[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

The banks aren't doing that out of malice, they're doing it because of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law and the added costs of regulation of the financial industry. Specifically, it decreased the fees that retailers have to pay banks issuing credit cards (and in many cases, debit transactions as well) for using those cards at the point-of-sale.

In trying to "help" retailers with these "oppressive" fees, the unintended (but anyone with any knowledge of business economics would be able to see) consequence was that banks either raise fees or decrease yields or other freebies, such as free checking.

But as Dwight pointed out, the solution perhaps is not more regulation, but increased access to fair competition among banks and other institutions. For example, as a result of these regulations, my credit union had to stop offering 4% APY on free checking. Perhaps because they are non-profit and member-owned, it means we now only get 3% .

But in the scope of things, a free checking account is not a human right. We should be thankful we even have banks at all. They owe us nothing -- their shrewd investments of capital (on the whole) create more capital to lend and invest. Banking, at it's core, is (or at least should be) a sacred, God-honoring vocation. It is not inherently evil.

I understand it was in response to federal limitations. I don't know if the average user really identifies with that though. The problem, I think, really comes down to one side (the user) seeing banking as an institution designed to help the user while making modest returns while the other side (the bank) sees themselves in a position to maximize returns.

And yeah, to note on what others have said, a lot of my friends who were on BoA or WF were suddenly really interested in knowing more about credit unions. It's definitely a choice that people didn't really look into.

Now, for the guys saying, "I never use an ATM", from what I understand the proposed fees weren't just for ATM usage, but rather for having an account with potential ATM usage, which would include simply having a debit card. I could be wrong about that though. As a credit union user, it wasn't something I really had to look into.

[tenwatt]

Originally Posted by Ax

What happens to you if you didn't have enough cash to pay for something that doesn't accept card and the bank is closed? Write a check? Yeah, like people even take those anymore! ATMs are great.

In 31 years I've never been in that situation. I always have enough cash to do/buy what I want and if I don't...I don't do/buy it.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Ax

You're an odd one. Seriously. They're super convenient. What happens to you if you didn't have enough cash to pay for something that doesn't accept card and the bank is closed? Write a check? Yeah, like people even take those anymore! ATMs are great.

Honestly the fees charged on ATMs are enough to keep me away forever. I always carry a lot of cash (400-700$) in a money clip. That is super convenient.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I rarely use the ATM. How do I get around it? I try to keep cash in my pocket....which I get from Walmart. Every time I go to wall mart (or lowes, or some other place where I use my debit card) I just get cash back.

I hardly do either, but saying never is a very different statement altogether. I've definitely been in situations where an ATM has gotten me out of that I couldn't have avoided. I went in with cash to a few of these situations only to find out it wasn't enough. I much prefer the cashback method as well but it's not always available.

[jthomas1600]

The Facts That's an article about "passive" protesters being pepper sprayed. The reason I put passive in parenthesis is because from what I'm gathering the cops are claiming they were trying to move the protesters and when people refuse to move it's easier and safer to just make them so uncomfortable that they chose to move as opposed to forcibly physically moving them. What do ya'll think about that?

The Facts This article is about a group of people who broke into and occupied a homeless shelter that has been out of use for several years to protest the lack of housing available to the homeless. That's one of the things that has bothered me about the way these protests have been handled; All across the country we've allowed people for two months to engage in lawless behavior to protest. So now what's to make anyone else think that they should behave lawfully if they have a grievance?

[SporkV]

that article about the pepper spraying doesnt mention what i heard about the police forcing open the protestors mouths and spraying pepper spray down their throats, apparently several of them were coughing up blood for quite a while afterwards....

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by SporkV

that article about the pepper spraying doesnt mention what i heard about the police forcing open the protestors mouths and spraying pepper spray down their throats, apparently several of them were coughing up blood for quite a while afterwards....

Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis - YouTube This video shows nothing like what you're describing. I think they got just what they wanted...they baited the cops into this and now are trying to exploit it. I think the protesters are a little out of line when they surround the cops pressing in and chanting. That could very easily be seen as aggressive and threatening behavior towards the cops. And then the students are chanting "who's university?"..."our university". Isn't UC Davis a state school? If so it belongs to all Californians including the cops who pay taxes. 20 something liberals don't get to claim ownership anytime and anywhere they want.

