If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   The bad news: Bureau of consumer protection will limit your access to credit. The good news: Becuase you're too stupid to handle it on your own   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 98
    More: Sad, Bureau of consumer protection, national banks, risk aversion, consumer protections, Mercatus Center, false advertising, mortgage brokers, Financial Pro- tection  
•       •       •

1565 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 May 2011 at 4:13 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-05-11 02:13:43 PM
How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?
 
2011-05-11 02:15:58 PM

Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?


Think of the jobs it would create? One wipe monitor per bathroom!
 
2011-05-11 02:17:50 PM

Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?


Well, the PSA is ready anyway...

dancininanson.net
 
2011-05-11 02:20:47 PM
They are putting consumers first with the current regs, but thanks for your concern.
 
2011-05-11 02:23:41 PM
I am completely debt free, pay cash for everything, have a -3.2% mortgage rate, and can do that thing where you put your thumb knuckles together and make it look like you're pulling it in two.
 
2011-05-11 02:44:35 PM
Where the rest of the world saw captured commissions and commissioners suppressing enforcement (Chris Cox anyone?) he seems to think the problem is lack of accountability to a captured commission. He's barking up the wrong tree - else why not attack the OCC on the same grounds? Oh, the OCC is captured - nevermind!

Zywicki's prescription is as bad here as it was for bankruptcy deform.
 
2011-05-11 03:09:20 PM
You realize that by "reduce access to credit" they mean "make it harder for banks to issue $500,000 loans to the homeless, hide the source of the loan, and sell 10,000 of them to another another bank", right?
 
2011-05-11 03:18:19 PM

Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?


You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?

Look, I wish we lived in a world where people understood what compound interest was and we didn't need this, but that's about as likely as us not needing a standing army because everyone in the F'ng world put down their weapons and started singing.
 
2011-05-11 03:18:40 PM

Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?


About as long as it will take to eliminate baseless hyperbole from the internet.
 
2011-05-11 03:21:57 PM

BigTuna: Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?

About as long as it will take to eliminate baseless hyperbole from the internet.


That would be a terrible day, indeed. You may as well eliminate porn from the internet.

Okay, that would be a lot worse.
 
2011-05-11 03:25:17 PM

what_now: You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?


If you view the world through conservative-tinted glasses, every government program primarily benefits lazy inner city welfare scammers. From that viewpoint it becomes pretty easy to oppose almost any program designed to help people, because it doesn't actually help real people, just lazy criminals.

You won't find many that are willing to explore deeper than that, because those that discover the existence of the elderly and the mentally ill generally stop wingnutting all over themselves and move a little closer to the center.
 
2011-05-11 03:27:30 PM

what_now: Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?

You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?


Sure, we do. Without limitations on that power? No.
 
2011-05-11 03:29:00 PM

BigTuna: what_now: You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?

If you view the world through conservative-tinted glasses, every government program primarily benefits lazy inner city welfare scammers. From that viewpoint it becomes pretty easy to oppose almost any program designed to help people, because it doesn't actually help real people, just lazy criminals.

You won't find many that are willing to explore deeper than that, because those that discover the existence of the elderly and the mentally ill generally stop wingnutting all over themselves and move a little closer to the center.


Where do you get this stuff? Do you just start imagining what people with whom you disagree think?
 
2011-05-11 03:30:55 PM
Wow. There's a buttload of stupid in this thread.
 
2011-05-11 03:34:48 PM

Nabb1: what_now: Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?

You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?

Sure, we do. Without limitations on that power? No.


Yeah, but the limitations republicans want to impose are all-encompassing and would make the entire bureau a huge waste of money. They want to replace its top decision-maker with a 5-seat council. A 5-seat council that has to agree UNANIMOUSLY to do ANYTHING. By the way, they want to put a 5 people that don't agree on ANYTHING in the seats.
 
2011-05-11 03:35:59 PM

Nabb1: Where do you get this stuff? Do you just start imagining what people with whom you disagree think?


[irony.jpg]
 
2011-05-11 03:37:52 PM

Nabb1: BigTuna: what_now: You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?

If you view the world through conservative-tinted glasses, every government program primarily benefits lazy inner city welfare scammers. From that viewpoint it becomes pretty easy to oppose almost any program designed to help people, because it doesn't actually help real people, just lazy criminals.

You won't find many that are willing to explore deeper than that, because those that discover the existence of the elderly and the mentally ill generally stop wingnutting all over themselves and move a little closer to the center.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just start imagining what people with whom you disagree think?


Of course not, I left the GOP precisely because I got tired of swinging at strawmen.

But it is amusing that you're taking issue with my pointing out a fairly obvious and oft-demonstrated conservative "value".
 
2011-05-11 03:38:07 PM

kingoomieiii: Nabb1: what_now: Nabb1: How long before the government appoints someone to oversee us wiping our own asses?

You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?

Sure, we do. Without limitations on that power? No.

Yeah, but the limitations republicans want to impose are all-encompassing and would make the entire bureau a huge waste of money. They want to replace its top decision-maker with a 5-seat council. A 5-seat council that has to agree UNANIMOUSLY to do ANYTHING. By the way, they want to put a 5 people that don't agree on ANYTHING in the seats.


So, we have to do it one way or the other? Seems to me they should come up with some sort of compromise. The NLRB, just as one example, is supposed to be neutral between the interests of management and labor. There is no reason that the all interest should not be considered with regard to this. There is a difference between regulatory oversight and outright advocacy.
 
2011-05-11 03:38:44 PM

Nabb1: Do you just start imagining what people with whom you disagree think?


Perish the thought.
 
2011-05-11 03:39:16 PM

BigTuna: But it is amusing that you're taking issue with my pointing out a fairly obvious and oft-demonstrated conservative "value".


I questioned whether there was a point to that or if it was just some sort of meaningless platitude.
 
2011-05-11 03:41:11 PM

Nabb1: So, we have to do it one way or the other?


Look. This is the best thing to happen to you the consumer since the FTC. You will never have to worry again whether or not you are making a good decision when it comes to using your credit. There will be people there that CARE about you. They really will. And they will decide what is best for you. Be happy in this good citizen.
 
2011-05-11 03:41:29 PM

Nabb1: So, we have to do it one way or the other?


I'd prefer for the side that DOESN'T like the idea to come up with a plan to MODERATE it, not sit around demanding the side that's JUST FINE with it work on their own to weaken it.
 
2011-05-11 03:45:18 PM

Nabb1: Sure, we do. Without limitations on that power? No.


There are plenty of limitations on the power of the consumer protection agency.

For instance, they aren't allowed to line the upper management of Citibank against a wall, and liquidate their assets.
 
2011-05-11 03:47:37 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Look. This is the best thing to happen to you the consumer since the FTC.


Agreed.
 
2011-05-11 03:48:28 PM
The only people profiting from the current economic crisis were the individuals, banks, and corporations who created the crisis. The consumer has been left without any real protection until this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created and now the Republicans want to destroy it through these bills.It is truly maddening that, just 3 years after the largest global recession in history which was caused in large part due to predatory mortgage lenders, that anyone would argue against a strong federal agency designed to protect consumers from these type of lending abuses.
 
2011-05-11 03:49:27 PM

what_now: Agreed.


Well bless your heart.
 
2011-05-11 03:49:39 PM

kingoomieiii: Nabb1: So, we have to do it one way or the other?

I'd prefer for the side that DOESN'T like the idea to come up with a plan to MODERATE it, not sit around demanding the side that's JUST FINE with it work on their own to weaken it.


Sure, but that would require the GOP acting like grown ups. That said, I'm not going to just accept what one party wants to do if I think it's a bad idea because the other party is acting petulant. If people would worry less about where the ideas originate and think in a more results-oriented fashion I imagine a lot of things could go more smoothly. That, of course, makes declaring political victories a bit difficult in this day and age when concessions are portrayed as losses.
 
2011-05-11 03:52:57 PM
Before 2009, banks would ROUTINELY stack deposits and credits over 72 hours to fark you.

Lets say I deposit a $500 check into my checking account on Thursday, bringing my total to $600.

On Thursday, I my debit card for $40
On Friday, a bill pays for $100
On Friday I take out $100 in cash.
On Sat I use my debit card for $50.
On Sunday, I use my debit card for $150.

On Monday, how much money do I have? If you answered $160, you clearly don't understand how banks work.
 
2011-05-11 03:55:34 PM

what_now: Before 2009, banks would ROUTINELY stack deposits and credits over 72 hours to fark you.

Lets say I deposit a $500 check into my checking account on Thursday, bringing my total to $600.

On Thursday, I my debit card for $40
On Friday, a bill pays for $100
On Friday I take out $100 in cash.
On Sat I use my debit card for $50.
On Sunday, I use my debit card for $150.

On Monday, how much money do I have? If you answered $160, you clearly don't understand how banks work.


Let's see. $160 minus four overdrafts, plus whatever fee is applicable for having an overdrawn account at the beginning of the week.

So somewhere abouts... negative a million dollars.
 
2011-05-11 03:56:23 PM

what_now: Before 2009, banks would ROUTINELY stack deposits and credits over 72 hours to fark you.

Lets say I deposit a $500 check into my checking account on Thursday, bringing my total to $600.

On Thursday, I my debit card for $40
On Friday, a bill pays for $100
On Friday I take out $100 in cash.
On Sat I use my debit card for $50.
On Sunday, I use my debit card for $150.

