President Obama is about to make a statement, but major news outlets are reporting that Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Yeah, you say that until the jury punishes the wrong man because public opinion had more of an effect on their judgement than facts and the real person responsible goes on the keep killing.
It's bad for people who just don't care about going over and think they should be able to access overdraft when ever they want. It's good for the single mom who rarely makes enough to cover everything and won't get charged even more money for having no choice but to go into overdraft no matter how well she balances the check book because a $10,000 a year job is never going to be enough where she's living.Originally Posted by hakeber
Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing? Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better? Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book? And who uses check books anymore anyway? That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something. Domestic finance has never been my strong point. I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks...that's a lot of money. That's my groceries for about two weeks.
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery We were attacked primarily because certain people want us out of the Middle East as they feel they're better off without us there, but for al Qaeda to fight the war in the way it does, the hearts of its "soldiers" must be corrupted by fear, hatred, and vengeance. For people to cheer in the streets at the loss of innocent life, there must be fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts. Terrorists believe they are fighting for what's right, and there's no doubt in my mind that they hate the enemy: us. Is that hatred justified? Yes, probably. Does that make terrorism any less evil? NO. I realize this leads to the logical conclusion that those of us cheering in the streets at the loss of bin Laden must have fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts... I do not deny that.
The US banking industry is so messed up people think this REG E is awesome, when in the rest of the world it would be fundamentally illegal to give people access to money they do not have without informing them they didn't have it and then charge them for your mistake. I'm just saying. Baby steps, I know.Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
First of all, the over-draw fee has not been eliminated. What has been added is the ability to opt out of automatic overdraft services on your debit card. This means when you open a bank account, you get asked this question: when you don't have enough money, shall we pay your transactions on this card or deny them? Before, they simply assumed you wanted your card transactions approved even if it was going to put you in the hole the amount of the charge plus a fee or possibly several fees depending on how many transactions overdraw you--or what order the transactions post in. It is a good thing because there is no cap on the number of fees a bank can charge you in the day, and many banks design their posting order to maximize the number of overdraft fees they can charge you. What this means is that perfect people who never make a mistake have nothing to fear, but an elderly woman who lives off of social security and makes a mistake of even five dollars can wind up paying a $35 overdraft fee because of that. If two $2 transactions overdraw her, she will pay two fees. If she cannot pay until her next social security check comes in, she may even pay a fee every 5-7 days while she waits for that check to come in. Many mistakenly believe debit cards will automatically decline when funds aren't available. That is not the case. It is now, though, unless you specifically opt in to that feature.
Okay. That makes sense. I genuinely have not lived in a country for over ten years where one CAN overdraw their account without a credit line (which comes with a hefty interest rate), and I have not held a paper check in my hand is as long. Everything is done by automatic deposit and withdrawl and I get notifications of my balance and withdrawls for every transaction on my cellphone. I just assumed the US had moved along those lines too. I know exactly what my balance is at all times. If I need more money at the end of the month I have to borrow from a friend, which sometimes means eating nothing but creative combinations of eggs and potatoes for a week or two, or borrow on a line of credit from the local kisko (interest free). The cards here will automatically decline your transaction. Sometimes they even decline your transaction when you DO have money because the computers are down and they can't verify your balance.
That's the reason banks give for it, but fees--overdraft fees specifically--bring in a significant amount of profit for banks. Roughly 30% of profit comes from fees, and banks will lose some of that fee profit because of these changes.
I always thought of it like a library fee when I lived in the states. It seemed fair to me. But you make a good case for it being a total wank job.
What does that have to do with a debit card thief being able to spend not only the balance of a customer's account, but also to take that account deeply into debt? What does that have to do with clients who receive fees due to posting order, check holds, etc? Do you know what a chargeback is? It's when someone writes a check to you, you deposit it into your account, and the check doesn't pay, so the bank takes that money back. If this causes your transactions to be returned with the applicable return charge or to overdraw your account, tough. You can pay us back for the transactions, plus a fee for each transaction, plus the chargeback fee. Chargebacks may happen due to stop payments, invalid checks, insufficient funds, and other reasons. Many times when I encounter a chargeback, it was a check from the client's employer. Did you know that at some banks, when items are about to be returned unpaid, a hold is placed on those funds? These holds may make the available balance show negative, cause other transactions to decline for insufficient funds that SHOULD be available, and even cause OD fees & more returned items with return charges from the bank AND the companies who didn't get paid. And guess what.. it's not bank error, so you're paying. If you think that only people who can't balance their checkbook receive overdraft fees, you're wrong.