[SporkV]

Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi | UCDavis Bicycle Barricade
thats the story i read

also,

Isnt it one of your major right to be allowed to peacefully protest?

[jthomas1600]

I don't really know where the truth lies, but I do know that in a letter you can say anything you want and tell the story from any angle that makes your point.

Also, "protesting" is not a protected right. Free speech is, but you don't need to disrupt everybody else's daily life in order to be heard.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by SporkV

Isnt it one of your major right to be allowed to peacefully protest?

It's the right to peaceably assemble.

And it doesn't give you the right to break the law. For example, the protesters that peaceably assembled in Seattle a couple nights ago who stood in the middle of a bridge, shutting it down for an hour, and blocked anyone who was trying to get through... I would assume at least 99% of those people who couldn't get home on time that night were part of the 99%.

[SporkV]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I don't really know where the truth lies, but I do know that in a letter you can say anything you want and tell the story from any angle that makes your point.

Perhaps so, but the same can be said for any news outlet as well.
I do find it fascinating though, how if this stuff happens halfway across the world, you guys are all up in arms, but back here on home turf, they deserved it...

[Thrash]

I know there are always different sides to the stories, which is why I am partially sympathetic towards the actions of the Chinese government. There is a desire to safeguard and protect against change, and to silence those who are acting in direct opposition to a way of life. Nonetheless, it is interesting the violent acts being done against the protesters.
Yes, I know they may be breaking the law and policies, and I am not in total opposition to people being arrested, but the videos that have been surfacing, such as at the University in California where the police are spraying mace in the protesters faces seems excessively cruel. It sounds like something Americans would be pissed about if they heard it was going on in some African or Eastern country.

I wonder how widespread things like that are?

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by Thrash

I know there are always different sides to the stories, which is why I am partially sympathetic towards the actions of the Chinese government. There is a desire to safeguard and protect against change, and to silence those who are acting in direct opposition to a way of life. Nonetheless, it is interesting the violent acts being done against the protesters.
Yes, I know they may be breaking the law and policies, and I am not in total opposition to people being arrested, but the videos that have been surfacing, such as at the University in California where the police are spraying mace in the protesters faces seems excessively cruel. It sounds like something Americans would be pissed about if they heard it was going on in some African or Eastern country.

I wonder how widespread things like that are?

I don't think things like that are widespread at all. In this day and age of phone cameras, youtube and independent blogs I think we're seeing virtually every instance. I also think some of these things are "engineered". It's easy to provoke the cops and then video their reactions. You do that enough time and eventually you're going to get them reacting badly.

I also think when we as Americans are up in arms about this sort of thing in other countries we're talking about cases where people are being imprisoned for long periods of time, seriously injured or killed for opposing the government. I view incidents like the pepper spray incident compared to what we've sometimes seen in other countries like the difference between spanking a kid and beating a kid. Not sure if I said that right or it makes sense. And I'm not saying I advocate pepper spraying people at will....I'm just saying It's not the same as the police opening fire on the crowd with live round, beating people senseless, or imprisoning them for ten years.

[Ax]

Those students were being arrested. They resisted arrest. They deserved what they got. The only thing they had to do was to go with the police the first time and they wouldn't have been sprayed.

I've been hit with pepper spray, btw. You get over it. It's uncomfortable for a short while and those students, I would assume (unless they're complete idiots, which is a possibility), had their eyes and mouths closed. So it shouldn't have been THAT bad. It's breathing it in at that point which would be annoying. It does sting the lungs a bit.

Also, I'm going to assume, that by the way he went about spraying them, that they issued fair warning. Those students got what they wanted. A Youtube video depicting "police brutality".

They need to grow up.

[slap_j]

New news—The Associated Press: Univ. police chief on leave after pepper spraying

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

The Facts That's an article about "passive" protesters being pepper sprayed. The reason I put passive in parenthesis is because from what I'm gathering the cops are claiming they were trying to move the protesters and when people refuse to move it's easier and safer to just make them so uncomfortable that they chose to move as opposed to forcibly physically moving them. What do ya'll think about that?

People have said this is how the cops are trained to do it and I don't know any better so I won't dispute that. Although I do think that Chancellor Katehi shouldn't have called cops to disperse the students for merely blocking a sidewalk. It wasn't like this was a protracted problem that necessitated a violent response.