Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 1/2/2010 3:13 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/2/2010 2:31 PM, Han wrote:
Tim wrote in news:7ek417-gn21.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

Notice, for instance, the current whining about "credit card
relief". Where I come from, that's called "not paying back what you
borrowed" and is a form of dishonesty.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would express it from a
liberal point of view. The above quote is what I disagree with.
Credit card relief should not be relief from having to pay back what
you borrowed (as was your intent to state), but it should include
relief from onerous and extortionist interest rates and exorbitant
fees. Maybe it was in the small
print, and maybe the stupid borrowers could have opted out at some
point, but charging 30% APR and $25 overdraft fees is a bit much,
don't you think?
Wouldn't you get a bit upset if you knew that you had $45 in your
account and knowingly overdrew it with the last of 3 transactions.
These 3 being $7 coffee at Starbucks, $15 for lunch and $50 for
dinner. However, the bank first charges the dinner charge, and
levies a $25 overdraft fee, then
the lunch and coffee, each also with a $25 overdraft fee. Is that
right?


Don't look now, Han ... but that ain't no "liberal point of view"!

That _is_ a "moral" point of view!

Good on you, brother!!


Morality start with integrity and honesty. So long as the bank is
behaving as it promised to - that is, there is no fraud (which is
always wrong) - it is not inherently immoral to do what is described
above. It is, however, probably very stupid from a consumer relations
point of view.

Tim, IMNSHO it is immoral and fraudulent to reverse the order of charges
in order to "legally" charge a $25 fee on each of the three above
transactions. I believe that in this case the charges were indeed
reversed, and also that it is now not anymore possible to automatically
assume (by the bank) hat the customer wants overdraft protection, but
that he/she has to ask for it, and sign a disclosure form. SO eventually
the morally correctview was adopted. Whether that would have occurred
under a Repugnicant administration is a question the answer to which we
won't know.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid