REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

BofA chief: We have a 'right to make a profit'

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, October 23, 2011 09:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9712
PAGE 1 of 5

Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:46 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Bank of America's CEO defended his bank's new $5 fee on debit cards on Wednesday, saying that customers and shareholders understand the bank has a "right to make a profit."

Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) CEO Brian Moynihan defended the move, which the bank announced last week in response to new caps on debit card swipe fees that the banks charge retailers.

Moynihan stopped short of criticizing President Obama who earlier this week said to ABC that banks don't have an "inherent right" to a "certain amount of profit."

But BofA's chief did say banks have an inherent right to make a profit in an interview Wednesday with CNBC's Larry Kudlow at the Washington Ideas Forum, sponsored by the Newseum, the Aspen Institute and the Atlantic magazine.

"I have an inherent duty as a CEO of a publicly owned company to get a return for my shareholders," Moynihan said.

Moynihan said that the bank will talk to its customers, teammates and shareholders and "they'll understand what we're doing -- understand we have a right to make a profit."

Moynihan said the bank had made the fee clear and transparent to its customers and noted the bank had given plenty of advance notice because the fee won't kick in until next year.

But he said the new charge was necessary because the "ability to be profitable" in retail banking has changed. He added that Wall Street reforms in the so-called Dodd-Frank Act will cost his bank "billions."

When Kudlow asked Moynihan if he felt the bank was under attack, Moynihan said "no."

"We have the best bank in the world, we do a great job for our customers," he added. http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/05/news/economy/bank_of_america_moynihan/
index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Yeah, sure they'll understand...especially the customers, I'm sure! I love it; "We have the right to make a profit" (definition: "We have a right to make as much disgusting profit as we possibly can, using loopholes, lobbyists, lawyers, money and power!"). You buy that?

Then there's
Quote:

Later, Moynihan was asked about an entirely different issue, whether he supported a proposed tax on millionaires that Senate Democrats proposed today.

He said he'd echo what he hears from his millionaire customers: "Yes, but what for?"

"If the belief is that it puts our fiscal house in order, then they support that," Moynihan said.

HUH???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:26 AM

BYTEMITE


And if they price gouge, we have a right to go elsewhere with our business.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:48 AM

FIVVER


Byte,

And there is the beauty of free markets and capitalism. BoA can raise prices and you can tell them to take a hike. With socialism, communism and all the other lefty wet dreams, YOUR half of the equation goes away.

Health care mandate anyone?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:50 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Where in the Constitution does it guarantee corporations the "right" to make a profit?



As for me, I'll believe corporations are people the day Rick Perry executes one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 7:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hee, hee, hee, love it Mike! Kinda says it all, don't it? Good point, too; they're quick to argue "that's not a right under the Constitution!", but they sure believe the things THEY want are "rights".

Jeez, Fivver, you're as bad as Raptor and Wulf. Goggles, much? What you say isn't true when a corporation gets big enough and has enough of a monopoly, nor is it true when they've "bought" government into giving them freebies, or when they have lobbiests who get things going their way, or when they have lawyers and tax people who find loopholes for them, and on and on and on. One example does not a point prove. But keep it up, you guys suffice to give the rest of us examples of the stupidity of your ideology, and your "lefty wet dream"-type rhetoric shows you clearly for the ass you guys are.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 8:33 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Where in the Constitution does it guarantee corporations the "right" to make a profit?


There is no right to make a profit. I've reviewed the case law on the matter and found that there have been at least two Supreme Court cases on the subject and neither are on the side of business. If you are interested I suggest you review cases dealing with either door to door sales prohibitions or regulation of public utilities.

So, no profit. Yippie, now we can regulate everything and make sure nobody profits. What does this mean? No profit equals no investors, I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return. No investors means no capital. No capital means no industry, expansion, or innovation. Put it all together and it means no jobs.

In fact the recognized sole purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. Take away the purpose, no more corporations. I note for the record that many would like to see this as the end result of all this...an end to business, an end to corporations, and an end to capitalism. Those people need to look at the name on their computer, the lable on their shirts, the name on their car, the name on their grocery store, etc and perhaps consider the end game of their desire to end corporations.

The fact is Bank of America can levy this fee and govt can regulate them to stop it and any other fees it does not like. Bank of America is then free to go out of business or move to a more business friendly location, like China. On the other hand Bank of America can choose to levy this fee, Congress can mind its own business and people are free to bank elsewhere.

I note for the record that the purpose of this fee is to make up for revenue lost when Congress restricted other fees. Its an unintended consequence, kind of like price controls. Price of bread goes up, Congress sets a limit, suddenly the shelves are empty.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 8:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


That is SUCH bullshit (wanna put THAT one in your signature?
Quote:

I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return.
People do that every single day, if you don't know that, you don't know squat!

And no REGULATION means runaway corporate greed. There needs to be a middle ground.
Quote:

I note for the record that the purpose of this fee is to make up for revenue lost when Congress restricted other fees. Its an unintended consequence, kind of like price controls. Price of bread goes up, Congress sets a limit, suddenly the shelves are empty.
Also bullshit. Those fees have become egregious. There's no way the consequence is "unintended"...we all knew any cost would be passed on to the customer, but with any luck, tne NON-price-gouging banks and other institutions won't do the same, with the result that more people switch to them.

Your analogy doesn't stand; more honest would be: "Price of overpriced bread goes up, Congress sets a limit, suddenly the shelves are full of lower-priced bread." Capitalism at work, yes?



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 9:10 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Those fees have become egregious. There's no way the consequence is "unintended"...we all knew any cost would be passed on to the customer, but with any luck, tne NON-price-gouging banks and other institutions won't do the same, with the result that more people switch to them.


Perhaps the fees were egregious. But the fact is the new fee is new, which means it did not exist until the old fee was regulated therefore regulation resulted in the new fee.

Quote:


Your analogy doesn't stand; more honest would be: "Price of overpriced bread goes up, Congress sets a limit, suddenly the shelves are full of lower-priced bread." Capitalism at work, yes?


Ah, yes...everyone remembers the shelves of state-run Soviet stores overflowing with bread. Socialism at work.

You also noted that a lack of regulation leads to runaway greed. You neglect to consider the fact that the market lends its own regulation to business. If you eliminate your consumers ability to buy your product, you wont sell anymore products. Where govt needs to step in is not regulating profits, but rather taking steps to ensure competition, safety, and consumer protection (areas that may not be as vulnerable or as quick to react to market forces).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 9:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

You neglect to consider the fact that the market lends its own regulation to business.
Bunk. How about Big Oil, Big Pharma, and so many more...they self-regulate? My ass.

By "unintended" I meant it wasn't unintended by the banks...the minute they even HEARD something in their profits might be lessened, they immediately made plans to dump some kind of extra fee on the consumer.
Quote:

the shelves of state-run Soviet stores overflowing with bread. Socialism at work.
Assinine; the cry of "socialism" is so worn out...and so is "state run" when it comes to this country. Regulating semi-monopolies who gouge the consumer has nothing to do with state run or socialism, much as you guys like to toss those words around.
Quote:

If you eliminate your consumers ability to buy your product, you wont sell anymore products.
Nobody's eliminating the consumer's ability to buy the product, merely regulating that they can't charge exhorbidant amount for the product. If the consumer CHOOSES not to buy the overpriced product, they can go elsewhere (as in this case, smaller banks, credit unions, etc.). If they lose enough consumers, they'll lower their fees or else yep, no more product. Which, when it comes to the big banks, would be JUST fine with me!

I'm going to agree to disagree with you because the things you're putting forth have no bearing on the issue at hand and are so over the top I'm not going to bother wasting my time anymore.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:13 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And if they price gouge, we have a right to go elsewhere with our business.



Absolutely true. I'm not a customer, but shame on the President and Dems for openly attacking BoA. What next, attacking Apple, or Microsoft ? How about Coca-Cola ?

So far, this administration has singled out and tried to get America to hate the following:

the healthcare industry, bp oil, FOX News, the Cambridge police, Rush Limbaugh, Republicans, the " rich ", Israel, typical white people, BoA... hell, I might as well start my own web site. Nah... it's probably out there already.

Americans are waking up to this radical communist ass hole.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:56 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
You neglect to consider the fact that the market lends its own regulation to business. If you eliminate your consumers ability to buy your product, you wont sell anymore products. Where govt needs to step in is not regulating profits, but rather taking steps to ensure competition, safety, and consumer protection (areas that may not be as vulnerable or as quick to react to market forces).



I agree with this, but ask where is the Government trying to control the banks profits? The regulations on card transaction fee was to help the other businesses that were having to pay them. These new regulations are just putting market forces to work. Instead of the banks charging other businesses, that need to take cards to compete, now the banks must try and make their profits from there customers. They are the ones that can decide what they are willing to pay for and what they are not.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:58 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Americans are waking up to this radical communists ass hole.



When did Stalin get a morning radio show?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!




Quote:

When did Stalin get a morning radio show?


Not Stalin, but one of his disciples ...





" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:17 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not Stalin, but one of his disciples ...



Oh, that’s right I forgot that you have no idea what Communism or Socialism are.

