• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

99%: "Walk Money Out of the Banks to Credit Unions on Bank Transfer Day"

Again...were you in synch with the Tea party when they opposed TARP and the bailouts?

I was against TARP even before the Tea Party. Member Perfectstorm will verify if need be.

Do you oppose both parties and the president that has their stench on them from years of being in bed with them? You are blaming banks for being banks when your real grief is with congress.

Bush was an idiot for signing it and while I was never going to vote for McCain because of McCain/Feingold his vote for it sealed it. Obama is sort of like the slow kid that get's in trouble by hanging with the group. He knows no better.

Discarding well established lending principles, while highly encouraged by Congress is also the fault of the banks. I'm not sure how you can get so snippy with me for blaming all involved while you are excusing a major player.
 
taking into account that everybody has different situations and conditions.... for the life of me I do not know why anybody who is NOT in a commercial business deals with commercial banks and not with the local credit union.

Its just one of those mysteries of life like why anybody takes up chewing tobacco .

I've stuck with my bank because they all know me and if I need something it's quick and easy. Big bank in a small town. We are NOT rich but we have enough in the bank to not get hit with the fee's.
 
I see a lot of people on the right saying 99% should be attacking the government in DC instead of the financial heart in NYC. In a way they are attacking both with the 'walk your money to credit unions' message. If people actually do this in even moderate numbers, it will hit both the financial institutions and the politicians on both side where it really hurts - in the wallet. Where do you think most of the contributions for the GOP and Dems come from? The wealthy & corporations or average Janes and Joes? Anything that mess with the power of the wealthy to continue business as usual will mess with the money available to politicians.

So you think intentionally attacking and hurting people is a good thing?
 
I'm not saying they have no money, you have made this baseless accusation.

It was tongue-in-cheek, dear. Calm it down a notch.
 
taking into account that everybody has different situations and conditions.... for the life of me I do not know why anybody who is NOT in a commercial business deals with commercial banks and not with the local credit union.

Its just one of those mysteries of life like why anybody takes up chewing tobacco .

Here is one reason why.
FDIC ensures up to 250K for a single person assigned to the account. So if I have more than that, I choose to have savings, etc, in more than one financial institution. Got the keep the funds insured.
By the way, yes I use CC and I use commercial banks.
 
taking into account that everybody has different situations and conditions.... for the life of me I do not know why anybody who is NOT in a commercial business deals with commercial banks and not with the local credit union.

Its just one of those mysteries of life like why anybody takes up chewing tobacco .

My commercial bank is 100x better than any of the local credit unions.
They don't hold a candle to the benefits I get and I don't pay any fees for all my accounts, to boot.
 
I think this will have an unintended benefit all together.
Hopefully people will move to more, 21st century style banking, instead of the old school brick and mortar type banking.

You can open a bank account with a brokerage house, like Fidelity and get all sorts of bennies like, scanning checks with your cell phone for deposit, unlimited ATM withdrawals, no fee debit cards, etc.
 
There is risk involved in being traded on Wall Street. We back the money in these banks through FDIC. Because of that, all risk that can be removed should be removed from any bank that wishes FDIC backing. If your desire is riskier investments, great. Just stay the &*$% away from the money of those who don't.

I think you have it wrong where FDIC insurance is concerned. Consumers don't back the risks banks take against the loss of consumer deposits. Those deposits are insured by the FDIC against a bank's default due to insolvency (they go bankrupt). You might want to read more about it directly from the FDICs website.

Great idea! lets pretend it actually HAS some sort of relative bearing on anything financially. Lets suppose we have a run on the banks. Thats going to have what kind of an impact on the economy...on the job market, on the stock market, and on...say...your 401k? Who exactly are you hoping to cripple again?

I've already said the Occupiers need to exercise caution on this issue otherwise they risk doing harm to our national economy. As you're following my posts rather closely (which I don't mind), do try to pay closer attention.

I'm talking about the Durbin amendment, that dumped millions in fees on the banks. Now, they have to recoup that money. How, you must be pondering? By passing it on to the customer, of course.

If you don't like the fees that banks are now charging, you have no one to blame but the government.

I agree, the Durbin Amendment didn't pan out as expected. But that's why people should switch from banks to credit unions as they are not impacted by the Durbin Amendment.

Banks make money off of loaning money and by those loans going to term. They don't make money on loans that do not go to term. So, tell me how are banks being greedy, by making loans that they know they won't make money off of.

You're talking a completely different issue now. Debit/Credit Card swipe fees have nothing to do with bank loans....completely different subject matter.
 
That's a question that opens another whole can of worms. I argued as to why it's stupid to run any customer off but the banks didn't create record profits in such a short time with all of these small fee's.

The reasons for how all these record profits were made is why people are protesting.

You're eluding to bank profits off questionable home loans and investments of collateralized debt obligations, mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps. Still, bank fees were a large part of it. From the article adpst linked to:

Swipe fees have risen substantially in the past decade, and now amount to nearly $48 billion a year, with $17 billion coming from debit cards.

Not hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, but BILLIONS! I'd say the banks were making a good piece of chump change off fees!
 
My commercial bank is 100x better than any of the local credit unions.
They don't hold a candle to the benefits I get and I don't pay any fees for all my accounts, to boot.

whats your bank?
 
I was against TARP even before the Tea Party. Member Perfectstorm will verify if need be.



Bush was an idiot for signing it and while I was never going to vote for McCain because of McCain/Feingold his vote for it sealed it. Obama is sort of like the slow kid that get's in trouble by hanging with the group. He knows no better.

Discarding well established lending principles, while highly encouraged by Congress is also the fault of the banks. I'm not sure how you can get so snippy with me for blaming all involved while you are excusing a major player.
I cant think of a more apt description. I dont fault the banks because banks are doing precisely what banks do. I also believe the banks should have been left to deal with their own problems.
 
I think you have it wrong where FDIC insurance is concerned. Consumers don't back the risks banks take against the loss of consumer deposits. Those deposits are insured by the FDIC against a bank's default due to insolvency (they go bankrupt). You might want to read more about it directly from the FDICs website.

And why might they (or why were they on the brink of) go bankrupt?
 
You're eluding to bank profits off questionable home loans and investments of collateralized debt obligations, mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps. Still, bank fees were a large part of it. From the article adpst linked to:

Not hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, but BILLIONS! I'd say the banks were making a good piece of chump change off fees![/QUOTE]

Point taken but it's not how they went from ruin to record profits.
 
I cant think of a more apt description. I dont fault the banks because banks are doing precisely what banks do. I also believe the banks should have been left to deal with their own problems.

Yes, I do not care what banks do (outside of fraud) as long as they are willing to live with the repercussions on their own.
 
Way ahead of them. I get anywhere from 4-7% interest on my first 1000 dollars in my credit union anyways. Let's see the banks beat that!
 
Yes, I do not care what banks do (outside of fraud) as long as they are willing to live with the repercussions on their own.
My position...as if it had any relevance...was that the ONLY action congress should have taken was to insist the banks work out their own problems, to prohibit the sale of mortgages, and that if a bank defaulted the mortgage would be dissolved and the property would go to the homeowner free and clear.
 
My position...as if it had any relevance...was that the ONLY action congress should have taken was to insist the banks work out their own problems, to prohibit the sale of mortgages, and that if a bank defaulted the mortgage would be dissolved and the property would go to the homeowner free and clear.

If a bank defaulted *I* would have been responsible for their deposits because of the FDIC. With that being the case, I'm not interested in releasing debts free and clear. I'm selling them off to recoup the money paid out.
 
In the low interest rate established by the Fed, large banks will do better financially if small depositors move their money to Credit Unions. While they can't come out and say it, that seems to be the message that BoA gave with their new fee structure.
 
In the low interest rate established by the Fed, large banks will do better financially if small depositors move their money to Credit Unions. While they can't come out and say it, that seems to be the message that BoA gave with their new fee structure.

Short term. Which is what causes so many of our problems. Short term solutions at the expense of long term ones rule the day.
 
Short term. Which is what causes so many of our problems. Short term solutions at the expense of long term ones rule the day.

You are wrong. With Dodd-Frank the cost of maintaining a small account will just never be profitable again for these guys. They need to reposition their business along with an eye towards the new rules of the road.
 
You are wrong. With Dodd-Frank the cost of maintaining a small account will just never be profitable again for these guys. They need to reposition their business along with an eye towards the new rules of the road.

I covered this in another post. Short term. You are assuming that these accounts will always remain small. How many here that have at least a bit of money saved didn't start off with a small account?
 
I covered this in another post. Short term. You are assuming that these accounts will always remain small. How many here that have at least a bit of money saved didn't start off with a small account?

that's exactly right. banks will take a loss on small accounts, and remember there are economies of scale.
 
I covered this in another post. Short term. You are assuming that these accounts will always remain small. How many here that have at least a bit of money saved didn't start off with a small account?
Its a fair assumption since the '99%' does not actually represent the 99% but rather a percentage of the lower 50%...and those that are in a rush to make a statement may or may not ever actually become significant investors (especially the college students) and if they dont their earnings and bank holdings will ALWAYS cost the banks money. If they DO become significant investors, I'd be willing to bet they grow out of their 'rebellion'.
 
Its a fair assumption since the '99%' does not actually represent the 99% but rather a percentage of the lower 50%...and those that are in a rush to make a statement may or may not ever actually become significant investors (especially the college students) and if they dont their earnings and bank holdings will ALWAYS cost the banks money. If they DO become significant investors, I'd be willing to bet they grow out of their 'rebellion'.

I am not discussing the OWS crowd. I'm discussing if it's actually wise long term for banks to run off customers.
 
Back
Top Bottom