On Monday, how much money do I have? If you answered $160, you clearly don't understand how banks work.


Maybe I just don't understand how your bank works. I've never had any such problem with mine.
 
2011-05-11 03:58:34 PM

kingoomieiii: what_now: Before 2009, banks would ROUTINELY stack deposits and credits over 72 hours to fark you.

Lets say I deposit a $500 check into my checking account on Thursday, bringing my total to $600.

On Thursday, I my debit card for $40
On Friday, a bill pays for $100
On Friday I take out $100 in cash.
On Sat I use my debit card for $50.
On Sunday, I use my debit card for $150.

On Monday, how much money do I have? If you answered $160, you clearly don't understand how banks work.

Let's see. $160 minus four overdrafts, plus whatever fee is applicable for having an overdrawn account at the beginning of the week.

So somewhere abouts... negative a million dollars.


Oh, no, sorry, five overdrafts, because they calculate the charges largest to smallest, meaning the $150 hits first and instantly overdraws.

They did that "to make sure the big bills get paid". Even though the POINT of the system is to get EVERYTHING paid, and it would happen with or without rearrangement.

By the way, kids, when you do it, backdating was fraud.
 
2011-05-11 04:00:39 PM

Nabb1: Maybe I just don't understand how your bank works. I've never had any such problem with mine.


Well aren't you lucky. I guess that never happens.

Well, it doesn't anymore- it's illegal.
 
2011-05-11 04:01:14 PM

Nabb1: Maybe I just don't understand how your bank works. I've never had any such problem with mine.


I take it you don't keep money in a bank that has commercials or a recognizable logo. Up until it was made ILLEGAL TO DO SO, pretty much every large bank would process your charges largest to smallest, THEN your deposits, at the end of a given calendar day. And most didn't refund overdraft fees if you ended the day in the black.
 
2011-05-11 04:01:51 PM

kingoomieiii: Oh, no, sorry, five overdrafts, because they calculate the charges largest to smallest, meaning the $150 hits first and instantly overdraws.

They did that "to make sure the big bills get paid". Even though the POINT of the system is to get EVERYTHING paid, and it would happen with or without rearrangement.


Yup.

The $150 debit posts before the $500 credit, even if that $500 was in cash.

This is the kind of protections we need. Because that? That right there is some bullshiat.
 
2011-05-11 04:04:13 PM

what_now: kingoomieiii: Oh, no, sorry, five overdrafts, because they calculate the charges largest to smallest, meaning the $150 hits first and instantly overdraws.

They did that "to make sure the big bills get paid". Even though the POINT of the system is to get EVERYTHING paid, and it would happen with or without rearrangement.

Yup.

The $150 debit posts before the $500 credit, even if that $500 was in cash.

This is the kind of protections we need. Because that? That right there is some bullshiat.


I predict more than one person genuinely believing and advocating that because this ONE issue has been solved, the CPB's mandate has already been fulfilled, and it can be safely shelved now, thanks.
 
2011-05-11 04:05:58 PM

kingoomieiii: I predict more than one person genuinely believing and advocating that because this ONE issue has been solved


over GOP objections...

(carry on)
 
2011-05-11 04:07:59 PM

kingoomieiii: I take it you don't keep money in a bank that has commercials or a recognizable logo. Up until it was made ILLEGAL TO DO SO, pretty much every large bank would process your charges largest to smallest, THEN your deposits, at the end of a given calendar day. And most didn't refund overdraft fees if you ended the day in the black.


And by the way, I've personally seen this happen. Like, just a few years ago. Check balance online at 11PM, $120 (I know). Transactions in the correct order, on payday- check direct-deposited at 12:10 AM, bills paid, groceries, etc.

Check again at noon the next day, after spending zero additional monies? -$80. The charges have been rearranged, and there are now 5 fresh overdraft fees for me.

By the way, in case this wasn't perfectly clear, THIS WAS 100% LEGAL, UNTIL DEMOCRATS SHUT IT DOWN. AND REPUBLICANS ARGUED AGAINST CHANGING IT.
 
2011-05-11 04:11:49 PM

kingoomieiii: Nabb1: Maybe I just don't understand how your bank works. I've never had any such problem with mine.

I take it you don't keep money in a bank that has commercials or a recognizable logo.


The banks where I do business indeed have commercials and logos and all the bells and whistles of a major financial institution. Again, I've never had that problem. I'm not saying there are not institutions that operated like that, or that I approve of the practice.
 
2011-05-11 04:22:18 PM
Banks should be allowed to charge you 35 dollars on a 1 dollar burrito from McDonalds because of Communism. Or something.
 
2011-05-11 04:24:13 PM

kingoomieiii: And by the way, I've personally seen this happen. Like, just a few years ago. Check balance online at 11PM, $120 (I know). Transactions in the correct order, on payday- check direct-deposited at 12:10 AM, bills paid, groceries, etc.

Check again at noon the next day, after spending zero additional monies? -$80. The charges have been rearranged, and there are now 5 fresh overdraft fees for me.

By the way, in case this wasn't perfectly clear, THIS WAS 100% LEGAL, UNTIL DEMOCRATS SHUT IT DOWN. AND REPUBLICANS ARGUED AGAINST CHANGING IT.


It's not illegal actually. You have a choice if you want to make it illegal (by opting out, which I did). This is another "choice thing" republicans wanted to take away from you.
 
2011-05-11 04:28:07 PM

what_now: On Thursday, I my debit card for $40
On Friday, a bill pays for $100
On Friday I take out $100 in cash.
On Sat I use my debit card for $50.
On Sunday, I use my debit card for $150.


Shady as hell, but yep what others have said. Of course you could have just cashed the check (or $400 of it so there was $100 there for the bill) and paid for the rest out of your pocket. "But what if I got mugged?" Well, have you ever gotten mugged? Assuming you got home safely, you could store most of it and take what you need each day of the weekend.
 
2011-05-11 04:32:40 PM

GoodyearPimp: Shady as hell, but yep what others have said. Of course you could have just cashed the check (or $400 of it so there was $100 there for the bill) and paid for the rest out of your pocket. "But what if I got mugged?" Well, have you ever gotten mugged? Assuming you got home safely, you could store most of it and take what you need each day of the weekend.


Yes. I could in fact, do away with banks altogether.

But the POINT of a checking account is to have instant access to your money.
 
2011-05-11 04:33:17 PM
what_now:

You think we don't need consumer protections on credit?

Look, I wish we lived in a world where people understood what compound interest was and we didn't need this, but that's about as likely as us not needing a standing army because everyone in the F'ng world put down their weapons and started singing.


Exists - it's called google.
 
2011-05-11 04:34:03 PM

Guidette Frankentits: It's not illegal actually. You have a choice if you want to make it illegal (by opting out, which I did). This is another "choice thing" republicans wanted to take away from you.


No, you're thinking of overdraft protection. It's a little bit different.
 
2011-05-11 04:42:10 PM

GoodyearPimp: Of course you could have just cashed the check (or $400 of it so there was $100 there for the bill)


I think they'd balk at you trying to get cash for a check for 5x what you have in your account. They don't like to do that, in case they give you cash and discover the check is bad.
 
2011-05-11 04:44:52 PM

what_now: kingoomieiii: Oh, no, sorry, five overdrafts, because they calculate the charges largest to smallest, meaning the $150 hits first and instantly overdraws.

They did that "to make sure the big bills get paid". Even though the POINT of the system is to get EVERYTHING paid, and it would happen with or without rearrangement.

Yup.

The $150 debit posts before the $500 credit, even if that $500 was in cash.

This is the kind of protections we need. Because that? That right there is some bullshiat.


Not at US Bank.
 
2011-05-11 04:45:21 PM

what_now: Guidette Frankentits: It's not illegal actually. You have a choice if you want to make it illegal (by opting out, which I did). This is another "choice thing" republicans wanted to take away from you.

No, you're thinking of overdraft protection. It's a little bit different.


Yeah. As of the most recent banking changes, accounts have to NOT have overdraft protection by default. You are able to request it.

Previously, banks enrolled everyone. A lot of banks provided no way to turn it off.

Also, I love how they instantly changed the name from "Overdraft fees" to "Protection" and started pushing it as a feature. They made a LOT of money from those accidental, 600,000% interest short-term loans.
 
2011-05-11 04:46:00 PM

jst3p: Not at US Bank.


Not anymore, no. But it did. That was 100% legal, and it took a congressional act (the 2009 Credit CARD act) to stop it.

And the GOP were opposed to passing it.
 
2011-05-11 04:48:25 PM

what_now: jst3p: Not at US Bank.

Not anymore, no. But it did. That was 100% legal, and it took a congressional act (the 2009 Credit CARD act) to stop it.

And the GOP were opposed to passing it.


I am torn on this subject. I know that some shady stuff went on but if you have half a brain you could avoid it (I never had a problem). But I love my free checking and free online bill pay which is subsidized by the people who don't know how to balance their checkbook.
 
2011-05-11 04:52:57 PM

jst3p: I know that some shady stuff went on but if you have half a brain you could avoid it (I never had a problem). But I love my free checking and free online bill pay which is subsidized by the people who don't know how to balance their checkbook.


I know where you're coming from, but it got to the point that the government said "We're not going to subsidize you via FDIC or government loans if this is how you're going to do business."
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report