....sorry, carry on.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:42 AM

FIVVER


Quote:

I agree with this, but ask where is the Government trying to control the banks profits? The regulations on card transaction fee was to help the other businesses that were having to pay them. These new regulations are just putting market forces to work. Instead of the banks charging other businesses, that need to take cards to compete, now the banks must try and make their profits from there customers. They are the ones that can decide what they are willing to pay for and what they are not.


The banks developed the debit card and then went to merchants and said 'here's what we've come up with where you get paid immediately from the customer's account. For this service there will be a 44 cent swipe fee per transaction. Do you want it or not.' The banks did not use any force or fraud on the retailers. The merchants could have negotiated a lower fee or walked away. Instead they signed up for the service and then lobbied the government to do away with the fee. Managing debit card purchases takes a lot in the way of technology and people which is being paid for by the banks. How should they pay for it?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 12:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And if they price gouge, we have a right to go elsewhere with our business.


In theory.

When folks abandoned GM cause of overpriced cars of extremely shitty quality, the Gov took OUR money and gave it to them, and we didn't even get the shitty car.

When folks abandoned the airlines cause of the shit they had to put up with (far less, in fact than they do at this time) the Gov took OUR money and gave it to them, and we didn't even get a ticket to ride.

Do you think it's gonna be any different when folks abandon the big banks, and they go crying to the Gov for another handout of OUR money since we refused to do biz with them ?

Ergo, I propose that if a boycott is no longer an effective tactic because of this, we can and should engage the practice of sabotage.



-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 12:59 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by fivver:
The banks developed the debit card and then went to merchants and said 'here's what we've come up with where you get paid immediately from the customer's account. For this service there will be a 44 cent swipe fee per transaction. Do you want it or not.' The banks did not use any force or fraud on the retailers. The merchants could have negotiated a lower fee or walked away. Instead they signed up for the service and then lobbied the government to do away with the fee. Managing debit card purchases takes a lot in the way of technology and people which is being paid for by the banks. How should they pay for it?



I never said they did use any fraud. The problem is that it became near impossible for smaller businesses to walk away from debt cards once thy became popular. That was hurting competition in the market. For the free market to work competition mus be maintained. Markets are horrible at self regulation in that way.

I'm not bitching about BoA charging fees for customers to have a debit card. That is fine, they have to make money. The difference is that the consumer now seeing the price of debit cards. So now each consumer will decide if the cost is worth the convenience

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 1:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by fivver:
Quote:

I agree with this, but ask where is the Government trying to control the banks profits? The regulations on card transaction fee was to help the other businesses that were having to pay them. These new regulations are just putting market forces to work. Instead of the banks charging other businesses, that need to take cards to compete, now the banks must try and make their profits from there customers. They are the ones that can decide what they are willing to pay for and what they are not.


The banks developed the debit card and then went to merchants and said 'here's what we've come up with where you get paid immediately from the customer's account. For this service there will be a 44 cent swipe fee per transaction. Do you want it or not.' The banks did not use any force or fraud on the retailers. The merchants could have negotiated a lower fee or walked away. Instead they signed up for the service and then lobbied the government to do away with the fee. Managing debit card purchases takes a lot in the way of technology and people which is being paid for by the banks. How should they pay for it?




Maybe they could use some of that money they get for lending OUR money back to us. It's called "interest"; you may have heard of it. Banks borrow money from the government (TAXPAYER money, mind you) at close to 0% interest, and then loan it to you at 11.9% interest or so. Also, if you have an account there, they already get to use your money and collateralize it at 10-to-1, 25-to-1, and even 100-to-1 to borrow more money, bundle bad loans and sell them off, buy into credit-default swaps, and the like. And when it all goes tits-up, they get bailed out by the government, and you get bubkis.

Sorry, but banks pleading poverty while setting aside tens of millions to pay their CEOs doesn't buy them much sympathy from me.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 1:30 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And if they price gouge, we have a right to go elsewhere with our business.


In theory.

When folks abandoned GM cause of overpriced cars of extremely shitty quality, the Gov took OUR money and gave it to them, and we didn't even get the shitty car.

When folks abandoned the airlines cause of the shit they had to put up with (far less, in fact than they do at this time) the Gov took OUR money and gave it to them, and we didn't even get a ticket to ride.

Do you think it's gonna be any different when folks abandon the big banks, and they go crying to the Gov for another handout of OUR money since we refused to do biz with them ?

Ergo, I propose that if a boycott is no longer an effective tactic because of this, we can and should engage the practice of sabotage.



-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.




There's something to that line of thought. "You can take the five bucks from me, but I can and will make sure to cost you far more than that." It's not really a solution, and it doesn't help, but it damn sure might make some folks feel better about it. Not that I'd ever advocate such things as violence or vandalism, of course.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:01 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:

I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return.
People do that every single day, if you don't know that, you don't know squat!



Folks put up money in a venture with NO chance of return? I'd say those are the people who don't know squat.

Quote:

Also bullshit. Those fees have become egregious.


How many times does the average person use a debit card per month? The Durbin Amendment reduces swipe fees the merchant pays from 44 cents to 21 cents for a 23 cent reduction. If you use your debit card 20 times a month, the bank's loss at the new rate is $4.60. Pretty close to $5.00.

The bigger question is, how much do the big box retailers and grocery chains save? Per these folks, a 50% reduction saves retailers $9.4 billion a year. So folks paying the extra fees are pretty much paying more corporate welfare.

http://education.cardhub.com/interchange-fee-study-2010/

Also be interesting to see what kind of campaign contributions Durbin got from Wal-Mart and other mega-corps.

ETA: Do you think the Wal-Mart et al are gonna drop their prices to reflect their reduced costs?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not Stalin, but one of his disciples ...



Oh, that’s right I forgot that you have no idea what Communism or Socialism are.

....sorry, carry on.




It's juvenile, petty little replies like yours which make the internet such a complete waste of time.

Just dismiss that which you don't like, out of hand, with out even an iota of civility or intellectual honest on your part.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:49 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


M52nickerson now presents....AURaptor in Arguing With Myself

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Americans are waking up to this radical communist ass hole.



Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's juvenile, petty little replies like yours which make the internet such a complete waste of time.

Just dismiss that which you don't like, out of hand, with out even an iota of civility or intellectual honest on your part.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
M52nickerson now presents....AURaptor in Arguing With Myself



Sure is fun to ignore parts of a post or take comments out of context, and then attempt goofy humor, huh?

It's clear the over all topic of discussion is so far above and beyond your ability to follow, the best you can do is toss out such gems from the peanut gallery.

I've never credited you with an over abundance of brains. Now I see why.

( And you don't even understand, that your sig is both antiAmerican and proAmerican. So, which one ARE you, exactly ? )


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 5:21 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Seems BOA is now refusing to allow customers withdraw their money...at gunpoint.





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:25 PM

HKCAVALIER




HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 2:33 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:


HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.



Do you have a link to the data behind this? I tried to go to the link shown on the picture and couldn't get it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 10:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

The banks developed the debit card and then went to merchants and said 'here's what we've come up with where you get paid immediately from the customer's account. For this service there will be a 44 cent swipe fee per transaction. Do you want it or not.' The banks did not use any force or fraud on the retailers. The merchants could have negotiated a lower fee or walked away.
Fiver, this has nothing to do with the main issue at hand. The issue is that the banks are RAISING fees on their customers, not the businesses' customers. They made a "contract" with those who use them as to what their fees would be; the people accepted the contract. Now they're changing the contract and upping the fees. That's a whole different matter. I'm guessing they make sufficient money off the swipe fees or they would have suggested a higher amount originally. They are USING regulations which are intended to lessen their usury and irresponsible actions as an excuse to charge their customers more, period.

And as Mike said, when it comes to the profits the banks make off OUR MONEY, maybe they should make less, rather than price-gouge their customers to make sure they get the most profit possible. Which, by the way, they then squandered recklessly, harming their customers and the entire country, then ran to the government to bail THEM out. All of us who lost money because of their behavior didn't get bailed out, they did, thereby protecting THEIR profits.

Geezer, I missed the part about "no chance of return" and caught the "risky". My mistake. There is no "no chance of return", your statement is a fallacy. There might be "somewhat LESS" return than investors were making before, but I don't think they suffer, given the profits they've been making prior to this. I would bet the return on their investment would be only infinitesimally less profit in the situation being discussed.

As to what the banks "lose", I don't come CLOSE to using my debit card 20 times in a month...that would be an awful lot of use! Given all their monthly checking account fees, overdraft charges, overdraft "protection" fees and other charges, I don't think they're exactly hurting!

On that subject, my bank WAS just hit with a class lawsuit regarding their charging $35 for every overdraft on one day. It's happened to me, when a check didn't clear fast enough or something, and I'd end up with something like $140 in "overdraft fees". I haven't yet heard the outcome of the lawsuit, but I noticed when it happened a couple of weeks ago that I got only ONE $35 charge for two things that came through on the same day and caused an overdraft. I think the big banks make out just fine, thank you, with all the fees they currently charge. They get no sympathy from me!

It's amazing, but not terribly surprising, that with all the technology and automation that has happened in banking over the last few years that fees have seemingly increased while interest rates have gone down.

And by the way, sadly I read the other day:
Quote:

And if you think smaller banks and credit unions are the answer, don't count on it. While they are exempt from caps on "swipe" fees for now, there is growing concern that retailers will eventually stop honoring cards from institutions with higher "swipe" fees causing those banks to simply find other ways to keep the income flowing, like debit card charges.
May they rot in hell, all of them.



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 10:51 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


In my experience, banks are kind of like gas stations - there are thousands across the country, but you are not likely to find any much better than the others. It's all a trade-off in terms of picking what particular bit you are going to get screwed with.

SOME credit unions are better, and ING as an online bank was pretty good (they didn't used to do loans and avoided the whole real-estate debacle), though they have been recently bought out by Capital One. So, we'll see what they are like now.

BTW - I started out in Security Pacific which was a decent bank but which was bought out by BofA, and the services went downhill and the fees got higher. I used to have a large account with MBNA which 'merged' with BofA and the services got worse and the fees got higher. I go to some effort to find decent banks. My experience is that in the banking system, it's hard to get away from the sharks. One way or another, you WILL end up dealing with them, to your detriment. Kind of like gas stations.


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 12:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



I love ING, but unless you're near one of their like 12 ATM's, you'll pay a chunk of change if you want to get some cash out. If you can get any out at all.

They are getting better, but again, all this is being forced on us by Dick Durbin, and is moronic, brainless legislation.

Even if the GOP wins the Senate, I revokes this asinine Durbin amendment, I'm iffy on whether or not the banks will return to their pre Durbin ways. They might... would make for great PR.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 1:02 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I missed the part about "no chance of return" and caught the "risky". My mistake. There is no "no chance of return", your statement is a fallacy.


Niki. All I can go by is what you say. When Hero states "Yippie, now we can regulate everything and make sure nobody profits. What does this mean? No profit equals no investors, I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return." And you reply "People do that every single day, if you don't know that, you don't know squat!" I have to figure you know what you're talking about. The fact that you're so eager to insult someone that you can't take the time to read their comment properly isn't MY fallacy.

Quote:

As to what the banks "lose", I don't come CLOSE to using my debit card 20 times in a month...that would be an awful lot of use!

Consumers used debit cards 37.9 billion times in 2009 (up 12.9 billion from 2006). Seems like even if you aren't using yours, lots of other folks are. http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/debit-card-payments-surpas
s-credit-cards-fed-study-1282.php


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 2:02 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


I've never credited you with and over abundance of brains.




Classic Rappy. Making an enormous fool of himself while trying to call others foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 2:20 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


I've never credited you with and over abundance of brains.




Classic Rappy. Making an enormous fool of himself while trying to call others foolish.



An 'enormous' fool ? Really? For a common, minor typo ? One which most folks can clearly over look and understand what was being said? Per usual, you have nothing to say, and instead resort to the most inane, childish and petty thing on which to comment.

Also, I never used the word " fool " in that reply, so you're lying, and therefore showing everyone you are an ENORMOUS liar, beyond the scale of all others on this , or any other message board.





" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:12 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


I've never credited you with and over abundance of brains.




Classic Rappy. Making an enormous fool of himself while trying to call others foolish.



An 'enormous' fool ? Really? For a common, minor typo ? One which most folks can clearly over look and understand what was being said? Per usual, you have nothing to say, and instead resort to the most inane, childish and petty thing on which to comment.



Rappy, you regularly attempt to belittle the intelligence of others here, and you regularly make glaring errors while doing so. "You're a idiot" comes to mind. Hint: If you're going to go around touting your own intelligence, you really should take pains to come across as intelligent. What makes you an ENORMOUS fool is the fact that you've made these exact same kinds of "typos" on more than a few occasions. Just like I'm sure you think it's a "typo" that you keep adding extra spaces to words like "overlook", "overabundance", and "whatever" when you're trying to use those words.

Quote:


Also, I never used the word " fool " in that reply, so you're lying, and therefore showing everyone you are an ENORMOUS liar, beyond the scale of all others on this , or any other message board.



You may not be able to grasp it, but I never said that you called anyone a fool. Go read it again if you don't believe me. What I said was that you were attempting to call someone else foolish.
Would you say that when you claim someone doesn't have "and over abundance of brains", you're NOT trying to say that they're a fool?

Are you willing to go on record right now and say that you in no way think Nickerson is a fool?


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:22 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

trying to call others foolish.


I never tried to call others foolish. If I had wanted to do so, I'd have called them foolish. It's funny, you make mountains out of molehills by hyper analyzing minor typos, when it's crystal clear to any thinking human what is being discussed.

My guess, is that you can't deal w/ the actual issues, because you have zero substance with which to debate. This is an informal forum, and not a college writing course. If I type too fast or make a insignificant grammatical error or fail to proof read my post, bfd. It's not important. The bigger message, the theme of the discussion is what's important. Of course you know this, but because of your ginormous inferiority complex, you can't stand the fact that I out class you in so many ways, so you must find fault w/ me and my posts SOMEHOW. So, you sift through each word and sentence, hoping, praying that you'll find a tiny, insignificant error.

Frankly, I don't care. I'll keep talking well over your head, and you continue to find crumbs of imperfection, down on the floor.

Where you belong.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 4:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"... you have zero substance with which to debate ..."

Kwicko, do you find this as ironic as I do?


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 5:27 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... you have zero substance with which to debate ..."

Kwicko, do you find this as ironic as I do?



If by 'ironic' , you really mean 'accurate', then yeah...it's all that.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 6:21 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... you have zero substance with which to debate ..."

Kwicko, do you find this as ironic as I do?


Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....




Very much so.

And then Rappy's response to it makes it even more ironic, and makes him look even more stupid than usual. After a long post about how he says exactly what he means, he then has to resort to changing others' words to try to rationalize his idiocy.

It's one of the things he's known for.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 6:31 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Kwickie, you're dumber than usual tonight.

( and that's sayin' a hell of a lot )

I didn't change anyone's words. I simply said " if " , and then followed that by the supposition ...

But enough of that. I'm already talking over your head.

Again.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 7, 2011 6:41 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And I didn't say you called anyone a fool, did I, dummy?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 8, 2011 5:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Niki. All I can go by is what you say. When Hero states "Yippie, now we can regulate everything and make sure nobody profits. What does this mean? No profit equals no investors, I mean who will put up their money in a risky venture with no chance of a return." And you reply "People do that every single day, if you don't know that, you don't know squat!" I have to figure you know what you're talking about. The fact that you're so eager to insult someone that you can't take the time to read their comment properly isn't MY fallacy.
I missed the "no profit" in part because it has no relevance whatsoever. It's not a realistic statement, as what he proposed has never happened and never will. The regulation at issue wouldn't mean "no profits", so it's what you guys call a strawman argument. He's talking about communism, for heaven's sake, which is a far cry from stopping big banks from making huge profits off small businesses.

For one thing, a "risky venture" means something that might or might not return profits. There's no risk if one goes into it knowing there would be no chance of making any return, so how does that even make an intelligent statement? I saw the "risky" and responded to that--there is no "risk" if one invests in something which one knows won't provide any return.

So if there's an intelligent argument, it's that they would make a bit LESS profits. THAT is why I mocked him; it didn't occur to me that he was trying to make some kind of argument that the regulation would leave them with "no profits" at all! That is obviously a stupid statement.

The rest of this is the same old Raptor game, so not worth reading. Raptor is a master of getting everyone's goat and stringing them along with ridiculous arguments for as long as he can keep them arguing. What a waste of time we could all spend discussing ACTUAL issues.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 10, 2011 2:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I missed the "no profit" in part because it has no relevance whatsoever. It's not a realistic statement, as what he proposed has never happened and never will.



See the Soviet Union: 1922-1991
Also see Cuba: 1959 to Present

Quote:

The regulation at issue wouldn't mean "no profits", so it's what you guys call a strawman argument.


Hero was responding to Mike's "Where in the Constitution does it guarantee corporations the "right" to make a profit?" statement, not the Durbin amendment.

Quote:

He's talking about communism, for heaven's sake, which is a far cry from stopping big banks from making huge profits off small businesses.


Not so far a cry.

Quote:

CARACAS: Venezuela’s legislature approved a law on Friday increasing state control over the banking system in what the opposition warned was a prelude to nationalisation. The law strengths the power of the superintendence of banks “to control and apply sanctions against the institutions and persons that form part of the (financial) sector.”

It declares the banking system a public utility, places limits on the formation of financial groups and bars banks from having an interest in brokerage firms or insurance companies. It was the latest in a series of measures that President Hugo Chavez has sought to ram through the National Assembly before January, when he loses the near absolute control over the legislature that he has enjoyed since 2005.

The assembly was expected to vote as early as Friday to give Chavez extraordinary powers to rule by decree for a year. Chavez, speaking to the nation late Thursday, said he has “nearly ready” some 20 laws that he will announce as soon as the legislature grants him decree-ruling powers. “I already have the first raft of laws. I have nearly ready some 20 laws,” Chavez said late Thursday during an event broadcast by all radio and TV networks.

The Venezuelan state already owns about 25 per cent of the banking system. 2010-12-19

http://thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=State+control+over+
banks+up+in+Venezuela+++++&NewsID=270915




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 10, 2011 4:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:


"I have an inherent duty as a CEO of a publicly owned company to get a return for my shareholders," Moynihan said.



And another point that's been sort'a left out here. Who are BofA's shareholders?

Most BofA stock is owned by institutions, mostly investment management corporations and the like. http://www.cheap-credit-cards.org/online-banking/us-banks/whoownsbanko
famerica
/

They are managing investments for, to use State Street Corp as an example, "...mutual funds and their advisers, collective investment funds, corporate and public pension funds, insurance companies, operating companies and non-profit organizations." (from Wikipedia)

So the folks you don't think need as big a return on their investments as possible include working folk hoping their pensions will cover retirement, and non-profits hoping they'll make enough to support their causes.

Sorry, but Wall Street and the banks aren't just billionare fatcats; they're also a lot of small investors who are relying on these companies to manage their money in the most profitable manner - to support their retirement, kid's college, charity, etc.

If you know someone who gets a pension, there's a good chance all or part of it comes from investments in BofA or some other publicly traded company.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 10, 2011 5:33 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


If you know someone who gets a pension, there's a good chance all or part of it comes from investments in BofA or some other publicly traded company.





And there's an equally good chance - or even a greater one, really - that part of their "pension" comes in the form of Social Security.

Yet some on the right would gladly abolish that system and leave those people holding the bag.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 10, 2011 7:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And there's an equally good chance - or even a greater one, really - that part of their "pension" comes in the form of Social Security.

Yet some on the right would gladly abolish that system and leave those people holding the bag.



So the "We Hate Wall Street Profits" crowd and the Far Right folks who want to do away with Social Security will both end up with the same result? To do away with a chunk of folks' pensions?

Well, at least the concept of reducing pensions seems to have bi-partisan support.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 10, 2011 8:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No, I don't think they
Quote:

need as big a return on their investments as possible
Not when it comes at the expense of those very people--in fact virtually EVERYONE (who doesn't have money in a bank? Who doesn't have a checking account? Who doesn't have an ATM?). There are many instances where you can't get something without a checking or savings account, and paying bills by money order is very difficult. So they have what you could call a "captive market", and raising their rates to make the "most profit possible" is inexcusable to me when it contains actions which harm their customers.

If we're being honest, this is a tiny thing for the banks, they will just fight like hell to lose ANY of their profits, however gained. Corporations already have tons of questionable ways to make obscene profits; to justify that by saying they have the right to make as much profit as possible is just plain wrong to me.

There are SO many things wrong with Corporate America, and they've gotten so much worse in recent times, it's hard to imagine anyone justifying them.
Quote:

90% of Companies Set Out to Overpay Their CEOs

The Washington Post today has a doozy of a report trying to explain why executive pay keeps going skyward at American companies while the economy falters. One of the main reasons? The king-of-the-hill way corporate boards set salaries for their executives. Almost every major U.S. company--90 percent, according to researchers--sets its CEO's salary higher than the median pay of his or her peers. That's because every corporation wants to think its head honcho is better than most others--something more broadly known as the "Lake Wobegon" effect, named after Garrison Keillor's fictional town where "all the children are above average." And of course, everyone can't be right: "if every company tries to keep up with or exceed the median pay for executives, executive compensation will spiral upward, regardless of performance." As Warren Buffett once wrote in one of his letters to investors, it's "the argument we all used when children: ‘But, Mom, all the other kids have one.’” http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/10/90-companies-set-out-o
verpay-their-ceos/43304/
most egregious "welfare" goes to corporations, by far, it's there in so many studies and even from the government:
Quote:

Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes. More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml, for example, recorded $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. http://www.prometheus6.org/node/27600 you want the focus to be the (what percentage again?) of people engaged in welfare fraud?? How exactly do you justify that? Aside from believing that, when it comes to your tax dollars, whatever Big Business does is good and whatever individuals YOU believe don't deserve welfare do is bad. The numbers alone are so astronomically different, it doesn't make sense.

You're saying that BofA has the right to charge whatever it wants for its services to its customers because many of those customers have portfolios with investments in BofA, so they should make the most return on investments. Isn't that kind of robbing Peter to pay Peter?

By the way, my husband and I have a retirement account with our local (small) bank. There are no investments in BofA in our portfolio. Prior to that I had a 401k. Same thing. So yeah, I "know" someone for whom that is not true. Small point, but you mentioned it.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 10, 2011 12:43 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
No, I don't think they
Quote:

need as big a return on their investments as possible
Not when it comes at the expense of those very people--in fact virtually EVERYONE (who doesn't have money in a bank? Who doesn't have a checking account? Who doesn't have an ATM?). There are many instances where you can't get something without a checking or savings account, and paying bills by money order is very difficult. So they have what you could call a "captive market", and raising their rates to make the "most profit possible" is inexcusable to me when it contains actions which harm their customers.



BofA proposes charging folks a whole $60.00 A YEAR to use debit cards. This is hardly gonna put any one individual in the poorhouse.

Quote:

If we're being honest, this is a tiny thing for the banks, they will just fight like hell to lose ANY of their profits, however gained.

Well, as I showed earlier, if you have hundreds of millions of folks using debit cards, it's gonna cost the banks $9.4 billion next year. That may be tiny to you, but...

Quote:

Corporations already have tons of questionable ways to make obscene profits; to justify that by saying they have the right to make as much profit as possible is just plain wrong to me.


Just out of curiosity, define "obscene profits". Is it 50%? 10%? 1%? Nothing?

Quote:

Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

As I recall that three year old report, that meant two out of every three corporations paid no federal income tax for at least one year from 1998 through 2005. Some years they have losses.


Quote:

GE, for example, recorded $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.


Yep. Some of that income was overseas and not taxable in the U.S. They also carried over losses from the previous year, when their gross income was much lower than their expenses.

Quote:

And you want the focus to be the (what percentage again?) of people engaged in welfare fraud?? How exactly do you justify that?


Since I've never made such a statement, I have no need to justify it. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Quote:

You're saying that BofA has the right to charge whatever it wants for its services to its customers because many of those customers have portfolios with investments in BofA, so they should make the most return on investments.


Well, no. I have no idea whether many of the customers of BofA have investments in BofA or not. If I had stock in BofA, and a BofA debit card, I'd be perfectly happy to pay them $60.00 a year to use it, and pay for that out of my dividends.

Quote:

By the way, my husband and I have a retirement account with our local (small) bank. There are no investments in BofA in our portfolio. Prior to that I had a 401k. Same thing. So yeah, I "know" someone for whom that is not true. Small point, but you mentioned it.



Well I actually mentioned you probably know someone who has investments in "BofA or some other publicly traded company." You know, other corporations. Got any investments that pay you from the 'obscene profits' of a corporation?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 10, 2011 12:58 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

BofA proposes charging folks a whole $60.00 A YEAR to use debit cards. This is hardly gonna put any one individual in the poorhouse.



Similarly, I doubt a 3% income tax hike will put any of the top 1% in the poorhouse.

Sure as hell makes an awful lot of people cry and whine when anyone suggests it, though, doesn't it?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

BofA proposes charging folks a whole $60.00 A YEAR to use debit cards. This is hardly gonna put any one individual in the poorhouse.



Similarly, I doubt a 3% income tax hike will put any of the top 1% in the poorhouse.

Sure as hell makes an awful lot of people cry and whine when anyone suggests it, though, doesn't it?



Not me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Just out of curiosity, define "obscene profits". Is it 50%? 10%? 1%? Nothing?
To me, it's when their profits go EXTREMELY high in comparison to the rest of the country:
Quote:

To gaze upon the world of American corporations is to see a sunny place of terrific profits and princely bonuses. American businesses reported that third-quarter profits in 2010 rose at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion, the steepest annual surge since officials began tracking such matters 60 years ago. It was the seventh consecutive quarter in which corporate profits climbed. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/weekinreview/09powell.html?pagewante
d=all

For them to do this:

While the rest of us are doing this:


Pretty much says to me that something's wrong somewhere.
Quote:

Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.

The New York Times adds, “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average real hourly earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent from June 2009, when the recovery began, to May 2011, the month for which the most recent earnings numbers are available.”

So as average wages fall, and nearly 14 million people remain unemployed, America’s economic recovery has almost entirely benefited corporations. This development adds another chapter to the decline of the middle class, whose incomes are shrinking and wages are stagnating. Last year, top executives’ salaries increased 27 percent, while workers’ salaries increased only 2 percent. At the moment, income inequality in America is the worst it’s been since the 1920s, as the richest 1 percent make nearly 25 percent of the country’s income.




Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:

Just out of curiosity, define "obscene profits". Is it 50%? 10%? 1%? Nothing?
To me, it's when their profits go EXTREMELY high in comparison to the rest of the country...



So BofA, with a 4.1% profit in 2010 is EXTREMELY high? Remembering that they still have to pay income tax on that profit and distribute dividends to shareholders? What about the 18 of the top 100 Fortune 500 companies that posted LOSSES in 2010? Are they more righteous?

Apple had 15.6% profit in 2010. Should Steve Jobs be stoking the fires in Hell?

Here's the Fortune 500 list.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/
Note that some businesses made money, some didn't (roughly 20%). If you look back for the earlier years (there's a link right on the page) you'll see some that made a profit in 2010 had losses in earlier years.

Also note that in 2008, there were 5.8 MILLION corporate income tax returns filed in the U.S. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=170544,00.html

So just saying "THE CORPORATIONS" covers a pretty broad field, and tars a lot of blameless folks with the same brush.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL