OT: Why is my bank pushing so hard to get me to sign up for overdraft protection on my debit card?
Wes
popups when accessing my banking website trying to get me to sign up for overdraft
protection.
IIRC, the legislation was designed to just have an underfunded card declined. Am I
missing something? It really doesn't matter since having rode out a employer that was
working its way in to Chapter 7, my checking zero balance I record and use as a reference
still has 3G left in the account. Nothing like depositing a worthless paycheck once to
change what you think you checking account balance should be at all times.
Is it as I suspect an attempt to get those that live on the edge to get back into the
banks grips when they don't keep track of when their deposits post?
Wes
RBnDFW
Those stupid fees are a major source of revenue for them.
I never understood when I had thousands in a bank account, and given
them permission to tap it as needed if I overdraw, why they needed to
charge me $25 for the privilege.
I declined it. I keep an adequate balance, and I can make a fee-less
transfer from my phone if I have to.
F. George McDuffee
===========
While I am no banking/credit expert, this is exactly what it
appears to be.
This again clearly shows the existing regulatory policy
"what ever is not specifically prohibited is allowed," must
now be revised to a far stricter and far more restrictive
regulatory policy "what ever is not specifically allowed is
forbidden," if the banking/credit industry is to be brought
under reasonable control/oversight in the public interest.
To be sure such a policy change will restrict "innovation"
(as it is intended to do) and the introduction/proliferation
of novel financial services and products, however the record
over the last 20 years or so indicates the introduction of
far more scams, grifts, grafts, and cons, than any genuinely
useful and non-hazzardous financial products/services, thus
the banks/financial services have brought this on
themselves.
Requiring prior approval before a new product/service can be
introduced will require logical justification by the
introducer, and at least give the regulators a chance to
evaluate for "social utility," need, consumer cost,
excessive profits, impact on taxes, projected court
activity, "externalized corporate costs," etc.
--
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Ignoramus26467
next to no benefit to me.
I made sure that I do not have such a "protection", if I have no
money, I want my transactions to be declined.
Many thanks to the politicians who finally put an end to this
overdraft madness.
Like you, I also make sure that I have some minimum amount in the
checking, and watch it.
i
azotic
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:c2g0065s9f47jkmoo...@4ax.com...
In this particular case banks derive profits thru theft by deception.
The bank will reorder the checks recieved on a given day honoring
the largest to the smallest ammount. The computer that processes the
checks knows if you are overdrawn and proceeds to order payments
in such a maner as to extract the maximum amout of fees possible.
Best Regards
Tom.
Stormin Mormon
saying that the banks LOVE over draft protection on credit cards,
cause of the $39 or higher fee per inidenent. Used to be, the card
would come up declined (and not generate any fees) when it was over
limit.
Clark suggests we all write our credit card companies, and decline the
overdraft protection.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Wes" <ClutchAtL...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:zZWLn.169849$ot7....@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>
>> I'm sure recent changes in legislation is behind this but I keep getting spam emails and
>> popups when accessing my banking website trying to get me to sign up for overdraft
>> protection.
>
>About 6 years ago I had Bank of America (was originally with Fleet Bank
>when BOA bought them out) keep doing the exact same thing to me. Twice
>I went into a branch office and asked them to stop. It (the spam, nothing
>was ever done about the in your face ads on the BOA website) did each time
>for a little while. The third time I went in to complain I withdraw all
>my money and closed all the accounts including the credit cards I had
>with them. Of course they begged me to stay and couldn't understand why
>a "little advertisement" bothered me so much.
I'm getting tired of a customer relationship (prey) being used to spam the heck out of me.
>
>I ended the discussion by pointing out to them that the locally owned
>bank across the street promised me they don't spamvertize and that's
>where I was depositing the money I had just withdrawn.
>
>To date, the local bank has upheld its promise and doing business with
>them is a pleasure. Suggest you consider doing the same.
I'm close to dumping my bank. I used to be a local bank but it got gobbled by a series of
gobblers.
>
>On a different subject,
>
>Wes, you want to take over posting the weekly stats in alt.machines.cnc?
>That group has turned into barren wasteland and it doesn't seem right to
>post stats in a group I rarely read anymore.
I probably can. I'll look on Monday to see if my stats match yours. I've been generating
them for years. A bit more correctly since last winter when I found an issue in the
newsstats code that doesn't seem to be triggered by *nix systems. I'm doing this using
cygwin on an old W2k box.
Your stats look a bit different than mine as far as reporting features. Likely you have
different scripts. Can you email those to me? My email address address actually works, I
used to have a lycos account but it died. Just wanted to keep continuity for those that
filter me.
I headed over to a.m.c. today and was struck by how bad it is. You showing up here on
r.c.m. was a confirmation. Btw, welcome to this group, it is better here, I've noticed a
number of a.m.c. types have joined us. Pretty damn sad since I repair cnc stuff when I
have to at work and used to use amc as a resource.
Wes
F. George McDuffee
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Some weeks ago, I was listening to the Clark Howard radio show. He was
>saying that the banks LOVE over draft protection on credit cards,
>cause of the $39 or higher fee per inidenent. Used to be, the card
>would come up declined (and not generate any fees) when it was over
>limit.
>
>Clark suggests we all write our credit card companies, and decline the
>overdraft protection.
=========
This thread inspired me to dig a little deeper. What I
discovered inspired me to send the following email to my
Congressmen. If anyone wants to use this email as a template
or even use the whole thing for their letter, feel free to
do so. REMEMBER -- ITS OUR MONEY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
To locate your Senators and Representative and accesses
their webmail see
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Be sure and bookmark their webmail urls for easy nagging in
the future.
--- start of email ---
IT'S TIME TO STOP PLAYING "WHACK-A-MOLE" ON THE TAXPAYERS'
TAB!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole
In the United States, with a few exceptions generally
involving serious health and safety issues e.g. FDA, the
regulatory philosophy has been "whatever is not explicitly
forbidden, is allowed."
The actions of the American banking industry in introducing
significant numbers of new "fees," products, and services,
even before the recently enacted legislation restricting a
few of their more flagrant abuses has become effective,
clearly shows that it is now necessary to replace this
permissive regulatory philosophy or policy, at least in the
banking and financial services sector e.g. credit cards,
with the far more restrictive construct "What ever is not
specifically permitted is forbidden," and require that any
new "fee," product or service must be approved by the
regulatory agency before it is implemented or introduced to
the market.
To be sure such a revision in regulatory policy will limit
"innovation," which is exactly what is intended, as the
record shows that the large majority of new
financial/banking products, services and "fees" over the
last two decades have been largely cons, grafts, scams,
schemes, grifts, ploys, ruses, etc. which greatly enriched
the bankers and others in the financial services sector,
with minimal benefit and generally serious economic loss to
the average consumer, customer and depositor.
To assist the regulatory agency, and reduce the risk of
regulatory capture, it is suggests that a checklist be
included in the legislation revising the banking/financial
regulatory policy, which should include such common sense
requirements as:
(1) Does this proposed product or service provide any
significant or general benefit to the general
public/society?
(2) Does this proposed product or service expose the
general public/society to undue or excessive risk?
(3) Does the public benefits of the proposed
product/service outweigh its total projected aggregate cost
to the general public, allowing for a reasonable profit for
the bank?
(4) Are the proposed "fees" reasonable and related to the
actual cost of providing?
( ) Are the proposed fees for a new service or simply an
Are the proposed fees for a new service or simply an effort
to charge for an existing service? If for an existing
service, justify the need for the fee.
As part of any legislation revising the banking/financial
regulatory philosophy, it is suggest that language be
included specifically stating that none of the existing
financial products, services, "fees," practices, etc. are
"grand fathered" in any way, and are fully subject to agency
review/approval using the same checklist requirements as
used for new products, services, practices and fees,
although evaluation may be delayed because of the volume of
approvals requested and/or the need for extensive
collection/evaluation of data.
The howls from the bankers will be earsplitting and heart
rending, but they brought it on themselves, and it is now a
choice between "business as usual" for the banks, and the
long-term survival of the Republic as we know it.
--- end of email ---
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> I'm sure recent changes in legislation is behind this
Yes. Its opt in now instead of opt out (assuming you can make your way
through the web page or telephone maze).
> but I keep getting spam emails and
> popups when accessing my banking website trying to get me to sign up for overdraft
> protection.
>
> IIRC, the legislation was designed to just have an underfunded card declined.
If the card is declined, you'll know there's a problem right away. If
there's a fee per overdraft, dozens of checks and debit card
transactions will go through before you catch it and fix the problem.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If everything is coming your way then you're in the wrong lane.
Wes
>amc has been reduced to a smoldering crater mainly by a single mission
>poster who has not the slightest clue what his mission actually is. Most
>people don't want to be bothered with filters, kill files and suchlike
>and have taken off to web forums like Practical Machinist. I despise
>reading web boards, nothing beats reading discussions in a threaded format
>offered by mail and news clients.
I hear you there.
>
>Check your email, I sent you a tarball.
I have it. I'll look at it and see what I can use. Worse comes to worse, BB will take
the stats for AMC in the same formating I use for RCM. (That would be about zero effort
for me).
It might take a few weeks. We are busy as hell and I'm going to be moving machines around
on the weekends for the next 3 weeks.
Wes
Wes
>No need for the stats to be identical or even similar to what I've been
>posting. If you've got something you can do with near zero work that will
>be fine methinks.
Check Monday morning in amc. I generate around midnight and post around 4:30 am Eastern.
Wes
--
I was a skeptic before I became a cynic.
Wes
>No need for the stats to be identical or even similar to what I've been
>posting. If you've got something you can do with near zero work that will
>be fine methinks.
It posted this morning ib a.m.c. Gunner beat Cliff.
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Black Dragon <b...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>No need for the stats to be identical or even similar to what I've been
>>posting. If you've got something you can do with near zero work that will
>>be fine methinks.
>
>It posted this morning ib a.m.c. Gunner beat Cliff.
Its a dirty job, but someone had to do it. Damned shame I forgot to
bring my hammer though.
Gunner
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch
Joe788
> I headed over to a.m.c. today and was struck by how bad it is. You showing up here on
> r.c.m. was a confirmation. Btw, welcome to this group, it is better here, I've noticed a
> number of a.m.c. types have joined us. Pretty damn sad since I repair cnc stuff when I
> have to at work and used to use amc as a resource.
>
> Wes
Total bullshit. This place is a shit hole just like alt.machines.cnc
is.
You want quality home shop machining content it's on the Home Shop
Machinist Web Forum.