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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Exactly. OWS had ZERO to do with this. Free market calling the shots...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.
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.
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.
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
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.
^^^^
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!!!
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.
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.
until money is taken out of politics,
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 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..
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.
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.
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.