Debit card theft? Check holds? Charge back? those are different arguments, aren't they? My head stopped being able to wrap itself around that whole stopped check thing a long time ago. when money goes in I get a notice of my balance. If it doesn't go in on pay day, I don't go to work until they pay me.
God the US banking system is like some antiquated dinosaur...honestly...if someone steals my bank card (or holds me up and makes me drain my account ) I am insured...well the BANK is insured and they protect my money. How the heck is it less safe to have your money in a bank in the US than it to have an account in COLOMBIA!!!! OMG! That's funny, no?
I am trying but I do not follow the charge back thing. See, now you got to make me feel utterly stupid about something...I'll take your word that this development is a good thing, but I think I'll keep my money here in Colombia or in my pension fund on the Isle Wight, nevertheless.
Do you want an honest answer? Old people, for the most part. But many people still use checks to pay their bills, especially rent.
I did want any honest answer...these are such a throw back from the past for me. I seriously have not even seen a paper check (apart from in movies, which I always thought was one of those anachronistic flaws like people not having cellphones and it causing all sorts of confusion and delay and comedy) in over ten years. I thought they did away with them. More evidence for me that the banking industry is mostly in control in the States. What a SCAM!
Seeing that you seem to think Reg E means "no overdraw fee," yes, you probably are missing something. See the above explanation of why it isn't just people who can't manage money who wind up with overdraft fees.
I do not even know what "Reg E" stands for or means. You said no overdraw fee...or so I thought....now I don't know.
Free checking is not worth allowing people to overdraft their account with a card most people believe will automatically decline when funds are insufficient, because the banks don't bother to tell them upfront that it won't. Now banks have to do that and give them the option to turn that feature off; before, banks could even refuse to turn the feature off. Anyone, even you, can make a financial mistake, either through mathematical error, human error, or an unexpected banking situation such as a hold or chargeback. Luckily, there are still financial institutions that offer free checking, and many have made their OD-policies more customer-friendly. If the check my employer gives me charges back, I'd sure like to have my debit card STOP approving transactions rather than keep letting me spend money that I don't know isn't there anymore because I haven't received the chargeback notification letter yet and the banks don't typically call.
Yeah...that's how most of the world does it! I actually cannot think of a single country I have lived in that allows you to spend money you don't have without a credit line that you have to apply for through a lengthy drawn out process that requires a co-signer no matter how rich you are. I cannot even believe that is legal...the US is so messed up when it comes to money. God! (I mean I believe it, but I can't believe it!!! That's horrible!)
Savings accounts, by federal law, are limited to 6 electronic transactions in a month. This includes debit card purchases. Many banks do not allow debit cards to be funded primarily by savings because of this; they generally allow debit cards to access the account only at an ATM. If you are using your savings accounts to pay bills, you are fine if you have more than one savings account to juggle or less than six bills to pay a month. Starting with and after the 7th electronic transaction, your bank is required to start charging you a fee for each additional one.
That is messed up man!
Company policy requires me to state that these views are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. [The explanations regarding Reg E change are fact, not opinion, though.]
Duly noted.
Amatullah - I pay all my bills (Cable, electric, water, phone) at the supermarket, a bill place, or the pharmacy...most major stores have the equipment to process bills. If I want to pay a person for something (like school activities, donations, or rent) we go to their bank branch and make a deposit in their account, or give them cash. You CAN do these things on line, but I keep losing my password and I can't seem to get it set up, so I gave up.
MD the banks here stay open until 8pm most week days and until 5pm on saturday. In other places I have lived in the world they have at least one day a week opened quite late, and always a Saturday morning at least. People also typically are excused from work for red tape issues without much hassle. Employers KNOW it's part of the deal so if I have to go to the post office I get an afternoon off to do so, or at least a full hour for lunch.
1 - i'm sure he was planning many attacks, and may well have had notes or ideas where he was living. From that POV it's possible that he was musing on how to "mark" 9/11 if he could. I don't think this necessarily means he was definitely going to attack the rail system or for that matter that him being killed would prevent such an attack, if it's already been planned. It's not like he PERSONALLY went out to do these things. He was just a puppeteer.Originally Posted by mar123
Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)
I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.
I am sure there were plans of all sorts. However, I find the release of this information to be conveniently timed and the details to be fishy as well. I am dubious.Originally Posted by mar123
Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)
I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.
I just came to post this
1. yes, I'm not sure that I believe that there was, actually a plot, but even if there was, it sounds way too much like it's being brought to our attention to make us feel better about the US gov. I agree that it sounds WAY TOO convenient. There's way too much that just doesn't add up. Including the part about not being on higher security alert due to this. I mean, we were on "higher alert" for YEARS after 9/11, you know? Even though the system has been changed(so I understand) it doesn't make sense that 1. they would come across a credible threat, 2. TELL the american people about it, and 3. Not go crazy on security (like last time).Originally Posted by mar123
Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)
I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.
Quote:Originally Posted by GoBecGo
1 - i'm sure he was planning many attacks, and may well have had notes or ideas where he was living. From that POV it's possible that he was musing on how to "mark" 9/11 if he could. I don't think this necessarily means he was definitely going to attack the rail system or for that matter that him being killed would prevent such an attack, if it's already been planned. It's not like he PERSONALLY went out to do these things. He was just a puppeteer.
Interesting thought, though I have my doubts.
2 - i am glad he was killed for one reason only - if he had been arrested i believe there would have been a rash of kidnappings and (probably taped/live/online) executions of more innocent people to try to force his release. There would have been no way for him to have a fair trial - he already confessed to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, no jury in the world is going to be "balanced" about it and why should they be. His death is at least final enough that any backlash will be done in revenge rather than a hopeful attempt to "save" him. Revenge stems from bitterness and anger which is generally shorter-lived than hope.
I agree with you (and another interesting thought).
The constant story-changing (including the fact that the place where it all happened is totally different to the one i saw on the earliest report i saw - the place they're showing now looks fairly nice, the one they showed initially looked like it MAYBE had a tap on the premises) does not surprise me. I know i cannot and will not know the truth anyway.
And, that's interesting(reminds me of 9/11). Any links?(I haven't really been "following" this story.)
Originally Posted by hakeber
I am sure there were plans of all sorts. However, I find the release of this information to be conveniently timed and the details to be fishy as well. I am dubious.
FWIW, I do not lead a depressing life. I believe I lead a much happier life by not swallow every ounce of the BS the US media sells us. I think I get a much more balanced view of the world when I do not write any group off as crazy, but carefully weigh all sides of an issue.
Any decent trial should have a prosecution and a defense. In the US, and to a large extent the UK as well, there has been a trial by press and the prosecution's side has had a MUCH louder voice and an disproportionate amount of time to speak. The defense has had to resort to alternative press and smaller press outlets, meaning their voice is hardly heard and often when it is is written off as lunacy. I am lucky to live abroad and have access to so many different points of view and it definitely shapes my trust issues with the US government.
This article http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267553 Chmosky has a lot to say on the matter of the media influence over the percpetions of Americans, and I have to say from my own observatiosn I whole heartedly agree with his take on matters. The US has a free press, but the mainstream media does not exercise that right as we expect them to.
This is the sticking point for me...because legally, yes it does. Unless the law does not apply to the US? The end result cannot be just if the means to get there were unjust.Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.
Quote:Originally Posted by mar123
Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.
I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later. Interesting, though I don't doubt it. Would you mind sharing?
What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to automatically disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right. I don't automatically believe anything that any government or media tells me. I always take it with a heaping pile of salt.
I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????
I will say this: Bush is certainly an idiot, and I doubt he could have masterminded 9/11 OR keep it a secret. I doubt he was privy to much information about it(whether because it wasn't made available to him, or because he couldn't understand WHAT he was being told. But that doesn't mean that someone else didn't mastermind it on his behalf(or america's behalf, or whoever else stood to actually benefit from it.)Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
mar123 - You bring up very good points. I did not like the media portrayal of Katrina or Bush's response. I also second what you've said about the media in other countries and America. I believe al Qaeda is sincere in their recent statement. And yes, Bush is an idiot. How could an idiot mastermind 911? That you point that out gives me second thoughts about that possibility. But not enough to make me certain that he had no part in it at all. Still..yes when you think of this obtuse man masterminding anything...it seems quite farfetched.
I can understand the bolded, and I agree with it to a point. Even if they didn't know about the whereabouts of OBL, they would have probably found some way to "screw it up" but I'm not really sure that the US didn't screw it up anyways, or that they even had a right to do what they did.Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.
Originally Posted by MusicianDad
It's bad for people who just don't care about going over and think they should be able to access overdraft when ever they want. It's good for the single mom who rarely makes enough to cover everything and won't get charged even more money for having no choice but to go into overdraft no matter how well she balances the check book because a $10,000 a year job is never going to be enough where she's living.
Or, the person who has no choice but to count on money that may or may not appear (child support falls into this in a lot of cases). My sister's been hit with $45.00 fees, because she deposited a cheque that turned out to be NSF, and then she wrote, in a turn, another cheque that bounced. It happened to me once, and I got hit on both sides, because at that time, the bank was charging for bouncing cheques, and for depositing cheques that are NSF. I deposited a Christmas cheque for $50.00, and it bounced, and thena cheque that I wrote bounced, and I ended up paying $50.00 out of pocket.
The deterrent thing is a load of crap. For people who are living right down to the last dollar in their accounts every month, charging them $45.00 (current fee at my bank) for bouncing a $10.00 cheque is just going to make it harder to stay on top of things, and more likely to bounce another one in the following weeks.
As for who uses check books? A lot of post secondary students around here use them just because it's easier to cash your student loan with a void check than to have to make to the bank sometime between 9am and 4pm.
I still have a cheque book. I don't use it for much - mostly school things (field trips, gymnastics/Ultimate fees, etc.) for ds1. But, I probably average out about a cheque or so a month, over the whole year. Most people I know still use cheques for some things, especially if they have kids in school, because the schools all take cheques. I pay my rent on debit here, but I paid it by cheque everywhere else I've lived, and there are tenants here who still pay by cheque, not debit.
Well to be clear, I didn't say you did swallow anything, I didn't intend to imply that. I merely said it makes me happy not to.Originally Posted by mar123
Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.
I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later.
What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to automatically disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right.
I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????
Interesting. Sounds like Pakistan has a lot in common with Colombia.Originally Posted by Amatullah0
I can understand the bolded, and I agree with it to a point. Even if they didn't know about the whereabouts of OBL, they would have probably found some way to "screw it up" but I'm not really sure that the US didn't screw it up anyways, or that they even had a right to do what they did.
EXACTLY! In fact Pakistan in the inital stages was willing to comply with a search and siezure so long as the US could provide evidence to them...they never did. Instead they threatened to invade them like they did their neighbors. If they had proof the Un would have forced Pakistan-s hand long ago. But they didn't get proof of indictment on 9/11 charges...so they didn't.
It's interesting, because it's hard to imagine that the US gov knew where he was, but PK didn't know, AND that the US managed to go in and "take him down" so easily, after supposing that he was running around in the mountains all this time.
I'm in PK right now, a little ways outside of Islamabad. A neighboring city has a military base in it. We've gone into the most protected neighborhood in that city, an area where people who work for(but not in) the military and they checked under our front bumper with a mirror, and asked the driver for ID. That's it. Nobody else has to show ID. Nobody else has to even show their face. They don't check anything here unless they feel like it, or have reason to believe you're hiding something. There are police checkpoints in other areas too, all over the place, but the police don't usually check anything. There are also usually no women at the checkpoints, not that I've ever seen anyways, and it wouldn't have been difficult for him to wear afghani burka(a lot of women wear it here-it's not unusual) if he had to go through a checkpoint. Plus, bribes here work wonders--just pay off the policeman, and you're good to go. The gov didn't have to know anything, even if other people did know.
Yeah, I really never understood why someone gets hit with a fee for depositing a check that bounced. They are being punished for someone else not having enough money...Originally Posted by Storm Bride
Or, the person who has no choice but to count on money that may or may not appear (child support falls into this in a lot of cases). My sister's been hit with $45.00 fees, because she deposited a cheque that turned out to be NSF, and then she wrote, in a turn, another cheque that bounced. It happened to me once, and I got hit on both sides, because at that time, the bank was charging for bouncing cheques, andfor depositing cheques that are NSF. I deposited a Christmas cheque for $50.00, and it bounced, and thena cheque that I wrote bounced, and I ended up paying $50.00 out of pocket.
Banks explain it as a charge for providing a "service" that didn't result in any money making it into their bank; it's basically a charge for the "work" of processing the check...but that should be charged to whoever wrote it.
It is - but, to use my case as an example: My dad wrote me a bad cheque for Christmas (sadly, this is because he was broke, but didn't want to not get me anything!). I deposited it. I thought I had the $50, and was on a tight budget at that time, and that $50 covered part of another cheque I wrote at the same time. I got dinged $25 for dad's cheque bouncing. I got dinged another $25 for bouncing my cheque. And, my dad's bank charged him whatever their fee is. But, my bank justifies charging me for his cheque, because of their lack of payment for the "service", as you said...and they can't charge my dad, because he banks at a different bank.