Bank Fee Debacle 1st OWS Victory?

[theDoctorisIn]

It does not take a genius to figure out The OWS movement is so strong that you sublimitedly felt their presence TWO YEARS AGO!!!

Huh? What are you talking about?

^^^^

See what I mean.

What does my switching banks have to do with OWS?

 

[Samson]

Huh? What are you talking about?

^^^^

See what I mean.

What does my switching banks have to do with OWS?

Surely you jest?

Do you, sir, mean to imply that you might have made a decision that was independent of the OWS movement!

HERESAY!!!

 

[Amelia]

Huh? What are you talking about?

^^^^

See what I mean.

What does my switching banks have to do with OWS?

They gotta claim credit where they can no matter how much of a stretch it is.

 

[The T]

No. Zero percent chance. It was the free market that fought back. But don't go thinking this is over. Banks will figure out a way to get their lost revenues back.

Exactly. OWS had ZERO to do with this. Free market calling the shots...

 

[Rat in the Hat]

i think there's truth in that. mostly, i think they're a bunch of greedy buggers.

Of course. They definitely are greedy. But then again, who isn't? Aren't we all trying to get the most and the best we can for ourselves?

Where the giant banks, the corporations that go offshore, and the politicians on both sides of the aisle go wrong is when they try to enrich themselves on the backs of the working folks that are just trying to make their way in the world.

I have no problem with the ones who charge an honest fee for their services. The ones who double and triple dip and rip off the consumers should be squashed like bugs.

until money is taken out of politics, you are going to see nothing done to fix the type of victimization of the middle class that you're discussing. unfortunately, citizens united makes it impossible to have any reform. either we need to replace thomas and scalia and wait for ethical justices to reverse that decision, or we need a constitutional amendment. as i don't see either happening any time soon, i suspect nothing will change.

i have no problem with profits. i think people should work as hard as they can to produce a benefit for their companies.however, when i had my own practice, i would tell my clients when it wasn't cost efficient to pursue something. i would force them to do a cost/benefit analysis... even if it cost me money. corporations are amoral, however. that's why controls are necessary.

I don't think there's any way we'll ever get money out of politics. Even if we completely replaced the SCOTUS, the unions, corporations, lobbyists, PACs, and soft money will still find a way in. Buying whatever influence they want.

The only way we will ever get money out of politics is by a constitutional amendment setting a hard cap on the amount of money that can be used for a political campaign (say $250,000 for any elected position). And we both know that will never happen.

But something like that is the only way we can ever get anyone in office that is truly for the "everyman", and is not beholden to the monied few.

 

[jillian]

Of course. They definitely are greedy. But then again, who isn't? Aren't we all trying to get the most and the best we can for ourselves?

Where the giant banks, the corporations that go offshore, and the politicians on both sides of the aisle go wrong is when they try to enrich themselves on the backs of the working folks that are just trying to make their way in the world.

I have no problem with the ones who charge an honest fee for their services. The ones who double and triple dip and rip off the consumers should be squashed like bugs.

until money is taken out of politics, you are going to see nothing done to fix the type of victimization of the middle class that you're discussing. unfortunately, citizens united makes it impossible to have any reform. either we need to replace thomas and scalia and wait for ethical justices to reverse that decision, or we need a constitutional amendment. as i don't see either happening any time soon, i suspect nothing will change.

i have no problem with profits. i think people should work as hard as they can to produce a benefit for their companies.however, when i had my own practice, i would tell my clients when it wasn't cost efficient to pursue something. i would force them to do a cost/benefit analysis... even if it cost me money. corporations are amoral, however. that's why controls are necessary.

I don't think there's any way we'll ever get money out of politics. Even if we completely replaced the SCOTUS, the unions, corporations, lobbyists, PACs, and soft money will still find a way in. Buying whatever influence they want.

The only way we will ever get money out of politics is by a constitutional amendment setting a hard cap on the amount of money that can be used for a political campaign (say $250,000 for any elected position). And we both know that will never happen.

But something like that is the only way we can ever get anyone in office that is truly for the "everyman", and is not beholden to the monied few.

we don't need to replace the whole court... only scalia and thomas. if the only money that could be used for presidential elections came from government, and not private donations, and everyone had the same amount to spend, there wouldn't be any lobbyists, etc.

That is how you get money out of politics.

the constitutional amendment will never happen because the people getting the money would have to vote on it.

 

[candycorn]

Bank Fee Debacle is the First Occupy Wall Street Victory
By Dan Freed - 10/31/11 - 4:02 PM EDT

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- For a movement without an agenda, Occupy Wall Street is off to a pretty good start--scaring JPMorgan Chase(NYSE:JPM), Wells Fargo(NYSE:WFC) and SunTrust Banks(NYSE:STI) away from their plans to charge customers who use their debit cards to make purchases.
None of these banks cited Occupy Wall Street in explaining their reversal, and because Occupy Wall Street does not speak with one voice, it cannot be said to have demanded these banks reverse course on their planned fees.
Still, it does not take a genius to figure out that charging fees to consumers for their use of debit cards is exactly the kind of thing nearly all participants in Occupy Wall Street would be likely to oppose. What the movement is doing, as many commentators have pointed out recently, is changing the national conversation, much as the Tea Party did before dealing Democrats a resounding defeat in the Congressional mid-term elections.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has been a prominent target of the protestors (see video above). Dimon, a defiant critic of many proposed financial services industry reforms, has been hinting at the fee increase ever since his famous statement in the wake of the passage of Dodd Frank financial reform legislation: "If you're a restaurant and you can't charge for the soda, you're going to charge more for the burger."

Still, it was Bank of America(NYSE:BAC) was out in front in announcing the new debt fee, drawing heaps of scorn upon itself, as TheStreet found out in a recent poll. Bank of America is now reported to be reconsidering aspects of its fee program, according to The Wall Street Journal. Bank spokespeople did not return an email message seeking to confirm the report.

Article Page | TheStreet

Certainly could be. I think there were probably a group of factors involved but no doubt it is stimulating some thought; look at this board. There seems to be 5-10 new threads a day about the group. They are making an impact on the public debate. Eventually the whispers in the corridors flow into the boulevard.

 

[CT9]

Who the fuck is Dan Freed and why do we care what he says... No it didn't. Customers reaction and the massive coverage on CNN and Fox before OWS stole that coverage is what did it. If anything OWS hurt it by diverting attention to the protest itself rather than its causes.

 

[Dr Grump]

I honestly wonder if BoA wasn't put up as "the canary in the coal mine". Maybe they decided to try to float the idea to see if it would be accepted, and the other banks could add the same fees if nothing was said.

Similar to when airlines try to tack on additional fees, and the other airlines go along when the traveling public doesn't beak about it. Just look at how they got away with checked baggage fees and fuel surcharges during the $4 gasoline period.

i think there's truth in that. mostly, i think they're a bunch of greedy buggers.

Of course. They definitely are greedy. But then again, who isn't? Aren't we all trying to get the most and the best we can for ourselves?

Where the giant banks, the corporations that go offshore, and the politicians on both sides of the aisle go wrong is when they try to enrich themselves on the backs of the working folks that are just trying to make their way in the world.

I have no problem with the ones who charge an honest fee for their services. The ones who double and triple dip and rip off the consumers should be squashed like bugs.

I don't think it's that hard to make lotsa money and be socially responsible..

 

[Rocko]

^^^^

See what I mean.

What does my switching banks have to do with OWS?

Surely you jest?

Do you, sir, mean to imply that you might have made a decision that was independent of the OWS movement!

HERESAY!!!

::

 

[Rat in the Hat]

until money is taken out of politics, you are going to see nothing done to fix the type of victimization of the middle class that you're discussing. unfortunately, citizens united makes it impossible to have any reform. either we need to replace thomas and scalia and wait for ethical justices to reverse that decision, or we need a constitutional amendment. as i don't see either happening any time soon, i suspect nothing will change.

i have no problem with profits. i think people should work as hard as they can to produce a benefit for their companies.however, when i had my own practice, i would tell my clients when it wasn't cost efficient to pursue something. i would force them to do a cost/benefit analysis... even if it cost me money. corporations are amoral, however. that's why controls are necessary.

I don't think there's any way we'll ever get money out of politics. Even if we completely replaced the SCOTUS, the unions, corporations, lobbyists, PACs, and soft money will still find a way in. Buying whatever influence they want.

The only way we will ever get money out of politics is by a constitutional amendment setting a hard cap on the amount of money that can be used for a political campaign (say $250,000 for any elected position). And we both know that will never happen.

But something like that is the only way we can ever get anyone in office that is truly for the "everyman", and is not beholden to the monied few.

we don't need to replace the whole court... only scalia and thomas. if the only money that could be used for presidential elections came from government, and not private donations, and everyone had the same amount to spend, there wouldn't be any lobbyists, etc.

That is how you get money out of politics.

the constitutional amendment will never happen because the people getting the money would have to vote on it.

But Jillian, who's to say the the monied few can't get to the replacements for Scalia & Thomas? Either directly or though their family members?

There has to be some form of law to put a hard road block on campaign finance. Something that has penalties for breaching it.

Take the money out of it in a way that has harsh penalties to anyone that violates the law, and we will finally get the government that our forefathers wanted us to have. Anything less is an insult to what they fought and died for.

One last thing. There is one thing I have have wondered for over 20 years. Why do any candidates for national office spend millions of dollars to try to get elected to a position that pays $250,000 per year, tops? Is it because they know they will skim far more than that behind the scenes? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Intense]

i think there's truth in that. mostly, i think they're a bunch of greedy buggers.

Of course. They definitely are greedy. But then again, who isn't? Aren't we all trying to get the most and the best we can for ourselves?

Where the giant banks, the corporations that go offshore, and the politicians on both sides of the aisle go wrong is when they try to enrich themselves on the backs of the working folks that are just trying to make their way in the world.

I have no problem with the ones who charge an honest fee for their services. The ones who double and triple dip and rip off the consumers should be squashed like bugs.

until money is taken out of politics, you are going to see nothing done to fix the type of victimization of the middle class that you're discussing. unfortunately, citizens united makes it impossible to have any reform. either we need to replace thomas and scalia and wait for ethical justices to reverse that decision, or we need a constitutional amendment. as i don't see either happening any time soon, i suspect nothing will change.

i have no problem with profits. i think people should work as hard as they can to produce a benefit for their companies.however, when i had my own practice, i would tell my clients when it wasn't cost efficient to pursue something. i would force them to do a cost/benefit analysis... even if it cost me money. corporations are amoral, however. that's why controls are necessary.

either we need to replace thomas and scalia and wait for ethical justices to reverse that decision, or we need a constitutional amendment.

I like Thomas and Scalia., right where they are.
Constitutional Amendment is the best answer to Perceived Tyranny at the Federal Level.

until money is taken out of politics,

That always translates to me like "Until we remove Conservative Money from Politics, it's just so unfair".

When you speak of Ethical, consider why so many Decisions have been split 5 to 4. If the Court were so filled with Wisdom, one would think the Decisions would be much closer to Unanimous, 6 to 3, 7 to 2.

i have no problem with profits. i think people should work as hard as they can to produce a benefit for their companies.however, when i had my own practice, i would tell my clients when it wasn't cost efficient to pursue something. i would force them to do a cost/benefit analysis... even if it cost me money. corporations are amoral, however. that's why controls are necessary.

There is some truth to that. Corporations are interested in what is best for Their Backers, Their Investors. It is up to Government to see that they play by the rules. Sometimes hard to do when Government is getting a Cut. Progressive Government has increasingly supported the big Conglomerates and discouraged Small Enterprise. That is another symptom of the Disease.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

i think there's truth in that. mostly, i think they're a bunch of greedy buggers.

Of course. They definitely are greedy. But then again, who isn't? Aren't we all trying to get the most and the best we can for ourselves?

Where the giant banks, the corporations that go offshore, and the politicians on both sides of the aisle go wrong is when they try to enrich themselves on the backs of the working folks that are just trying to make their way in the world.

I have no problem with the ones who charge an honest fee for their services. The ones who double and triple dip and rip off the consumers should be squashed like bugs.

I don't think it's that hard to make lotsa money and be socially responsible..

And that's why I said I don't have a problem with the banks that charge honest fees for their services.

It's the dishonest multiple dippers I have a problem with.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think there's any way we'll ever get money out of politics. Even if we completely replaced the SCOTUS, the unions, corporations, lobbyists, PACs, and soft money will still find a way in. Buying whatever influence they want.

The only way we will ever get money out of politics is by a constitutional amendment setting a hard cap on the amount of money that can be used for a political campaign (say $250,000 for any elected position). And we both know that will never happen.

But something like that is the only way we can ever get anyone in office that is truly for the "everyman", and is not beholden to the monied few.

we don't need to replace the whole court... only scalia and thomas. if the only money that could be used for presidential elections came from government, and not private donations, and everyone had the same amount to spend, there wouldn't be any lobbyists, etc.

That is how you get money out of politics.

the constitutional amendment will never happen because the people getting the money would have to vote on it.

But Jillian, who's to say the the monied few can't get to the replacements for Scalia & Thomas? Either directly or though their family members?

There has to be some form of law to put a hard road block on campaign finance. Something that has penalties for breaching it.

Take the money out of it in a way that has harsh penalties to anyone that violates the law, and we will finally get the government that our forefathers wanted us to have. Anything less is an insult to what they fought and died for.

One last thing. There is one thing I have have wondered for over 20 years. Why do any candidates for national office spend millions of dollars to try to get elected to a position that pays $250,000 per year, tops? Is it because they know they will skim far more than that behind the scenes? Inquiring minds want to know.

Power.

And a guarantee of a much higher paycheck from the private sector for doing nothing at all waiting for them when they lose re-election or retire.

 

[jillian]

Of course. They definitely are greedy. But then again, who isn't? Aren't we all trying to get the most and the best we can for ourselves?

Where the giant banks, the corporations that go offshore, and the politicians on both sides of the aisle go wrong is when they try to enrich themselves on the backs of the working folks that are just trying to make their way in the world.

I have no problem with the ones who charge an honest fee for their services. The ones who double and triple dip and rip off the consumers should be squashed like bugs.

until money is taken out of politics, you are going to see nothing done to fix the type of victimization of the middle class that you're discussing. unfortunately, citizens united makes it impossible to have any reform. either we need to replace thomas and scalia and wait for ethical justices to reverse that decision, or we need a constitutional amendment. as i don't see either happening any time soon, i suspect nothing will change.

i have no problem with profits. i think people should work as hard as they can to produce a benefit for their companies.however, when i had my own practice, i would tell my clients when it wasn't cost efficient to pursue something. i would force them to do a cost/benefit analysis... even if it cost me money. corporations are amoral, however. that's why controls are necessary.

I like Thomas and Scalia., right where they are.
Constitutional Amendment is the best answer to Perceived Tyranny at the Federal Level.

until money is taken out of politics,

That always translates to me like "Until we remove Conservative Money from Politics, it's just so unfair".

When you speak of Ethical, consider why so many Decisions have been split 5 to 4. If the Court were so filled with Wisdom, one would think the Decisions would be much closer to Unanimous, 6 to 3, 7 to 2.

i have no problem with profits. i think people should work as hard as they can to produce a benefit for their companies.however, when i had my own practice, i would tell my clients when it wasn't cost efficient to pursue something. i would force them to do a cost/benefit analysis... even if it cost me money. corporations are amoral, however. that's why controls are necessary.

There is some truth to that. Corporations are interested in what is best for Their Backers, Their Investors. It is up to Government to see that they play by the rules. Sometimes hard to do when Government is getting a Cut. Progressive Government has increasingly supported the big Conglomerates and discouraged Small Enterprise. That is another symptom of the Disease.

you know, there are a lot of conservative judges and i don't have the venom toward them that i do toward thomas and scalia... both are ethically challenged and an embarrassment to the court... thomas has the added attaction of not being intellectually up to the task.

as for conservative money.... are you afraid to find out if you win without corporatists ramming their agenda down the throats of purported "conservatives". maybe you'll actually get accurate assessments of things rather than what the koch brothers want you to see. aside from that, i see rightwingers cry about soros and unions. their money would be out, too. or do you know that their contributions don't come close to the corprorate contributions.

constitutional amendment won't happen... koch brothers will just fund something saying tea people won't have any voice. and they'll believe it.

how does government make sure that corporations "play by the rules" when rightwingers don't want any rules?

 

[Rozman]

I doubt it had anything to do with these folks at all.The Banks respond to feedback from people that have accounts not these people living in the streets who don't wield any sort of economic muscle.

 

[Rocko]

Um bashala coen santrup. Um bashala coen santrup. Um bashala coen santrup.

FEEL THE POWER OF THE MIGHTY OWS MOVEMENT!

Um bashala coen santrup...........

 

[Amelia]

 

[jillian]

But Jillian, who's to say the the monied few can't get to the replacements for Scalia & Thomas? Either directly or though their family members?

There has to be some form of law to put a hard road block on campaign finance. Something that has penalties for breaching it.

Take the money out of it in a way that has harsh penalties to anyone that violates the law, and we will finally get the government that our forefathers wanted us to have. Anything less is an insult to what they fought and died for.

One last thing. There is one thing I have have wondered for over 20 years. Why do any candidates for national office spend millions of dollars to try to get elected to a position that pays $250,000 per year, tops? Is it because they know they will skim far more than that behind the scenes? Inquiring minds want to know.

because as much as some try to say that both parties are the same, that simply isn't the case in terms of appointments to the bench. say what you want, but a Court with two less judges appointed by republicans wouldn't have decided Citizens United as it did. Frankly, Thomas should have recused because his wife had an interest in the outcome. Any judge on any other court in the country would have had to recuse or would have been taken off the bench.

i agree there should be restraints. but the holding of Citizens United was very clear. Any restraint would have to be assessed as a restraint on speech and would be strictly scrutinized by the Court. That is what makes that case so dangerous. It hamstrings our ability to control what is happening.

As to your last... that was answered. people want power. it's like tom delay left a very lucrative business as an exterminator to run for congress because he was angry that DDT was outlawed. Then he became one of the most powerful men in the country. people like keeping power.

and the presidency is the most powerful position of all.

 

[driveby]

I wonder how many OWS yoyo's even have bank accounts?.......