Change I can believe in

1. 59

   William R. Wilsonposted 14 years ago

   I got an email message from my bank this morning with the subject line: Regulatory Changes Affecting Your Account.
   
   In short, the bank will no longer authorize debit card transactions if the account balance is insufficient.  Thank you Mr. Obama!
   
   Last year I went shopping for some clothes in the evening after work.  I thought I had plenty of money in my account to cover the purchase (around $100.00).  I have learned over the years to keep a pretty close eye on this sort of thing, and I hadn't bounced a transaction in years. 
   
   Problem was, I had, sometime that week, used my own ATM card to fill my gas tank when I had intended to use a company card. 
   
   So my account was about $40 shy of what I needed.  I bought my clothes, went home, and a few days later got a little notice in the mail. 
   
   Actually I got 4 little notices. 
   
   I had made some small purchases the day I went shopping - a cup of coffee, lunch, and a snack.
   
   Well, you would think that the transactions came out of my account in the order they happened, right?  Wrong!  The bank charged the large purchase (which occurred at 7:30 in the evening) first.  This overdrew my account. Then they ran the smaller transactions from earlier in the day, so I was overdrawn three more times. 
   
   The bastards charged  me an overdraft fee for each transaction - and they even had the audacity to make each fee larger than the next. 
   
   One mistake, which I would have caught later in the week when I checked my account balance, cost me $200 in fees. 
   
   So THANK YOU MR. OBAMA for making it harder for the sleazoid banks to do this sort of thing.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Reality Bytesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Thank God you had Obama looking out for you. Balancing our own budgets is ridiculous that is why we have government. Eventually government will manage all your transactions for you.  You will be free.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You haven't been contributing anything of substance on the forums, in my opinion. Only cute little negative, snide contentless comments devoid of logic, humor or anything of value.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Reality Bytesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            Thank you for pointing out my worth of which I am already quite aware of my worthlessness. My whole life is devoid of logic, humor or anything of value.

            replyreport
   2. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I've had similarly sleazy experiences with Chase Manhattan years ago and more recently with a CitiGroup credit card. I don't do business any more with any of the big banks.
      
      Years ago we refinanced our home mortgage with GMAC. GMAC sold the mortgage to Chemical Bank and Chemical Bank was taken over by Chase. Not long after Chase bought Chemical Bank we received a letter with a bill enclosed for $3,300 for homeowners's insurance required by the mortgage because we had allegedly allowed our homeowner's insurance policy with USAA to lapse. There were two things wrong with that:  1. Our homeowners policy had not lapsed; and 2. Our policy cost us more like $900, not over $3,000. It took nearly a year of phone calls, letters, faxes, threats to contact my senator and Chase CEO Laurence Rockefeller to get the bank to give up and stop billing me for the homeowner's policy.
      
      My dispute with CitiGroup was over a payment (in full) on my credit card that arrived a day or two late and which resulted in extra charges or some sort. I was not successful in getting them to remove the charges so not long after I canceled the card.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You should be more responsible with your finances, or at least read the rules for having an account at your bank. I know that's a strange concept for some but its what adults do.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago

   Sounds like we need more regulation of the banks! What the hell, just have the government take them over since only the government can do things right and guarantee justice for consumers!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      LOLOL
      
      Yeah I bet if a liberal finds a ten-dollar bill on the ground they'll look up to the sky and thank Obama!  haha

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The way this government spends money they might be justified in that!

         replyreport
3. 61

   Originposted 14 years ago

   I usually keep a few thousand in my checking account just to have a "buffer". I've never bounced a check or anything in my life.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ah yes.  A 'buffer'. 
      
      Sorry bud, not everyone has a few thousand laying around.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm glad you said it.

         replyreport
4. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

   Why not leave him/her alone, Ralph?
   I personally find Reality Bytes quite witty and logical AND humorous,  all qualities that are very valuable.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well, he's certainly no worse than Ron.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I guess.
         
         
         I'm still laughing at his "you will be free" line.  Love it!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Right as soon as government provides for all our needs we'll be free, just like the slaves!

            replyreport
5. 81

   lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

   I'm so glad for this too!
   
   They are such charlatans.
   It's legalized loan-sharking.
   And banks have been getting away with it for way too long.
   
   Same with business now...late fee's on phone bill.
   Comcast goes up all the time..but that's not unusual, considering the source.
   They are behind that new channell---Right Tv. Just what we need. Fox 2.
   Funny how they are the ones who want to own the internet too.
   Isn't it just strange how gvt controls it all, when all you see is right-wing/big business/big money domination over everything?
   
   That's who has a problem with Obama.
   Not regular, good-hearted working Americans.
   
   It's about time we had an Obama!!!
   We've had enough of your Bush's.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Wait there's no left wing money interests? Get real!

      replyreport
      1. 81

         lovemychrisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         No, of course not, there are repubs and dems on those committies that give these banks all that leeway....
         Plenty of dems profit from those laws.
         But it's a democratic pres and congress now wanting to do something about it.
         And it's the repubs who are standing in the way.....
         
         So please don't tell me they care about Americans. They care about getting back in power. Period.
         Although how this is going to help them do that is beyond me.
         
         Let's think....they'll lie and spin, mis-inform and denigrate. Insult and demonize, kick and scream . uhuhuhuwaaaaaaaaaaa.
         
         aaarrrggghhhhh it's a mighty wind that blows matey!
         
         the end of an era of theft------nothing ever goes down without a fight.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No I don't think any politician cares about the people, if they did they'd work for nothing, and they wouldn't spend so much time and effort keeping their jobs.
            
            As with the health care bill though, the financial reform bill will not accomplish what it's stated intention is, and will lead to the creation of a permanent bail out fund with the money coming from taxes on transactions that we all make. Do you really think the banks will pay those fees, or will they simply pass them onto you and me?
            
            On top of that it puts the government in charge of making decisions on who is too big and who should be closed. That's a little too uncomfortable for me. Consider the SEC which even with reports from a whistle blower a decade ago was unable to uncover the fraud of Bernie Madoff.  Look at the failure of the government and the fed to predict the coming economic crisis until the very last minute . Do you really want these people making banking decisions too?

            replyreport
6. 60

   mcrowposted 14 years ago

   I don't see where it's the bank's fault that you don't keep track of your checking account. The only way I see anything wrong with banks charging fees for overbalance accounts is if they don't tell you about them before you open account.
   
   If you know you'll be charged $25-$40 per overage and you still do it, it's your own fault if you owe the bank $200 in overages.
   
   What's next? Adult babysitters?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Did you read the post?  They charged me not one, but 4 overdraft fees.  Sorry, that's slime.  I keep very close track of my bank balance, and I don't usually complain about stuff like this.  But they charged me $200.00 because of one mistake. 
      
      I'd rather be embarrassed by having my card refused if I make a mistake, rather than be punished like that for a simple mistake. 
      
      I guess you folks who are defending the banks don't know what it's like when half your week's pay is taken away just like that.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         mcrowposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It's still your fault. Why do you keep trying to blame the bank? Didn't they tell you before that if you overdraft you get charged a fee for each overdraft? The bottom line here is that you shouldn't have overdrafted.
         
         If your bank card is a Visa, Visa is the one that submits the charges to your bank in whatever order the allow them to clear. IOW, it's probably Visa's fault on the order of the charges posting, not the bank.
         
         Either way, if you overdrafted, you have no room to complain since you know ahead of time of the overdraft fees.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            As usual, you and others here are mangling the point of William's original post.  He's not blaming the bank for his overdraft, and he's not complaining about the general concept of overdraft fees.  He's stating, correctly, that banks intentionally charge exorbitant fees just because they can.  Regulations are not put in place to stifle progress, but to regulate the greed of major corporations.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               No. Regulations are put in place to empower bureaucrats and to justify their existence and to give them a means to shake down business for campaign contributions.
               
               Regardless of regulations, corporations are in existence to make money, as much money as they possibly can.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.  Having worked for both, I have a vastly different view.

                  replyreport
            2. 59

               William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you PrettyPanther.  I made a mistake.  But I did nothing wrong, nothing illegal, and nothing irresponsible.  As I said, I track my account very closely, and I would not have spent the amount I did if I hadn't thought I had the money. 
               
               If I had been charged one overdraft fee for one mistake I probably would have bitched about it but I would have paid it and that would be the end of it.  But $200 because of one mistake?  That's BS.
               
               I can't believe people are defending it.

               replyreport
         2. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Well, Congress disagreed. My understanding is that the banks have agreed or are required not to charge overdraft fees in the way Wilson described, i.e., charging the largest overdraft first to drain the account so as to enable them to charge more fees for small overdrafts. Just another example of how the banksters are out screw their customers any way they can using what they call "tricks and traps."

            replyreport
7. 0

   zampanoposted 14 years ago

   Hi William.
   In france bankers just love you to have a deficit on your account.
   I got an allowed deficit of a thousand euros.
   It means that when you're minus $40 as in your case , no hassle.
   And when you start to dig into it, it costs you plenty.
   They just love it.
   But sometimes it's useful.
   Can't you just change banks ?

   replyreport
8. 59

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   When exactly does a troll reach adulthood?  After his 3rd sockpuppet account?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      About the same time that a grown man quits watching the Simpsons.

      replyreport
9. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

   From Marketwatch - http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-ad … 2009-11-12
   
   "Many consumers automatically receive overdraft protection, where they can overdraw their accounts, and banks will cover the transaction with fees as large as $38 for each overdraft, regardless of the size of the draw. The regulations are expected to eat a hole in the estimated $38 billion overdraft-protection banking industry."
   
   The regulations address a bank-designed racket - a 38 BILLION DOLLAR racket that picks the pockets of consumers who can least afford to be nicked. Please notice whose side the government is on - the little guy for a change.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Steve Eisman, one of the heroes whose stories are told by Michael Lewis in "The Big Short" concluded that the Wall Street Banksters like Goldman Sacks are in business to f**k the poor.
      
      Here's an excerpt from "The Big Short."
      
      http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/06/e … y-machine/
      
      “Any business where you can sell a product and make money without having to worry how the product performs is going to attract sleazy people. That was the seamy underbelly of the good idea. Eisman and I both believed in the big idea and we both met some really sleazy characters. That was our job: to figure out which of the characters were the right ones to pull off the big idea.”

      replyreport
10. 81

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    That's exactly right...Obama and the dems are on the side of the little guy! And the big guys don't like it.
    geeezus, 38 billion dollar racket....Mafia would be proud.
    Only the mafia at least has some principles...no hurting women and children.
    Banksters don't care who gets screwed!
    
    Mafia-in jail.
    Bankster-in Dubai on a luxury vacation.

    replyreport
11. 60

    Padrinoposted 14 years ago

    "That's exactly right...Obama and the dems are on the side of the little guy!"
    
    
    
     

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Did you have any facts or a supporting argument for your position?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Do you?

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Rather than string out a row of laughing teabaggers, I generally research  my position, offer quotes with sources and make a conclusion supported by the evidence. Glad to give you a lesson. No charge.

             replyreport
             1. 66

                Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I am not a teabagger, and I am still laughing. Really, at your age (if your picture is real) people generally don't believe in Santa Claus - except for Ralph of course

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Ralph writes a good hub - but I missed the one that says he believes in Santa Claus. And I'm pretty sure I never said I do.... 
                   
                   I am glad you find a row of lauging teabaggers amusing. From what I have read of Ralph's comments, he likes some substance to the opinions he reads. As do I.
                   
                   Mocking people is a lot easier than formulating a coherent statement but it won't move the country any closer  to solving the problems we face.

                   replyreport
             2. 0

                LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Alright, so where is your proof that Obama is actually sticking up for the little guy?

                replyreport
       2. 60

          Padrinoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

          replyreport
12. 66

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    Nah Doug, you did not see me mocking, I am just kidding around

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       OK.  My bad.

       replyreport
13. 69

    Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

    Take a look at some facts about credit cards, here--
    
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/opini … amp;st=cse
    
    "The credit and debit card system is dominated by two companies, Visa and MasterCard, respectively accounting for 47 percent and 35 percent of the general purpose credit card market in 2008. While those firms handle the transactions, they depend on banks to issue the cards to consumers. The result is that Visa and MasterCard compete to deliver the highest returns to the banks rather than offer the lowest prices to consumers."

    replyreport