Trumpenstein planning to destroy Dodd Frank

[JQPublic1]

Whichever is the bigger monster. I coined th
Donald Trump was a creep before his rise to the presidency but people like you made him a monster when you gave him power to destroy. And given his Rasputin like power over millions like you, he can do anything and you won't care.
His agenda is the destruction of all social contracts the democrats have painstakingly constructed with average Americans. Hence I thought the name Trumpenstein was an appropriate moniker to describe not only Trump's presidency but the entire social apparatus supporting him.

The only power he may have over me is if once of his companies owns my mortgage

One of his companies COULD own your mortgage under Dodd-Frank. WIthout the law, your mortgage could be put on the auction block and sold to the highest bidder...who could then change your interest rates on a whim!
Are you beginning to feel afraid? You should!

You should take your own advice and research how interest rates work. With Dodd-Frank mortgages are bought and sold - always have been - AND they cannot simply change your interest rates 'on a whim.'

When trying to sow fear as you are it might help if something that you say is actually true.

My point is that with the government entirely under Republican control...and with the Secretary of the Treasury being Steve Mnuchin, the same man who made millions on foreclosures during the housing collapse, anything is possible. Close your eyes and let the nightmares begin!

Your point is fear mongering based on nothing at all.

Well thanks...53% of the electorate, all those who voted for Hilary, will keep that in mind.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Dodd Frank destroyed small businesses.

Of course, what brought me to this thread isn't so much the fact that you're blatantly wrong, and even backwards... but the fact that you seem to be mixing up Frankenstein and his monster in your signature and the title. Frankenstein was the doctor that created the monster that was made from corpse pieces... the monster had no name.

Picky, picky, picky... Would you have you written the publishers of the original novel, Frankenstein ,and told them the same thing? What about the many movies entitled "Frankenstein?" The main character of all of those presentations was the nameless monster. My rendering of Trumpestein should be taken in the same contextual spirit.

No, because they understood that, and named it Frankenstein because he was the creator of the monster, and his actions were what started all of the events within those mediums. You're not matching the context, because the focus is Trump, and you're referring to him as the monster.

Well let's take it back to the author of the original novel, Mary Shelly. She named her classical novel, "Frankenstein."
Was the novel about Dr. Frankenstein or was it about the monster he created. To answer that I had to ponder the moral of the story. Shelly's message was meant to convey the perils of men delving into things reserved for God. From that perspective, it would seem her book was about the nefarious deeds of Dr. Frankenstein. Thereby she entitled it "Frankenstein." Ironically, The first name of Trump's father was Frank. Perhaps I should have named the Trump monster FrankenTrump. I will consider that in future renderings and discourse.

Still, the Trumpenstein theme resonates and is an apt name for describing the potential for what lies ahead. There is no doubt as to the message my sig and this thread sends!

..... Fred. His father's name was Fred.

Regardless of your message, the name is wrong. You're calling Trump a monster, and Frankenstein was not the monster. You can try to contort it all you like, but you still got it wrong. On the other hand, you could have called it "Trumpenstein's Monster" and I wouldn't have been able to nitpick your fear mongering.

So sue me. But Fred Trump was "frank" in dialogue, everyone says so.

Fredrick is not Frank... oh good grief, just admit when you're wrong.

 

[JQPublic1]

America, what have you done. The monster you have created is set to open pandora's box and release all the demons that plagued the middle class in bygone eras. Topping his nefarious agenda is an overhaul of Dodd-Frank. If he does, consumer protections will be gone and banks will be free to rob you blind in myriad ways once again. When the dominoes fall, don't blame the liberals or the progressives.. It was you RW idiots
who put a wolf in the hen house; and, he wasted no time in bringing in the rest of the pack!



Trump Planning Dodd-Frank Overhaul

Which is it?

Trump, or Stein?

Whichever is the bigger monster. I coined th

America, what have you done. The monster you have created is set to open pandora's box and release all the demons that plagued the middle class in bygone eras. Topping his nefarious agenda is an overhaul of Dodd-Frank. If he does, consumer protections will be gone and banks will be free to rob you blind in myriad ways once again. When the dominoes fall, don't blame the liberals or the progressives.. It was you RW idiots
who put a wolf in the hen house; and, he wasted no time in bringing in the rest of the pack!



Trump Planning Dodd-Frank Overhaul

Which is it?

Trump, or Stein?

Donald Trump was a creep before his rise to the presidency but people like you made him a monster when you gave him power to destroy. And given his Rasputin like power over millions like you, he can do anything and you won't care.
His agenda is the destruction of all social contracts the democrats have painstakingly constructed with average Americans. Hence I thought the name Trumpenstein was an appropriate moniker to describe not only Trump's presidency but the entire social apparatus supporting him.

Paranoia! Thou name art JQPublic.

Better to prepare for the worst than to have jack booted thugs crashing into your pad while you are watching re runs of All in the Family!

 

[JQPublic1]

Picky, picky, picky... Would you have you written the publishers of the original novel, Frankenstein ,and told them the same thing? What about the many movies entitled "Frankenstein?" The main character of all of those presentations was the nameless monster. My rendering of Trumpestein should be taken in the same contextual spirit.

No, because they understood that, and named it Frankenstein because he was the creator of the monster, and his actions were what started all of the events within those mediums. You're not matching the context, because the focus is Trump, and you're referring to him as the monster.

Well let's take it back to the author of the original novel, Mary Shelly. She named her classical novel, "Frankenstein."
Was the novel about Dr. Frankenstein or was it about the monster he created. To answer that I had to ponder the moral of the story. Shelly's message was meant to convey the perils of men delving into things reserved for God. From that perspective, it would seem her book was about the nefarious deeds of Dr. Frankenstein. Thereby she entitled it "Frankenstein." Ironically, The first name of Trump's father was Frank. Perhaps I should have named the Trump monster FrankenTrump. I will consider that in future renderings and discourse.

Still, the Trumpenstein theme resonates and is an apt name for describing the potential for what lies ahead. There is no doubt as to the message my sig and this thread sends!

..... Fred. His father's name was Fred.

Regardless of your message, the name is wrong. You're calling Trump a monster, and Frankenstein was not the monster. You can try to contort it all you like, but you still got it wrong. On the other hand, you could have called it "Trumpenstein's Monster" and I wouldn't have been able to nitpick your fear mongering.

So sue me. But Fred Trump was "frank" in dialogue, everyone says so.

Fredrick is not Frank... oh good grief, just admit when you're wrong.

No Fred is dead, he can't be "frank" about anything any more.

 

[Rocko]

The made up paranoia is getting to be absurd.

Watch the movie "The Big Short." Then come back and tell us we shouldn't be worried.

Full of falsehoods and half truths. But hey let Hollywood continue to educate you.

 

[JQPublic1]

America, what have you done. The monster you have created is set to open pandora's box and release all the demons that plagued the middle class in bygone eras. Topping his nefarious agenda is an overhaul of Dodd-Frank. If he does, consumer protections will be gone and banks will be free to rob you blind in myriad ways once again. When the dominoes fall, don't blame the liberals or the progressives.. It was you RW idiots
who put a wolf in the hen house; and, he wasted no time in bringing in the rest of the pack!



Trump Planning Dodd-Frank Overhaul

Dodd Frank destroyed small businesses.

Of course, what brought me to this thread isn't so much the fact that you're blatantly wrong, and even backwards... but the fact that you seem to be mixing up Frankenstein and his monster in your signature and the title. Frankenstein was the doctor that created the monster that was made from corpse pieces... the monster had no name.

Picky, picky, picky... Would you have you written the publishers of the original novel, Frankenstein ,and told them the same thing? What about the many movies entitled "Frankenstein?" The main character of all of those presentations was the nameless monster. My rendering of Trumpestein should be taken in the same contextual spirit.

No, because they understood that, and named it Frankenstein because he was the creator of the monster, and his actions were what started all of the events within those mediums. You're not matching the context, because the focus is Trump, and you're referring to him as the monster.

Well let's take it back to the author of the original novel, Mary Shelly. She named her classical novel, "Frankenstein."
Was the novel about Dr. Frankenstein or was it about the monster he created. To answer that I had to ponder the moral of the story. Shelly's message was meant to convey the perils of men delving into things reserved for God. From that perspective, it would seem her book was about the nefarious deeds of Dr. Frankenstein. Thereby she entitled it "Frankenstein." Ironically, The first name of Trump's father was Frank. Perhaps I should have named the Trump monster FrankenTrump. I will consider that in future renderings and discourse.

Still, the Trumpenstein theme resonates and is an apt name for describing the potential for what lies ahead. There is no doubt as to the message my sig and this thread sends!

..... Fred. His father's name was Fred.

Regardless of your message, the name is wrong. You're calling Trump a monster, and Frankenstein was not the monster. You can try to contort it all you like, but you still got it wrong. On the other hand, you could have called it "Trumpenstein's Monster" and I wouldn't have been able to nitpick your fear mongering.

Well, Trumpenstein is MY original invention and I reserve the right to post it as I see fit. My satirical invention has nothing to do with Mary Shelly's creation. I just borrowed an aspect of the name she used to draw attention to Trump's menacing presence on the political stage. Now, do you understand? Trump is far more dangerous than Frankenstein's monster///AGREED?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

banks will be free to rob you blind.

but won't we be free not to let them rob us?? Only a pure nazi communist would assume saintly soviet nazi govt must infantilize us because, left on our own, banks and businesses will rob us blind.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or look at the Bush presidency and tell us we shouldn't be worried. Bush messed things up on multiple levels.

Bush?? Trump is not Bush. BTW did you keep your check Bush sent back to you after he went in office, or did you return it?

No, Trump isn't Bush. However the way things are going Trump could be worse than Bush. I didn't get a check from Bush.

The way things are going?

They are not going at all - he has not even entered office yet. All this fear - it is really sad. I thought the right was supposed to be the party of fear mongering - clearly that was false.

Yeah, he hasn't even entered office yet, and I'm getting the feeling that history is repeating itself. He's offered a nice meeting with the President of the Philippines, a guy who is blatantly going around getting people killed for no reason. Will Trump talk about Human Rights? No he won't. He doesn't care.

You mean like Obama has done with leaders of militant groups?

How do you think that FP is supposed to go forward with nations when you refuse to even talk with them?

You might want to explain yourself a little more.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Dodd Frank destroyed small businesses.

Of course, what brought me to this thread isn't so much the fact that you're blatantly wrong, and even backwards... but the fact that you seem to be mixing up Frankenstein and his monster in your signature and the title. Frankenstein was the doctor that created the monster that was made from corpse pieces... the monster had no name.

Picky, picky, picky... Would you have you written the publishers of the original novel, Frankenstein ,and told them the same thing? What about the many movies entitled "Frankenstein?" The main character of all of those presentations was the nameless monster. My rendering of Trumpestein should be taken in the same contextual spirit.

No, because they understood that, and named it Frankenstein because he was the creator of the monster, and his actions were what started all of the events within those mediums. You're not matching the context, because the focus is Trump, and you're referring to him as the monster.

Well let's take it back to the author of the original novel, Mary Shelly. She named her classical novel, "Frankenstein."
Was the novel about Dr. Frankenstein or was it about the monster he created. To answer that I had to ponder the moral of the story. Shelly's message was meant to convey the perils of men delving into things reserved for God. From that perspective, it would seem her book was about the nefarious deeds of Dr. Frankenstein. Thereby she entitled it "Frankenstein." Ironically, The first name of Trump's father was Frank. Perhaps I should have named the Trump monster FrankenTrump. I will consider that in future renderings and discourse.

Still, the Trumpenstein theme resonates and is an apt name for describing the potential for what lies ahead. There is no doubt as to the message my sig and this thread sends!

..... Fred. His father's name was Fred.

Regardless of your message, the name is wrong. You're calling Trump a monster, and Frankenstein was not the monster. You can try to contort it all you like, but you still got it wrong. On the other hand, you could have called it "Trumpenstein's Monster" and I wouldn't have been able to nitpick your fear mongering.

Well, Trumpenstein is MY original invention and I reserve the right to post it as I see fit. My satirical invention has nothing to do with Mary Shelly's creation. I just borrowed an aspect of the name she used to draw attention to Trump's menacing presence on the political stage. Now, do you understand? Trump is far more dangerous than Frankenstein's monster///AGREED?

You are correct that you're free to reference things incorrectly. Otherwise, your post is just drivel.

 

[JQPublic1]

banks will be free to rob you blind.

but won't we be free not to let them rob us?? Only a pure nazi communist would assume saintly soviet nazi govt must infantilize us because, left on our own, banks and businesses will rob us blind.

Look up the history of Dodd/-Frank. Therein lies your answer.Do you want a return to the era before that.?

 

[JQPublic1]

Picky, picky, picky... Would you have you written the publishers of the original novel, Frankenstein ,and told them the same thing? What about the many movies entitled "Frankenstein?" The main character of all of those presentations was the nameless monster. My rendering of Trumpestein should be taken in the same contextual spirit.

No, because they understood that, and named it Frankenstein because he was the creator of the monster, and his actions were what started all of the events within those mediums. You're not matching the context, because the focus is Trump, and you're referring to him as the monster.

Well let's take it back to the author of the original novel, Mary Shelly. She named her classical novel, "Frankenstein."
Was the novel about Dr. Frankenstein or was it about the monster he created. To answer that I had to ponder the moral of the story. Shelly's message was meant to convey the perils of men delving into things reserved for God. From that perspective, it would seem her book was about the nefarious deeds of Dr. Frankenstein. Thereby she entitled it "Frankenstein." Ironically, The first name of Trump's father was Frank. Perhaps I should have named the Trump monster FrankenTrump. I will consider that in future renderings and discourse.

Still, the Trumpenstein theme resonates and is an apt name for describing the potential for what lies ahead. There is no doubt as to the message my sig and this thread sends!

..... Fred. His father's name was Fred.

Regardless of your message, the name is wrong. You're calling Trump a monster, and Frankenstein was not the monster. You can try to contort it all you like, but you still got it wrong. On the other hand, you could have called it "Trumpenstein's Monster" and I wouldn't have been able to nitpick your fear mongering.

Well, Trumpenstein is MY original invention and I reserve the right to post it as I see fit. My satirical invention has nothing to do with Mary Shelly's creation. I just borrowed an aspect of the name she used to draw attention to Trump's menacing presence on the political stage. Now, do you understand? Trump is far more dangerous than Frankenstein's monster///AGREED?

You are correct that you're free to reference things incorrectly. Otherwise, your post is just drivel.

You've given your irrelevant opinion, now scoot. Someone who isn't a Trump-Bot might be stimulated to action by my sig and thread. BTW Trumpenstein has no reference. It is an original..it IS the reference.

 

[Lewdog]

The made up paranoia is getting to be absurd.

Watch the movie "The Big Short." Then come back and tell us we shouldn't be worried.

Full of falsehoods and half truths. But hey let Hollywood continue to educate you.

Point out all the errors and half truths.

The answer partly lies in another man: Michael Lewis. Lewis wrote the book The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, back in 2010. His book is a nonfiction take on the financial meltdown of 2008, focusing on some of the key people who saw the writing on the wall and were able to profit from it. Since Lewis's book is nonfiction, and the film is based upon it, the movie ends up being mostly true. But there are a few liberties that the film takes that are not in the book and did not happen in real life. Hey, it's Hollywood.

As for the story, McKay pretty much sticks to the book save for two details, as the director told The Playlist, "The movie is entirely accurate except for two things that aren't completely true." The first of these has to do with the possibility of Morgan Stanley going under, which McKay used as more of a threat in the movie than it was in real life in order to increase the stakes for the characters and make it more dramatic. The second aspect of the film that's untrue is actually less dramatic than in real life, however. In the movie, there is a family tragedy involving the brother of Carrell's character. But in actuality, that tragedy was worse because it involved a young child. The real family had asked that it be omitted from the film, and McKay obliged and changed the victim to the brother with the family's permission.

How Accurate Is 'The Big Short'? The Financial Crisis Film Stays Close To The Truth

So for anyone to say that watching this movie wouldn't help teach people about the housing crisis of 2008 and why Dodd-Frank is important, is ridiculous.

 

[FA_Q2]

Bush?? Trump is not Bush. BTW did you keep your check Bush sent back to you after he went in office, or did you return it?

No, Trump isn't Bush. However the way things are going Trump could be worse than Bush. I didn't get a check from Bush.

The way things are going?

They are not going at all - he has not even entered office yet. All this fear - it is really sad. I thought the right was supposed to be the party of fear mongering - clearly that was false.

Yeah, he hasn't even entered office yet, and I'm getting the feeling that history is repeating itself. He's offered a nice meeting with the President of the Philippines, a guy who is blatantly going around getting people killed for no reason. Will Trump talk about Human Rights? No he won't. He doesn't care.

You mean like Obama has done with leaders of militant groups?

How do you think that FP is supposed to go forward with nations when you refuse to even talk with them?

You might want to explain yourself a little more.

There is noting to explain.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, Trump isn't Bush. However the way things are going Trump could be worse than Bush. I didn't get a check from Bush.

The way things are going?

They are not going at all - he has not even entered office yet. All this fear - it is really sad. I thought the right was supposed to be the party of fear mongering - clearly that was false.

Yeah, he hasn't even entered office yet, and I'm getting the feeling that history is repeating itself. He's offered a nice meeting with the President of the Philippines, a guy who is blatantly going around getting people killed for no reason. Will Trump talk about Human Rights? No he won't. He doesn't care.

You mean like Obama has done with leaders of militant groups?

How do you think that FP is supposed to go forward with nations when you refuse to even talk with them?

You might want to explain yourself a little more.

There is noting to explain.

Great post dude.... Not!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, because they understood that, and named it Frankenstein because he was the creator of the monster, and his actions were what started all of the events within those mediums. You're not matching the context, because the focus is Trump, and you're referring to him as the monster.

Well let's take it back to the author of the original novel, Mary Shelly. She named her classical novel, "Frankenstein."
Was the novel about Dr. Frankenstein or was it about the monster he created. To answer that I had to ponder the moral of the story. Shelly's message was meant to convey the perils of men delving into things reserved for God. From that perspective, it would seem her book was about the nefarious deeds of Dr. Frankenstein. Thereby she entitled it "Frankenstein." Ironically, The first name of Trump's father was Frank. Perhaps I should have named the Trump monster FrankenTrump. I will consider that in future renderings and discourse.

Still, the Trumpenstein theme resonates and is an apt name for describing the potential for what lies ahead. There is no doubt as to the message my sig and this thread sends!

..... Fred. His father's name was Fred.

Regardless of your message, the name is wrong. You're calling Trump a monster, and Frankenstein was not the monster. You can try to contort it all you like, but you still got it wrong. On the other hand, you could have called it "Trumpenstein's Monster" and I wouldn't have been able to nitpick your fear mongering.

Well, Trumpenstein is MY original invention and I reserve the right to post it as I see fit. My satirical invention has nothing to do with Mary Shelly's creation. I just borrowed an aspect of the name she used to draw attention to Trump's menacing presence on the political stage. Now, do you understand? Trump is far more dangerous than Frankenstein's monster///AGREED?

You are correct that you're free to reference things incorrectly. Otherwise, your post is just drivel.

You've given your irrelevant opinion, now scoot. Someone who isn't a Trump-Bot might be stimulated to action by my sig and thread. BTW Trumpenstein has no reference. It is an original..it IS the reference.

It's a reference to Frankenstein's monster, inherently, in name and design.

 

[FA_Q2]

The way things are going?

They are not going at all - he has not even entered office yet. All this fear - it is really sad. I thought the right was supposed to be the party of fear mongering - clearly that was false.

Yeah, he hasn't even entered office yet, and I'm getting the feeling that history is repeating itself. He's offered a nice meeting with the President of the Philippines, a guy who is blatantly going around getting people killed for no reason. Will Trump talk about Human Rights? No he won't. He doesn't care.

You mean like Obama has done with leaders of militant groups?

How do you think that FP is supposed to go forward with nations when you refuse to even talk with them?

You might want to explain yourself a little more.

There is noting to explain.

Great post dude.... Not!

Ill take that as a no, you did not care when Obama was doing it and have no idea how to formulate a FP without talking to the nations involved.

Not really all that surprised.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, he hasn't even entered office yet, and I'm getting the feeling that history is repeating itself. He's offered a nice meeting with the President of the Philippines, a guy who is blatantly going around getting people killed for no reason. Will Trump talk about Human Rights? No he won't. He doesn't care.

You mean like Obama has done with leaders of militant groups?

How do you think that FP is supposed to go forward with nations when you refuse to even talk with them?

You might want to explain yourself a little more.

There is noting to explain.

Great post dude.... Not!

Ill take that as a no, you did not care when Obama was doing it and have no idea how to formulate a FP without talking to the nations involved.

Not really all that surprised.

I've asked you to explain yourself more so we can talk about it. You won't do it. So, making assumptions about me isn't going to get this argument going. I've told you what you need to do to get this debate going with me, either you do it, or don't bother to reply. It's simple.

 

[Slashsnake]

America, what have you done. The monster you have created is set to open pandora's box and release all the demons that plagued the middle class in bygone eras. Topping his nefarious agenda is an overhaul of Dodd-Frank. If he does, consumer protections will be gone and banks will be free to rob you blind in myriad ways once again. When the dominoes fall, don't blame the liberals or the progressives.. It was you RW idiots
who put a wolf in the hen house; and, he wasted no time in bringing in the rest of the pack!



Trump Planning Dodd-Frank Overhaul

Part of that Dodd-Frank Act was the Durbin amendment which has provided zero benefit to anyone, even merchants and I'll explain why in a second.

Consumers lost with the Durbin Amendment. Why? Because our free checking accounts without direct deposit disappeared. Sure there's credit unions out there, but it's just better to have every bank with one free checking account for the less fortunate. Why did our free checking accounts and debit card rewards disappear? Because Dick Durbin is an idiot and thought it was a great idea to lower the standard debit card interchange fee from 44 cents per transaction, to what eventually ended up as 21 cents + 0.05%. I guess Durbin doesn't understand that the banks and card networks work for their customers... Their customers are the cardholders, not the merchants. The merchants will always whine about cards no matter what.

You want regulation? Make a standard contactless and EMV standard with PIN and mandate it. Deregulate the interchange rates and leave them alone.

 

[Lewdog]

America, what have you done. The monster you have created is set to open pandora's box and release all the demons that plagued the middle class in bygone eras. Topping his nefarious agenda is an overhaul of Dodd-Frank. If he does, consumer protections will be gone and banks will be free to rob you blind in myriad ways once again. When the dominoes fall, don't blame the liberals or the progressives.. It was you RW idiots
who put a wolf in the hen house; and, he wasted no time in bringing in the rest of the pack!



Trump Planning Dodd-Frank Overhaul

Part of that Dodd-Frank Act was the Durbin amendment which has provided zero benefit to anyone, even merchants and I'll explain why in a second.

Consumers lost with the Durbin Amendment. Why? Because our free checking accounts without direct deposit disappeared. Sure there's credit unions out there, but it's just better to have every bank with one free checking account for the less fortunate. Why did our free checking accounts and debit card rewards disappear? Because Dick Durbin is an idiot and thought it was a great idea to lower the standard debit card interchange fee from 44 cents per transaction, to what eventually ended up as 21 cents + 0.05%. I guess Durbin doesn't understand that the banks and card networks work for their customers... Their customers are the cardholders, not the merchants. The merchants will always whine about cards no matter what.

You want regulation? Make a standard contactless and EMV standard with PIN and mandate it. Deregulate the interchange rates and leave them alone.

Uh...I signed up after the Dodd-Frank Act and got a free checking account. And it isn't a Credit Union.

 

[Slashsnake]

America, what have you done. The monster you have created is set to open pandora's box and release all the demons that plagued the middle class in bygone eras. Topping his nefarious agenda is an overhaul of Dodd-Frank. If he does, consumer protections will be gone and banks will be free to rob you blind in myriad ways once again. When the dominoes fall, don't blame the liberals or the progressives.. It was you RW idiots
who put a wolf in the hen house; and, he wasted no time in bringing in the rest of the pack!



Trump Planning Dodd-Frank Overhaul

Part of that Dodd-Frank Act was the Durbin amendment which has provided zero benefit to anyone, even merchants and I'll explain why in a second.

Consumers lost with the Durbin Amendment. Why? Because our free checking accounts without direct deposit disappeared. Sure there's credit unions out there, but it's just better to have every bank with one free checking account for the less fortunate. Why did our free checking accounts and debit card rewards disappear? Because Dick Durbin is an idiot and thought it was a great idea to lower the standard debit card interchange fee from 44 cents per transaction, to what eventually ended up as 21 cents + 0.05%. I guess Durbin doesn't understand that the banks and card networks work for their customers... Their customers are the cardholders, not the merchants. The merchants will always whine about cards no matter what.

You want regulation? Make a standard contactless and EMV standard with PIN and mandate it. Deregulate the interchange rates and leave them alone.

Uh...I signed up after the Dodd-Frank Act and got a free checking account. And it isn't a Credit Union.

You're probably with a community bank then.

The Durbin Amdendment has been a disaster and it wasn't needed.