Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

nuc65 wrote:If my bank starts charging a fee to use my money I will switch banks. I haven't used a debit card in a long time.

+1

Diomed wrote:Credit union all the way. (And the idea that member ownership is somehow evil is ridiculous and deserves no further attention.)

+1

I think he is more upset that they aren't government institutions and/or don't pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Diomed wrote:No need for a bank (although I still have some accounts with BOA, which I'll probably close sooner or later).

Already closed mine.

Diomed wrote:Credit union all the way. (And the idea that member ownership is somehow evil is ridiculous and deserves no further attention.) No need for a bank (although I still have some accounts with BOA, which I'll probably close sooner or later).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Member ownership is not evil. It's just a corporation or LLC in a different package. It's not magic, either. And it does not deserve preferential tax-exempt status over other financial institutions.

And I'm afraid that, while many individuals may think they have "no need for a bank" (and be mostly right about it), the economy and business community does need banking services. Absence of them would set back our society hundreds of years. It's one thing to be a survivalist living 20 miles out in the woods completely off the grid by choice. It's a different matter entirely to force the entire country to it. Take away the banking system in this country and you'll be well on the way.

I know some of you will deride me for saying this, but if you can't see the truth of it you just don't understand the way our system works. Most of us would be very unhappy in a world with no worldwide (or at least nationwide) banking system. I'm not saying this because I'm a big fan of banks; they p!ss me off at least as regularly as the rest of you. Here lately, as they cringe before newly active bank regulators and tighten credit and lending procedures against people like me who are GOOD credit risks because they were dumb enough when times were good to loan to dumb@sses, I get REALLY mad at them. But they're sorta like women. Only thing worse than life with 'em, is life without'em.

(shrugs) I'd be unemployed. Which would suck.

My issue? Banks have forgotten how to make money. They went with the "junk food" process for profits. INTEREST from LENDING makes PROFITS!

FEES?!? Yeeeeaahhh, no. Not good. Irritate everyone, they start to look for alternatives. I'm thinking when I'm on vacation, of exploring Credit Unions, and their Roth IRA's.

And speaking of BoA....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bank-of-A ... 2.html?x=0

I guess treating customers like dirt could be a bad business model

dorminWS wrote:

Diomed wrote:Credit union all the way. (And the idea that member ownership is somehow evil is ridiculous and deserves no further attention.) No need for a bank (although I still have some accounts with BOA, which I'll probably close sooner or later).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Member ownership is not evil. It's just a corporation or LLC in a different package. It's not magic, either. And it does not deserve preferential tax-exempt status over other financial institutions.

And I'm afraid that, while many individuals may think they have "no need for a bank" (and be mostly right about it), the economy and business community does need banking services. Absence of them would set back our society hundreds of years. It's one thing to be a survivalist living 20 miles out in the woods completely off the grid by choice. It's a different matter entirely to force the entire country to it. Take away the banking system in this country and you'll be well on the way.

I know some of you will deride me for saying this, but if you can't see the truth of it you just don't understand the way our system works. Most of us would be very unhappy in a world with no worldwide (or at least nationwide) banking system. I'm not saying this because I'm a big fan of banks; they p!ss me off at least as regularly as the rest of you. Here lately, as they cringe before newly active bank regulators and tighten credit and lending procedures against people like me who are GOOD credit risks because they were dumb enough when times were good to loan to dumb@sses, I get REALLY mad at them. But they're sorta like women. Only thing worse than life with 'em, is life without'em.

Banking is valid concept and very useful to any advanced economic system. The problem again is with the government and bank corruption.

Gunderwood wrote:
"Banking is valid concept and very useful to any advanced economic system. The problem again is with the government and bank corruption."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

AND GUNDERWOOD IS 100% RIGHT, except that an advanced economic system without banking is impossible. So "useful" is something of an understatement.

This is in fact a response to the swipe fees limit in the Dodd/Frank bill.

Banks were collecting BILLIONS off of those fees, which in some jurisdictions was equal to, or more than, state sales tax rates. They used that pot of money to subsidize millions of other unrelated things ... like the airline miles marketing gimmicks, etc. Now they have to invent a new pot of money to keep paying for marketing gimmicks (which the public clearly still wants, I guess)

Tweaker wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

Reverenddel wrote:Thanks to Frank/Dodd Act..

Nope, they're greedy. All there is to it. Before Dodd they were screwing us in other ways just fine on their own, now, they have to find new ways to do it.

Use a credit union. banks have been trying to get them banned (regulation is only evil when it affects banks bottom lines, its OK when it helps them) for decades.


Or, we could so the sensible thing and nationalize all banks. God I wish! Banks are parasites.

Socialist 101 - Always use the word greed. It is the primary foundation of your (failed every time it has been tried) mantra.

Kreutz, please define greed for me. I am serious and I would like to hear your answer.

Greed is making tens of millions of dollars a year and making risky investments with other peoples money so you qualify for a bonus to make a few extra million dollars.

When this explodes, approach treasury with hat in hand(while of course still paying out those bonuses).

These are the people that take TARP money, and use it to buy T-bonds, loaning our own money back to us for interest.

Rinse, repeat.

Does that about it cover it for you?

This is why there should be no private banks, when they all seek to privatize their gains and make their losses public. We already guarantee almost all of their assets.

Why even have the middle man?

I will defer to Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on the subject:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4005355,00.html

The fact of the matter is, the banks are in very bad shape. The U.S. government has poured in hundreds of billions of dollars to very little effect. It is very clear that the banks have failed. American citizens have become majority owners in a very large number of the major banks. But they have no control. Any system where there is a separation of ownership and control is a recipe for disaster.

Nationalization is the only answer. These banks are effectively bankrupt.

Stiglitz is a New Keynesian. They argue that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) can lead to a more efficient macroeconomic outcome than a laissez faire policy (free market economy) would. In other words, another repackaged socialist who thinks the government has to supervise and meddle in everything or it won't run right.

Kreutz wrote:Greed is making tens of millions of dollars a year and making risky investments with other peoples money so you qualify for a bonus to make a few extra million dollars.

When this explodes, approach treasury with hat in hand(while of course still paying out those bonuses).

These are the people that take TARP money, and use it to buy T-bonds, loaning our own money back to us for interest.

Rinse, repeat.

Does that about it cover it for you?

This is why there should be no private banks, when they all seek to privatize their gains and make their losses public. We already guarantee almost all of their assets.

Why even have the middle man?

I will defer to Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on the subject:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4005355,00.html

The fact of the matter is, the banks are in very bad shape. The U.S. government has poured in hundreds of billions of dollars to very little effect. It is very clear that the banks have failed. American citizens have become majority owners in a very large number of the major banks. But they have no control. Any system where there is a separation of ownership and control is a recipe for disaster.

Nationalization is the only answer. These banks are effectively bankrupt.

The problem is not the private aspect of the banks, but rather that the public assumed their risk. If someone else is assuming your risk or paying your way, you have no problem doubling down. It's a moral hazard the government created.

dorminWS wrote:Stiglitz is a New Keynesian. They argue that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) can lead to a more efficient macroeconomic outcome than a laissez faire policy (free market economy) would. In other words, another repackaged socialist who thinks the government has to supervise and meddle in everything or it won't run right.

Yes, I know who he is, and he's right. Last I checked even tea partiers are petitioning the government to "create" more jobs. State spending is the driving force of any economy; always has been, always will be.

Kreutz wrote:

dorminWS wrote:Stiglitz is a New Keynesian. They argue that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) can lead to a more efficient macroeconomic outcome than a laissez faire policy (free market economy) would. In other words, another repackaged socialist who thinks the government has to supervise and meddle in everything or it won't run right.

Yes, I know who he is, and he's right. Last I checked even tea partiers are petitioning the government to "create" more jobs. State spending is the driving force of any economy; always has been, always will be.

Only because it first removed the potential spending by taking the money from people. The state is a driver for mal-investment.

AFAIK, the Tea Party wants government to create jobs by getting out of the way (aka stop destroying them). You socialists are always playing equivalence games and trying to be slick with your wording as if that was somehow a valid counter point.

I keep my wallet and my 1911 on the same side of my body. And I can pull one a hell of a lot faster than the other, guess which.

Why does anybody use a debit card in the first place? Is there any incentive?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Gargoyle wrote:Why does anybody use a debit card in the first place? Is there any incentive?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The Dave Ramsey plan folks - no debt.. also some people may not have good enough credit for a card.

Personally I use a credit card and pay the full balance off every month , plus get a cashback percentage besides. I see credit as a tool - just like a gun. Needs to be used carefully and for the right purpose, or you could shoot yourself in the foot.

Gargoyle wrote:Why does anybody use a debit card in the first place? Is there any incentive?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Credit = Risk.

If you use your debit card like a credit card you get the same protection without fees (at least for now.) You can also find debit cards that will give you a 2% cash back, posted earlier.

TScottW99 wrote:

Gargoyle wrote:Why does anybody use a debit card in the first place? Is there any incentive?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Credit = Risk.

If you use your debit card like a credit card you get the same protection without fees (at least for now.) You can also find debit cards that will give you a 2% cash back, posted earlier.

You cant dispute with merchants as you can with a credit card like you can with a debit card, also, your checking account is safe with using a credit card, and you're limited to 50.00 in liability for fraudulent use, no such protection with a debit card.

Kreutz - You gave examples of ethical violations as well as possible corruption which may have been legal or at least was not properly prosecuted by the government.

All of this was MADE POSSIBLE by the inaction or oversight or ignorance of the .gov. How is more government going to solve this problem?

Do you hold the belief that greed is either less prevalent or impossible under a socialist .gov? If there are more poor people and fewer party members with all the power/money as in every socialist country is this a situation you view as more favorable?

Which is the country that you point to and say, this is a terrific example of socialism and we should be just like that? You claimed in another thread that Switzerland is a socialist country. That not correct AFAIK.

Tweaker wrote:Kreutz - You gave examples of ethical violations as well as possible corruption which may have been legal or at least was not properly prosecuted by the government.

bankers and ethics....do not compute.

All of this was MADE POSSIBLE by the inaction or oversight or ignorance of the .gov. How is more government going to solve this problem?

Because "All of this was MADE POSSIBLE by the inaction or oversight or ignorance of the .gov". Like the Great Depression, these things happen in the absence of regulation. Yes, people will always break laws, but not as systemically when there is a real threat of punishment. Dont forget Dubya gutted the SEC so his friends could rape us a little bit more. When the SEC has teeth and a budget it can keep things in line to a larger degree.

Do you hold the belief that greed is either less prevalent or impossible under a socialist .gov?

The funny thing is....they do seem to be less greedy, less selfish. You know how much blood we buy from the continental European socialist nations? Quite a bit.

Know why they have surpluses? People do things for the common good there; its just ingrained. They just donate regularly en masse.

Here I've seen blood agencies resort to raffles and gimmicks to get donations.

Collectivism vs individual greed, I know which one sounds better to me ethically.

They have a different, and IMO, superior moral outlook.

If there are more poor people and fewer party members with all the power/money as in every socialist country is this a situation you view as more favorable?

See above. Is there graft and corruption there? Sure....does it ever seem as widespread and damaging (think Enron or the S&L scandal) as here? Well, no.

Which is the country that you point to and say, this is a terrific example of socialism and we should be just like that?

honestly? Any of them at this point.

You claimed in another thread that Switzerland is a socialist country. That not correct AFAIK.

How so? Universal heathcare. Mandated vacations. Faggy little cars. Heavily regulated market. Iron clad welfare system. Gorgeous women....basic socialist stuff.

Switzerland could be considered a "conservative" country socially, but economically? Socialist.

And even with the current economic woes of Europe....as of right now....

1 euro = 1.4368 US dollars

So, um, yeah. Their currency is still kicking the crap out of ours.

Even Canada is getting in on the fun of having a better currency

1 Canadian dollar = 1.0090 US dollars


Go socialism as a viable economic model!