Dick Durbin (D) Thinks you're stupid, he's probably right

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
116,276
Reaction score
29,417
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Dodd, Frank and Durbin passed legislation that increases the cost of doing business and now Durbin is railing against the banks for raising their fees in response.

Duh!

What did you think was going to happen?

Were the banks supposed to count on "Hope" and "Change" for their revenues?
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
139
Reaction score
19
Points
16
Dodd, Frank and Durbin passed legislation that increases the cost of doing business and now Durbin is railing against the banks for raising their fees in response.

Duh!

What did you think was going to happen?

Were the banks supposed to count on "Hope" and "Change" for their revenues?
Those doofuses have about as much idea about how to run a business as a pig does about Sunday!
 

Soggy in NOLA

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
40,569
Reaction score
5,352
Points
1,830
Gotta love the law of unintended consequences.
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,437
Reaction score
15,917
Points
2,180
It's clear to me thatt demonRats do not believe in a free market system.
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
38,890
Reaction score
9,184
Points
1,330
More of those pesky "unintended consequences".

They don't think anything through before they do shit.

Anyone but a brain dead idiot would know no company is going to eat added expense.

Its always passed on to the consumer.

Durbin is telling everyone to let their feet do the walking from BOA. Of course the idiot doesn't seem to realize ALL banks will now be charging fees. What a moron.

How long has this bozo been in Congress??
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
anybody get a 22 cent "Durbin Discount" on their debit card purchases?

....i didn't think so....


but don't despair Dimocrat doofuses....you can look forward to a monthly $5 Dick.....
 

blastoff

Undocumented Reg. User
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
21,493
Reaction score
2,858
Points
280
Location
In a galaxy far far away...
Unintended Consequences should replace Hope and Change for the dimwit's '12 campaign. It'll help explain what happens to Dims forced to be on the same ticket with one-term Barry.
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Another reason to belong to a credit union...
:cool:
Credit Union Pays You to Use Debit Card
10/07/11 --- As big banks such as Bank of America add fees for debit card use, a credit union wants to pay you.
As Bank of America prepares to implement a $5 monthly debit card fee and Wells Fargo flirts with doing the same, the idea of a bank actually paying its customers to use a debit card seems almost laughable. But that's exactly what's happening at the Randolph Brooks Federal Credit Union in Texas. The credit union ordinarily pays free checking account customers 10 cents for every purchase they make with their Freedom Check Card. But last week the credit union upped the ante by bumping that reward up to 15 cents. The increase will last through Dec. 31.

While the promotion may seem perfectly timed to take advantage of the publicity surrounding Bank of America's fee increase, Sonya McDonald, RBFC's senior vice president of marketing, says plans had been in the works before Bank of America's announcement. "We'd been planning it since August, and we fortuitously made our announcement right after Bank of America made theirs," she says. "With the current state of the economy, members need to worry about their own business, not fitting extra fees into their budget."

The promotion comes as many Bank of America customers are threatening to leave the bank. In an informal poll by TheStreet, 83% of readers said they planned to leave the bank over the new fees. Experts say inertia is likely to keep many of those disgruntled customers from following through, but those who do decide to defect will likely take a hard look at small banks and credit unions. The Durbin Amendment, which capped debit card swipe fees and prompted the barrage of checking account fees from the major banks, does not apply to institutions with total assets of less than $10 billion. That means smaller institutions are more likely to continue offering free checking, as well as perks such as RBFC's debit card bonus.

McDonald says the credit union has indeed seen a significant uptick in membership in the week since Bank of America's announcement. "In the past week we've seen record numbers of people coming through the door," she says. "On a typical day we'll get 150 new members, but in the last week we've seen around 265 new members a day, and a third of those are coming over from Bank of America."

MORE
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
The intent of the democrats with this bank fees thing is to attempt to limit the profits of big banks like BofA. Can anybody tell me where it says in the US Constitution that the US Gov't has the right to do that?
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Here's a link regarding the issue to which I believe the original poster is referring: Durbin to customers: Dump Bank of America - Oct. 4, 2011

This particular legislation does not "increas[e] the cost of doing business" it prevents the charging of certain fees by the banks. That is, if anything, a decrease in revenue, not an increase in cost. The distinction is important, because higher costs are bad for everyone, all else equal, whereas blocking fees amounts to a legally-mandated transfer payment from the banks to their customers.

The bank behavior does seem duplicitous. Their justification for the fees is that because of the legislation they are now losing money on debit card transactions. In fact, based on numbers Durbin takes from the Fed,

Previous average charge on transaction: 44 cents
Current legal maximum charge: 21 cents
Cost to bank per transaction: 4 to 12 cents

So even with the cap, banks are making money on each swipe of the card, yet they claim to be losing money. Unless the numbers are wrong, I'm going to go with Durbin and say find a bank that doesn't charge you fees based on bad numbers.

The article does make the interesting point that since the old fees are charged to merchants and the new ones are charged to consumers, this is bad for consumers. Perhaps, but if so I primarily blame the banks, not the pols.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
The intent of the democrats with this bank fees thing is to attempt to limit the profits of big banks like BofA. Can anybody tell me where it says in the US Constitution that the US Gov't has the right to do that?
Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The notion that Congress can't impose regulations of this type is truly out of step with Constitutional jurisprudence. It would presumably have held sway in the Lochner era, but never before or since.
 

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,257
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
Here's a link regarding the issue to which I believe the original poster is referring: Durbin to customers: Dump Bank of America - Oct. 4, 2011

This particular legislation does not "increas[e] the cost of doing business" it prevents the charging of certain fees by the banks. That is, if anything, a decrease in revenue, not an increase in cost. The distinction is important, because higher costs are bad for everyone, all else equal, whereas blocking fees amounts to a legally-mandated transfer payment from the banks to their customers.

The bank behavior does seem duplicitous. Their justification for the fees is that because of the legislation they are now losing money on debit card transactions. In fact, based on numbers Durbin takes from the Fed,

Previous average charge on transaction: 44 cents
Current legal maximum charge: 21 cents
Cost to bank per transaction: 4 to 12 cents

So even with the cap, banks are making money on each swipe of the card, yet they claim to be losing money. Unless the numbers are wrong, I'm going to go with Durbin and say find a bank that doesn't charge you fees based on bad numbers.

The article does make the interesting point that since the old fees are charged to merchants and the new ones are charged to consumers, this is bad for consumers. Perhaps, but if so I primarily blame the banks, not the pols.

How is that my government's place? To limit income??
:eusa_eh:
 
OP
CrusaderFrank

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
116,276
Reaction score
29,417
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Here's a link regarding the issue to which I believe the original poster is referring: Durbin to customers: Dump Bank of America - Oct. 4, 2011

This particular legislation does not "increas[e] the cost of doing business" it prevents the charging of certain fees by the banks. That is, if anything, a decrease in revenue, not an increase in cost. The distinction is important, because higher costs are bad for everyone, all else equal, whereas blocking fees amounts to a legally-mandated transfer payment from the banks to their customers.

The bank behavior does seem duplicitous. Their justification for the fees is that because of the legislation they are now losing money on debit card transactions. In fact, based on numbers Durbin takes from the Fed,

Previous average charge on transaction: 44 cents
Current legal maximum charge: 21 cents
Cost to bank per transaction: 4 to 12 cents

So even with the cap, banks are making money on each swipe of the card, yet they claim to be losing money. Unless the numbers are wrong, I'm going to go with Durbin and say find a bank that doesn't charge you fees based on bad numbers.

The article does make the interesting point that since the old fees are charged to merchants and the new ones are charged to consumers, this is bad for consumers. Perhaps, but if so I primarily blame the banks, not the pols.
Dick is right about you, you are stupid
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Here's a link regarding the issue to which I believe the original poster is referring: Durbin to customers: Dump Bank of America - Oct. 4, 2011

This particular legislation does not "increas[e] the cost of doing business" it prevents the charging of certain fees by the banks. That is, if anything, a decrease in revenue, not an increase in cost. The distinction is important, because higher costs are bad for everyone, all else equal, whereas blocking fees amounts to a legally-mandated transfer payment from the banks to their customers.

The bank behavior does seem duplicitous. Their justification for the fees is that because of the legislation they are now losing money on debit card transactions. In fact, based on numbers Durbin takes from the Fed,

Previous average charge on transaction: 44 cents
Current legal maximum charge: 21 cents
Cost to bank per transaction: 4 to 12 cents

So even with the cap, banks are making money on each swipe of the card, yet they claim to be losing money. Unless the numbers are wrong, I'm going to go with Durbin and say find a bank that doesn't charge you fees based on bad numbers.

The article does make the interesting point that since the old fees are charged to merchants and the new ones are charged to consumers, this is bad for consumers. Perhaps, but if so I primarily blame the banks, not the pols.

How is that my government's place? To limit income??
:eusa_eh:
Well, I think the constitutional justification is clear. The moral justification for limiting income is that there are certain ways to obtain income that are considered immoral: thieving, mugging, engaging in fraud, etc. The way of obtaining income here is a less clearly objectionable one: using market power (there are many debit card holders, few issuers) and information asymmetry (almost no consumers know about the fees and how they relate to the costs) to get profits. I respect the view that this is never immoral, but I believe that if the asymmetries are bad enough then it does become immoral to earn income this way.
 

hortysir

In Memorial of 47
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
20,518
Reaction score
4,257
Points
270
Location
Port Charlotte, FL
Here's a link regarding the issue to which I believe the original poster is referring: Durbin to customers: Dump Bank of America - Oct. 4, 2011

This particular legislation does not "increas[e] the cost of doing business" it prevents the charging of certain fees by the banks. That is, if anything, a decrease in revenue, not an increase in cost. The distinction is important, because higher costs are bad for everyone, all else equal, whereas blocking fees amounts to a legally-mandated transfer payment from the banks to their customers.

The bank behavior does seem duplicitous. Their justification for the fees is that because of the legislation they are now losing money on debit card transactions. In fact, based on numbers Durbin takes from the Fed,

Previous average charge on transaction: 44 cents
Current legal maximum charge: 21 cents
Cost to bank per transaction: 4 to 12 cents

So even with the cap, banks are making money on each swipe of the card, yet they claim to be losing money. Unless the numbers are wrong, I'm going to go with Durbin and say find a bank that doesn't charge you fees based on bad numbers.

The article does make the interesting point that since the old fees are charged to merchants and the new ones are charged to consumers, this is bad for consumers. Perhaps, but if so I primarily blame the banks, not the pols.

How is that my government's place? To limit income??
:eusa_eh:
Well, I think the constitutional justification is clear. The moral justification for limiting income is that there are certain ways to obtain income that are considered immoral: thieving, mugging, engaging in fraud, etc. The way of obtaining income here is a less clearly objectionable one: using market power (there are many debit card holders, few issuers) and information asymmetry (almost no consumers know about the fees and how they relate to the costs) to get profits. I respect the view that this is never immoral, but I believe that if the asymmetries are bad enough then it does become immoral to earn income this way.
But the method of the earnings isn't in question. Only the amount.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
How is that my government's place? To limit income??
:eusa_eh:
Well, I think the constitutional justification is clear. The moral justification for limiting income is that there are certain ways to obtain income that are considered immoral: thieving, mugging, engaging in fraud, etc. The way of obtaining income here is a less clearly objectionable one: using market power (there are many debit card holders, few issuers) and information asymmetry (almost no consumers know about the fees and how they relate to the costs) to get profits. I respect the view that this is never immoral, but I believe that if the asymmetries are bad enough then it does become immoral to earn income this way.
But the method of the earnings isn't in question. Only the amount.
That's a good point. The legislation can be thought of as a price ceiling on the service of processing a debit card transaction. Price controls inevitably create inefficiencies, and I agree they are to be avoided. I just don't think they should be avoided at all costs. Their main problem is creating allocative inefficiency, so I think they are particularly permissable in an inefficient market such as this one where prices don't reflect costs. I don't think other points of view are immoral, though.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top