Bank Fee Debacle 1st OWS Victory?

[Dr.House]

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

Gotta go with no on the "victory"...

More likely a marketing fiasco as noted earlier...

Besides, the rants of the occupiers aren't overwhelmingly "I pay too much to use my ATM!"...

 

[jillian]

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

Gotta go with no on the "victory"...

More likely a marketing fiasco as noted earlier...

Besides, the rants of the occupiers aren't overwhelmingly "I pay too much to use my ATM!"...

well, no. they're not. but they are saying that the money is rigging the system.

 

[Dr.House]

Article Page | TheStreet

Gotta go with no on the "victory"...

More likely a marketing fiasco as noted earlier...

Besides, the rants of the occupiers aren't overwhelmingly "I pay too much to use my ATM!"...

well, no. they're not. but they are saying that the money is rigging the system.

Not the same...

 

[jillian]

Gotta go with no on the "victory"...

More likely a marketing fiasco as noted earlier...

Besides, the rants of the occupiers aren't overwhelmingly "I pay too much to use my ATM!"...

well, no. they're not. but they are saying that the money is rigging the system.

Not the same...

prolly... but there's no question at least some people are looking at these issues differently now.

 

[Intense]

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.



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?

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.

That's a start at least. An in depth study on them may be in order, not here though. I think you might be more surprised than me after seeing both sides of the argument.

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.

Your side is not blocked from refuting anything the Koch Brothers, Nor what Anyone else says. Union's are Influential too. Most Government Workers are Union. What is Important is Perspective, Truth, and Justice, no matter the origin, no matter the messenger, if it is legitimate. We want context, Relevance, we want the Picture as complete as we can get it in the service of Justice. Soros is as Human as The Koch Brothers, there is both good and bad in all of us. The same holds for Scalia and Thomas, and Ginsberg and Kennedy.

When it comes to Campaigning, the only ones effected by the Spam, are not paying attention in the First Place, Them, and those that just want to be on the winning side, the Populists, in the Middle, both Dem and Rep. Most of us already know where we stand. You know who you are voting for. I know who I'm Voting for. No money is going to change either of our votes. It's the Idiot's that can't decide how many Lottery Tickets, holding up the line, that we are each trying to win over to our side. You know, the Guy with his left turn blinker on for the last 15 minutes.