I bet your debit card pin# is 3579.

But I'll just mind my own F**king Business.

The bit about needing credit card debt to build your credit score is not entirely true. There are a lot of other factors that go into a credit score.

I recently looked up mine and was amazed it's pretty high, even though I never use my credit card and very rarely use my line of credit. It seems just having the same account for a long time and always paying bills on time is enough. And with a debit card you get the convenience of a rectangle made of dead dinosaurs without borrowing money constantly.

I bicycle around, and the one thing I note about it is that I put myself in a situation to get run over every day. See, I live in Florida, so that goes without saying. Here, people don't give the right away to shit. Red light on turn, when I have the crosswalk sigh? Well fuck me.

I find this whole thing funny because I pay attention to people walking so freaking close to my car. I mean the guy could have carjacked her because of this inattention. The guy was pretty brass about it since he made sure to flag someone before falling. Lastly, if you're the van, you don't poke your fucking van out in the middle of the street without a view of both ways. It DOES NOT MATTER if traffic is stopped one way, you don't do it. By her constant need to turn this way and that, she could not obviously, or safely, see both ways.

Ironically I thought he fell in front of the Van, but then noticed he fell to the side of it. Bad day that it turned I myself would have noticed the turn signal... But as I said, I would have also noticed someone blatantly waving and approaching my vehicle...

Another point; some would say that identity theft is the fault of most victims. You leave something if your trash with information, don't regularly clear out your mailbox, pay with a debit card, etc...not sure if you have ever done those things but if you have you definitely opened yourself up for the fraud.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think there might be a few cases with debit type credit cards where your balance isn't checked immediately to validate the transaction, though I'd say these days that it must be pretty uncommon. I'm thinking of those old-fashioned imprint readers that you have to ratchet across the the card. Some taxis still use those here in Australia. Although my latest PayWave® Visa™ Debit card© doesn't even have raised numbers - so that wouldn't work.

I find this whole discussion fascinating. First, I would like to point out that my original reaction was to the statement "This is why you have an obesity problem, America.". I highly doubt that it is just because of a drive-through ATMs and I find that statement too flippant. I am in Canada, and I think we have an obesity problem, too, just probably not as bad as the folks down south. I think the core problem is diet and exercise.

Second, and again speaking only for Edmonton, Alberta, there aren't hundreds of these things around. I know of 2 drive-through ATMs in the whole south-west area of the city, and they are specifically at the large bank branches. They exist, there just aren't everywhere. The only people probably using them are folks that bank at that bank.

Third, as charliem mentioned, we also have hundreds of these mini-ATMs around everywhere. They are very convenient, but they come with a $1-3 transaction fee on top. Most of my transactions are with credit/debit cards, so cash is pretty rare. When I need it, I don't feel like handing out extra monies to 3rd parties. If I need some cash I will probably go to the bank near my house that has this drive-through. I doubt parking my car and going inside to the ATM will help me lose weight

Yup - the penny used to have inherent value as a monetary unit. Inflation has rendered that value just shy of inherently meaningless. Between writing checks and paying with debit cards, there is very little need for the physical penny any longer. Just round it to the nickel for cash transactions, and have non-cash transactions keep going to the penny. It's a good plan, and hopefully the US follows suit. At the same time let's make it illegal for gas stations to charge 9/10 of a cent...

I understand your confusion. I'm used to the conversations I have with my Chinese-American friends on the subject. Please let me explain:

While China has many "private" businesses along with the state-run organizations, the relatively new practice of allowing private business is something the Chinese government uses to promote their reputation. At the end of the day, China has a central bank. Not the way Americans have the Federal Reserve (which pisses me off sometimes too), but one bank with a few branches and absolutely no competitors. When I say that Chinese businesses are not private, it's because they all have to enter an agreement with the government in order to get the money to operate or even use the banking system at all.

So let's forget for a moment that China is a communist country with the express right to seize any-and-all assets of any corporation run by its citizens. Can you imagine how you would feel if you went to apply for a small loan for your business or family and had to apply directly to the government? Would that feel like freedom to you? And if you got rejected, there's no Chase down the street to apply at. There's no small credit union offering you a deal to try and lower your rates; just the government, the same one that will decide the terms of how you will run your business according to the law.

Now, that's all well and good if you're Apple or Oreo, and making a return for that same government banking system is practically guaranteed. But the Chinese government and it's people all have a vested interest in the business you do, and allowing your business to fail is not an option they're going to take lightly. Which means that everything your business will do is subject to that opinion, along with the final approval before they'll issue you so much as a debit card.

I think that's what my friends mean when they say that the government is an equal partner.

And I'm not necessarily saying that the American system is better. But less free?

>> ^longde:

That is not true. While there are many state owned companies, there are many companies that are entirely private.


>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^renatojj:
United States knows the importance of free speech but doesn't have a free economy. China is reaping the benefits of a freer economy but is still scared of free speech.

You do know that in China, the government is an equal partner in every business right? I mean, you do know it right?
That's your idea of a free economy?
Nope, notice I said freer, not free.

Durbin cites a Federal Reserve study which estimated the actual cost of the transactions. I'll trust that and not your uncited assertion.

And as Durbin says, the entire reason this is necessary is because of the Mastercard/Visa duopoly. If it were a free market, you're right -- it would be stupid for the government to step in and regulate this.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As with all things, go where you are happy. But realize that this colossal moron (Durbin) is the reason why BoA (and eventually everyone else) is charging you 5 bucks a month for a debit card. It was his rider that put a cap on the fee BoA could charge to vendors.
That $5 a month you're so mad about? Yeah - you've been paying it all your life. Banks have always charged vendors for credit transactions. And they don't cost 'pennies'. Such a statement demonstrates astounding ignorance about finances. It costs major cash to handle all the transactions that happen on a daily basis. The more convenient it became, the more EXPENSIVE it became. Yeesh.
So when Dummy Durbin puts his STUPID rider in the FRA, it capped what banks could charge vendors. Banks got to make up that cost. That means the money you USED to pay in slightly higher costs at the vendor is now directly going from you to the bank instead of through the middleman.
Will there be a decrease of costs at the vendor level to match it? Who knows? But you lunkheads whining about having to pay the bank fee for what you were used to getting for free have only one logical target. Dummy Dick Durbin and his party stupid Democrats. Getting mad at the bank is literal hubris.

As with all things, go where you are happy. But realize that this colossal moron (Durbin) is the reason why BoA (and eventually everyone else) is charging you 5 bucks a month for a debit card. It was his rider that put a cap on the fee BoA could charge to vendors.

That $5 a month you're so mad about? Yeah - you've been paying it all your life. Banks have always charged vendors for credit transactions. And they don't cost 'pennies'. Such a statement demonstrates astounding ignorance about finances. It costs major cash to handle all the transactions that happen on a daily basis. The more convenient it became, the more EXPENSIVE it became. Yeesh.

So when Dummy Durbin puts his STUPID rider in the FRA, it capped what banks could charge vendors. Banks got to make up that cost. That means the money you USED to pay in slightly higher costs at the vendor is now directly going from you to the bank instead of through the middleman.

Will there be a decrease of costs at the vendor level to match it? Who knows? But you lunkheads whining about having to pay the bank fee for what you were used to getting for free have only one logical target. Dummy Dick Durbin and his party stupid Democrats. Getting mad at the bank is literal hubris.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

I'm just surprised. It's one thing to know that U.S. corporations don't like paying taxes, but another to read it in the report.
>> ^rottenseed:

I didn't make it up, it's right there publicly reported!!!>> ^oritteropo:
Really? That says that, rounded to the nearest percent, they really did pay 0% of gross profits in tax, and 10% net.
>> ^rottenseed:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:
So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

I didn't make it up, it's right there publicly reported!!!>> ^oritteropo:

Really? That says that, rounded to the nearest percent, they really did pay 0% of gross profits in tax, and 10% net.
>> ^rottenseed:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:
So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

Really? That says that, rounded to the nearest percent, they really did pay 0% of gross profits in tax, and 10% net.
>> ^rottenseed:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:
So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:

So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

Yea I understood that after I could not edit the comment anymore. Makes sense to have insurance like that on a bank. Thanks for the info.

In reply to this comment by davidraine:
>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Issykitty:
Bank of ASS... I can't wait until you implode because you will have brought it on yourselves.

Yea but it fucks everyone who has an account there doesnt it.
"Dear Sir/Madame,
You are a bank of America account holder, for no reason what so ever on your part, you now have a balance of 0. Thank you, fuck yourself again please "


Except that every account is FDIC insured up to $250,000 specifically to prevent things like that.