Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: More banks charging checking account fees, not RKBA related.

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    More banks charging checking account fees, not RKBA related.

    I decided to park this here in the social lounge, not gun related, but interesting I think.

    http://theweek.com/article/index/233...-accounts-over
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Of course they are. Dodd-Frank cut their Debit card service fees in half (savings which were supposed to be passed down from the merchant to the consumer. Damned if I've seen any savings, though). They're going to make up the lost revenue any way they can.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    forcing customers
    Didn't get past this line, Banks are not forcing anybody to do anything.

    Government should stay out of private business affairs.

    My Bank doesn't charge me. But I only have a Bank because I am forced to by the state...otherwise I wouldn't use them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Didn't get past this line, Banks are not forcing anybody to do anything.

    Government should stay out of private business affairs.

    My Bank doesn't charge me. But I only have a Bank because I am forced to by the state...otherwise I wouldn't use them.
    Bingo! you win.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    SNIP Banks are not forcing anybody to do anything.

    Government should stay out of private business affairs.
    Agreed. They're not forcing anybody to do anything in the sense you mean.

    However, I have no sympathy for the banks because in other ways they do force us.

    Fractional reserve banking creates money out of thin air, inflating the money supply and causing price inflation. This destroys the value of our savings. Even 2% yearly price inflation across ten years adds up to more than 20% value just GONE on the savings set aside in the first year.

    And, the banks play the Federal Reserve system game whereby we are all forced to use Federal Reserve Notes.

    In years past, before there was a central bank, banks would issue their own notes/paper money. This was part of the fractional reserve banking game. They issued more notes than they had gold to cover it. When all the banks hold notes and checks from each and thus owe each other, you have an interlocking system of debt which works fine for the banks as long as none gets too carried away with issuing notes and loans. But, when a few in a region get carried away and issue too much and the debts are called in by other banks, then things start to collapse. The whole reason for a central bank is so that the individual banks can inflate evenly and no banks owe more than they can pay to other banks. Our Federal Reserve is no different. It sets the reserve requirements for all the banks in the system. It is institutionalized price inflation. It is institutionalized theft of our savings. It is institutionalized theft of our pay as prices increase faster than our paychecks.

    Oh, we're forced alright.

    I agree that government should stay out of private business. Government chartered the Federal Reserve. Thanks a lot, President Wilson. Also, in the early 1800's, say between 1820 and 1840, a number of US banks got into trouble by inflating too much. They shut their doors and refused to give out gold on demand. The government validated this action. Which is to say, the government confirmed the breach of contract. Lets say I'm holding a bank note that says pay to bearer ten dollars gold. Its a form of contract. Government sided with the banks allowing them to breach that contract, rather than making the banks pay until they went out of business, or putting them under court supervision and paying out whatever percentage on the dollar until they went totally broke and out of business, including the personal wealth of all the directors and shareholders.

    There was another government trick around this time. Courts arbitrarily decreed that money you deposited in a bank was not your money anymore. So, when you loaned money to a bank by making a deposit, it was not really a loan and wasn't really your money anymore. Even though it was a so-called demand deposit. You see, if the government recognized it really was a demand deposit, you could demand it, and the government would have to protect your interests in its court decisions whenever a bank was about to go under. Rather than the government protecting the banks by letting them close for a few days or weeks, or more importantly letting them stay in business, which meant the same men could inflate and cause price inflation and risk more people's savings again.

    You can learn more about this in the minority report of the gold commission from the 1980's, The Case for Gold. It is a thin book. Easy but very fascinating to read. Guess who was on the commission, dissented from the commission's so-called findings and co-authored the minority report? Ron Paul.

    You can read it here: http://www.cato.org/case-for-gold/ I highly recommend taking the time. Highly.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-28-2012 at 11:43 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Well fortunatley I do business with a credit union that hasn't charged any fees. they floated that idea of charging credit card fees, so I stopped using my credit card and began writing checks for the smallest amounts possible and using those as payment. the idea being it costs them far more money to process checks then debit cards. I don't think they ever cared though, they did retract the idea and pledge their checking would be free forever, so we'll see.

    *I meant debit, not credit.

    but SVG is right, banks can't compel you to do business with them. But it's getting harder to not have one, my last employer was looking at gettting rid of paying people in paper checks and most places these days pay by direct deposit
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  7. #7
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Will customers switch banks?
    Probably not.
    HAH. I did. That's why I dropped Suntrust. It started out as a charge for having a premium account. They changed the requirements for waiving the fee without me noticing, then I quickly downgraded the account. Within less than a year I saw another fee-this time because they changed the required monthly transfer from checking to savings without me noticing. It was the last straw. I dropped them like a rock the next day because I was tired of changing my account setting to avoid fees.

    Before I dropped Suntrust, though, I opened up a credit union account. I wasn't entirely impressed with their bill pay, so I opened up a brokerage/checking account with Charles Schwab. Schwab's bill pay is almost identical to Suntrust's, so when Suntrust charged that last fee less than a month after opening the Schwab account, I quickly changed my direct deposit and bill pay info over and closed the Suntrust accounts.

    The credit union bill pay isn't unusable, so if Schwab ever starts charging maintenace fees, I'll just stick with the CU.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I the guberment wishes to regulate banks they are doing it wrong.

    Instead of telling the banks what fees/charges they cannot bill for they should provide them a list of what they CAN bill for.

    But then politicians would have to say "yeah, we approved that" and take responsibility for bank fees ... something they don't want to do.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I the guberment wishes to regulate banks they are doing it wrong.

    Instead of telling the banks what fees/charges they cannot bill for they should provide them a list of what they CAN bill for.

    But then politicians would have to say "yeah, we approved that" and take responsibility for bank fees ... something they don't want to do.

    No, you don't understand.

    The government is in bed with the banks.

    The government long ago could have held bankers toes to the fire and held bankers responsible for the excesses of fractional reserve banking and all its attendant economic problems. It is against government's interests to do so--the government wants to borrow vast amounts of money so it can spend more than it takes in. The existing banking system provides that to government. This is why Obama, despite his lies about hope, change, and the little guy appointed thirteen big bankers to his administration (at last count a year ago).

    Government doesn't regulate the banking system unless the banking system asks for it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No, you don't understand.

    The government is in bed with the banks.
    Oh I understand. I also understand that it has to be to a certain degree .. our currency is tied to nothing anymore .. so they need these "money-dealers" to peddle their wares. They are like drug dealers in their function.

    Why else is it against the law for the people to create their own currency if they so choose?

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Agreed. They're not forcing anybody to do anything in the sense you mean.

    However, I have no sympathy for the banks because in other ways they do force us.

    Fractional reserve banking creates money out of thin air, inflating the money supply and causing price inflation. This destroys the value of our savings. Even 2% yearly price inflation across ten years adds up to more than 20% value just GONE on the savings set aside in the first year.

    And, the banks play the Federal Reserve system game whereby we are all forced to use Federal Reserve Notes.

    In years past, before there was a central bank, banks would issue their own notes/paper money. This was part of the fractional reserve banking game. They issued more notes than they had gold to cover it. When all the banks hold notes and checks from each and thus owe each other, you have an interlocking system of debt which works fine for the banks as long as none gets too carried away with issuing notes and loans. But, when a few in a region get carried away and issue too much and the debts are called in by other banks, then things start to collapse. The whole reason for a central bank is so that the individual banks can inflate evenly and no banks owe more than they can pay to other banks. Our Federal Reserve is no different. It sets the reserve requirements for all the banks in the system. It is institutionalized price inflation. It is institutionalized theft of our savings. It is institutionalized theft of our pay as prices increase faster than our paychecks.

    Oh, we're forced alright.

    I agree that government should stay out of private business. Government chartered the Federal Reserve. Thanks a lot, President Wilson. Also, in the early 1800's, say between 1820 and 1840, a number of US banks got into trouble by inflating too much. They shut their doors and refused to give out gold on demand. The government validated this action. Which is to say, the government confirmed the breach of contract. Lets say I'm holding a bank note that says pay to bearer ten dollars gold. Its a form of contract. Government sided with the banks allowing them to breach that contract, rather than making the banks pay until they went out of business, or putting them under court supervision and paying out whatever percentage on the dollar until they went totally broke and out of business, including the personal wealth of all the directors and shareholders.

    There was another government trick around this time. Courts arbitrarily decreed that money you deposited in a bank was not your money anymore. So, when you loaned money to a bank by making a deposit, it was not really a loan and wasn't really your money anymore. Even though it was a so-called demand deposit. You see, if the government recognized it really was a demand deposit, you could demand it, and the government would have to protect your interests in its court decisions whenever a bank was about to go under. Rather than the government protecting the banks by letting them close for a few days or weeks, or more importantly letting them stay in business, which meant the same men could inflate and cause price inflation and risk more people's savings again.

    You can learn more about this in the minority report of the gold commission from the 1980's, The Case for Gold. It is a thin book. Easy but very fascinating to read. Guess who was on the commission, dissented from the commission's so-called findings and co-authored the minority report? Ron Paul.

    You can read it here: http://www.cato.org/case-for-gold/ I highly recommend taking the time. Highly.
    Great post I'll read that book. I have no sympathy for banks either.

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well fortunatley I do business with a credit union that hasn't charged any fees. they floated that idea of charging credit card fees, so I stopped using my credit card and began writing checks for the smallest amounts possible and using those as payment. the idea being it costs them far more money to process checks then debit cards. I don't think they ever cared though, they did retract the idea and pledge their checking would be free forever, so we'll see.

    *I meant debit, not credit.

    but SVG is right, banks can't compel you to do business with them. But it's getting harder to not have one, my last employer was looking at gettting rid of paying people in paper checks and most places these days pay by direct deposit
    Try being self employed, it is almost impossible to run a business without a bank, the State and the Feds want to track you. So in addition to the crimes listed by Citizen, it is a way to sidestep the practically non existent 4th amendment when it comes to doing business as a sole proprietor.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Great post I'll read that book. I have no sympathy for banks either.

    Thanks.

    Another very good book, thin, easy-to-read, is The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard. Available through Barnes & Noble and Lew Rockwell.com.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Thanks.

    Another very good book, thin, easy-to-read, is The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard. Available through Barnes & Noble and Lew Rockwell.com.

    Good I can download on the nook.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •