Banks have to ask permission on overdraft fees????

[msmith198025]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fed-banks-need-customer-apf-264768985.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=


Banks will have to secure their customers' consent before charging large overdraft fees on ATM and debit card transactions, according to a new rule announced Thursday by the Federal Reserve.

The rule responds to complaints from consumer groups, members of Congress and other regulators that the overdraft fees are unfair because many people assume they can't spend more on a debit card than is available in their account. Instead, many banks allow the transactions to go through, then charge fees of up to $25 to $35.

For small purchases, such as a cup of coffee, the penalty can far exceed the actual cost of the transaction.

Ahh, its an opt in program

[HDRoberts]

Keep reading:


Under the Fed's new rule, which will take effect July 1, banks will be required to notify new and existing customers of their overdraft services and give customers the option of being covered. If customers don't "opt in," any debit or ATM transactions that overdraw their accounts will be denied, Fed officials said.

Sounds like this is perfectly fair to me. People should have that option.

[NickG420]

God forbid the bank charge a fee for covering a purchase you didn't have the money to pay for :rolleyes:

Why can't people just keep up with how much money they have in the bank and not overspend? I don't understand why we need the government to hold their hand for being irresponsible...If you can't keep up with something as simple as whether or not you have enough money in the bank to cover a purchase you are going to need much more help than this "nanny state" rule can provide.

[fallout2600]

God forbid you don't know how much money you have in your OWN checking account! :augentreher:

[HDRoberts]

God forbid the bank charge a fee for covering a purchase you didn't have the money to pay for :rolleyes:

Why can't people just keep up with how much money they have in the bank and not overspend? I don't understand why we need the government to hold their hand for being irresponsible...If you can't keep up with something as simple as whether or not you have enough money in the bank to cover a purchase you are going to need much more help than this "nanny state" rule can provide.

What is wrong with people having the option of having their purchases declined rather than be forced to pay a $35+ fee for using the debit card to by that $3 cappuccino? No one is forcing them to cover the purchase with no fee, just having the option of being declined instead.

Maybe a check hasn't cleared yet. Maybe the wife made a purchase you didn't no about. Maybe a previous retailer added a zero to you purchase and you didn't realize it. Lots of reasons you can mistakenly be overdrawn.

[vurbano]

God forbid people exercise personal responsibility. But this is an Obama/Acorn world now. We will see a lot of this bologna.

[NickG420]

Maybe a check hasn't cleared yet.
If you are living that close that you have to depend on a check clearing in order to make a purchase, you may want to check the amount of money you are spending. I don't think this rule is going to help your financial situation much.

Maybe the wife made a purchase you didn't no about.
Then maybe you need to find a more financially responsible spouse.

Maybe a previous retailer added a zero to you purchase and you didn't realize it. Lots of reasons you can mistakenly be overdrawn.
Maybe you should be a little more cautious when signing a receipt or entering your PIN and make sure the charge is correct...

All of my accounts flag any big purchases and send me an email, and if my any of my accounts reach a certain amount, set by me, I also get an email. So most of your situations above do not apply to me. I can't imagine my bank is the only bank to provide this option.

[HDRoberts]

And you didn't answer my question, what is wrong with giving people the option of having their purchases declined instead of getting a fee?

[HDRoberts]

I can't believe you people think a $47 fee is warranted for a $3 overdraft.

$47 - $20 is the average overdraft fee, $27 is the average fee for "processing" the overdraft.

I never use debit cards. I stick with the choice that has had consumer protection for years: credit cards.

[NickG420]

And you didn't answer my question, what is wrong with giving people the option of having their purchases declined instead of getting a fee?

I don't think there is anything wrong with that...If the bank chooses to do so on their own. I don't think it's right that the government can force them to provide that option.

However that wasn't argument. My argument was if people were more responsible this would not even be an issue. I don't see how you can argue with that.

[HD MM]

In the previous world where people only wrote checks and balanced their checkbook for each transaction they made, overdraft fees were few and far between, so the occasional penalty was acceptable. Now, people use debit cards more than cash, pay their bills online and it is very easy to lose track of the exact balance on a daily basis. It doesn't matter how careful you are, overdrafting is more likely to happen nowadays and the fees they charge can add up quick. This new option is simply a way of keeping up with the times.

[NickG420]

I can't believe you people think a $47 fee is warranted for a $3 overdraft.

$47 - $20 is the average overdraft fee, $27 is the average fee for "processing" the overdraft.

I never use debit cards. I stick with the choice that has had consumer protection for years: credit cards.

What difference does it make how much the overdraft was? The fact is you spent money that was not there and the bank had to cover it. You don't like the overdraft fees at the bank your with you have choices, that's the beauty of a free market. Just several off the top of my head...

1. Stop being irresponsible and spending money that you don't have.
2. Find a bank that charges less or no overdraft fees.
3. Stop using debit cards
4. Stop using banks all together.

Like I stated previously, it is not that I have a problem with the banks providing this option. Provided they are doing it by choice not by force.

It is the fact that immediately your tone implied that you thought "It's about time somone stopped those evil banks from overcharging those poor people."...Where I, on the other hand, tend to look at it like this...It is your responsibility to keep up with your finances and if you do not or cannot, it is not the government's responsibility to force banks to adopt a business practice to protect you and shame on you for expecting them to. I keep up with my finances just fine and never have an overdraft fee, and between my wife and I 10 debits probably hit our account a day. There's no excuse, and no reason for this nanny state BS.

[stevenl]

It is about time someone stops the banks from this practice. Hey banks I dont want your 4000% interest rate for borrowing 3$ thanks. Decline the purchase.

[vurbano]

In the previous world where people only wrote checks and balanced their checkbook for each transaction they made, overdraft fees were few and far between, so the occasional penalty was acceptable. Now, people use debit cards more than cash, pay their bills online and it is very easy to lose track of the exact balance on a daily basis. It doesn't matter how careful you are, overdrafting is more likely to happen nowadays and the fees they charge can add up quick. This new option is simply a way of keeping up with the times.

the responsibility part hasnt changed.

[NickG420]

It is about time someone stops the banks from this practice. Hey banks I dont want your 4000% interest rate for borrowing 3$ thanks. Decline the purchase.

It's not borrowing...

It's not like you said "Hey Mr. Bank of America you got $3 for this stupid frappacino?" It's more like you ordered your funky coffee concoction then informed him you were broke walked out the door and left Bank of America forced to pick up the tab...

Yeah I'd charge you out the ass too...

[HDRoberts]

What difference does it make how much the overdraft was? The fact is you spent money that was not there and the bank had to cover it. You don't like the overdraft fees at the bank your with you have choices, that's the beauty of a free market. Just several off the top of my head...

1. Stop being irresponsible and spending money that you don't have.
2. Find a bank that charges less or no overdraft fees.
3. Stop using debit cards
4. Stop using banks all together.

Like I stated previously, it is not that I have a problem with the banks providing this option. Provided they are doing it by choice not by force.

It is the fact that immediately your tone implied that you thought "It's about time somone stopped those evil banks from overcharging those poor people."...Where I, on the other hand, tend to look at it like this...It is your responsibility to keep up with your finances and if you do not or cannot, it is not the government's responsibility to force banks to adopt a business practice to protect you and shame on you for expecting them to. I keep up with my finances just fine and never have an overdraft fee, and between my wife and I 10 debits probably hit our account a day. There's no excuse, and no reason for this nanny state BS.

Problem is, the free market doesn't provide banks with that option. I'm only aware of one bank in Cleveland that does. I use that bank for my mortgage, but their branches are too inconvenient and ATMs too, well, nonexistent, to keep them as a a day to day bank. And we have a LOT of banks in Cleveland.

Want to get people off welfare? We lets stop helping people dig themselves deeper and deeper with ridiculous fees.

Yes the amount matters. It is for all practical purposes a loan. The bank says, "sure, I'll pay" knowing they will collect the money, plus a fee if they do. Last I checked, people need to consent to a loan. How would you like it if the bank sent you $5, then said you had to return with $50 in a month and had no choice? Last I checked, interest rates are set as percentages of the principle. Even payday lenders vary fees based on how much you take out.

Yes, people should be responsible. But that does not happen. We all make mistakes. This is a simple measure that costs the bank nothing, aside from the fees they won't collect from the customers who have long wanted this option. They are not being forced to cover purchases with no hope of getting money, but simply sending an electronic message of "he's out of money."


It's not borrowing...

It's not like you said "Hey Mr. Bank of America you got $3 for this stupid frappacino?" It's more like you ordered your funky coffee concoction then informed him you were broke walked out the door and left Bank of America forced to pick up the tab...

Yeah I'd charge you out the ass too...


To reiterate, it is a loan. You order your "stupid frappacino." Hand you card over saying, effectively, "transfer the money from my account to your account." Clerk swipes the card, effectively asking "hey, this dude have money in his account for this?" Rather than saying "NO" and declining, the bank says, "sure, I'll cover him and collect my money later." How is that not a loan?

[stevenl]

It's not borrowing...

It's not like you said "Hey Mr. Bank of America you got $3 for this stupid frappacino?" It's more like you ordered your funky coffee concoction then informed him you were broke walked out the door and left Bank of America forced to pick up the tab...

Yeah I'd charge you out the ass too...

I did not ask nor do I want bank of america to do that. If I dont have the three dollars then dont do me any favors by covering it for me. Specially when that favor comes at a 30$ cost. And in fact the banks love you to do that.

They also love to put hold on items so they will let your 100$ charge be covered by the 3 smaller ones they charge you the fee for when you go over, instead of letting the 3 small ones going through and chargeing you for the 100$ one (and yes thats regardless of the time the purchases were made) Youd think they should go in order of purchase right?

No the banks have rigged the system to their benefit and its about time more protections are coming to consumers... The government is not telling banks they are not ALLOWED to offer this "over draft" service. But they are saying customers should be able to not be required to have it. Put me down on the list of people who do not need or want it.

To add to it.. To say it is not a loan is just silly. It is exactly a loan. Its not like walking out and stealing.. When I hand the guy my card I say "Heres my money" When it goes through the guy says thanks. What the bank does instead of telling the clerk "sorry this guy is broke" the bank says "Not a problem here well lend this guy 3 bucks and charge him 30 for it, hey ask him if he wants to buy another"

That is exactly a loan. The bank knows you have 0 money, and agrees to give you X amount in return for Xamount + interest. (ala the fee)

[NickG420]

Ok let us use your logic and say it's a loan...Every loan comes with fees, I still don't see the problem...You overspent they issued you an automatic loan and now you have to pay for it...

Again let me reiterate I have no problem with banks providing an opt-out of this practice, but I just don't agree that it should be government mandated.

Still noone has explained to me how this is not a personal responsibility issue...HDR brings up people on welfare...I don't care if people make $1000 a week or $1000 a year, it is your personal responsibility to budget your money and make sure you do not overspend...The bank is not your accountant and neither is the government...

[stevenl]

Yes but its a loan I do not want and did not ask for. The banks have been collecting 20+billion$ a year on these fees. Somthing tells me they are highly unlikely to stop the practice without preasure. It is an unfair practice to give someone a loan they did not ask for. To charge them for a service they did not ask for.

Personal responsibility plays a role sure. But why is it not acceptable to force banks to NOT GIVE PEOPLE LOANS who do not want them? I dont want you to cover me. If it takes the government to force these banks to stop this practice then by all means. They are not doing it on their own because they know its a huge profit for them. In fact its ALL profit.

Fact of the matter is, regardless of the personal responsibility aspect, the banks are still ripping people off. Giving you somthing you do not want, did not ask for, do not agree with etc. I do not want them to give me a loan. End of story. No where in my banks user agreement do I see "you will be required to take a loan from us".

And to add to the personal responsibility thing, I have 2 seperate accounts. One solely for paying bills and another for my normal banking. In the bill account I only put the amount of money needed to pay bills, this ensures They are always coverd and it does not interfere with my everyday account and savings account. ( I do leave about 100$ extra in the account for "just in case" stuff) So what happend to me? Well we all know I bought a new car recently and the payment is about 400$ (a little less) a month. So what do we do, same thing we always do go online submit a payment and bam, done. Well what happend? The online payment processed the charge twice so now my account went down 800$ when it was suppose to go down 400. So I had already paid some other smaller bills (power/water etc 200 / 30 respectively) and also paid off a gas card (we use for rebates) about 100$ or so. Now each of those three were done well before the car payment was done. Online though it only shows it as "pending" or "holding" etc. So long story short the bank processs the 2 car payments FIRST then charges me a overdraft on all three of the other bills.. When in fact they were done LAST! The bank should of ran it in order and only charged the over draft on the second 400$. Clearly it was done the other way solely to make money. Guess what happend? I got the car company to reverse the mistaken payment, no biggie, but the bank said they would only reverse one of the fees, as the mistake was not there problem. They did the one fee as a courtesy and that they allow it only once a year..

Ya thats fair for consumers all right.

[HDRoberts]

Ok let us use your logic and say it's a loan...Every loan comes with fees, I still don't see the problem...You overspent they issued you an automatic loan and now you have to pay for it...

Again let me reiterate I have no problem with banks providing an opt-out of this practice, but I just don't agree that it should be government mandated.

Still noone has explained to me how this is not a personal responsibility issue...HDR brings up people on welfare...I don't care if people make $1000 a week or $1000 a year, it is your personal responsibility to budget your money and make sure you do not overspend...The bank is not your accountant and neither is the government...

It needs to be government mandated because banks are refusing to offer this is an option. Care to name banks that are? I'll give you the only one I know of: Third Federal, a small savings and loan chain in Cleveland and Florida that I don't even think has ATMs. Banks, with no regulations, are taking advantage of consumers with these fees and refusing to give another option without abandoning their necessary services. Thus, they need told.

[Skyhi]

Well it's about time. Banks have forced these usurious loans on consumers for far too long.

[vurbano]

It's not borrowing...

It's not like you said "Hey Mr. Bank of America you got $3 for this stupid frappacino?" It's more like you ordered your funky coffee concoction then informed him you were broke walked out the door and left Bank of America forced to pick up the tab...

Yeah I'd charge you out the ass too...

Actually its theft. You recieved that frappacino and didnt have money to pay for it, the bank covered your a@@. I say pay the fee or go to jail. No one is forcing the irresponsible to have credit cards. These scumbags should just write bad checks and stop abusing credit cards.

[HDRoberts]

Actually its theft. You recieved that frappacino and didnt have money to pay for it, the bank covered your a@@. I say pay the fee or go to jail. No one is forcing the irresponsible to have credit cards. These scumbags should just write bad checks and stop abusing credit cards.

Um, last I checked you pay, then they make it. If your transaction is declined instead of processed with massive fee nothing is stolen because nothing was made or taken.

No one is saying that people would be able to have their purchases covered with no fees.

[msmith198025]

Well it's about time. Banks have forced these usurious loans on consumers for far too long.
How have they forced it? I have no problem with an opt out program, I do feel that the gov shouldnt force this. However NO ONE is forced into these "loans". Keep up with what you have, and spend that much. No one "forces" anyone to spend more than they have. If they cant keep up with it accurately, that is not the banks problem, or mine.

[msmith198025]

Yes but its a loan I do not want and did not ask for. The banks have been collecting 20+billion$ a year on these fees. Somthing tells me they are highly unlikely to stop the practice without preasure. It is an unfair practice to give someone a loan they did not ask for. To charge them for a service they did not ask for.



They asked for it when they spent more than they had available. How does everyone not see this?

If you only carried cash and had 5 bucks, you couldnt buy 6 bucks worth of product. Simple as that. The banks cover that extra. Is it unreasonable to charge a fee for it? They are in business to make money, not give it away.

Again, I have no problem with an opt out program. Spend what you have, and no more. I do have a problem with the gov. forcing this on the banks.

Big bad banks, yeah right.

[vurbano]

Um, last I checked you pay, then they make it. If your transaction is declined instead of processed with massive fee nothing is stolen because nothing was made or taken.

No one is saying that people would be able to have their purchases covered with no fees.

ever pay with a check? Gernerally you get the product and it bounces later. Whatever that fee is it is. If you dont like what it is then go use a different bank. Do you not know what the fees are? No one is forcing you to use a particular bank. The whole debate is silly in a capitalist system. The whole them seems like not liking your interest rate on your credit card. If you don't like it get a different one.

[froggigger]

P-e-r-s-o-n-a-l R-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y

[HDRoberts]

ever pay with a check? Gernerally you get the product and it bounces later. Whatever that fee is it is. If you dont like what it is then go use a different bank. Do you not know what the fees are? No one is forcing you to use a particular bank. The whole debate is silly in a capitalist system. The whole them seems like not liking your interest rate on your credit card. If you don't like it get a different one.

We are not talking about checks, we are talking about debit cards. No one is takling about taking away fees for bounced checks.

The problem is also THERE IS NO OTHER BANK CHOICES!!! You act like you magic free market competition has made banks that let you opt out. I challenged you to name them. Not one of you has.

[fallout2600]

HDRoberts, cry me a river and when you're done, use your online banking so you know your balance before using the ATM...seriously, are we all so stuck in our own personal selfishness that we have NO ability to wipe our own a$$es anymore? I won't hold me breath for the answer.

[msmith198025]

Just because you use a debit card doesnt mean you cant keep up with your balance does it?

[Skyhi]

I really don't see what the big deal is. The aggregate amount of fees associated with these loans is astronomical. I'm happy that these dollars will now be flowing through the economy instead of being sucked up by banks. I'd venture to guess that the majority of these fees would have otherwise been spent in the retail arena. That's a good thing. I hope you all read Stevenl's post about how the banks order transactions. If that isn't an abusive practice, I don;t know what is.

It's not like these types of loans have been outlawed. People can still get them if they'd like. Now they have a choice. In essence they can tell the bank, "No matter how bad I want that coffee, DO NOT LEND me the money." Isn't consumer choice a good thing?

[froggigger]

We are not talking about checks, we are talking about debit cards. No one is takling about taking away fees for bounced checks.

The problem is also THERE IS NO OTHER BANK CHOICES!!! You act like you magic free market competition has made banks that let you opt out. I challenged you to name them. Not one of you has.

No one can name one because your premise is flawed. There is barely any semblance of free market competition in banking. Don't expect free market solutions in a heavily regulated marketplace.

[froggigger]

HDRoberts, cry me a river and when you're done, use your online banking so you know your balance before using the ATM...seriously, are we all so stuck in our own personal selfishness that we have NO ability to wipe our own a$$es anymore? I won't hold me breath for the answer.

:thumbup::thumbup:

[Bear Paws]

We are not talking about checks, we are talking about debit cards. No one is takling about taking away fees for bounced checks.

The problem is also THERE IS NO OTHER BANK CHOICES!!! You act like you magic free market competition has made banks that let you opt out. I challenged you to name them. Not one of you has. A debt card is a check. Its a promissory note. If you don't have a checking account you don't get a debt card. Its up to you to keep track of your balance avail. The days of borrowing on your debt card unless you have overdraft protection is over. That was big game a lot of people played. Use the debit card today against tonight's auto deposit or cover it later with a transfer. Its up to you to manage your money..

Geeez.. what the hell happened to us. Now we think we are even entitled to a free loan or accounting service? Its the banks fault because we didn't balance our check book?? Banks ain't the government yet....well almost not completely... MOF....Go bounce a check on the government.. Go ahead...see what they charge you. Last I heard it was called kiting.

Over draft of a debt card should carry the same penalty as ISF on checks.. Prosecution.

[msmith198025]

I really don't see what the big deal is. The aggregate amount of fees associated with these loans is astronomical. I'm happy that these dollars will now be flowing through the economy instead of being sucked up by banks. I'd venture to guess that the majority of these fees would have otherwise been spent in the retail arena. That's a good thing. I hope you all read Stevenl's post about how the banks order transactions. If that isn't an abusive practice, I don;t know what is.

It's not like these types of loans have been outlawed. People can still get them if they'd like. Now they have a choice. In essence they can tell the bank, "No matter how bad I want that coffee, DO NOT LEND me the money." Isn't consumer choice a good thing?

I dont see why people would think this is a good thing. Nothing changes for those that are happy. If one wants to overdraw their account, they still can. The only difference is now they "know" it:rolleyes: Like they didnt before.

I have a problem with the gov telling a bank that they cant charge a fee (without authorization) for "lending" money to someone that doesnt have it.

I mean really, what are the good things about this? What changes, that makes this good? The consumers are protected? From what? Themselves? Good lord are we that stupid? Is that what we want?

[msmith198025]

. It doesn't matter how careful you are, overdrafting is more likely to happen nowadays and the fees they charge can add up quick. This new option is simply a way of keeping up with the times.
I am sorry. I missed this earlier. How is it ANY easier to keep up with what you have with the new rule than it was before? NOW, you simply give them the ok to charge you, before you did not.

[HDRoberts]

No one can name one because your premise is flawed. There is barely any semblance of free market competition in banking. Don't expect free market solutions in a heavily regulated marketplace.

It's not flawed, as you people are the ones saying "if you don't like it, switch" to which my point is THERE IS NOT OTHER BANK TO SWITCH TO THAT DOES THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

I'm leaving it at this: all bank patrons should have the option to have their purchases declined instead of incurring a fee, and this is the only way that will happen.

Honestly, what is the downside?

[msmith198025]

It's not flawed, as you people are the ones saying "if you don't like it, switch" to which my point is THERE IS NOT OTHER BANK TO SWITCH TO THAT DOES THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

I'm leaving it at this: all bank patrons should have the option to have their purchases declined instead of incurring a fee, and this is the only way that will happen.

Honestly, what is the downside?

They did before! That is my point! If they kept up with what they had, they wouldnt have to choose..

What was the downside of that? Besides "I just did not want to keep up with what I had"? Really what is different besides the gov telling a bank that they have to ask?

[froggigger]

It's not flawed, as you people are the ones saying "if you don't like it, switch" to which my point is THERE IS NOT OTHER BANK TO SWITCH TO THAT DOES THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

I'm leaving it at this: all bank patrons should have the option to have their purchases declined instead of incurring a fee, and this is the only way that will happen.

Honestly, what is the downside?

Bank patrons have that option now. Make sure you're adequately funded when you make a purchase and you will not incur a fee. If you can't cover the cost, decline to make the purchase. Personal responsibility.

[HDRoberts]

They did before! That is my point! If they kept up with what they had, they wouldnt have to choose..

What was the downside of that? Besides "I just did not want to keep up with what I had"? Really what is different besides the gov telling a bank that they have to ask?

They did before? When? Debit cards, in their ubiquity, have only been around for 10 or so years. Maybe they didn't when they first came out but that quickly changed. I'd love to see you guys prove it was regulation that caused the change and not greed by the banks. Unless I don't get what you mean by "we had before."


Bank patrons have that option now. Make sure you're adequately funded when you make a purchase and you will not incur a fee. If you can't cover the cost, decline to make the purchase. Personal responsibility.

I suppose you think we should eliminate safety harnesses and railings? Personal responsibility. Keep you balance or suffer the consequences.

Personal responsibility is step 1, no doubt. But how about giving people the option of a safety railing?

[msmith198025]

They did before? When? Debit cards, in their ubiquity, have only been around for 10 or so years. Maybe they didn't when they first came out but that quickly changed. I'd love to see you guys prove it was regulation that caused the change and not greed by the banks. Unless I don't get what you mean by "we had before."



I suppose you think we should eliminate safety harnesses and railings? Personal responsibility. Keep you balance or suffer the consequences.

Personal responsibility is step 1, no doubt. But how about giving people the option of a safety railing?

I mean they had a choice before. That is a fact. You could spend what you had, or not.

Can you tell me what exactly has changed with this besides the gov telling the banks they must ask permission?


Before, if you couldnt keep up with your balance and had to overspend, you could and the bank would charge you. Now it is the same. The only difference is you can opt out. Hell you could before by not spending more than you had, and the gov was not mandating it.

What is the difference except gov control?

[msmith198025]

Bank patrons have that option now. Make sure you're adequately funded when you make a purchase and you will not incur a fee. If you can't cover the cost, decline to make the purchase. Personal responsibility.
Thank you. What is so hard to see about that. NOTHING has changed, except there is more gov control. Why are people making it something else?

If you are happy about the gov being in control just say that, otherwise, what does a consumer gain from this that they did not already have?

[froggigger]

I suppose you think we should eliminate safety harnesses and railings? Personal responsibility. Keep you balance or suffer the consequences.

Personal responsibility is step 1, no doubt. But how about giving people the option of a safety railing?

What this all boils down to is your usual argument. You believe people need government to protect them from their own stupidity. What you don't seem to understand is that people who are protected from failure will never learn from it---and will likely repeat it.

[stevenl]

They asked for it when they spent more than they had available. How does everyone not see this?

If you only carried cash and had 5 bucks, you couldnt buy 6 bucks worth of product. Simple as that. The banks cover that extra. Is it unreasonable to charge a fee for it? They are in business to make money, not give it away.

Again, I have no problem with an opt out program. Spend what you have, and no more. I do have a problem with the gov. forcing this on the banks.

Big bad banks, yeah right.

Well I know for 100% there is 5$ in my wallet I can see it I can touch it. How do I not know that earlier today when I bought X item, they didnt double charge? Or how do I know that the gas station didnt put a 75$ hold when I only spent 20$ on gas? Here I am thinking only 20 is missing from my bank but yet the gas station took 75 (sure theyll release it later but not today) or the reciecpt on the item I purchased that they double billed me does not show the double charge. Some of those idiots dont know how to use a CC machine properly.

All we are asking for is banks be required to NOT GIVE ME a loan I dont want. Deny the charge, then I can go investigate why I have 0 funds when I should have funds. Dont accept the charge and make me pay you 30 bucks.

[stevenl]

A debt card is a check. Its a promissory note. If you don't have a checking account you don't get a debt card. Its up to you to keep track of your balance avail. The days of borrowing on your debt card unless you have overdraft protection is over. That was big game a lot of people played. Use the debit card today against tonight's auto deposit or cover it later with a transfer. Its up to you to manage your money..

Geeez.. what the hell happened to us. Now we think we are even entitled to a free loan or accounting service? Its the banks fault because we didn't balance our check book?? Banks ain't the government yet....well almost not completely... MOF....Go bounce a check on the government.. Go ahead...see what they charge you. Last I heard it was called kiting.

Over draft of a debt card should carry the same penalty as ISF on checks.. Prosecution.

Who is asking for a free loan bear? I am asking for NO LOAN. Please dont do me a favor and loan me money. I dont want it. Thanks. I am not asking for anything for free. I am simply asking for them to NOT GIVE ME A LOAN.

And bear there is a big difference between a debit card and a check. A check is a promise to pay. A debit card is not. Its a direct transfer of funds from one account to another just like cash would be. A check is only going on your word. A debit card can be and should be denied if you have no funds, (unless you wish to have some sort of over draft protection and agree to the fees) but they should not be mandatory.

[stevenl]

I dont see why people would think this is a good thing. Nothing changes for those that are happy. If one wants to overdraw their account, they still can. The only difference is now they "know" it:rolleyes: Like they didnt before.

I have a problem with the gov telling a bank that they cant charge a fee (without authorization) for "lending" money to someone that doesnt have it.

I mean really, what are the good things about this? What changes, that makes this good? The consumers are protected? From what? Themselves? Good lord are we that stupid? Is that what we want?

A lot changes. People like me who get put in a situation beyond there control no longer gets screwed. They make billions and billions in these fees on mistakes that are beyond peoples control. Sure they probably make many more billions on those who were just being dumb. But those people will still be dumb, but the honest of us will now be protected from the banks "good will"''

And what is wrong wtih telling a bank they can not lend money to people unless they want it? Do you like the idea that banks are authorized to give you a loan without your permission?

[stevenl]

Bank patrons have that option now. Make sure you're adequately funded when you make a purchase and you will not incur a fee. If you can't cover the cost, decline to make the purchase. Personal responsibility.

With Cash you know its there its in your hands. You do not have that luxury with a bank account as stuff can happen your unaware of. Perhaps your auto-payment goes through a week earlier then it should? Now your screwd on how many overdrafts? Among many other problems that might come up thats not your fault.

How about this. If you dont have the money in your account the payment is declined? Thats how it used to be, before banks realized there is a fortune to be made.

Heck I remember my very first debit card. I had about 4$ in my account and tried to by a 2$ item. The card was declined. I called the bank and they said In order to use the card I had to have at least 5$ in the account. Guess what thats changed. You can have 50cents int he account and buy somthing for 20 with most banks (they base it on your account history. Good customers with direct deposit etc get a higher "over draft" amount they are allowed to use)

[msmith198025]

A lot changes. People like me who get put in a situation beyond there control no longer gets screwed. They make billions and billions in these fees on mistakes that are beyond peoples control. Sure they probably make many more billions on those who were just being dumb. But those people will still be dumb, but the honest of us will now be protected from the banks "good will"''

And what is wrong wtih telling a bank they can not lend money to people unless they want it? Do you like the idea that banks are authorized to give you a loan without your permission?

But those of you are in that situation do not have to make those purchases, do they? It changes nothing IMO. You can keep up with what you have or not. Right?

All this is, is the gov giving you (not you) a heads up that the banks may charge you. Again, are we that ignorant that we need the gov to tell us that we may be over our limit, and we can opt out?

Dont kid yourselves, the banks are not forcing a loan on you. You were asking for it by not having the money to cover the purchase. Right?

[msmith198025]

With Cash you know its there its in your hands. You do not have that luxury with a bank account as stuff can happen your unaware of. Perhaps your auto-payment goes through a week earlier then it should? Now your screwd on how many overdrafts? Among many other problems that might come up thats not your fault.

How about this. If you dont have the money in your account the payment is declined? Thats how it used to be, before banks realized there is a fortune to be made.

A payment goes through early, do you not take that possibility into account? Do people not balance their accounts? Do they not know what goes in and what has to come out?

Not all keep up with it, but how is that the banks fault?

[stevenl]

But those of you are in that situation do not have to make those purchases, do they? It changes nothing IMO. You can keep up with what you have or not. Right?

All this is, is the gov giving you (not you) a heads up that the banks may charge you. Again, are we that ignorant that we need the gov to tell us that we may be over our limit, and we can opt out?

Dont kid yourselves, the banks are not forcing a loan on you. You were asking for it by not having the money to cover the purchase. Right?

Yes I do have to make purchases. I had other bills I had to pay and had no reason to think the funds were not there.

And Yes having the ability to opt out is valuble. And has nothing to do with ignorance has to do with consumer protection.

And dont kid yourself. They are forceing you to take the loan. If they were not forceing you, youd have the ability to decline it. There is no ability to decline it, you either pay it or goto collections. Is a woman asking to be raped by dressing sexy? No one was asking for a loan. Neither was I. I had reason to believe the funds were availible in the account. No reason to doubt it. Yet the bank decided to take advantage of me, because of an error on someone elses part. Guess what Ive done? I left the big mega bank completely and now only use local credit unions.. Ive only had one instance where there was a problem and it was taken care of quickly by the little bank. Why? Because they called me when they saw a double purchase in the same amount. Online banking and telephone banking often does not update but every so many hours, so had they not called me an hour after the event Id of not known the money was gone.

[stevenl]

A payment goes through early, do you not take that possibility into account? Do people not balance their accounts? Do they not know what goes in and what has to come out?

Not all keep up with it, but how is that the banks fault?

Yes they do know. But some people live check to cehck. So they have Check A covering these bills. Check B covering these bills. So when payment C goes through a week or two early when you were told it would be "no sooner then X date" then you can really get messed up.

And no its not the banks fault its also not the persons fault either, its the payment processors fault. However it is the banks fault for not denying any further money going out and instead giving you an unwanted loan at an ridiculous interest rate.

[msmith198025]

Steven, if you had reason to believe the funds were there, then why werent they? Because of the banks? Really? Or because you (or the person in question) did not keep up with what they had and over spent. Last I checked, banks did not charge you UNLESS you overdrafted. Which means you did not get charged unless you spent more than you had. Right?

So if that is the case, then how is that anyones fault than the buyer? And how is that being forced into a loan?

If banks are charging the fee otherwise, that is wrong, but that is not happening, or at least that is not the argument.

[msmith198025]

Yes they do know. But some people live check to cehck. So they have Check A covering these bills. Check B covering these bills. So when payment C goes through a week or two early when you were told it would be "no sooner then X date" then you can really get messed up.

And no its not the banks fault its also not the persons fault either, its the payment processors fault. However it is the banks fault for not denying any further money going out and instead giving you an unwanted loan at an ridiculous interest rate.
Most people live check to check to be honest. I still dont see how it is not possible to know what you have going in, and what you have going out.

Auto payments getting you in a bind? They are going out early? Pay cash, or write a check.

[stevenl]

Steven, if you had reason to believe the funds were there, then why werent they? Because of the banks? Really? Or because you (or the person in question) did not keep up with what they had and over spent. Last I checked, banks did not charge you UNLESS you overdrafted. Which means you did not get charged unless you spent more than you had. Right?

So if that is the case, then how is that anyones fault than the buyer? And how is that being forced into a loan?

If banks are charging the fee otherwise, that is wrong, but that is not happening, or at least that is not the argument.

Because someone took the funds from the account without permission? Is it really my job to check the bank every 10mins? And in my case I mentioned all the purchases were made the same day and would not of even showed up online anyway, however in my "balance book" everything added up fine.

so it was not my fault, it was the company who doubled charged me faults. The bank just took advantage of that fact and FORCED me to take a loan I did not want. If they would of simply DENIED the other charges I would of seen the error and been able to correct it prior to the bank FORCEING me to take their loan and pay them over 60$.

[stevenl]

Most people live check to check to be honest. I still dont see how it is not possible to know what you have going in, and what you have going out.

Auto payments getting you in a bind? They are going out early? Pay cash, or write a check.

Yes most people do cancel auto payment after they get bit the first time. But once you get bit its already to late. Heck you could get several "loan payments (aka: Over draft fees) on your account before you realize the error. Specially when like you said

You know what is going in and whats going out. I know X payment does not go out till the 20th so I dont need funds to cover it till around then. So if it autobills on the 11th its not my fault for not knowing it. Specially when one relies on the old fashion "Check book balance sheet". Im sorry but I dont know anyone (unless they are extremely tight on money) who checks their balance before buying a 5$ item, if tehy know their balance book says they have it.

[msmith198025]

So if someone is extremely tight on money, and checks their balance, like you said, they wouldnt get "caught"?

[msmith198025]

Because someone took the funds from the account without permission? Is it really my job to check the bank every 10mins? And in my case I mentioned all the purchases were made the same day and would not of even showed up online anyway, however in my "balance book" everything added up fine.

so it was not my fault, it was the company who doubled charged me faults. The bank just took advantage of that fact and FORCED me to take a loan I did not want. If they would of simply DENIED the other charges I would of seen the error and been able to correct it prior to the bank FORCEING me to take their loan and pay them over 60$.

I would say it is your job to know what is in your account. Simple as that. If auto payments are giving you a problem, stop them. Same result as we have here with one big exception. YOU stopped it, not the gov.


So what if all of the purchases were made on the same day, if you had the funds (with your payments getting made weeks early as the exception), it wouldnt matter.

[stevenl]

So if someone is extremely tight on money, and checks their balance, like you said, they wouldnt get "caught"?

Even if you check your online balance every day before you spend 5$ you may still get busted. Because those things are often on many hours delay. I guess you could call the bank before every purchase and get a pretty good estimate, lets just hope you dont need to spend money on a sunday...

Point is a person should have reasonable protection from a bank FORCEING them to take a loan. A person should not have to call the bank before spending 5$. A bank can keep giving the loans all day long, to those who wish to have the service and agrees to accept the loans.

But I dont want it thanks. Dont force me to take it.

[stevenl]

I would say it is your job to know what is in your account. Simple as that. If auto payments are giving you a problem, stop them. Same result as we have here with one big exception. YOU stopped it, not the gov.

As I said you dont know its a problem until it happens.

I didnt have auto-payments I just had a payment double itself up. I didnt stop anything. I had to pay the 60$ to the bank. (It would of been 90 but they were so kind as to give me the 30$ break on one of the fees)

But once the problem happens your arleady out your money and nothing you can do about it. Your out your money because of a loan you didnt ask for.

[msmith198025]

Well then steven, in this exceptions scenario, I guess one could just use cash.

[stevenl]

Great reasoning. Instead of fix the problem we just get rid of banks and everyone use cash...

Or we could just have banks stop forceing people to accept these loans and instead deny the payment. Which costs the bank 0. Which they already have the ability to do but choose only to do it on a case by case bases.

Seems much easier to do it that way. If the money is not there not say it is. Pretty simple. Because when the card goes through the bank is telling you "Hey the money is here" the bank is telling the merchant "Hey the money is here" That is until you check the bank and see the 30$ Loan fee...

[Skyhi]

I still don't see what the big deal is.....The banks are still allowed to make these usurious loans to consumers. The only change is that consumers are allowed to opt out. Why is this a bad thing?

Are you guys against the government allowing consumers to opt out of telemarketing?

[HDRoberts]

I also note none of you responded to my comparison to a safety railing or PPE. If it is all about personal responsibility, why take such a safety measure? People should be responsible for their own safety. If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

I know you will say it's different, but why is it different?

[Skyhi]

This thread may bother me more than any other topic posted on this site....Perhaps the naysayers who claim we're more divided as a country now than we were during the Civil War are correct. I just cannot believe that some of you are criticizing the government over this.

This regulation is not burdensome on the bank and it doesn't strip the bank of its right to offer any sort of product. It just gives the consumer an option. It seems that many of you simply want to punish those who are irresponsible with their checking accounts. Why? People who regularly overdraw their account buying a $3 coffee ARE irresponsible. No argument here. To me, its a good thing that they can opt out of the $30 fee, not get their coffee today, but have $30 "extra" dollars in their account next week so they can buy 10 $3 coffees.

[msmith198025]

Are you guys against the government allowing consumers to opt out of telemarketing?

I dont see how they are the same.

[Skyhi]

I dont see how they are the same.
It's a regulation that gives consumers choice, but also takes money out of the pocket of businesses.

I forgot HDRoberts gave the example of handrails....much better comparison than mine.

But are you opposed to the Donotcall list? Its regulation that impedes the free market.

[msmith198025]

This thread may bother me more than any other topic posted on this site....Perhaps the naysayers who claim we're more divided as a country now than we were during the Civil War are correct. I just cannot believe that some of you are criticizing the government over this.

This regulation is not burdensome on the bank and it doesn't strip the bank of its right to offer any sort of product. It just gives the consumer an option. It seems that many of you simply want to punish those who are irresponsible with their checking accounts. Why? People who regularly overdraw their account buying a $3 coffee ARE irresponsible. No argument here. To me, its a good thing that they can opt out of the $30 fee, not get their coffee today, but have $30 "extra" dollars in their account next week so they can buy 10 $3 coffees.

Thats just it sky. They could have opted out before. Not got their coffee today, and still had $30 "extra" dollars for 10 $3 coffees as it was. They just needed to take better care of their balances. I do it. Why cant they?

I do not mind an opt out program, as I said before. I just have a problem with the gov forcing this on the banks in this situation.

[msmith198025]

It's a regulation that gives consumers choice, but also takes money out of the pocket of businesses.

I forgot HDRoberts gave the example of handrails....much better comparison than mine.

But are you opposed to the Donotcall list? Its regulation that impedes the free market.

I see them as different.
With the do not call list, there is really little a person could do before to stop telemarketers from calling. I mean I guess they could not answer the phone, but little else.

In the case with overdraft fees, that is totally controllable by the consumer. Dont spend it if you dont have it. No fee.

[HDRoberts]

I agree completely with Sky. I think I see the most defining characteristic of the republicans and libertarians on this board: contempt for the poor. They see the poor as the reason their taxes are high. They think everyone below the poverty line is some welfare mom who has extra kids just for the extra food stamps to sell to get more alcohol. They also have what I term "IfIcan" syndrome. "If I can do it, than everyone else can, too." They don't realize that the people below them have different circumstances and challenges, and may not have had some of the advantages some of us had. Or, even if they realize that, they think there is some kind of cosmic law of averages that gave them some other advantage, even though they have no basis for that assumption.

Having this image of poor people naturally breeds contempt. As such, they want them punished. Take away those evil social services that the believe all their tax dollars goes to. Punish accidental poor financial behavior which we would never do, not realizing we would never do it because we have received proper financial training and have enough money that it does not happen.

Every time the republicans and libertarians on this board see a hand up given to people beneath them, they see it as something being taken from them. And I find that misguided and sad. "We're all in this together" has sadly tuned in to "Well, I define all as just those in my socioeconomic group."

[Skyhi]

Thats just it sky. They could have opted out before. Not got their coffee today, and still had $30 "extra" dollars for 10 $3 coffees as it was. They just needed to take better care of thier balances. I do it. Why cant they?
Because they're not as perfect as you? :) Not as smart? Not as rich? Don;t have a computer to check their balance daily? Who knows? Why do you care?


I do not mind an opt out program, as I said before. I just have a problem with the gov forcing this on the banks in this situation.
Why do you have a problem with the government enacting this regulation? Of all the laws to complain about, it seems like this one should be at the bottom of the list. It really appears that you want to see irresponsible people punished. I just don't get it.

[msmith198025]

HdRoberts, that is totally off base.

Contempt for the poor? THATS what you got out of my argument? Really?

[msmith198025]

Because they're not as perfect as you? :) Not as smart? Not as rich? Don;t have a computer to check their balance daily? Who knows? Why do you care?


Why do you have a problem with the government enacting this regulation? Of all the laws to complain about, it seems like this one should be at the bottom of the list. It really appears that you want to see irresponsible people punished. I just don't get it.

Never said I was perfect, particularly smart, or rich. I can do simply math however, and thats basically what it boils down to. Guess what, you dont even need a computer to do it:)

[Skyhi]

I see them as different.
With the do not call list, there is really little a person could do before to stop telemarketers from calling. I mean I guess they could not answer the phone, but little else.

In the case with overdraft fees, that is totally controllable by the consumer. Dont spend it if you dont have it. No fee.
Sure there is. The consumer just won't do business with the company sponsoring the telemarketing calls. The free market will respond and the calls will stop. Once again, the damn government had to get involved to impede free market forces.

[Skyhi]

Never said I was perfect, particularly smart, or rich. I can do simply math however, and thats basically what it boils down to. Guess what, you dont even need a computer to do it:)
But some people can't or don't. And I agree with you.....the ones that don't are irresponsible. I just don;t have a burning desire to see that they're "fined" for their irresponsibility.

[HDRoberts]

HdRoberts, that is totally off base.

Contempt for the poor? THATS what you got out of my argument? Really?

Maybe not you, some some on this board you are generally pretty reasonable.

And that is not based so much on this thread, but the last almost year now. I'm also not saying it's deliberate, but simply subconscious.

Ask yourself, what do you FIRST picture when think of someone who is a victim of these fees? I bet most of you think of some welfare mom who doesn't work but still wants their Starbucks.

[msmith198025]

Sure there is. The consumer just won't do business with the company sponsoring the telemarketing calls. The free market will respond and the calls will stop. Once again, the damn government had to get involved to impede free market forces.

Well then do away with the do not call list. I am ok with that. Caller ID and you are set I guess.
People dont answer, the companies go belly up, and no more calls.

Glad to see you are coming around to the free market side of thinking;)

[Skyhi]

Every time the republicans and libertarians on this board see a hand up given to people beneath them, they see it as something being taken from them. And I find that misguided and sad. "We're all in this together" has sadly tuned in to "Well, I define all as just those in my socioeconomic group."
I agree with everything you said. This topic is particularly disturbing because the only thing the "poor" have been given is a choice.

[HDRoberts]

Sure there is. The consumer just won't do business with the company sponsoring the telemarketing calls. The free market will respond and the calls will stop. Once again, the damn government had to get involved to impede free market forces.

Or a person could get rid of their phones. Write letters and tend telegrams instead.

Yeah that sounds ridiculous in this day, but not as ridiculous as telling me to buy a farm and grow all my own food if I don't like my grocery store, as some have.

[Skyhi]

HdRoberts, that is totally off base.

Contempt for the poor? THATS what you got out of my argument? Really?
Thats what I got from You. You're usually pretty levelheaded......thats why I'm so shocked.

[msmith198025]

I agree with everything you said. This topic is particularly disturbing because the only thing the "poor" have been given is a choice.

And it is a choice they already had IMO, they just did not use it.:)

[msmith198025]

Thats what I got from You. You're usually pretty levelheaded......thats why I'm so shocked.

You really think I have contempt for the poor based on this thread?:confused:

[NickG420]

HDR just so you know I grew up in a broken home...We were extremely poor....My mother was a raging alcoholic and my father was either doing drugs or selling drugs when he wasn't in jail....I went to school got an education worked my way through 4 years of college and while I'm not Bill Gates rich, I do pretty well for myself.

So why should I feel sorry for someone else who had the same adversities I did but chooses not to overcome them?

[msmith198025]

HDR just so you know I grew up in a broken home...We were extremely poor....My mother was a raging alcoholic and my father was either doing drugs or selling drugs when he wasn't in jail....I went to school got an education worked my way through 4 years of college and while I'm not Bill Gates rich, I do pretty well for myself.

So why should I feel sorry for someone else who had the same adversities I did but chooses not to overcome them?

Let me hold a dollar boss;)

[HDRoberts]

And it is a choice they already had IMO, they just did not use it.:)

Well, you certainly have to admit the banks have been greatly encouraging the practice. 10 years ago, you could only get an ATM card that you could use well, at the ATM (at which you can check your balance). But today they all distribute cards that work through the Visa and Mastercard systems. They send them without asking. They come in the mail activated, even. Nothing but a signature needed (or sometimes even no signature) to use them. They advertise the heck out of them. They give you reward points for using them. They make it sound like paying with cash takes to long.

If just a few big banks voluntarily offered the opt-out, I might agree with you. People would have a choice. But the fact that not one big bank was willing to step up and offer what customers wanted, that is what forced the governments hand. I know some of you say regulations are evil, but care to sight ONE SINGLE regulation that prevented them from offering an opt out program on their own?

[msmith198025]

I have never gotten an ATM card in the mail that was tied to my bank account without asking for it.

[HDRoberts]

HDR just so you know I grew up in a broken home...We were extremely poor....My mother was a raging alcoholic and my father was either doing drugs or selling drugs when he wasn't in jail....I went to school got an education worked my way through 4 years of college and while I'm not Bill Gates rich, I do pretty well for myself.

So why should I feel sorry for someone else who had the same adversities I did but chooses not to overcome them?

Nice work. But you think you had no help? I see some right there. First, you "worked my your through 4 years of college." Congrats, you had a job that worked around your college schedule. I took 5 years to graduate, mainly because I had trouble there, and had to delay some classes because work interfered. Others I'm sure have it worse, especially on today's economy with 17% unemployed. Why hire a college student who needs certain time off when you can hire someone who doesn't?

We you able to go to an inexpensive school near where you live? Did you get any financial aid? Did anyone help you with the coursework?

I'm sure there were obstacles that could have come up that would have derailed you, same as me. You are not disproving my point, but proving it. We all look back on our own accomplishments and rightfully see we worked hard. But we ignore the help we might have had on the way. We ignore the areas where we almost didn't make it over one obstacle which could have tripped us up if it was more severe. We ignore the fact that sometimes we were in the right location at the right time.

And yes some of these people did make mistakes. But does a few mistakes give them a life sentence of being poor and subservient to us?

[HDRoberts]

I have never gotten an ATM card in the mail that was tied to my bank account without asking for it.

I have. Charter One. Right after I set up the account. It was a debit card with a Visa logo.

[Skyhi]

You really think I have contempt for the poor based on this thread?:confused:
I think you have contempt for the irresponsible, who in this case, are more often poor. I'm not sure how you can reconcile your opposition to this with your strong Christian beliefs, either. Churches around here applaud and advocate for these kinds of regulations.

[Skyhi]

I have. Charter One. Right after I set up the account. It was a debit card with a Visa logo.
:thumbup::thumbup: I've never asked for a Visa/MC branded debit card. They have always come automatically after opening the checking account.

[NickG420]

Regions Bank does not charge me any overdraft fees...I've never had a reason for them to but I know it's one of the bullets on my accounts...But it could just be the amount of business I do with them...Mostly anything financial I do goes through them.

[Bob Haller]

yeah they come automatically

[HDRoberts]

Regions Bank does not charge me any overdraft fees...I've never had a reason for them to but I know it's one of the bullets on my accounts...But it could just be the amount of business I do with them...Mostly anything financial I do goes through them.

True, some banks offer free overdraft protection to those who qualify. But lot's of people don't.

[Skyhi]

Regions Bank does not charge me any overdraft fees...I've never had a reason for them to but I know it's one of the bullets on my accounts...But it could just be the amount of business I do with them...Mostly anything financial I do goes through them.
According to their website, they offer overdraft protection subject to credit approval. I think most banks offer this....

[NickG420]

Nice work. But you think you had no help? I see some right there. First, you "worked my your through 4 years of college." Congrats, you had a job that worked around your college schedule. I took 5 years to graduate, mainly because I had trouble there, and had to delay some classes because work interfered. Others I'm sure have it worse, especially on today's economy with 17% unemployed. Why hire a college student who needs certain time off when you can hire someone who doesn't?I didn't find a job to work around my college schedule, I went to school during the day and worked at night....In fact I worked from 7pm-7am running a front end loader at a sand pit, then went to school from 8-2. So yeah I would not call that help...


We you able to go to an inexpensive school near where you live? I went to Mercer a private university in Ga


Did you get any financial aid?No I took out student loans but I wouldn't call that financial aid I had to pay them back..

Did anyone help you with the coursework? Not really, I mean I'm sure we had group projects and study groups sometimes but...I never needed a tutor.


I'm sure there were obstacles that could have come up that would have derailed you, same as me. You are not disproving my point, but proving it. We all look back on our own accomplishments and rightfully see we worked hard. But we ignore the help we might have had on the way. We ignore the areas where we almost didn't make it over one obstacle which could have tripped us up if it was more severe. We ignore the fact that sometimes we were in the right location at the right time.

And yes some of these people did make mistakes. But does a few mistakes give them a life sentence of being poor and subservient to us?I don't see your point...By all statistics I should be in prison or dead. I'm 29 years old and I am in line to retire by the time I am 50. You act like I just "made it out the ghetto". No sir, I even made it to one of those fancy neighborhoods where the make sure all the mailboxes look alike and your grass is cut...:)

My point is for me to be where I am from where I started means anyone can do it...Most just do not want to. You have this belief that anyone can succeed if we help, the problem is that the majority of people in need of help only want the help not the success...Meaning you hinder them by helping them, by helping them you become their enabler in order to do nothing. When people decide they have had enough that is the only time they will rise above and beyond.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson

I truly believe that is the best way for our government to operate...

[HDRoberts]

I think you have contempt for the irresponsible, who in this case, are more often poor. I'm not sure how you can reconcile your opposition to this with your strong Christian beliefs, either. Churches around here applaud and advocate for these kinds of regulations.

I think churches are part of the problem. Calvinism is still a strong influence with the prosperity gospel. It is particularly found in Baptists, which is common in the south. Among it's teachings is, effectively, God knows who he wants to save and gives them his grace, making them, among other things, have success financially. Thus, the wealthy have an outward sign of God's approval (and by extension, the poor have a sign of disapproval). Calvinist doctrine was part of what lead to the development of capitalism in Europe.

Of course, I don't find that to be remotely what the Bible teaches.

[HDRoberts]

My point is for me to be where I am from where I started means anyone can do it...Most just do not want to. You have this belief that anyone can succeed if we help, the problem is that the majority of people in need of help only want the help not the success...Meaning you hinder them by helping them, by helping them you become their enabler in order to do nothing. When people decide they have had enough that is the only time they will rise above and beyond.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson

I truly believe that is the best way for our government to operate...

No, that does not characterize my belief. My belief isn't that anyone can be successful with help, but rather those who who are successful had help. I'm sure there is more to your story. If you went to private college and didn't qualify for any financial aid with the rest of your story, something is up.

I'll agree with Jefferson's statement. The thing is, you like the "aiding" part, I like the "restraining" part. Giving companies free reign to treat their customers however they like is restraining to the people.

[msmith198025]

I think you have contempt for the irresponsible, who in this case, are more often poor. I'm not sure how you can reconcile your opposition to this with your strong Christian beliefs, either. Churches around here applaud and advocate for these kinds of regulations.

I dont see how either are related.

I think people should take responsibility for their actions, and I also hold Christian beliefs.

[Skyhi]

I dont see how either are related.

I think people should take responsibility for their actions, and I also hold Christian beliefs.
We must read different bibles. I remember overall themes of compassion, humility, and charity from my Sunday school days. I never could have derived an attitude of "I can manage my finances. Why can't they? Oh well....too bad for them. They'll either have to do a better job or continue receiving these usurious loans" from the Bible. That is the polar opposite from what I consider Christianity to be.

I was taught in to have the humility to be thankful for my financial knowledge and compassion for those who don't. Your attitude, in this situation, reeks of arrogance and contempt instead of humility and compassion.

[msmith198025]

We must read different bibles. I remember overall themes of compassion, humility, and charity from my Sunday school days. I never could have derived an attitude of "I can manage my finances. Why can't they? Oh well....too bad for them. They'll either have to do a better job or continue receiving these usurious loans" from the Bible. That is the polar opposite from what I consider Christianity to be.

I was taught in to have the humility to be thankful for my financial knowledge and compassion for those who don't. Your attitude, in this situation, reeks of arrogance and contempt instead of humility and compassion.

Hold on. I can show compassion, without being for the government setting regulations that I think are unnecessary. I can help someone out, without the government making me do it. Right?

[froggigger]

I agree completely with Sky. I think I see the most defining characteristic of the republicans and libertarians on this board: contempt for the poor. They see the poor as the reason their taxes are high. They think everyone below the poverty line is some welfare mom who has extra kids just for the extra food stamps to sell to get more alcohol. They also have what I term "IfIcan" syndrome. "If I can do it, than everyone else can, too." They don't realize that the people below them have different circumstances and challenges, and may not have had some of the advantages some of us had. Or, even if they realize that, they think there is some kind of cosmic law of averages that gave them some other advantage, even though they have no basis for that assumption.

Having this image of poor people naturally breeds contempt. As such, they want them punished. Take away those evil social services that the believe all their tax dollars goes to. Punish accidental poor financial behavior which we would never do, not realizing we would never do it because we have received proper financial training and have enough money that it does not happen.

Every time the republicans and libertarians on this board see a hand up given to people beneath them, they see it as something being taken from them. And I find that misguided and sad. "We're all in this together" has sadly tuned in to "Well, I define all as just those in my socioeconomic group."

This is where it all begins in the right vs. left debate. The left believes if the state provides, mandates, and/or administers most things over a free market that people of all social classes, races, sexes, etc. would be more equal. You believe bureaucrats should make the essential decisions. Let government protect the people from their own actions and vices, ie. overdrawing their bank account or eating fast foods, among others.

Even if the left could be convinced that everyone would be better off with a free market, it wouldn't matter because inequality would still exist. As long as there are poor people, it is more important to reduce the well-being of the rich than it is to improve the situation of the poor. IOW, the left is more interested in equality than general prosperity. It's always the same us against them tactic that gives the state an excuse to stick its already too big nose in the mix. Class against class, race against race, you name it and government will try to fix it and usually mess it up a lot worse.

This leads to ever increasing regulations to protect people who can't keep up with their money or rectify issues that they may not responsible for. It leads to handrails being installed by government mandate because the state doesn't want people to see that a free market could have installed the same rails, and done the job faster, cheaper, and more efficiently. The state wants people dependent on the government, and want people to look to the state first for solutions to any problem.

Get the government and its regulations out of the way and the free market would have already offered "opt outs". All it would take is one bank offering an opt out and, if their bottom line increased because of it, the other banks would soon offer the same to remain competitive. Make no mistake, if the consumer demanded an opt out, some bank somewhere would offer one to see if it had legs. Government interferences in the market is the reason there aren't more choices for the consumer. One-size-fits-all mandates, the government way, will never work as well as free market solutions.

Unfortunately, the state has become so ingrained in every aspect of daily life that even the suggestion that there is another, and better, way is met with wild-eyed disbelief. Why is it so hard to believe that there are better ways to address problems other than government solutions when the only advantage government has over any other entity is the use of force? Is the wielding of force by the state that appealing?

[Skyhi]

Hold on. I can show compassion, without being for the government setting regulations that I think are unnecessary. I can help someone out, without the government making me do it. Right?
I believe that opposing THIS regulation is uncompassionate. I believe your rationale of "Tough sh*t. Not my problem. I can do it, so can you." is arrogant and lacks humility.

In general, I don't think you're uncompassionate or arrogant.

[msmith198025]

I believe that opposing THIS regulation is uncompassionate. I believe your rationale of "Tough sh*t. Not my problem. I can do it, so can you." is arrogant and lacks humility.

In general, I don't think you're uncompassionate or arrogant.

I will just have to disagree.

With the first part anyway;)

[msmith198025]

You know, when I started this thread, I honestly figured this topic would not get much response. Boy was I wrong:D

[HDRoberts]

This is where it all begins in the right vs. left debate. The left believes if the state provides, mandates, and/or administers most things over a free market that people of all social classes, races, sexes, etc. would be more equal. You believe bureaucrats should make the essential decisions. Let government protect the people from their own actions and vices, ie. overdrawing their bank account or eating fast foods, among others.

No, I believe I'd rather have a bureaucrat that has to answer to an elected official make decisions for us than some profit-motivated executive. That is the only real choice we have in this system. But we have debated this far too much.


Even if the left could be convinced that everyone would be better off with a free market, it wouldn't matter because inequality would still exist. As long as there are poor people, it is more important to reduce the well-being of the rich than it is to improve the situation of the poor. IOW, the left is more interested in equality than general prosperity. It's always the same us against them tactic that gives the state an excuse to stick its already too big nose in the mix. Class against class, race against race, you name it and government will try to fix it and usually mess it up a lot worse.

Sorry, I know your perfect world would be to see 10% of the world's population be rich while the rest be dirt poor, rather than see everyone get a living wage, so long as the former "averages out" to be more than the latter. That is not what we should strive for, if you ask me. The government only tries to fix what is already broken.


This leads to ever increasing regulations to protect people who can't keep up with their money or rectify issues that they may not responsible for. It leads to handrails being installed by government mandate because the state doesn't want people to see that a free market could have installed the same rails, and done the job faster, cheaper, and more efficiently. The state wants people dependent on the government, and want people to look to the state first for solutions to any problem.

You misunderstand my point. First, the handrails wouldn't be installed without mandate. But that is not the point. They were a metaphor. Like this opt out law, it is unnecessary in most cases. So long as you don't fall, you don't need it. But if something does wrong, you are glad that handrail was their to prevent suffering further harm.


Get the government and its regulations out of the way and the free market would have already offered "opt outs". All it would take is one bank offering an opt out and, if their bottom line increased because of it, the other banks would soon offer the same to remain competitive. Make no mistake, if the consumer demanded an opt out, some bank somewhere would offer one to see if it had legs. Government interferences in the market is the reason there aren't more choices for the consumer. One-size-fits-all mandates, the government way, will never work as well as free market solutions.

I already asked the question: name JUST ONE government regulation that prevented this from being offered. If they didn't offer it before, when there was nothing stopping them, what will make them offer it when, well, there still is nothing stopping them? More "Utopian economics" that just assumes all will go according to your theory.


Unfortunately, the state has become so ingrained in every aspect of daily life that even the suggestion that there is another, and better, way is met with wild-eyed disbelief. Why is it so hard to believe that there are better ways to address problems other than government solutions when the only advantage government has over any other entity is the use of force? Is the wielding of force by the state that appealing?

It certainly isn't. But it is more appealing than corporations wielding the same force over consumers.

[HDRoberts]

You know, when I started this thread, I honestly figured this topic would not get much response. Boy was I wrong:D

Same thought here. But I said to myself "who could possibly be against giving consumers a choice?" Boy was I wrong.:)

[msmith198025]

Same thought here. But I said to myself "who could possibly be against giving consumers a choice?" Boy was I wrong.:)

I was thinking similiar thoughts, but about personal responsibility in finances.

Glad we have a place to discuss it though. Interesting to say the least:thumbup:

[NickG420]

I'm sure there is more to your story. If you went to private college and didn't qualify for any financial aid with the rest of your story, something is up.

There's nothing more to tell really...I never said I did not qualify for financial aid, I just said I never used financial aid...I would assume I would have qualified, but I chose not to go that route just for personal preference.

[Skyhi]

Same thought here. But I said to myself "who could possibly be against giving consumers a choice?" Boy was I wrong.:)
Me too. Gay Marriage, the death penalty, taxes, war, abortion, torture....I expect heated debate on those topics. If the government outlawed these types of usurious loans, I would still expect heated debate. It's absolutely stunning to me that people are opposed to giving the consumer choice.

I'm still wondering how you guys (besides frog) feel about (more instrusive/expensive) regulations that mandate guardrails.

[msmith198025]

Me too. Gay Marriage, the death penalty, taxes, war, abortion, torture....I expect heated debate on those topics. If the government outlawed these types of usurious loans, I would still expect heated debate. It's absolutely stunning to me that people are opposed to giving the consumer choice.

I'm still wondering how you guys feel about (more instrusive/expensive) regulations that mandate guardrails.

I think they should do away with them, and below every walkway put broken glass and sharp pointy rocks:D

[HDRoberts]

There's nothing more to tell really...I never said I did not qualify for financial aid, I just said I never used financial aid...I would assume I would have qualified, but I chose not to go that route just for personal preference.

Now I know your crazy.:) Just about all financial aid at private colleges comes from private alumni donors. Even the most staunch anti-governemnt guy shouldn't have a problem with that.

[Skyhi]

There's nothing more to tell really...I never said I did not qualify for financial aid, I just said I never used financial aid...I would assume I would have qualified, but I chose not to go that route just for personal preference.
You chose not to take grants or scholarships?!?! Why not? I got a full ride to grad school and am still deep in Student loan debt. My skin crawls thinking of how high it would be w/o the scholarship.

[NickG420]

Now I know your crazy.:) Just about all financial aid at private colleges comes from private alumni donors. Even the most staunch anti-governemnt guy shouldn't have a problem with that.

It was a personal preference, I wanted to do it on my own. I didn't want anyone else to "pay my way". If given the choice I would have never taken loans, I would have paid for everything, however I have since paid all my loans off so my education is paid in full...:)

Despite belief there are a few of us left in this world who believes in getting what you put in and the American Dream...If you want it bad enough and work hard enough...You'll get it...It's really that simple.

[HDRoberts]

Well, you'll have to excuse me for my continued skepticism, given this is the internet.

[NickG420]

Skepticism of what? Me not taking grants or scholarships?

I graduated from a small school there were only 35 people in my graduating class, chances of me getting a scholarship especially athletic were slim to none...As far as grants and financial aid I just never went down that road. I applied for a student loan, paid for what I could when I could. Because I made decent money at the time I just never considered financial aid. I guess in a way I felt there wee people that needed it more than me...

[HDRoberts]

Skepticism of you ABSOLUTELY WITH NO UNCERTAIN TERMS NEVER taking any help, not just with college but through your whole life.

Truth is, none of us no who any of us really are. People use personal anecdotes to prove points, but they easily can be invented.

[NickG420]

Skepticism of you ABSOLUTELY WITH NO UNCERTAIN TERMS NEVER taking any help, not just with college but through your whole life.

Truth is, none of us no who any of us really are. People use personal anecdotes to prove points, but they easily can be invented.
I mean my grandmother helped me get through some rough times and the fact that I had to take care of my younger brother which meant there was no way I could fail or he would become property of the state...Is that what you mean by help?

Watching my father slowly kill himself with drugs and my mother drink herself into a lunatic was definitely helpful in keeping me away from drugs and alcohol.

Monetarily speaking I can't remember after a certain point 15-16 years old anyone paying my way for anything. In fact most times if it was not for me, my brother and I would not have had a roof over our head or food on the table.

I guess that's where we differ the most...You think rich people owe people things because there's no way the became rich without help...I look at rich people and wonder what do they know that I don't? What makes them so business savvy or what have you....You want to punish them and I want to learn from them...

[HDRoberts]

I don't believe in punishing anyone. I just think more is expected of people that have more. No matter your beliefs, America is one thing that helped make them great. They should at least be able to give back to America.

I, too, look at rich people and wonder what do they know that I don't? But I also look at some of them and ask, why don't they quit? They have all the money they need for the rest of their lives. Why not let someone else have a turn? What good is hard work and bootstrapping if you can't enjoy the fruits?

[msmith198025]

I don't believe in punishing anyone. I just think more is expected of people that have more. No matter your beliefs, America is one thing that helped make them great. They should at least be able to give back to America.

I, too, look at rich people and wonder what do they know that I don't? But I also look at some of them and ask, why don't they quit? They have all the money they need for the rest of their lives. Why not let someone else have a turn? What good is hard work and bootstrapping if you can't enjoy the fruits?



They do give back. They pay taxes right?


Let someone else have a turn? How are they preventing someone from doing exactly what they did?

[HDRoberts]

They do give back. They pay taxes right?

Let someone else have a turn? How are they preventing someone from doing exactly what they did?

They grudgingly pay them, buying off politicians to write in loopholes and whining about it all the way.

They also do all they can to crush the competition to hold on to their stack.

[msmith198025]

They grudgingly pay them, buying off politicians to write in loopholes and whining about it all the way.

They also do all they can to crush the competition to hold on to their stack.

And you have a huge smile on your face when you pay your taxes?

Its business HD, they should try to do better than the competition. Right?

[HDRoberts]

And you have a huge smile on your face when you pay your taxes?

Its business HD, they should try to do better than the competition. Right?

Actually, I do, because they are taken out when I get my paycheck:)

All I know is that if I had $10M, I'd buy a little house on a lot of acres near Glacier National Park and live out my days in peace. I'd name a replacement who could then have his shot at $10M.

[msmith198025]

Actually, I do, because they are taken out when I get my paycheck:)

All I know is that if I had $10M, I'd buy a little house on a lot of acres near Glacier National Park and live out my days in peace. I'd name a replacement who could then have his shot at $10M.

Easy to say since you are not in that situation.

Why not quit at a million? $2 million?

[Skyhi]

Easy to say since you are not in that situation.

Why not quit at a million? $2 million?
Yes please.

[HDRoberts]

Easy to say since you are not in that situation.

Why not quit at a million? $2 million?

I don't know the exact figure. I just might, actually.

[msmith198025]

Yes please.

Not at a cool million though? Why not?

[Skyhi]

Not at a cool million though? Why not?
Too close for comfort. I'm confident I could live (not like a rich man, but live well enough) off of the investment income from $2 million using very conservative investments and not tapping the principle.

[msmith198025]

Too close for comfort. I'm confident I could live (not like a rich man, but live well enough) off of the investment income from $2 million using very conservative investments and not tapping the principle.

I will agree, but we all have different levels of what we feel is acceptable to live comfortably on.
To a homeless man, a single million would be enough I would wager.

Same with richer people. Their level of lifestyles are different than ours. They could cut back for sure, but why should they have to if they dont want to? its theirs, they earned it.

[HDRoberts]

Not at a cool million though? Why not?

Not enough to live comfortably the rest of my life. I'd just pay off my house (there goes 10% of it), get a nice car, and use it as my car and vacation fund. But 1 mill would run out after 30-40 years. Maybe in 30 years it would do.

[msmith198025]

Not enough to live comfortably the rest of my life. I'd just pay off my house (there goes 10% of it), get a nice car, and use it as my car and vacation fund. But 1 mill would run out after 30-40 years. Maybe in 30 years it would do.

See my post above. To you, $1 million may not be enough. To someone else, $10 million may not be enough based on their lifestyle.

[froggigger]

No, I believe I'd rather have a bureaucrat that has to answer to an elected official make decisions for us than some profit-motivated executive. That is the only real choice we have in this system. But we have debated this far too much.

No executive can make a decision for you because no executive can legally use force. Only government has that "luxury". I still think it's sad that you so freely accept someone else making your decisions for you, even if you picked the decision-maker with your vote.


Sorry, I know your perfect world would be to see 10% of the world's population be rich while the rest be dirt poor, rather than see everyone get a living wage, so long as the former "averages out" to be more than the latter. That is not what we should strive for, if you ask me. The government only tries to fix what is already broken.

Define living wage. Then, do you support the minimum wage and if so, why?


You misunderstand my point. First, the handrails wouldn't be installed without mandate. But that is not the point. They were a metaphor. Like this opt out law, it is unnecessary in most cases. So long as you don't fall, you don't need it. But if something does wrong, you are glad that handrail was their to prevent suffering further harm.

You own a property. Someone falls and injures himself because there was no railing to prevent it. You are sued and lose a big settlement. Will you put up a handrail to ensure it doesn't happen again or wait for government to mandate one, hoping no one else falls in the meantime? What of other property owners who learn of your big loss? Will they put up handrails so it never happens to them as it did you or wait for government to mandate a rail? Obviously, the rails would be installed without a mandate. It's just good business.


I already asked the question: name JUST ONE government regulation that prevented this from being offered. If they didn't offer it before, when there was nothing stopping them, what will make them offer it when, well, there still is nothing stopping them? More "Utopian economics" that just assumes all will go according to your theory.

There is no specific regulation that prevents it. Since there is no free market in banking due to a myriad of regulations, consumer demand for it won't make it happen either. A government mandate will likely be required. I'm not arguing that. My argument is that if government wasn't controlling every aspect of banking, free market banking would offer it if there was a demand for it and a government mandate would not be necessary.


It certainly isn't. But it is more appealing than corporations wielding the same force over consumers.

Again, only government can use force legally. No executive, corporation, or non-government entity can force you to do business with them.

[HDRoberts]

Much of this is ground we have plied too many times. I don't know if I have time to answer, as I have to maintain my 40 acre farm that supplies the only food I can eat, plus watch the mattress that now holds all of my money. The country doctor that only takes payment in chickens will soon be here to give me a physical. Well, at least I found a way to avoid dealing with corporations. Oh wait, none of those things happened BECAUSE I HAVE A BRAIN, AND SUCH A LIFESTYLE IS REASONABLY IMPOSSIBLE. So I guess I will respond to a few of your points. :)


You own a property. Someone falls and injures himself because there was no railing to prevent it. You are sued and lose a big settlement. Will you put up a handrail to ensure it doesn't happen again or wait for government to mandate one, hoping no one else falls in the meantime? What of other property owners who learn of your big loss? Will they put up handrails so it never happens to them as it did you or wait for government to mandate a rail? Obviously, the rails would be installed without a mandate. It's just good business.

And, without safety regulations, why would any company be held liable for such a fall? Why would your extremely limited government step in in this case? On what basis would they win the lawsuit? Why wouldn't your dream of complete personal responsibility rule the day and the case is never even bought forth? No one forced them to work there or do business there.


There is no specific regulation that prevents it. Since there is no free market in banking due to a myriad of regulations, consumer demand for it won't make it happen either. A government mandate will likely be required. I'm not arguing that. My argument is that if government wasn't controlling every aspect of banking, free market banking would offer it if there was a demand for it and a government mandate would not be necessary.

Thank you, that is exactly my point. Nothing prevents them from voluntarily offering this service now, and there is certainly competition in the banking sector. It's like regulation is this magic thing you can just blame all the world's problems on, even when there is absolutely no connection to, and the free market is the magic cure all that will solve the problems regulations are not even preventing from being solved. More Utopian economics.

[NickG420]

You know the more I thougth about this yesterday the more I disagree with the "loan" theory....

This is not a loan with a 1000% interest rate...When you overdraw your account it's just like writing a bad check...Hell most places still call it a Visa Check Card...

It's just like bouncing a check in the banks eyes and they have fees for that, I guess we should do away with those fees too?

If you do not pay for a bad check eventually you could serve jail time the same goes for not paying overdraft fees...I don't think people go to jail for not paying their loans...

So in my eyes it's the same as a check and as a business owner I think people should pay fees on a bad check and NSF overdrafts. It's a pain in my ass every time I have to deal with either one. I can imagine the bank feels the same way. The government has no business forcing banks to provide such an option.

[HDRoberts]

There is a significant difference. When you bounce a check, the payee gets no money. You have to pay them yourself. The only thing you were on the hook from the bank for was the overdraft fee. Thus, it is not a loan, because the bank never gave out money on your behalf. When you overdraft with a debit card, the payee is none the wiser. They got their money. Now, you owe the bank what you paid, the overdraft fee, and now normally a separate "processing" fee.

If I were a business owner, I'd prefer to know my customer's transaction was declined before I gave them the service they could not afford at the time.

[froggigger]

Much of this is ground we have plied too many times. I don't know if I have time to answer, as I have to maintain my 40 acre farm that supplies the only food I can eat, plus watch the mattress that now holds all of my money. The country doctor that only takes payment in chickens will soon be here to give me a physical. Well, at least I found a way to avoid dealing with corporations. Oh wait, none of those things happened BECAUSE I HAVE A BRAIN, AND SUCH A LIFESTYLE IS REASONABLY IMPOSSIBLE. So I guess I will respond to a few of your points. :)

Well, there you have it. You found a way to avoid dealing with corporations, so the option does exist. You just choose to not do it because you see it as too much of a pain in the ass---and that's why the corporation exists. It's for people like you---and most other people, too. You freely choose to utilize their products or services because it makes your life easier. That's what freedom is all about.


And, without safety regulations, why would any company be held liable for such a fall? Why would your extremely limited government step in in this case? On what basis would they win the lawsuit? Why wouldn't your dream of complete personal responsibility rule the day and the case is never even bought forth? No one forced them to work there or do business there.

Personal responsibility also extends to the property owner. A store owner, for example, has the responsibility of making sure the property is safe for his patrons. If a shopper falls and sues, there is no guarantee he will win. However, wouldn't a responsible owner make every attempt to ensure that the same situation doesn't happen again? He could lose the next time so a fix would be a smart move. That's why in a free market my extremely limited government wouldn't "need" to step in.


Thank you, that is exactly my point. Nothing prevents them from voluntarily offering this service now, and there is certainly competition in the banking sector. It's like regulation is this magic thing you can just blame all the world's problems on, even when there is absolutely no connection to, and the free market is the magic cure all that will solve the problems regulations are not even preventing from being solved. More Utopian economics.

A big part of one's lack of understanding is because their everyday life is dealing with a bank, or Lowes, Or Piggly Wiggly, or Taco Bell, etc. You have no direct dealings with the Dept. of Labor or Interior or Justice or Education. The commercial sector is upfront and visible where the state is mostly abstract, and its depredations usually unseen. We never see useful inventions gathering dust, or products not imported due to quotas, people out of work thanks to minimum wage laws, etc. People have the very mistaken impression that government is merely a watchman. This is purely a fantasy, but it makes it possible to believe that the problems in our society are all the fault of the market economy, not the fault of the government that has intervened in the market economy.

[stevenl]

You know the more I thougth about this yesterday the more I disagree with the "loan" theory....

This is not a loan with a 1000% interest rate...When you overdraw your account it's just like writing a bad check...Hell most places still call it a Visa Check Card...

It's just like bouncing a check in the banks eyes and they have fees for that, I guess we should do away with those fees too?

If you do not pay for a bad check eventually you could serve jail time the same goes for not paying overdraft fees...I don't think people go to jail for not paying their loans...

So in my eyes it's the same as a check and as a business owner I think people should pay fees on a bad check and NSF overdrafts. It's a pain in my ass every time I have to deal with either one. I can imagine the bank feels the same way. The government has no business forcing banks to provide such an option.

Its completely different. Until recently when you wrote a check the person you were paying had to go on your "word" that the check was good and the money was in the account. However with a check card the person taking your money goes by your bank saying "yup there is money take it". However the bank knows there is no money but they let it be taken anyway, so they can charge you 1000% interest rate on the loan they give you..

Now adays though many companies will use your check just like a "debit" card using the ACH system to automatically transfer the funds from your checking account to the business. Thus eliminating the "check is on your word" and instead the check then acts like your debit card.

[HDRoberts]

Personal responsibility also extends to the property owner. A store owner, for example, has the responsibility of making sure the property is safe for his patrons. If a shopper falls and sues, there is no guarantee he will win. However, wouldn't a responsible owner make every attempt to ensure that the same situation doesn't happen again? He could lose the next time so a fix would be a smart move. That's why in a free market my extremely limited government wouldn't "need" to step in.

Well, first of all, government "needs" to step in even in you scenario because, last I checked, civil courts ARE the government.

But you never answered my question. For a court to rule, there has to be some basis, something that says they needed a railing, and did not provide one. In a world with no regulation of business, that does not exist.


A big part of one's lack of understanding is because their everyday life is dealing with a bank, or Lowes, Or Piggly Wiggly, or Taco Bell, etc. You have no direct dealings with the Dept. of Labor or Interior or Justice or Education. The commercial sector is upfront and visible where the state is mostly abstract, and its depredations usually unseen. We never see useful inventions gathering dust, or products not imported due to quotas, people out of work thanks to minimum wage laws, etc. People have the very mistaken impression that government is merely a watchman. This is purely a fantasy, but it makes it possible to believe that the problems in our society are all the fault of the market economy, not the fault of the government that has intervened in the market economy.

Again, you speak in generalities and ignore the specific issue at hand. I ask, with NO REGULATIONS PREVENTING an opt out option, SIGNIFICANT COMPETITION between banks, and CONSUMER DEMAND for an opt out option, what is stopping the opt out option? The banks will not deliver. While there may not be a libertarian's definition of a free market, in that LIMITED AREA of having an opt out cause, the conditions of a free market are sufficiently present where it should have worked according to your theory. Yet they failed. I'm not sure how having to deal with Dept. of Labor or Interior or Justice or Education somehow make them decide they can't offer an opt out option for overdraft protection.

I consider free market theory to be like a mathematical theorem. You have to prove it works for all cases. You can't just show it works in one case and then assume it works everywhere else. Yet to disprove it, all I have to do is show one area it fails. And here we have one of many.

And you say I never have to deal with bureaucracy? I work in a water utility. Regulated by the EPA. Managing contracts regulated by many state and federal agencies. It's not a perfect system, but better than the alternative.

Oh, and

"We never see useful inventions gathering dust," - Examples?
"or products not imported due to quotas," - Good. We can't compete on a global marketplace.
"people out of work thanks to minimum wage laws" - Because a $4/hour job is sooooo much better.:augentreher:

[NickG420]

So what? The principle is still the same; you spent money you did not have.

Are you for ending fees for bounced checks too?

[stevenl]

So what? The principle is still the same; you spent money you did not have.

Are you for ending fees for bounced checks too?

The fee is because the check bounced and they did not cover it. You get a fee from your bank and the person you wrote the check to. Its very different then the LOAN you get for a debit card over draft.

With a check there is no way for the merchant to verify you have money nor for the bank (unless they are setup like I mentioned above) with the debit card the bank has the ability to not allow the charge in the first place. The technology is there but the banks choose not to use it in order to make 30+billion $s a year.

[msmith198025]

The banks may chose to let it go through to make extra money, but YOU, the buyer, can stop it. Easily.

[stevenl]

Yea by not using a bank But that is unrealistic in todays world.

[vurbano]

So what? The principle is still the same; you spent money you did not have.

Are you for ending fees for bounced checks too?I agree.

[HDRoberts]

So what? The principle is still the same; you spent money you did not have.

Are you for ending fees for bounced checks too?

But in one of those cases, the bank has a clear opportunity to warn you "Hey, dude, you're out of money." You would not have spent money if the transaction was simply declined; the merchant just wouldn't sell you his product or service. In the case of a bounced check, it is not until it is processed and too late, so it is different.

[NickG420]

Well Bank of America and Chase have been allowing an opt out since October...

In fact I think Chase automatically opts you out of overdraft fees, and you have to ask to be protected now. I still say for the government to force a bank to do it is wrong...So again we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[stevenl]

So you mean they acted a month before government regulation was coming... Seems the regulation is working..

[NickG420]

So you mean they acted a month before government regulation was coming... Seems the regulation is working..

Seems if people knew how to add, subtract and budget their money we wouldn't need it...

[froggigger]

Well, first of all, government "needs" to step in even in you scenario because, last I checked, civil courts ARE the government.

Civil courts do not initiate litigation. People go to them, not the other way around. They do not "step in" unless asked.


But you never answered my question. For a court to rule, there has to be some basis, something that says they needed a railing, and did not provide one. In a world with no regulation of business, that does not exist.

Are you saying that without regulation there can never be a basis for a lawsuit due to a safety hazard that resulted in an injury?


Again, you speak in generalities and ignore the specific issue at hand. I ask, with NO REGULATIONS PREVENTING an opt out option, SIGNIFICANT COMPETITION between banks, and CONSUMER DEMAND for an opt out option, what is stopping the opt out option? The banks will not deliver. While there may not be a libertarian's definition of a free market, in that LIMITED AREA of having an opt out cause, the conditions of a free market are sufficiently present where it should have worked according to your theory. Yet they failed. I'm not sure how having to deal with Dept. of Labor or Interior or Justice or Education somehow make them decide they can't offer an opt out option for overdraft protection.

How do you know there is a consumer demand? Even if there were, you do realize that big banks don't give a rat's ass about you and me, don't you? We're small fish in their game. All they really care about is maintaining their bank-government-Federal Reserve love affair.


I consider free market theory to be like a mathematical theorem. You have to prove it works for all cases. You can't just show it works in one case and then assume it works everywhere else. Yet to disprove it, all I have to do is show one area it fails. And here we have one of many.

Yet you refuse to subject the government and its regulations to the same high standard. Plus, you can't prove the opt out is a free market failure because there is no free market. Granted, more free than most, but far, FAR, removed from laissez-faire.


And you say I never have to deal with bureaucracy? I work in a water utility. Regulated by the EPA. Managing contracts regulated by many state and federal agencies. It's not a perfect system, but better than the alternative.

Shall I repeat the question I asked you a while back about a free market water problem since you refused it answer it before? I'm sure you remember the one.


Oh, and

"We never see useful inventions gathering dust," - Examples?

Haven't seen any. They're gathering dust somewhere. ;)



"or products not imported due to quotas," - Good. We can't compete on a global marketplace.

Lower the onerous corporate tax rate, stop trying to micromanage the economy, and we will own the global marketplace.


"people out of work thanks to minimum wage laws" - Because a $4/hour job is sooooo much better.:augentreher:

Damn right a $4.00/hour job is better than a $0.00 no-job. That's beside the point, though. Minimum wage laws cause higher unemployment. The recent minimum wage increase is one of the reasons for our double-digit unemployment rate.