Tim Daneliuk wrote:

On 1/2/2010 4:42 PM, Han wrote:
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.


If you think there is any significant difference between the Rs and the Ds
on these matters, think again. If anything, the Ds are worse. Goldman
alone has given noticeably more money to Ds over time, for example.
Anyone that thought the corrupt Chicago political machine was going to
produce and honorable and decent administration is really kidding
themselves...


A couple of things here. A better distinction that R & D is statist vs.
conservative or federalist. Statists believe that all ills can be cured if
we just have the right laws with sufficient federal oversight. This
viewpoint looks for increasing federal involvement in all elements of
individual lives. Conservative or federalist thought believes that
government is necessary to preserve the peace, ensure the safety of the
borders and see to the common defense with as little involvement or
interference in private lives or state governance as possible. An example
of encroaching statism: there are apparently regulations on vending machines
in some elements of the health care bills under consideration right now
(ostensibly to make sure you don't make yourself fat and therefore unhealthy
by purchasing vending machine products). Now, unfortunately, both parties
have statists within them. The Democrat party has by far the largest gaggle
of such folks and pushes statism as far as they can. The Republicans,
particularly the northeast establishment republicans are also dominated by
statists -- their only plaint is that they will impose statism more slowly
and less onerously than the Dems. OTOH, there is also a significant group
of conservatives in the Republican party fighting for control who do believe
that less government and government involvement in private lives leads to
both a more prosperous and more free country.

Just as an aside, the largest beneficiaries of campaign donations from
banks and investment firms was not the Republican party, but the Democrats.
Goldman Sachs was particularly skewed:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000085






--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham