• 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!

Bank Branches Abandon Poor Communities

Cold Highway

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Most of these closings are taking place in poor communities. With new regulations, it’s more difficult for banks to make money on overdraft fees, and it’s possible that banks in poor communities rely on this type of revenue more than others. Banks are being replaced by payday loan storefronts and check cashing businesses, services that cater to the needs of poor communities, but are more predatory, more expensive, and more financially damaging to consumers and the community in the long run.
Click to expand...

Once again it is proven that overzealous regulations hurt the people that they supposedly protecting. What a ****ing joke.

Bank Branches Abandon Poor Communities
 
MaggieD said:
What's the problem? Are you honestly suggesting that banks should be forced to serve communities where they're losing money? That's EGZAKLY what caused our housing debacle.
Click to expand...

Learn how to ****ing read! If you read the ****ing article you would see the part the reason why they are leaving is because of all the new cluster**** regulations that make it next to impossible to compete.
 
MaggieD said:
What's the problem? Are you honestly suggesting that banks should be forced to serve communities where they're losing money? That's EGZAKLY what caused our housing debacle.
Click to expand...

His point is, the new regulations, that were designed to help people, caused the banks to start losing money, therefore forcing these same people to start using payday loan outfits that are worse than the banks.

We're not talking about people buying houses, but rather poor people that need an extra hundred bucks to keep the lights from being turned off, because there was too much month at the end of the money.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
His point is, the new regulations, that were designed to help people, caused the banks to start losing money, therefore forcing these same people to start using payday loan outfits that are worse than the banks.

We're not talking about people buying houses, but rather poor people that need an extra hundred bucks to keep the lights from being turned off, because there was too much month at the end of the money.
Click to expand...

The point is the new regulations were made to make sure the banks could not screw over people yet again, and now that they cant, then it is not profitable to be in the area.. and it also shows how little banks actually care for the communities they supposedly serve. They would rather give billions in bonuses to fat-cats instead of help the people...
 
Let me get this straight, banks are unable to profit from illegitimate business practices such as overdraft fees and once-hidden credit card fees, and bringing those out into the open so people don't get preyed upon is bad because it's preventing the banks from exploiting poor people.

Looks to me like this is a shining example of the legislation actually working, while at the same time showing the inherent limitation of legislative action.
 
The article makes the statement that most closings are happening in poor neighborhoods, but offers no proof.
As for banks being able to compete? If all banks are under the same regulations, how is it that any one bank can't compete with another?

I have seen banks close branches in nice areas of town because they found that it is cheaper to rent space in a supermarket than have their own buildings. And once you have an account with a bank, what does it matter how far away it is? You can't go more than a few miles in any densely populated area without seeing bank branches in or out of supermarkets, not to mention ATM machines at every convenience store.
I don't see a solid connection between bank branches closing/moving and the poor communities. The writer might just be interjecting his own bias.
 
PeteEU said:
The point is the new regulations were made to make sure the banks could not screw over people yet again, and now that they cant, then it is not profitable to be in the area.. and it also shows how little banks actually care for the communities they supposedly serve. They would rather give billions in bonuses to fat-cats instead of help the people...
Click to expand...

So, instead of the banks screwing over people, poor people are left to deal with the even more carniverous-like payday loan companies with their 300% interest rates?

Wanna take a stab at explaining to us how that's better?
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Learn how to ****ing read! If you read the ****ing article you would see the part the reason why they are leaving is because of all the new cluster**** regulations that make it next to impossible to compete.
Click to expand...

Proving once again that speed reading doesn't always work. Easy, Chevy, my bad. :rofl
 
apdst said:
So, instead of the banks screwing over people, poor people are left to deal with the even more carniverous-like payday loan companies with their 300% interest rates?

Wanna take a stab at explaining to us how that's better?
Click to expand...

Not much a difference these days if you ask me. And "poor" people have been dealing with those thieves for centuries and lived without banking as well. The idea was not long ago, to force banks to open up business in said areas by giving them pretty much free reign and we all know how that went ... Now regulations are coming back because the bankers could not keep it in their pants and now the bankers are whining that they cant exploit the poor any more as they did... and you want us to feel sorry for them? If anything more regulation should be thrown on banks making their banking license dependent on them opening banks in these areas. Hard to run a bank if you are not allowed too eh?
 
PeteEU said:
Not much a difference these days if you ask me. And "poor" people have been dealing with those thieves for centuries and lived without banking as well. The idea was not long ago, to force banks to open up business in said areas by giving them pretty much free reign and we all know how that went ... Now regulations are coming back because the bankers could not keep it in their pants and now the bankers are whining that they cant exploit the poor any more as they did... and you want us to feel sorry for them? If anything more regulation should be thrown on banks making their banking license dependent on them opening banks in these areas. Hard to run a bank if you are not allowed too eh?
Click to expand...

The folks I feel sorry for, are the folks in these areas that are now in worse shape, because the government came in to, "fix", everything.

I don't expect you to get it, Pete.
 
MaggieD said:
What's the problem? Are you honestly suggesting that banks should be forced to serve communities where they're losing money? That's EGZAKLY what caused our housing debacle.
Click to expand...
This is not true, Wall Street and the large banks would like you to think this, but that's because it was caused by them. There have been literally millions of foreclosures, show me where these are in poor communities?
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
This is not true, Wall Street and the large banks would like you to think this, but that's because it was caused by them. There have been literally millions of foreclosures, show me where these are in poor communities?
Click to expand...

How about you prove your point and show us that the foreclosures are not in poor communities.
 
"Seek first to understand, then be understood." - Stephen R. Covey

Banks in poor communities are closing. Why? Because they can't make a profit using the same unscruppolous tactics they were once able to use before new regulations came into affect that essentially outlawed such underhanded practises, ie., excessive ATM fees, overdraft fees, credit card fees, early withdrawal fees, etc., etc., the list goes on and on.

Notice the article says nothing about not having enough customers at these banks. Of course, some would say that's a given considering the banks are in "poor neighborhoods", but clearly there IS money in these neighborhoods. Otherwise, why would payday loan type businesses suddenly be cropping up in these areas becoming the primiary "financiers" within these neighborhoods? Think about it...

IMO, it's NOT a matter of banks not being able to make a profit; it's a matter of them not being able to make the BIG profits in these neighborhoods they once were able to make by charging excessive fees. So, they pull out only to be suplanted by the unregulated preditors.

It's sad really, but this is what happens when community develop takes a back seat to profiteers.
 
washunut said:
How about you prove your point and show us that the foreclosures are not in poor communities.
Click to expand...

Define Poor.....
Drive thru the really poor communities and you will see houses for sale. Drive thru middle income communities, and upper income communities, and you will see the same thing, houses for sale.
Buying more house than you can afford is the issue, the banks are part of the blame, but only part.

I still haven't seen a link posted that PROVES banks are closing in poor areas....just the OP link where a writer claims it is happening.
 
washunut said:
How about you prove your point and show us that the foreclosures are not in poor communities.
Click to expand...
I don't need to prove it, it just doesn't make sense. Millions of poor people bought homes, you can't be serious. Next you're going to tell me that the meltdown was caused by the CRA, it's hogwash. The CRA never forced banks to loan to people they felt were a risk, only lower interest rates.
 
pbrauer said:
I don't need to prove it, it just doesn't make sense. Millions of poor people bought homes, you can't be serious. Next you're going to tell me that the meltdown was caused by the CRA, it's hogwash. The CRA never forced banks to loan to people they felt were a risk, only lower interest rates.
Click to expand...

Very good point, but lets carry it a bit further, I have never seen a bank force anyone to buy a home, or take out a mortgage either.

If I tickle you with a mortgage that has you paying nothing but interest in the first 5 years of your loan, and you buy into that you can afford it without looking forward after 5 years … then you are just as much as fault as the bank …

It goes right back to personal responsibility, while I don't give any sympathy to banks losing on those loans, I don't give any sympathy to the people that were dumb enough to make them either.

As to the the CRA, not sure about what you are saying, as it takes very little research to find that banks were being pressured to make even more questionable loans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom