle, and ensuing economic collapse, should be instructive to us all. There are numerous statutes and regulations, regulatory bodies, agencies and officials, and as a final backstop the courts, that have all failed us. Had any of these "governemental officials" been aware that they would be held accountable for not doing their jobs in good faith... Well, they'd have done them in good faith, and protected "the people" in the process. It will be years before the full extent of this mess comes to light, before we know who and what broke down, and before we know who needs to be held accountable. In Michael Moore's "Sicko" there was an interview of some french people that said along the lines of "The problem in America is that the government is not afraid of the people." That rang true in my mind. Uncle Nasty (happily typing more fully with 2 hands)

FullCircle -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vaughner Oh Circle, do not profess to have knowledge of my views simply by one post. As this is obviously the only one you have read. Are you spying on me?[8\|] I don't know your views I was asking the question of your views really. However most people that say they want small government are really saying they want a government that fights for their issues and not those of the next person who has opposing views to them as far as what government should concern themselves with. We all want governments to do different things for us so the idea of a small government is a misnomer because we have a multitude of needs. Some people want the right to hunt hedgehogs others want to prosecute the hunters of hedgehogs. Some people want financial institutions to be regulated by political positions other people want banks to regulate themselves i.e. not have their hands tied and or give a politician an ineffectual job that they never undertake. The banking system was deregulated but it could have gone wrong either way because regulators a lot of the time only see what an institution will shown them. The difference is your tax dollars are now paying for regulators and you can't ascertain if they are up to the job or if they even take their job as a regulator seriously. quote: My point if not worded clearly enough is one of attention. If the politicians in office really cared about the folk, these are the kinds of issues their focus would be on. One point I have to remain firm on however is that one should not be penalized for paying on time just because an insitution does not do their paperwork for a few days. If you feel a politician doesn't care then they aren’t much of a politician as most politicians have endless focus groups to learn what it is we care about etc. You are only best placed to decide what you care about unless you've been to one of these focus groups to learn the needs of others. As for dealing with banks on time, it's just like driving: you have to treat every other driver as if they passed their driving test in India. quote: One check being the difference between overdraft and not is not necessarily an example of bad practice or ignorance of money matters, often it is the definition of living paycheck to paycheck. That could be true of small business owners, I suppose. quote: In so far as bouncing checks I can see more eye to eye with you on that one, as the issue is between you and the proginitor of the check. I believe a limit must be placed here, requiring you to return the money you cashed out, that I have no trouble with. But overdrafting you is another story. These fees should be levied against the person who contracted the bad debt, and duped the bank into giving out too much money. Pass the fees on to the person that bounced the cheque, there is nothing in law stopping you from claiming liquidated damages.

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 12:57:15 PM)
No there is nothing stoppng you from seeking damages but if you are overdrafted, sucks to be you in the mean time. And I made my view on small government quite clear to begin with. Government should handle only those issues which cannot, or will not be handle by other insitutions. I have to disagree with you on focus groups, I have in fact sat in one or two in the time I've spent in DC. Focus groups are nothing but a lobby with a specific agenda, and the money to get themselves heard. Furthemore if focus groups are so necessary it shows me that the leaders are all to out of touch with the people they are supposed to be representing. And in repsect to the regulators you speak of = Bad Government, no full retirement after one term for you! Edit: Damn I cannot type today

came4U -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 1:04:43 PM)
We all know the rules of banking. or we don't read the fine print or pretend not to. Responsible people pay ahead of a banking holiday. Responsible people allow for charges by keeping a few extra dollars in an account for these expected 'surprises'. quote:* If politicians really cared about people, rather than the corporations and the wealthy it seems to me that these are the kinds of banking issues that would be focused on. Those that are most relevant to the folk, which affect them most. They did. You learned basic math in school didn't you? If not, then having a bank account is the least of your problems.

pissdoll -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 2:03:46 PM)
i don't see any predatory practices in what you are describing. you have a due date. you are aware of your due date. you have two choices: #1- pay your in a timely manner so it arrives and is posted before the due date #2- pay late and pay a fee for doing so someone gives you a check. you can: #1- place it in your account but leave it as a cushion until you are sure funds were paid #2- spend it immediately and hope for the best you have an "available balance" that is less than your total balance: #1- understand not all your funds are available #2- write checks all over town and cry like a baby when they bounce nothing you stated requires anything more than a few brain cells. what i have noticed is that people who hate banks generally don't manage their money well. i pay no fees to my bank, my credit card company or to atms. ever. does this make me a genius? am i more brilliant than anyone else in town?? hardly. i'm just responsible. i keep track of my balance and don't spend more than i have. i don't charge more than i can afford to pay off at the end of the month (airline miles). i only use the atm at my bank or places where there is no fee for cash (supermarket). i keep track of due dates and pay my bills on time. if i can't afford it, i don't buy it. i don't feel the government should have to step in on my behalf should i choose to live beyond my means. i also don't think it's fair to blame THAT aspect of the industry on the banks themselves.

NorthernGent -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 2:09:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vaughner Think I'm going to have to whip out my Neitzche (sp?) on this one He'd say...... How the fuck do I know? I've been living in a hut in the mountains for the last 10 years. Plus, I'm insane. Work it out for yourself. Regards, Friedrich.

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 2:15:37 PM)
Nice one Gent. But again it seems everyone is missing my point. (Again probably my fault for not wording it better) but the point remains if those in authority are truly concerned about financial matters such as these which effect the folk why are these not the kinds of issues receiving attention? And don't give me that "it only takes common sense" if that argument flew less than a tenth of the government programs we have now would exist.

pissdoll -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 2:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vaughner Nice one Gent. the point remains if those in authority are truly concerned about financial matters such as these the point is that those in authority SHOULDN'T be concerned in financial matters such as these. if i am irresponsible, i deserve to be penalized in the manner i contractually agreed to.

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 2:23:36 PM)
The penaut gallery scores one. But let me postulate this to you. You recieve a check, you do not have a choice whether or not to leave it in the bank as you literally have to spend that money that day to cover your living expenses. Said check bounces leaving you in overdraft because you truly live paycheck to paycheck. Should you be overdrafted and slammed with fees? You have not been irreponsible, you have done what the situation required and it bit you in the ass. Or Should the bank require the return of the money issued you, while using the information at their hands (ie account number from the issuing check) to send the fees and penalties back to the writer of the original erroneous check? And thus created a voided contract between you, him, and the bank go-betweens? It is easy to say, do this or do that and you'll never have any problems. But this does not always work in the real world. Those who have never had to face an issue are not necessarily smarter than those who have, just luckier.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 2:47:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vaughner ......And don't give me that "it only takes common sense" if that argument flew less than a tenth of the government programs we have now would exist. And that would be a bad thing?? I'm all for less government involvement, certainly not more and most certainly not more for something(s) that could be easily prevented. If I had an issue with my bank about a certain practice of theirs, I would simply go into the bank and discuss it with them. If they are not willing to work out the issue, it's like any other business, they may lose a customer.

Vaughner -> RE: Where the government should get involved (2/8/2009 2:53:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash quote: ORIGINAL: Vaughner ......And don't give me that "it only takes common sense" if that argument flew less than a tenth of the government programs we have now would exist. And that would be a bad thing?? I'm all for less government involvement, certainly not more and most certainly not more for something(s) that could be easily prevented. If I had an issue with my bank about a certain practice of theirs, I would simply go into the bank and discuss it with them. If they are not willing to work out the issue, it's like any other business, they may lose a customer. Wouldn't be a bad thing it all, but the point there was common sense does not rule the day in politics. In so far as the bank losing your business this happens. I went through two before I found one I was happy with. Sometimes you get screwed coming and going, other times you manage to not be the one left holding the bag. I would to continue this thread, however I have been reading so much my eyes are starting to cross. Time to go find something else to do for awhile.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875