Trumpenstein planning to destroy Dodd Frank

[JQPublic1]

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.

It is a satirical narrative and display using the Frankenstein monster as a prop to get my message across; nothing more. Obviously it worked. You got caught up in it and can't let go. As the author and artist who produced the caricature you now know as Trumpenstein, I set the rules of what it is and I am the sole authority on divulging my intentions on producing it. Perhaps there is a resemblance to Shelly's monster but it isn't Shelly's monster. It; is TRUMPENSTEIN...a whole new monster brought to life under a whole new set of circumstances. Trumpenstein is REAL, Frankenstein was fiction!

 

[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

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.

For the less fortunate as well as the wise, a credit union is the way to go, nowadays.

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.

Before Dodd -Frank I remember some stores requiring a fee if you wanted to use a credit card for purchase totaling less than a minimum dollar amount.. Eventually,some merchants such as Staples got around swipe fees by issuing their own credit cards. But, as I recall, banks were nickeling and dime-ing us to death. The sky was the limit, as there was no regulatory standard set on how much to charge for a swipe fee. After dealing with overdraft fees, late fees, annual card fees and all the tricks used to charge you for something you never expected. I have NO sympathy for any bank. As far as I'm concerned the more banks are regulated the better for all of us.

 

[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.

You're probably with a community bank then.

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

For the less fortunate as well as the wise, a credit union is the way to go, nowadays.

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.

Before Dodd -Frank I remember some stores requiring a fee if you wanted to use a credit card for purchase totaling less than a minimum dollar amount.. Eventually,some merchants such as Staples got around swipe fees by issuing their own credit cards. But, as I recall, banks were nickeling and dime-ing us to death. The sky was the limit, as there was no regulatory standard set on how much to charge for a swipe fee. After dealing with overdraft fees, late fees, annual card fees and all the tricks used to charge you for something you never expected. I have NO sympathy for any bank. As far as I'm concerned the more banks are regulated the better for all of us.

Yes it was stupid if you used a debit card as debit you got charged a fee by your bank...but if you ran it as credit you didn't even though it was the same purchase with the same fucking card.

 

[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.

For the less fortunate as well as the wise, a credit union is the way to go, nowadays.

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.

Before Dodd -Frank I remember some stores requiring a fee if you wanted to use a credit card for purchase totaling less than a minimum dollar amount.. Eventually,some merchants such as Staples got around swipe fees by issuing their own credit cards. But, as I recall, banks were nickeling and dime-ing us to death. The sky was the limit, as there was no regulatory standard set on how much to charge for a swipe fee. After dealing with overdraft fees, late fees, annual card fees and all the tricks used to charge you for something you never expected. I have NO sympathy for any bank. As far as I'm concerned the more banks are regulated the better for all of us.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with bank/credit union regulations, just not with interchange fees.

I think putting a cap interchange fees hurts the consumers more than the banks, which is why I don't like it. When Durbin hit, account maintenance fees went up at banks, credit unions started charging a fee for debit transactions over a certain amount per month, debit card rewards programs disappeared, and debit EMV has been a mess. Durbin in a way, screwed over the American people by writing his proposal to Congress which then was passed on to the Supreme Court for approval. Thankfully the Durbin Amendment didn't extend to credit cards so we can keep our rewards and EMV isn't as difficult to program for; thus, why you see some merchants where they take EMV credit but swipe debit, which makes credit cards much safer to use from a hacking perspective.

Also, credit card fees are illegal in many states, including New York, where I live. Regulations allowing merchants to set a minimum purchase amount with a maximum of $10 shouldn't be allowed either. I shouldn't have to be punished for paying with a payment method that's "with the times" only losers use cash.

I do agree, however, with capping other fees, though. For instance, credit unions are capped at 18% max interest rates on loans and credit cards. I think CARD has done well, but the Durbin amendment under Dodd-Frank should be abolished.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

No, you demanded an explanation of...

Who knows.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

No, you demanded an explanation of...

Who knows.

Well if you don't know, then you must have reading problems.

 

[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.

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.

Ok for instance did the movie even touch on AIG? And did anyone blame immigrants and poor people for the crisis? I get it you're a simpleton that needs people to explain complicated things to you in an oversimplified manner for you to think you understand.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

..... 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.

It is a satirical narrative and display using the Frankenstein monster as a prop to get my message across; nothing more. Obviously it worked. You got caught up in it and can't let go. As the author and artist who produced the caricature you now know as Trumpenstein, I set the rules of what it is and I am the sole authority on divulging my intentions on producing it. Perhaps there is a resemblance to Shelly's monster but it isn't Shelly's monster. It; is TRUMPENSTEIN...a whole new monster brought to life under a whole new set of circumstances. Trumpenstein is REAL, Frankenstein was fiction!

You apparently don't understand how references work.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Oh, well, I guess I fit right in with some of the most celebrated heroes of Americana. Columbus called native Americans Indians and you have no problem with THAT do you?
Are they Indians just because Columbus said they were? You and I know they had nothing to do with the country of India but we all persist in calling the autochthonous people of these Americas, Indians. I have merely exposed some cosmetic and potentially destructive similarities between Trump and Shelly's monster. Why does that seem to drive you wild when calling Native Americans Indians doesn't?

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

It is a satirical narrative and display using the Frankenstein monster as a prop to get my message across; nothing more. Obviously it worked. You got caught up in it and can't let go. As the author and artist who produced the caricature you now know as Trumpenstein, I set the rules of what it is and I am the sole authority on divulging my intentions on producing it. Perhaps there is a resemblance to Shelly's monster but it isn't Shelly's monster. It; is TRUMPENSTEIN...a whole new monster brought to life under a whole new set of circumstances. Trumpenstein is REAL, Frankenstein was fiction!

You apparently don't understand how references work.

I do, but as a creative genius I dont' need to understand anything but the message I send...heh heh heh

 

[Pumpkin Row]

..... 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.

Oh, well, I guess I fit right in with some of the most celebrated heroes of Americana. Columbus called native Americans Indians and you have no problem with THAT do you?
Are they Indians just because Columbus said they were? You and I know they had nothing to do with the country of India but we all persist in calling the autochthonous people of these Americas, Indians. I have merely exposed some cosmetic and potentially destructive similarities between Trump and Shelly's monster. Why does that seem to drive you wild when calling Native Americans Indians doesn't?

Personally, I don't care about either one. I'm only pointing out that you got the reference wrong. As I said before, you're free to be wrong. You just chose to make excuses, and I was pointing out that you were making excuses.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Oh, well, I guess I fit right in with some of the most celebrated heroes of Americana. Columbus called native Americans Indians and you have no problem with THAT do you?
Are they Indians just because Columbus said they were? You and I know they had nothing to do with the country of India but we all persist in calling the autochthonous people of these Americas, Indians. I have merely exposed some cosmetic and potentially destructive similarities between Trump and Shelly's monster. Why does that seem to drive you wild when calling Native Americans Indians doesn't?

Personally, I don't care about either one. I'm only pointing out that you got the reference wrong. As I said before, you're free to be wrong. You just chose to make excuses, and I was pointing out that you were making excuses.

You are wrong anytime you try to interpret the original works of someone else YOUR WAY. I have spent way too much time on your diversion from Dodd-Frank.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

Oh, well, I guess I fit right in with some of the most celebrated heroes of Americana. Columbus called native Americans Indians and you have no problem with THAT do you?
Are they Indians just because Columbus said they were? You and I know they had nothing to do with the country of India but we all persist in calling the autochthonous people of these Americas, Indians. I have merely exposed some cosmetic and potentially destructive similarities between Trump and Shelly's monster. Why does that seem to drive you wild when calling Native Americans Indians doesn't?

Personally, I don't care about either one. I'm only pointing out that you got the reference wrong. As I said before, you're free to be wrong. You just chose to make excuses, and I was pointing out that you were making excuses.

You are wrong anytime you try to interpret the original works of someone else YOUR WAY. I have spent way too much time on your diversion from Dodd-Frank.

Referring to the creation as the creator is inherently wrong, because of the reference material. There are plenty of ways to reference correctly, you just didn't, and I'm letting you know. the reason you spent so much time on this 'diversion' is because you chose not to admit you were wrong.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Oh, well, I guess I fit right in with some of the most celebrated heroes of Americana. Columbus called native Americans Indians and you have no problem with THAT do you?
Are they Indians just because Columbus said they were? You and I know they had nothing to do with the country of India but we all persist in calling the autochthonous people of these Americas, Indians. I have merely exposed some cosmetic and potentially destructive similarities between Trump and Shelly's monster. Why does that seem to drive you wild when calling Native Americans Indians doesn't?

Personally, I don't care about either one. I'm only pointing out that you got the reference wrong. As I said before, you're free to be wrong. You just chose to make excuses, and I was pointing out that you were making excuses.

You are wrong anytime you try to interpret the original works of someone else YOUR WAY. I have spent way too much time on your diversion from Dodd-Frank.

Referring to the creation as the creator is inherently wrong, because of the reference material. There are plenty of ways to reference correctly, you just didn't, and I'm letting you know. the reason you spent so much time on this 'diversion' is because you chose not to admit you were wrong.

Aww STFU. who cares?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Oh, well, I guess I fit right in with some of the most celebrated heroes of Americana. Columbus called native Americans Indians and you have no problem with THAT do you?
Are they Indians just because Columbus said they were? You and I know they had nothing to do with the country of India but we all persist in calling the autochthonous people of these Americas, Indians. I have merely exposed some cosmetic and potentially destructive similarities between Trump and Shelly's monster. Why does that seem to drive you wild when calling Native Americans Indians doesn't?

Personally, I don't care about either one. I'm only pointing out that you got the reference wrong. As I said before, you're free to be wrong. You just chose to make excuses, and I was pointing out that you were making excuses.

You are wrong anytime you try to interpret the original works of someone else YOUR WAY. I have spent way too much time on your diversion from Dodd-Frank.

Referring to the creation as the creator is inherently wrong, because of the reference material. There are plenty of ways to reference correctly, you just didn't, and I'm letting you know. the reason you spent so much time on this 'diversion' is because you chose not to admit you were wrong.

I don't see the problem with it. In science and other fields people that create stuff have it named after them all the time. Ever heard of Halley's Comet? Tesla Coil? Heimlich Manoeuvre?

 

[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

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.

For the less fortunate as well as the wise, a credit union is the way to go, nowadays.

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.

Before Dodd -Frank I remember some stores requiring a fee if you wanted to use a credit card for purchase totaling less than a minimum dollar amount.. Eventually,some merchants such as Staples got around swipe fees by issuing their own credit cards. But, as I recall, banks were nickeling and dime-ing us to death. The sky was the limit, as there was no regulatory standard set on how much to charge for a swipe fee. After dealing with overdraft fees, late fees, annual card fees and all the tricks used to charge you for something you never expected. I have NO sympathy for any bank. As far as I'm concerned the more banks are regulated the better for all of us.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with bank/credit union regulations, just not with interchange fees.

I think putting a cap interchange fees hurts the consumers more than the banks, which is why I don't like it. When Durbin hit, account maintenance fees went up at banks, credit unions started charging a fee for debit transactions over a certain amount per month, debit card rewards programs disappeared, and debit EMV has been a mess. Durbin in a way, screwed over the American people by writing his proposal to Congress which then was passed on to the Supreme Court for approval. Thankfully the Durbin Amendment didn't extend to credit cards so we can keep our rewards and EMV isn't as difficult to program for; thus, why you see some merchants where they take EMV credit but swipe debit, which makes credit cards much safer to use from a hacking perspective.

Also, credit card fees are illegal in many states, including New York, where I live. Regulations allowing merchants to set a minimum purchase amount with a maximum of $10 shouldn't be allowed either. I shouldn't have to be punished for paying with a payment method that's "with the times" only losers use cash.

I do agree, however, with capping other fees, though. For instance, credit unions are capped at 18% max interest rates on loans and credit cards. I think CARD has done well, but the Durbin amendment under Dodd-Frank should be abolished.

Before I comment further I'd like to see the mathematical justification for the 21 cents +0.05
cap on interchange fees. The Durbin Amendment gave the Federal Reserve the job of regulating the interchange fee.
So, with all that brainpower, why did they arrive at those numbers?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

banks will be free to rob you blind

banks are free to rob us helpless idiot customers???actually we have capitalism and competition so are very very free to go to nice banks and drive the robber banks out of business. That's capitalist regulation!! Now do you understand?

 

[JQPublic1]

Your mind is still locked in an era of pre-Reagan capitalism when we had anti-trust laws.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your mind is still locked in an era of pre-Reagan capitalism when we had anti-trust laws.

actually dear we have 7000 banks in America. Sorry

 

[JQPublic1]

Your mind is still locked in an era of pre-Reagan capitalism when we had anti-trust laws.

actually dear we have 7000 banks in America. Sorry

And I suspect 2/3rds of those are owned by Wells Fargo, BOA and Chase..