Guess Who Wants To Continue FLEECING You With OVERDRAFT "Protection"? The U.S. Repug Empire!
spicpussy
But BARNEY FRANK, whom bigots and other ignorant parent-fuckers love
to hate, is as usual on the side of consumers.
Like it, or him, or not, Repug losers!
-----------------
"Frank says overdraft protection should be 'opt-in'"
By Jeff Plungis
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Bank overdraft fees as high as $39 on debit card transactions aren't
"favors" for consumers if they haven't asked for them, House Financial
Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.
"We wouldn't be in a situation where we're considering legislation if
you would have had an opt-in regime from the beginning," said Frank (D-
Mass.), addressing the banking industry at a hearing in Washington on
Friday. "Don't do people favors without asking them."
Overdraft programs allow consumers to make purchases even if there's
not enough money in their accounts. Lawmakers have criticized banks
for enrolling customers in the programs, and charging fees, without
their consent.
Legislation under consideration in the House would prohibit financial
companies from levying more than one overdraft fee per month or six
per year, according to Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), who sponsored
the bill.
"It's not simply a question of how much money it is," Frank said.
"It's a sense that people's integrity and autonomy have been impaired
when you do this to them, and then you tell them you did it for them."
The House bill would make overdraft fees subject to the Truth in
Lending Act, requiring consumers' permission before enrolling them,
according a statement from Maloney. It would prohibit rearranging the
order in which transactions are posted, which can trigger an
overdraft. And it would require fees to be in proportion to the amount
overdrawn, so a $5 cup of coffee will not have a $35 fee, the
statement said.
Bills before both houses
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.)
introduced similar overdraft-fee legislation Oct. 19, saying that
"banks should not be trying to bolster their profits at the expense of
their customers."
Overdraft programs "maximize fees while jeopardizing the financial
stability" of customers, said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial
services at the Consumer Federation of America. Consumers don't apply
for them, and they're not warned at the point of sale when they're
about to incur a fee, Fox said. The median fee at the largest U.S.
banks is $35, Fox said.
"Rather than competing by offering lower costs and truly beneficial
overdraft products and services, many financial institutions are
hiding behind a smokescreen of misleading terms and opaque practices
that promote costly overdrafts," Fox said.
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said he avoided overdraft fees with a
credit line and asked if many of the problems could be eased with
consumer education.
Ending overdraft protection and letting checks bounce would lead to
"infinitely worse" consequences for people who don't have sufficient
funds, Bachus said.
"I'm not sure people appreciate that," Bachus said. "For people short
on cash, it can land them in jail."
Fees related to overdrawn U.S. accounts may rise to $38.5 billion this
year from $36.7 billion in 2008, according to research firm Moebs
Services Inc. in Lake Bluff, Illinois.
Bankers group objects
The legislation would require retooling that would raise the cost of
checking accounts, said Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior
counsel at the American Bankers Association in Washington.
Consumers have come to expect payments to go through to "avoid
embarrassment and inconvenience," Feddis told the committee. Most
consumers can easily avoid the fees by keeping track of their
balances, she said.
Customers are shifting to debit transactions from credit cards as
credit lines have been lowered and banks have closed inactive
accounts. Debit cards will be used in 60.2 percent of purchases in
2010, or about $40 billion, up from 58.2 percent in 2008, according to
the Nilson Report, an industry newsletter in Carpinteria, Calif.
Banks are relying more than ever on overdraft-fee revenue, said Eric
Halperin, Washington director for the Center for Responsible Lending.
The average overdraft fee was $29 in 2007, up from $16.50 in 1997,
Halperin said. In 2004, about 80 percent of banks denied debit card
transactions for insufficient funds. Now, 80 percent approve the
purchases and charge a fee, he said.
Overdraft protection in its current form "is neither a courtesy nor a
privilege," said Jim Blaine, chief executive officer of the State
Employees' Credit Union of North Carolina.
"It is a loan -- a very, very expensive loan," Blaine said at the
hearing. "Despite claims by proponents to the contrary, overdraft
protection is never the best nor the fairest choice for an account
holder."
-- Bloomberg News
[Alexis Leondis and Peter Eichenbaum in New York contributed to this
report.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103004194.html
Pers3id
news:p2ese5l889uf5harv...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:48:42 -0800, Scott in SoCal
> <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Last time on misc.consumers, spicpussy <clit...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>>Legislation under consideration in the House would prohibit financial
>>>companies from levying more than one overdraft fee per month or six
>>>per year, according to Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), who
>>>sponsored the bill.
>>
>>Wow, so I can bounce 1000 checks a year but I'll only have to pay 6
>>overdraft fees?
>>
>>Kewl!
>>
>>>The House bill would make overdraft fees subject to the Truth in
>>>Lending Act, requiring consumers' permission before enrolling them,
>>>according a statement from Maloney. It would prohibit rearranging the
>>>order in which transactions are posted, which can trigger an
>>>overdraft.
>>
>>Now that's a hoot.
>>
>>There is no set of drafts that would result in an overdraft if
>>presented in one sequence but NOT result in an overdraft if presented
>>in some other sequence. Either there is enough money in the account to
>>cover them all or there isn't.
>>
>>Yes, I know what the idiot reporter is trying to say, but as is common
>>in the mainstream media Jeffy boy screwed it up.
>>
>>>And it would require fees to be in proportion to the amount
>>>overdrawn, so a $5 cup of coffee will not have a $35 fee, the
>>>statement said.
>>
>>What moron is paying $5 for a cup of coffee?!?!?!? Even Starbucks only
>>charges $2 or so.
>>
>>>Overdraft programs "maximize fees while jeopardizing the financial
>>>stability" of customers, said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial
>>>services at the Consumer Federation of America.
>>
>>Um, no, Jean Ann, they don't.
>>
>>Customers jeopardize their own financial stability by being unable to
>>balance a friggin' checkbook. If you keep your checkbook balanced and
>>don't try to spend more money than you have, you will never have to
>>pay any overdraft fees.
>>
>>>Ending overdraft protection and letting checks bounce would lead to
>>>"infinitely worse" consequences for people who don't have sufficient
>>>funds, Bachus said.
>>
>>Quite correct. If the customer writes a buch of small checks, and one
>>of them bounces, the fees may cause additional checks to bounce,
>>incurring additional fees, causing even more checks to bounce,
>>cascading into an enormous problem for the consumer (and enormous
>>profits for the banks).
>>
>>A single $35 fee looks pretty good compared to that.
>>
>>>Consumers have come to expect payments to go through to "avoid
>>>embarrassment and inconvenience," Feddis told the committee. Most
>>>consumers can easily avoid the fees by keeping track of their
>>>balances, she said.
>>
>>See, Jean Ann? Someone else out there gets it.
>
> I have a curious banking history note:
>
> In the 1960's I received a phone call from my local Bank of America
> branch. I had an overdraft on my checking account but had money
> in a savings account. They asked me to come in and transfer money so
> as to avoid the overdraft. It was late in the afternoon. The bank
> doors were closed but they let me in to transfer the money.
>
> Amazing what 40-50 years can do to banking / capitalist philosophy
> !!!!
>
> Mason C
Oh yeah... and the legislation couldn't have happened to a nicer
bunch of thieves. If the bankers weren't making such horrendous
business decisions that were losing them tens, hundreds of
$$BBillions, then they wouldn't even be performing these
outrageous acts of thievery, and none of this legislation
would have been necessary.
Here are the details of why the bankers need to be corralled
into a pen.
Mrs Irish Mike
> Last time on misc.consumers, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info>
> said:
>
> >I have a curious banking history note:
>
> >In the 1960's I received a phone call from my local Bank of America
> >branch. I had an overdraft on my checking account but had money
> >in a savings account. They asked me to come in and transfer money so
> >as to avoid the overdraft. It was late in the afternoon. The bank doors were
> >closed but they let me in to transfer the money.
>
> >Amazing what 40-50 years can do to banking / capitalist philosophy !!!!
>
> possible to get a job and make a living for your family with just a
> high school diploma. Even if your wife didn't work you could earn
> enough to have a comfortable life, a decent home, and food on the
> table. Back then people didn't have to scrap for every dollar they
> could get. It was a simpler, more relaxed time; fewer people were
> caught up in "the rat race."
How could this possibly be? We have robotics and we have computers. We
have automated this and radar directed that. We have two people per
family working and illegals to do the crap jobs. We didn't get the
flying cars and it looks like we aren't getting the 20 hour work week
either.
Rod Speed
> Mason C maso...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info> wrote
>> I have a curious banking history note:
>> In the 1960's I received a phone call from my local Bank of America
>> branch. I had an overdraft on my checking account but had money
>> in a savings account. They asked me to come in and transfer money
>> so as to avoid the overdraft. It was late in the afternoon. The bank
>> doors were closed but they let me in to transfer the money.
>> Amazing what 40-50 years can do to banking / capitalist philosophy !!!!
> A lot has changed since then.
Yes.
> For example, at that time it was also possible to get a job and
> make a living for your family with just a high school diploma.
Still is.
> Even if your wife didn't work you could earn enough to have
> a comfortable life, a decent home, and food on the table.
Still is.
> Back then people didn't have to scrap for every dollar they could get.
Still dont.
> It was a simpler, more relaxed time; fewer people were caught up in "the rat race."
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Jesus'sPedoBoy
> Last time on misc.consumers, Mason C <masonc...@XXXfrontal-lobe.info>
> said:
> A lot has changed since then. For example, at that time it was also
> possible to get a job and make a living for your family with just a
> high school diploma. Even if your wife didn't work you could earn
> enough to have a comfortable life, a decent home, and food on the
> table. Back then people didn't have to scrap for every dollar they
> could get. It was a simpler, more relaxed time; fewer people were
> caught up in "the rat race."
============
Sure ... in 1909, only those few rich teens preparing for college even
went to high school ... and a yo-yo with two years of schooling could
support a family of 8 or 15 by shoveling tons of health-threatening
horseshit from off our streets.
"Life" expectancy in the U.S. was 43, largely because TB was the AIDS
of that era.
The good ol' days, eh?
sr
"Jesus'sPedoBoy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f22f1c1-ca77-4c09...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
---TB I agree , aunt had that in early1900s but
AIDS known in the 60s don't think so: believe it came to light in the early
80s
up here in Maine, but than, Maine is 20 years behind everyone else.
Don Klipstein
AIDS became the name of the disease in 1983, maybe late 1982. Earlier
in 1982 it was called GRID (gay related immune disorder), but only for
months. In the year or so before GRID became the name, and maybe not an
official one, some people hearing about gay men getting sick and dying of
a mysterious new disease called it the "gay plague". I first heard about
it maybe in 1981 or early so. At some time in 1982, it was still so new
that only 12 deaths had been attributed to it.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)