|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 30, 2009 9:46:18 GMT -5
The Pinkos are trying give protection to those who get overdrafts!
30 percent of people according to the one Representatives stats didn't know their banks charged OD charges.
Who in their right mind doesn't know what an OD charge is.
The one thing I do agree with is these little commie banks clearing the largest check 1st and then OD charging smaller amounts. That bullshit needs to stop.
But at the end of the day, the best way not to get an overdraft is to only spend what you have and if you can't do that, go down and rob the local 7-11 so we can put your stupid ass away.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 30, 2009 10:13:17 GMT -5
They're not trying to stop over draft charges, they're trying to reduce the penalty for it to a controllable figure, not one intended to gouge the life out of the offender.
Anyhow, if the bank doesn't want to keep them on as a customer, they should cancel their account.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 30, 2009 10:25:51 GMT -5
I like the OD protection.
But, people whining because they cannot consistently manage their account should simply opt out of the OD protection, have the check sent back and then get bopped for $35.00 returned check fee. What's the fricken diff?
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 30, 2009 10:31:05 GMT -5
$35 is punitive damages, and usually about doubled when you add the person to whom the check was written.
If the vendor who took the check, and the bank, don't want to do business with these people in the future, they should cancel their account, and quit taking checks from them, but they have turned this into a cash cow. Making matters worse, credit card companies are heaping unbelievable charges against people for late charges, and putting them in bankruptcy.
Face it. The majority of lenders of America are shysters, and no better than the money stores that bilk people out of usery interest rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 30, 2009 10:43:17 GMT -5
You're right. It's the banks fault that people can't manage their money.  |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 30, 2009 10:45:36 GMT -5
That's partially true. If you can sit here and blame banks for giving people loans they shouldn't have gotten, then it's not a reach to say they are responsible for giving people checking accounts who can't handle them.
But that's not the reason for disagreement. The reason for disagreement is over the amount of the charges. Why do you keep schlepping away from that point?
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 30, 2009 10:52:03 GMT -5
I have no issues with charging a fee for an overdraft. I mentioned it earlier, that it is deceitufl to take the larger transaction first, then charge fees for the smaller checks. That part is wrong. But if I overdraft once, I have no issues paying the 35 dollar fee. It's a lot better than dealing with collections and a warrant for insufficent funds. Truly TW, who doesn't know you can get charged an overdraft fee for insufficient funds in your account. According to this Congressional panel, over 30 percent didn't know that. WTF? |
|
