OH BURN!
Sadly that corporation bought my mortgage.

I'm not religious, but that's what I would refer to as someone keeping their soul.

(NO IT'S NOT A BLACK SLUR PUN EITHER)

I think it's pretty stupid company policy to antagonize your own customers. But if that's how BoA chooses to handle their clients, then that's their decision. This gal makes no bones about it. She admits she was violating company rules, disobeying the orders of her superiors, and disregarding the terms of her employment. She got fired for it. Duh.

She's not the CEO of Bank of America. She isn't the branch manager. She isn't the department manager. She's not even the 'senior customer service representative'. She's an entry level clerk with 5 months on the job. The right thing would have been to quit the job herself the second she found out how BoA runs its shop and give them a bellyfull in the exit interview.

It is pretty much a national pasttime for entry level employees to carp about the company they work for as if they were the CEO and know how to run things. And I've never met a single person in my entire life who was fired from a job but who couldn't spin a moving, heartbreaking yarn about how evil and unfair the company was for doing it.

usury.
thats what it was called many years ago.
to lend someone money at interest was considered parasitic and people who engaged in the practice were killed.
thats right...death.
bankers are a parasite on society.they produce nothing,create nothing (except debt,owed to them)and add nothing of substantial value to society.

in this century alone financial institutions were regulated in regard to interest.that all changed in the 80's and ever since the interest started to creep up,hidden charges,"convenience fees".the fractional monetary system is the biggest ponzi scheme going and the federal reserve has it locked.

i applaud this young lady for recognizing that she was stepping on peoples faces to get a paycheck.will someone replace her?of course!there is always someone willing to subjugate others to benefit themselves,but not this young woman.good for her.

how many out there can truly say they would do the same as this young lady?
i know i would because i have.cost that company a pretty penny too.
what worth is a paycheck at the detriment of another?or many?
how far would you go?at what depth would you dig?where would you draw the line?
the subjugation of my fellow man is not worth any amount of money.thats my philosophy anyways,seems its this young womans also.
bravo young lady.

Pennypacker, I think you missed the point of this girls story. These banks are predatory, and that's not something worth debating as it's nature is something even the highest ceo's will attest to (and they attest to it by placing blame on the consumer, as you do, while raking in the profits... are you raking in these profits too? What makes someone defend parasites like these?) A fair warning is what this vid is all about.

Do we want to live in this society...or do we stand up to corporate tyranny?

It amazes me how people who are so against government tyranny will bend over and take it hard from a corporation. No freedom of movement or initiative beyond the bare minimum is permissible from government, even to the benefit the people. But any transgression is permissible if you are answering to shareholders.

She's a real life Winston Smith for sure.

I think it is worth mentioning, amongst all this discussion of the characteristics of a bank, that this is the product of capitalism. It's a dehumanising structure where a the only virtues are production and consumption.

When you call them your wait time is decided by how much money you have in your account.

I'll shoot this a *quality, even though I have no problem with corporations doing this. Welcome to America, where the bottom line is more important than you are

Tymbrwulf cannot award a quality point for this post because Tymbrwulf does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by Tymbrwulf. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

Lets try that again, *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Tymbrwulf.

Yes, corporations are evil and yes, this woman's actions were honorable but, you can't make a video like this and claim "I'm not doing this because I'm bitter." Especially with that last little dig at her ex-boss, she sounded pretty bitter to me. As she should be.

I don't think 'bitter' more 'disappointed'. She clearly did not like the veiled attempt at 'customer care' which was in fact more like 'give us the money and f**k off' - she was hired to do her job, but it seems BoA is kidding itself with the role, pretending its helping customer when in fact discreeting trying to ensure high turnover of profot from fees etc.

For a financial institution to be not trying to remove debts. (If this indeed the case) is quite reprehensible.

She just couldn't kid herself she was 'helping' people when the policy she followed, did not really help. To be fair, I would have to verify all, but if what she is saying is true, then its pretty grim. Banks should be making profit off services, not manipulating people and screwing them over once locked in with fees fees fess.

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

>> ^alizarin:
When you call them your wait time is decided by how much money you have in your account.


Is that true? I doubt it -but it sounds like the kind of thing that could be true.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Yes, corporations are evil and yes, this woman's actions were honorable but, you can't make a video like this and claim "I'm not doing this because I'm bitter." Especially with that last little dig at her ex-boss, she sounded pretty bitter to me. As she should be.


And she didn't say she wasnt bitter, she said she didnt do the video because she was bitter. I thought this was a story justified, bitter or not. She did the video to tell that story, good enough for me.


But I cannot fucking get over her "akxs" Its A S K, how fucking difficult is that?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan: But I cannot fucking get over her "akxs" Its A S K, how fucking difficult is that?

It's called a dialect.

I don't suppose you go around trying to correct the pronunciation of people speaking in cochney or australian dialects. Why do you feel justified in doing so just because the population using the dialect is prominently black?

So, she is upset that Bank Of America issues credit cards that have an agreed upon interest rate upfront and then try and claim the money when it is not paid? That is what all businesses do, most just collect up front. While Bank Of America may have some shady practices most of what she said is the obvious way any credit card company should work.

30% interest and added 'convenience' fees are not how 'any credit card company should work'.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^BicycleRepairMan: But I cannot fucking get over her "akxs" Its A S K, how fucking difficult is that?
It's called a dialect.
I don't suppose you go around trying to correct the pronunciation of people speaking in cochney or australian dialects. Why do you feel justified in doing so just because the population using the dialect is prominently black?


Pronouncing a single wovel differently than another part of the world does is one thing, switching two consonants, however, is not. I was terribly annoyed by this as well and I am sure your allegations of racism are completely unwarranted.

p.s. Actually, I think this is the first time I have ever disagreed upon anything with you, dgandhi. I'm glad it's such a trivial matter though (pronunciation, I mean).

What does switching two consonants have to do with it?

The fact is, 'aks' is not a standard american english pronunciation. There are many US-based dialects that don't use the pronunciation in the dictionary---New Englanders, folks in the mid-west, Texans, southern rednecks come to mind. Though some call them out on it, its really not seen as a big deal compared to african american deviations. That's why bushie could get elected president while saying 'nucular', among other things.

I, for one, think that the purpose of language is to be understood, and the beauty of the english language is its malleability, as has been proven over time. So, aks away.

This may scare you, but your great-grand children may one day make the opposite correction in annoyance "Say 'aks', not ;ask'".

I guess Youtube has become the modern therapy session.

>> ^dag:
>> ^alizarin:
When you call them your wait time is decided by how much money you have in your account.

Is that true? I doubt it -but it sounds like the kind of thing that could be true.


A friend of mine in banking told me that in a conversation about how Bank of America culture is mean-spirited in general relative to other banks.

Re: Ask vs. Aks
Aks is in the dictionary as one of the pronunciations of the word ask. In some dictionaries it shows up as its own word as well with the same meaning as ask. I love it when ignorant people claim they are smarter than others, hilarious. You could have looked it up before commenting about how wrong it is and then you wouldn't seem so dumb.
-Karl

I think it's great that it's in the dictionary, but I am a lexical anarchist. I hate it when people put too much emphasis on what some editors put in a big book. English is not defined by the dictionary; at best the dictionary is a weak reflection of the english language, a weak approximation.

I loved this video as it is first hand account of what many consider to be common knowledge. It also shows that the lowly employee at the bottom sometimes have more business sense than the people at the top. Her helping people pay off their debt is a great long-term strategy for the company. Them wanting to keep the people least likely to be able to pay saddled with the most debt is extremely short term thinking as the company is increasing the likeleyhood that those loans will ever get paid at all. While it looks good on their current spreadsheet because they are owed more money and at a high interest in the long term they will have to write off much of that when the loans fail. Bosses at the top probably care more about keeping the poor down than collecting more money since they already have plenty for themselves and many generations of their families to come. Meanwhile the customers and most shareholders suffer in the long term... until the people at the top find themselves under the guillotine of course (sad inevitability unless the people at the top mend their ways)

-Karl

Someone PLEASE HIRE HER NOW. If I had a job for her, I would immediately. Best to her in whatever path she follows.

I worked as a teller for BoA for a while (like 5 months after college while looking a job in my field) and really had no bad experiences with it. Yeah it wasn't the same as working with a collections department, but to say that all of BoA is concerned only with profits and hates other banks and all that isn't really true. We had to go out of our way to help people whether they had hardly any money, or millions (we had a couple Dallas Mavericks come in sometimes).

My wife and I are huge savers, so the thought of credit card debt is very foreign to me. It sounds like this "program" that people get qualified for is some kind of debt consolidation payment plan system. If you get denied, it sounds like you just need to use one of the other businesses whose function is doing that.

I'm not sure how much benefit BoA would really get from going out of their way to help out the debters, I really can't picture them paying off their debt and then opening up a new credit card with BoA and starting it all over again...

and about her speaking ("aks")... I'm sure compared to a lot of people in Georgia, she speaks very well.

or maybe she's from the future (futurama).

I don't mind people using the word "aks," as long as they're speaking Old English before 1600. Or getting me my fried chicken and watermelon.

>> ^swedishfriend:
Re: Ask vs. Aks
Aks is in the dictionary as one of the pronunciations of the word ask. In some dictionaries it shows up as its own word as well with the same meaning as ask. I love it when ignorant people claim they are smarter than others, hilarious. You could have looked it up before commenting about how wrong it is and then you wouldn't seem so dumb.
-Karl

Usury - thats what it was called many years ago. To lend someone money at interest was considered parasitic and people who engaged in the practice were killed.

Without profits, banks can't function. Without banks, no one can borrow money for homes, cars, educations, etc... If you can't meet the terms of a loan, then don't spend the money (duh). There are banks who are "aggressive lenders", true but it isn't a problem without the second partner in the tango - "stupid borrowers". The onus is on the borrower to have the sense to NOT spend borrowed money they can't afford. Regulations provide a framework with ample consumer protections and information. I don't blame legally operating banks when borrowers exceed their means. Banks aren't your daddy and it isn't their job to control your spending.

Pennypacker, I think you missed the point of this girls story.

I understood quite clearly. She's a fired employee telling a story where she portrays herself as an unfairly treated saint tilting at the windmill of a heartless, evil bank who is twirling its moustache as it gleefully curbstomps weeping grandmothers, orphans, babies, and puppies. I deem her boss & co-workers could tell a much different story...

Even if her story is remotely accurate (very debatable) then the only germaine fact is that she was fired with cause. Everything else is whining about how she wants BoA to run its business. That's not her call. Sister - if you think you have a better business model with less 'evil' then open your own bank. Don't be surprised one day when some fired entry level clerk makes a video talking about YOUR evil business practices though...

It amazes me how people who are so against government tyranny will bend over and take it hard from a corporation.

No corporation has the power to make me do something stupid. When a bank offers a credit card, I don't take it. When a mortgage company asks if I want a re-fi, I say "No thanks!". When I see a sport's car I can't afford I DON'T BUY IT. See how that works? As a result of not being stupid, I have zero debts, a nice home, 2 cars, and money to spend & lend. And guess what? No company has any power over my life. Guess who is the only entity with power to make my life miserable? That's right. Government. Because they can make/change laws, rig the system, and confiscate property. In other words - they can behave tyrannically. Companies can only do that if I give them power by acting stupidly. Government can take that power without my consent.

>> ^EDDwitching two consonants, however, is not.

African American Vernacular English (AAVE), is a well documented dialect of English. AAVE does have the k consonant swap in ask, which is something that linguists study, such swaps have historical precedent in other English dialects. Why do we feel comfortable assuming that all the dialects used by white people are "valid", but that AAVE is just an "incorrect" attempt at Standard American English (SAE)?

I was terribly annoyed by this as well and I am sure your allegations of racism are completely unwarranted.

I was not as much making an accusation, as asking a question about the license our society gives us to comment only on the language variance of historically oppressed people. I'm not accusing BRM specifically, but I am asking a question about a societal norm that has racist implications.

>> ^EmptyFriend:
I worked as a teller for BoA for a while (like 5 months after college while looking a job in my field) and really had no bad experiences with it. Yeah it wasn't the same as working with a collections department, but to say that all of BoA is concerned only with profits and hates other banks and all that isn't really true. We had to go out of our way to help people whether they had hardly any money, or millions (we had a couple Dallas Mavericks come in sometimes).

Of course the tellers are nice. That's part of your front end business/marketing team. Make the customer feel comfortable with you. "Hey come have some cookies" and "how may I help you today sir/ma'am?" Get them to think that you're their friend and you're on their side. Then suggest that you have a new promotion on a credit card with a really low interest rate that's available exclusively for BofA members. Make them feel like their part of the "team". Then when they bite, you exploit them with all of the things written in the fine print in that contract they signed.

I'm not a fan of government getting their dick-skinners into business. But as far as these predatory credit card scams...I don't know why the government hasn't made strict guidelines as to how a bank must conduct itself. I mean, doing so doesn't have to mean banks have to stop making money or have to lose money. I'm just saying the government needs to protect those less savvy about credit and debt and keep the banks from exploiting these poor fools.

In many cases, the bank is fucking up a person's life for an unnecessary extra 15%

Whew, the stench of self-righteousness from anti-capitalism crybabies is overpowering.

While it would be nice if the bank assisted certain customers on compassionate grounds, it has no legal or moral responsibility to do so. My credit is shit, but it's my own fault. People need to take responsibility for their own spending. Bad things happen in life, of course, but that doesn't absolve them of their responsibility. I'm not a heartless bastard; that's just the way life is.

Customers need to know the terms of their agreement with their lender, and employees need to know the policies and expectations of their employer. If you have a problem with those terms and policies, go elsewhere. It really is that simple.

People bitch about how evil the bank is. They're providing a service that people seek. These "evil corporations" allow people to buy things they may otherwise not be able to afford, like cars and houses. Perhaps they'd prefer to ride a bike and live in a tent, but then I suppose they wouldn't be asking the bank for help. You may not like their fees, interest rates, or how inflexible they are, but if you signed on the dotted line, deal with it.

Then when they bite, you exploit them with all of the things written in the fine print in that contract they signed.

People keep acting like bank credit with interest is some 'secret'. Everyone knows that credit cards have high interest rates and fees. When a bank hits you with fees then you pay off the balance and cancel the account. Or (better) never run a balance and you'll never have a fee. Or (best) never borrow money from a bank. It isn't complicated.

Also, some are acting as if banks should behave like altruists. It's as if you are pretending the world is Bedford Falls, that banks are the Building & Loan, and bankers are George Bailey. No no no... Customers must walk into the bank with the mindset that they are dealing with Mr. Potter. Banks sell a useful, but dangerous product. If you are smart and careful you can come out well. If you are stupid and careless you will lose every time. Pretending that banks should act like friendly charities is foolish.

I don't know why the government hasn't made strict guidelines as to how a bank must conduct itself.

They did. The government was the entity that opened the 'free money' floodgates by repealing Glass-Steagal because they wanted more people buying homes & cars. Banks were cool with it because it allowed them to be one-stop-shops, repackage debt into paper commodities, and government promised Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would cover it all. Government set the table & provided the food. Banks sold the tickets to the banquet. Customers gorged until they ruptured internally. Three parties were involved, and the blame is shared by all three equally.

I'm just saying the government needs to protect those less savvy about credit and debt and keep the banks from exploiting these poor fools.

I'm all for the concept, but how do you implement it? Force everyone to take a class or sit down with a lawyer before they can get a loan? I don't think that will help except maybe 1 case in a million. Almost no-one goed to banks with the delusion that they don't have to make payments or incur interest.

I volunteer time as a sort of career/money counseller to help people out of financial trouble. I've sat down and explained the whole 'never borrow money because of interest...' formula very patiently and clearly. It doesn't matter. People hear the speech, and turn right around and get in debt to the gills buying crap they didn't need. They don't want to sell the stuff and pay the bill either. They want someone to pay the bill or absolve the debt so they can keep their stuff. That's just the way human beings are. So forcing banks to sit people down and go through a "here is how debt & interest work" education is helpful, but will not make the problem go away.

The only sure fire way to 'protect these fools' (as you put it) is to have the banks use a means-testing system by which they deny credit to 'risky borrowers'. "Sorry - we're not lending you money for your own safety." That's a recipie just asking for a lather-rinse-repeat of the whole 'red lining' accusation in the 90s. Can't win for losing. Banks are 'evil' if they expect to be paid back.... Banks are 'evil' if they refuse to lend money to people who can't afford it... Nice catch 22.

Wall of text crits you for 1400hp. You die.

That's because it's quick and easy to sling baseless accusations and populist rhetoric. A factual, reasoned discussion of issues requires a bit more weight.

A friend told me this story a few months back. To the best of my recollection this is how it went.

Fri - He had an account balance of $100+
Fri - ATM deposit of a payroll check for $1200+.
Sat - 3 separate transaction all between $10-$25. Paid with his debit card.
Sat - 4th transaction was $150+. Also paid with debit card.

After receiving his monthly bank statement he noticed he was charged $25 overdraft fees for each of the above transactions. With a phone call and a visit to his bank he found out how they processed his transactions. Debits first, largest to smallest and then credits.

1. Original balance of $100+
2. $150+ (Above balance was applied to this debit leaving his balance at -$50ish (charged $25 overdraft fee)
3-5. $10-$25 (3 separate $25 overdraft charges)
6. Payroll check credited to his account.

He was told new banking rules allowed them to now process transactions this way. Tell me that's not bullshit. I fucking hate banks. They did however refund his overdraft charges.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No corporation has the power to make me do something stupid. When a bank offers a credit card, I don't take it. When a mortgage company asks if I want a re-fi, I say "No thanks!". When I see a sport's car I can't afford I DON'T BUY IT. See how that works? As a result of not being stupid, I have zero debts, a nice home, 2 cars, and money to spend & lend. And guess what? No company has any power over my life. Guess who is the only entity with power to make my life miserable? That's right. Government. Because they can make/change laws, rig the system, and confiscate property. In other words - they can behave tyrannically. Companies can only do that if I give them power by acting stupidly. Government can take that power without my consent.


If you think companies don't have power over your life or affect the quality of your life, you are not paying attention.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to transfer your accounts to a local bank. They should be able to affect local and remote bill payments...it is 2009...unless the socialist have taken over.

I like this woman's morals

But I have a hard time understanding why people who can't afford to use credit cards get them at all, and with such high limits on the credit. (I'm not referring to the woman in this story with a $6,000 debt because I don't know the reason why she is in debt)

The only kind of card I have is a debit card because I don't live beyond my means. If I can't afford things that I want, I don't buy them. It's a simple plan to follow.
If you're using credit cards when you're in a financial crisis to pay for other bills or whatever it is that you must pay that's a really short term fix for the problem and not really a solution at all unless you know for certain that things will get much better in the very near future.

I guess I don't understand because I've never been in a situation where I've needed to go into debt just to survive (if that is what some of people with credit card debts do). Where I live there are safety nets so that won't ever happen unless you mess up really bad. If I get a serious illness public health insurance is there and I won't have to deal with medical bills. If i lose my job I won't risk being without food and a place to live.

But I hope not all credit card debt is because of irresponsible consumption and that most people with credit card debt can't find a new job or is in some kind of crisis and don't have anything to fall back on.
Maybe society is wrong for letting it happen but banks aren't helping by making the situation worse for those people. As many have already pointed out the banks aren't doing any good for themselves in the long run or the customer by kicking them when they're down so it's just bad for everyone involved.

I do have a student loan of almost $40.000 at an interest of 2.1% that made it possibly for me to study where I wanted. I took a loan so that I can pay for my student apartment. Not so that I could buy nice clothes, a new computer, a car or anything that I didn't need. Sure, I don't *need* the education either but to me it's an investment that I won't have any problem at all to pay of. Even if I wouldn't find a job for, let's say, 10 years I would have no problem with paying the interest.
It's a ridiculously low risk loan. A credit card is not.

If you think companies don't have power over your life or affect the quality of your life, you are not paying attention.

Please elaborate. I do not see how any company can possibly effect the quality of my life currently because I'm not in debt to them. They can't take my possessions. They can't charge me fees. They can't take my money. They can't take my car or my home. They can't force me to alter how I live or act. I'm not in a position where I have allowed myself to be vulnerable to such things.

Are you talking about the financial collapse? I've come through it totally uneffected. No brag. Just fact. I was smart. I didn't borrow money I didn't need. I didn't engage in risky investments. I didn't flip properties, buy cars I couldn't afford, or anything else. Because I played it smart, the crisis has gone by and it hasn't touched me.

ahhhhhh axed to death.

student loan
you haven't escaped into the real world.

winston.
you purchase gas?buy food?wear clothes?
then you are directly affected.
live near other people?neighbors perhaps?
then you are indirectly affected.
the indoctrination and immersion of pop culture in america is at saturation point.
most americans (maybe not you,but the majority) define their self worth by what they own and what they can buy.a citizens social worth is based on his ability to purchase,consume and keep this economy afloat and this is re-enforced by our media,schools and other social institutions.it is as insidious as it is subtle.
so yeah,you are affected even if you wish to believe you are not.

the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didnt exist.

>> ^eric3579:
A friend told me this story a few months back. To the best of my recollection this is how it went.
Fri - He had an account balance of $100+
Fri - ATM deposit of a payroll check for $1200+.
Sat - 3 separate transaction all between $10-$25. Paid with his debit card.
Sat - 4th transaction was $150+. Also paid with debit card.
After receiving his monthly bank statement he noticed he was charged $25 overdraft fees for each of the above transactions. With a phone call and a visit to his bank he found out how they processed his transactions. Debits first, largest to smallest and then credits.
1. Original balance of $100+
2. $150+ (Above balance was applied to this debit leaving his balance at -$50ish (charged $25 overdraft fee)
3-5. $10-$25 (3 separate $25 overdraft charges)
6. Payroll check credited to his account.
He was told new banking rules allowed them to now process transactions this way. They did however refund his overdraft charges. Tell me that's not bullshit. I fucking hate banks.


Oh yes... my bank has tried pulling crap like this, and I believe there was/is a class action lawsuit against them for similar dishonest practices. I've unfortunately been with my particular shitty ass bank for over 10 yrs, and they've tried to slip in monthly checking charges under my nose, along with an annual credit card fee for a card that is not supposed to have any fees whatsoever as long as I use it a least once a year, and they have REALLY pissed me off when they tried to charge me for some bullshit "credit protection plan" that I never signed up for, and I had to yell at them to take those charges off, which they did. Don't even get me started on the BoA credit card I once had. I think I told the story on VS somewhere... I ripped them a new one when they tried to jack my rate up from zero percent to 29.9 because my mailed payment was somehow "lost." I'd never cursed over the phone so much, EVAR. Ah, good times. Dump your bank for a credit union!

BTW, this woman is now unemployable. No company would hire an insubordinate employee who does whistleblowing youtubes. Welcome to the homeless shelter, you made the correct choice (irony intended).

@marinara

That's right, she'll never be one of the 'have mores', and you can spit on her for making you feel souless. Point is, she's made her choice and I love her.

It's a dog eat dog world, girl. You became weak and this is what you get.

you purchase gas?buy food?wear clothes? then you are directly affected.

The context of my comments on 'no company has power to effect me' is in regards to the topic of this video - a company's power to limit my freedoms, control my actions, confiscate my wealth & property, and otherwise effect the way that I live and behave. The gal in the vid is talking about the bank directly effecting people's lives in a negative way by taking their wealth, limiting their ability to engage in commerce, and causing them mental & emotional pain. They have put themselves in a situation where the bank has power to do that. I have not. Therefore I can say that "no company (or bank) has the power to effect my life".

I'm not talking about the obvious effect that purchasing ANY good or service can have on a person's life. Obviously when I buy food, clothes, and other things those purchase 'effect my life' by providing me sustainance, warmth, pleasure, or whatever. And naturally since a company produced those goods the company will 'effect' my life second-hand by supplying those items. But I was discussing things beyond that simple level of "Companies manufacture objects which exist and that I can see, feel, touch and interact with - so they effect me".

Dump your bank for a credit union!

I tend to agree. Some small banks are pretty good though, but (sadly) small banks are a rare, dying breed. They get snapped up by regional & national chains like Pac-Man dots and then the nice, reasonable bank you've been dealing with for years becomes a whole 'nuther animal.

@ "Capitalism" Defenders:

Why do you reject government interference in the marketplace yet accept the market distorting charter of preferential protections to corporations, particularly with regard to political influence? The concentration of wealth, and thus power in corporate America is startling to say the least. You say no corporation has a hold on you, but I call BS. They control you at every turn, through lobbying, wages, and market manipulation. Don't kid yourself.

This is particularly the case with the most unfortunate amongst us. Those most likely to be interacting with BoA's "Customer Services" department. You talk about buying sports cars you shouldn't... how about paying your heating bill so your kid doesn't freeze? You'd be able to afford it if you weren't getting gouged on the interest payments for the debt you needed to accumulate during hard times. The sad fact is that many of these people are being perfectly responsible, they've just been trapped in the cycle of stagnating wages and predatory consumer debt. It's no secret, but that doesn't make it efficient, sustainable, or justifiable.

The FDIC should hire her to enforce the Truth in Lending laws. If someone is breaking the law she should throw food on their shoes. Cause that's how civil people do it.

There is no reason for a bank to charge 29.999% interest. It is usury.

Banks ALREADY get 2-7% from the total amount people spend by charging the retailer for accepting the card.

Massive interest rates are just them trying to milk every last cent from people who can't afford it.

*humanitarian

Adding video to channels (Humanitarian) - requested by calvados.

A friend of mine registered a domain name, http://www.thievingwhores.com/ its a redirect to bankofamerica.com

Why do you reject government interference in the marketplace yet accept the market distorting charter of preferential protections to corporations, particularly with regard to political influence?

Companies are not elected officials and have no moral imperative to behave as stewards of the public good. Politicians are elected by constituents with the specific charge to be responsible for protecting the public and therefore they bear the greater onus. There is also a thing called the First Ammendment which allows everyone (paupers to bazillionaires) the right to petition. You do not make a compelling case to regulate company lobbyists. However, you DO make a good case for putting unbreakable, strangling limits on what GOVERNMENT is and isn't allowed to do.

They control you at every turn, through lobbying, wages, and market manipulation. Don't kid yourself.

No - they don't. I'm an individual who is in charge of my own destiny. Going around life with the attitude that happiness/future/destiny is not in your own direct control is to live in fetters of your own forging. Such an attitude is one of the most poisonous products of left-wing ideology. It blames all your problems on someone else and never even tries to grasp at human potential. It is loathesome.

You'd be able to afford it if you weren't getting gouged on the interest payments for the debt you needed to accumulate during hard times.

There is never a time you 'need' credit card debt. If the terms of a loan are unacceptable then do not borrow the money. Credit statistics in the US prove conclusively that the vast majority of debt purchases in the US are on luxuries (cars, major appliances, entertainment, fast food). it is not "needed debt during the hard times". It is "excess debt during the GOOD times". Stupid debt spending inevitably results in bringing the 'hard times' on yourself eventually.

The FDIC should hire her to enforce the Truth in Lending laws.

I've discussed this above. The law could force all loan officers to wear Devil costumes and talk in "Mr. Burns" voices... Laws could make loan papers have Biohazard, Nuclear, Viral, and Poison symbols in huge flashing neon on every page.... Laws could force you to sign with a pen covered with used hypordermic needles, wasps, scorpions, and flaming dog poo. Laws could require the Lost In Space robot to dash into the room, scratching a chalkboard, blasting a hockey horn, yelling "Warning! Warning! Debt is dangerous! Do not do it! Think of the children!"

It wouldn't matter diddly-squat. This is not a question of ignorance. No one goes into debt 'not knowing' they will have interest or that they will have fees & charges if they fall arrears.

winston,
i think we can agree that we have differing philosophies.
that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.
1.in the 1800's a corporation was a temporary venture between different companies to achieve a common goal,the charter was only allowed if it was for the "common good".when the goal was achieved the corporation was dissolved i.e:the brooklyn bridge.
2.after the civil war a few creative lawyers used the newly written 14th amendment,installed to protect newly freed slaves rights,to create limited liability corporations that would not have to dissolve but rather flourish and have rights as a person.even though a corporation is not an actual person.
3.in the the 1960's (if i recall correctly) lawyers once again got creative and lobbied to have the "for the common good" removed from the corporate charter.which in essence took any morality out of the corporate charter leaving profit as it's sole impetus.
4.a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection.why?because the government is for the people and by the people (in theory at least) and with corporation no longer bound by law to do "common good" it is the last line of defense.
a.the reason i state this is because many people echo the "free market" line.what we have now is nothing close to a "free market".when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.
b.i use adam smith and milton friedman as examples to make my point.for both of these men were huge proponents of the free market but for both of these economists plans to work there needed to be an equal playing field.how can we have a free market when international conglomerates own our political leaders?they own the media so they control the message.

we are a republic.what makes us a democratic republic is our right to vote but if the message is controlled the vote will be slanted by that propaganda.the last thing our government,corporations and financial institutions want is an informed citizenry.

there are two more points i would like to make.
1.you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations.
ok.if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie"?
you my friend have been snookered into buying into a polemic paradigm that does not, in reality, exist.the message has permeated your views on people who may think or feel different than yourself.humanity is a far more diverse grouping than TWO ways of thinking,feeling,being.
2.i also saw that you put the responsibilty on the borrower.that in itself is not an entirely incorrect statement BUT according to the GOA it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.i could go into further details but there is plenty of information out there to back this statement up.

in summary:
corporations can,and do,much good but they can also do incredible amounts of damage.the way the system is set up it comes down to cost/ benefit every time and maybe that needs to be changed,but when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice.

on a personal note.winston,you sound like a pretty stand up guy but do not project your integrity onto a corporation.they would eliminate you in a heart beat if it profited them.also...dont be so quick to judge those who you do not know,understand or walked one inch in their shoes.life happens and sometimes it aint pretty.
i enjoy our conversations winston.
till next time...peace.

that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.

I am not one who is threatened by hearing other points of view. Have no fears concerning my mental status. I recommend that you yourself also do not have any need to feel threatened when I point out that some of what you call 'historical context' is - in fact - personal opinion and interpretation.

a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection

No argument. That's government's only real role in this matter.

when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.

I will argue again that the real issue here is not 'corporations buying legislators'. The problem is corrupt legislators. Companies can't 'buy' what isn't 'for sale'. Again - your argument when you strip away the rhetoric is not against companies. Your argument is one that calls for greater limits on government.

you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations

Specifically, I have claimed that no company controls my life. And they don't.

if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie

To accurately (though informally) describe persons of a specific political philosophy.

it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.

Please supply your sourcing for this claim. If 80% of lending was 'fraudulent' as you claim, there would be massive prosecutions going on. There are no such prosecutions, because the lending agencies were (in fact) operating within the law. In harsh reality, many of the so-called 'predatory' lending tactics were encouraged by the federal government for the express purpose of increasing the number of people with homes (see repeal of Glass-Steagal).

when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice

Yes - by changing the political system so that politicians are held accountable for their actions. By not allowing politicians to pass laws without full disclosure, 75% full congressional majority votes, and tons of other restrictions that would prevent them from being able to influence the system. The problem is not companies. The problem is politicians who are never held accountable.

All political offices should have a single term limit, and then the candidate is banned for life from all political activity except voting in congresional & presidential elections. Politicians should not be elected. They shoudl be randomly drawn up for service akin to jury duty. All laws should require a 75% majority vote of the entire congress before passing. Only one law should be allowed per bill - no 'omnibus' bills. If some 'bad event' happens that is tied to the passage of a specific law, then all the politicians who voted for that law should be the ones held responsible. And on and on...

I've literally got a BILLION great ideas along these lines of "How to stop corporations from influencing the political system by imposing limits on politicians."

Regardless of all that has been said here thus far between two very strong debates...

Regardless of all the valid points, counterpoints, quotes, citations, facts and opinions...

Regardless of all the pain-bodies and ego's lurching for a personal victory...


It is simply nice to see one, (the girl), act with empathy in an often sobering world.

then i guess we agree but word things differently.
fair enough.
but historical context is not opinion.
while we could discuss the whole "winner writes history" which is a great discussion,what i posted had nothing to do with opinion but is factual.
we have a right to our own opinion but not to our own facts.
i agree wholeheartedly on your points on corruption in politics but i disagree that corporations should not be held accountable.
that whole "boys will be boys" mentality is naive and dangerous thinking and historically has always been detrimental to a society as a whole.
you are correct that much of what these lenders did was lawful.laws in which these institutions spent billions in either redressing or outright dismissing.understand that cost/benefit is the impetus for every corporation.it is not desire or an evil malevolence but legal.corporations are legally bound to put profit above all else.so if company A has the option to either spend 400 million to clean up its pollution or pay 3 million in fines.company A will pay the fines.the shareholder benefits while the local township suffers.it is a bizzaro system and needs to be addressed.i believe the statistics can be found at the government office of accounting.believe or disbelieve,your choice.

this is the very same impetus that had financial institutions lobby to repeal the myriad protection laws from post-depression in order to maximize profits.remember,america went from a manufacturing economy to a financial one in the 80's,this has been a long time in the making and is a perfect example of the damage that corporations can do unwittingly if allowed free reign.

i highly recommend peter schiff's book "crash proof".it details far better than i how we came to be in this situation.

If anyone hears that she got a job, I would sure like it if they posted about it here.

>> ^enoch:
it is not desire or an evil malevolence but legal.corporations are legally bound to put profit above all else.


...and that is the greatest market distortion of all.

i agree wholeheartedly on your points on corruption in politics but i disagree that corporations should not be held accountable

Define what you mean by 'held accountable'. Held accountable for what, specifically? Folks keeps saying "hold companies accountable" but then in the same breath they freely acknowledge that the companies "did nothing illegal". I'm all for holding companies accountable when they break laws. But that's not what some of you are talking about. The tenor of the commentary here is to hold companies "accountable" for engaging in protected, legal free speech and commerce just because you find thier exercise of those rights unlikable. I find that sort of subjective application of 'accountability' more than a little creepy.

you are correct that much of what these lenders did was lawful.laws in which these institutions spent billions in either redressing or outright dismissing

I could go on for hours on this - but VERY briefly this was not started by banks. This was started by GOVERNMENT who was upset that more people were not being qualified for loans. It was a very convenient political target. Back then banks were 'evil' for DENYING loans! But a few financial institutions (such as AIG) saw a way they could make money by debt repackaging. Hmmmm...

The lobbyist arguments 'for' the change were not without merit. Proponents argued that loans would inject money into communities, increase wealth, reduce blight, increase education, generate tax revenue... The list of "pros" was not hard to conjure up. Politicians and lobbyists were convinced they were actually doing a GOOD thing.

Oh - and leave us not forget the tarring and feathering of anyone who dared OPPOSE the changes. Such people were called racists. 'Red liners'. They were 'evil bankers' who wanted to 'starve children', 'keep people uneducated', and 'stop the poor from having the American dream'. To pretend that this was some sneaky, sinister, secret scheme that NO-ONE knew about is bunk. This was aggressively marketed by politicians all through the 70s and 80s.

When Glass-Steagal was repealed, everyone was forced to deal with the law AS IT EXISTED. Who should be punished for it all blowing up? The Banks who were operating within the legal framework that was dumped on them? Or the politicians who changed the law and made this whole crap-fest possible? My opinion is that politicians must be the FIRST to be held responsible, not the last.

I'm not saying companies should walk away clean. What I am saying is that you should only hold them responsible for violations of the law - not for exercising their free speech. It is the politicians you have to hold responsible when the law is bad. Put the blame where it belongs.

Pop Quiz: Do companies have power over my life?

1 - Do you work for a company? Yes/ No

2 - Do you consume goods and services from any company? Yes/No

2a - If yes to 2, do you carry life, health, and auto insurance from any company? Yes/No

3 - Do you consume content (i.e., music, books, video, games, etc) from any company? Yes/No

3a - In particular, did you buy 'Atlas Shrugged' from a company?

4 - Are you a citizen of a country where companies via lobbyists have more influence than you do? Yes/No

4a - In particular, are you a citizen of a country where companies recently convinced the government to give them billions of your tax money? Yes/No

4b - In particular, have you ever lived in a state/city where a company convinced the local government to build a stadium at your (taxpayer) expense, with no promise of a return? Yes/No

5 - Have you ever smelled air pollution, heard sound pollution, seen an eyesore manufactured or produced from a product manufactured from any company? Yes/No

5a - Was this a pleasant experience? Yes/No

6 - Have you or a relative ever been raped by employees of a company, then kept in confinement by the goons of the company, and then prevented to take legal recourse by the lawyers of the company? Yes/No

6a - If so, did US senators, paid and influenced by the lobbyists of the company, vote against your right to take legal recourse? Yes/No



Just off the top of my head.

Study after study after study have proven that red-lining is a real phenomenon, and that banks routinely steer people with equal credit and income into different loan packages based on race and ethnicity. Again, in this thread, you are confusing opinion and fact.

Pop Quiz: Do companies have power over my life?

For my response - I quote the smartest person in the room. Myself!

I’m not talking about the obvious effect that simply purchasing ANY good or service can have on a person’s life. Obviously when I buy food, clothes, and other things those purchase ‘effect my life’. And naturally since ‘a company’ produced those goods the company ‘effects’ me second-hand by supplying them. But I am discussing things beyond the simplistic level of “companies manufacture objects which exist and that I can see, feel, touch, and interact with.”

The context of the video (and thence, this thread) is about companies who impact people's lives by 'forcing' misery on them. You guys are trying to expand the context to include interaction with companies, thier products, their mere presence, or anything/everything even vaguely related to being on the same planet as a company. Stay within the confines of the subject.

Red lining

Eeeeeeh... Well redlining refers to a specific practice so I'll correct my sloppy usage of the term. I'm referring to banks legitimately denying loans to people who did not qualify and then getting accused of being racists, economic prejudice, age prejudice, and so on.

You have a downright ornery case of myopia.

Re: point 2, has it never occurred to you that companies can "force misery" on your and your loved ones by producing defective and unsafe goods and services? I guess this has never happened in the history of capitalism. Asbestos, defective tires, tainted formula, bad pharms, etc, etc, etc. Fraudulent mortgages, incompetent surgery, fraudulent auto repairs, etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, what about the rest of the points?

======
"I'm referring to banks legitimately denying loans to people who did not qualify and then getting accused of being racists, economic prejudice, age prejudice, and so on."

How do you know the difference? Do you investigate every case?

Also, let me ask you WP, and everyone in general, don't you have at least one friend or relative, that has been royally screwed over by a company? Through no fault of their own?

If you get on a crowded elevator you can find at least one person.

I have to agree with WP on this one. The vast majority of everybody's complaints here would be solved by stronger controls on politicians that would reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of lobbying. It is the money changing hands in Washington DC that is the root of sooo many problems, both with corporations and with government itself.

Personally, I'm for separation of money and "free speech". One person's or corporation's massive coffers should not give them "more" free speech than the average citizen. Elections should be publicly financed so that politicians cannot be beholden to a small number of donors, or potential donors.

On the topic of the video, Bank of America is not stupid. If it was more profitable to help those people out of debt, they would be doing it. They run off statistics, and not compassion. If it weren't for the apathy of the average citizen, this fact would put them out of business. But the average citizen doesn't care. *That is why this video is important for everybody to see.* If we want to see change in the way business treats people, we have to raise awareness of the cold cruelty that they perpetrate "within the law". It's the only way to effect change.

look, i agree with her sentiment, and all power to her morality. The fact is, however, banks are a business. They exist to make money for themselves and the shareholders who contribute. I recall, many years ago, a TV discussion programme about banks. One guy, who was thousands in debt, blamed the banks for allowing him to make getting loans easy. A woman on the programme, quite rightly in my opinion, said "did the banks force you to get into debt? Was it their negligence, or yours, that you did not realise you did not have the ability to pay back your debt? and now you blame the bank for giving you the money you were asking for." In fairytale land we would ALL get what we asked for with no adverse consequences. This, however, is the real world. If you cannot hope to repay a debt, or you are subject to wishful thinking, don't incur it.Let's not, as seems to be the case these days, have laws that stifle free enterprise because of ignorance and stupidity.

>> ^A10anis:
"did the banks force you to get into debt? Was it their negligence, or yours, that you did not realise you did not have the ability to pay back your debt? and now you blame the bank for giving you the money you were asking for."

Every loan-shark in the world thanks you for that sentiment.

What you don't realize is that the banks do not loan real money. If they have a million dollars in assets, they are allowed to issue ten to thirty million dollars worth of loans. They also have insurance on that imaginary money, so that they can write off their imaginary losses.

Debt is their real business. And foreclosure. And repossession.

I mean, if they really wanted their money back, would they jack up interest rates to 29% on people who are already having trouble paying it back? No, it's just an excuse to rape someone legally.

After they rape people with 29% interest rates, causing them to file bankruptcy, they write off the loss and sell the debt to a collector, who buys the loan for about ten cents on the dollar and makes a living by being an asshole to people and trying to con them into paying him 50 to 80 percent of the original debt.

The credit card biz doesn't need any help. They need a collar on their throats and a boot in the ass.

"Let's not, as seems to be the case these days, have laws that stifle free enterprise because of ignorance and stupidity."

Yes, bring back the debtors' prisons.

You have a downright ornery case of myopia.

I would say that you have downright case of not understanding a simple premise. No bank or any other financial institution can affect my life in any way because I'm not a stupid moron with 3 mortgages, $50K in student loans, and $10,000 in credit card debt. You guys are desperately trying to find SOME way to get me to admit that companys 'control my life' or 'have power over me' - but your position is specious and without merit because it is just flat out WRONG.

Great example... On Friday I got a bill from a hospital I had to go to when I was out of state on vacation. I wasn't expecting it. $125 bucks. They claim the original bill was sent in October and that I'm 20 days from being overdue with late fees, collection agencies, and the whole magilla. This is the first time I've ever seen the charge.

Now - if I was a whiney, incompetent twit (like you guys wish) then I would sit and complain and winge about how 'unfair' this is. "Boo hoo-hoo. Woe is me! This is bogus! It isn't my fault. The company has power over my life and is making me miserable wah wah wah!" I'd also have no way to pay the bill, and start racking up late fees and stuff because I was unprepared.

But - of course - that's a dumb@$$ approach and I refuse to do that sort of crap. I have a FSA with plenty of cash in it because I'm not an incompetent fool that can't plan past the end of my nose. On Monday I'll bill the FSA - get the cash in my account - and pay the bill. Boom. Problem solved. Gee - I guess that hospital has no power over me after all!

Story of my life. I don't take out 2nd mortgages to buy crap I don't need. I don't buy garbage with credit cards. I save money for a rainy day. I sock money into 401Ks, FSA, CDs, and savings accounts. I have 6 months of food stored up, and a week of water. I have emergency supplies and fuel in case of disasters. I have a disaster plan for the family as well. I'm not a genius, or some guy living on a compound. I'm just a normal guy with a regular job who plans ahead. If I can do it - ANYONE can do it.

Also, let me ask you WP, and everyone in general, don't you have at least one friend or relative, that has been royally screwed over by a company?

Define 'royally screwed over'. I myself was 'downsized' 3 years ago. There was no reason. The company just decided they were letting 500 people go to show the 'street' they were trying to control costs. Now - quite honestly - the company was long overdue for this because they had a lot of redundant staff. I didn't like it, but I could understand it. Now - YOU might say I was 'royally screwed over'. I simply accept that a company's job is NOT to be my sugar daddy. If they decide to fire me, so be it. I can find another job - and I did so. That happens. I know of NOONE in my life that has been arbitrarily or maliciously mistreated by a company. I know MANY people who are not happy with the decisions a company may have made - but I cannot say in good conscience that they were 'royally screwed over'. And I think if you guys were really honest, you'd probably reclassify a lot of what your bias CALLS 'royally screwed' victims as just regular folks dealing with regular problems - not victims of some massive corporate conspiracy. These visions you guys have of every company being the equivalent of the "Pelican Brief" and every displeased customer being Erin Brockovich are nothing but romantic delusions. Welcome to real life.

Quite frankly - 9 times out of 10 what you guys call a company 'royally screwing' someone is in actuality no more than people having to pay the piper after a long string of foolish choices. The bank or company who is 'evil' is really no more sinister than being the meanie who is not just letting it slide.

good for you winston.
what you looking for? a cookie?
your thinking reveals a myopic view,longde is correct.
it is not a slant,at least not to me anyways.it is who you are and i would not have you any other way.
you think in two dimensions and there can be great strength in that but the downside to that paradigm is abstract thinking,grey areas,fuzzy logic.

the discussion was pertaining to the morality of this young woman.recognizing she was stepping on her neighbors face to collect a paycheck,so she broke the rules and got fired for it.she didnt appear too bitter to me and i applaud her for her courage.i have made similar choices.does this make me better than others? of course not,but i have to wake up in the morning and look myself in the mirror.a clear conscience is a thing of beauty.

"the man who flipped the switch at aushwitz may have been a great guy and wonderful family man but he still participated in the elimination of thousands"-noam chomsky.

THIS is the integral point i am trying to make and since you are the "smartest man in the room" i would have thought i would not have to write an essay to get you to understand this very salient and important point on the matter of this young lady.

i give historical context you call it "opinion".
i attempt to convey my mistrust of bankers and show historically why and you cherry pick lines from my comment and ignore the over -all context.
we,as a group praise this young lady and you call her a whiner (which is your right) and spout rhetoric on the awesomeness that is you.
what i have gathered from your comments here is that:
a.bankers are a good and noble breed and those who may have had the misfortune of life turning wrong are just stupid and deserve neither comfort nor release but contemptful scorn.
this is the very same logic of "well,she wouldnt have been raped if she hadnt worn that miniskirt" and you get IRKED when longde calls you out on your myopia?...please son....please...
b.it is the full responsibility and fault of the politicians who ALLOW themselves to be bought and paid for.banks and other institutions hold no such responsibility.
yeah...ok..so the manipulation of markets by institutions to swindle entire governments and it's people of it's wealth is noble?the engineering of wars by those who would profit most is a good and honorable thing for society?

listen my friend,governments are thing not to be trusted,BIG government is a thing to avoid at all costs and when that government starts to work with financial institutions the death knell has begun to ring for the common citizen.
this is not new,it did not began yesterday and while you noted 30 years ago (correct 1972,gold standard=gone) but it goes even further.1966,1942,1933,1929,1917,1923,1880,1781 in america alone.since you are the smartest man in the room i guess you already knew that though./snark

maybe the difference is between you and us lib/leftie/whiner/cry-babies is that we wont FUCK YOU over for a dollar.WE dont agree with the fact that the very same people who created this financial mess cried like little fucking bitches and had to have average joe taxpayer working two jobs bailing those elitist pricks out.at NO risk to them but all the risk on us while they engage in practices that are at best, bottom feeding tendencies.
so YEAH winston,we LIKE when we see a person stand up for what they believe even if that may mean hardship for themselves.not like those PUSSIES on wall street.


so feel free to cherry pick whichever lines you wish to conflate into your myopic paradigm.
hey..you are the smartest man in the room.guess what my response will be.

Rougy, I'm not sure i see the relevance of your comment; "Every loan-shark in the world thanks you for that sentiment". I guess you are equating banks-which are legally bound to expose all costs and penalties before loaning you money-to back street thugs who have no legal constraints and who will resort to physical violence. Also, i am well aware, thank you, how banks-like insurance companies-cover themselves in the event of loss. Relating to the young ladies video,i'm, again, not sure of your comments relevance.
How naive of me not to realise that-as you say; "Debt is their real business. And foreclosure. And repossession". Ofcourse, how silly of me, banks are in the business of ruining any business or individusl they loan money to. They don't want them to succeed and grow. And they certainly don't want these people coming back to borrow more money.Thanks Rougy, you have helped me see that the banks want to kill off all the golden geese that line their pockets.How could i have possibly thought that banks were a necessary part of a growing economy! Forgive me, i was blind but now i see.
With your parting comment; "Yes, bring back the debtors' prisons". You appear to paint me as uncaring and ruthless regarding anyone who gets into debt.This is NOT so. There are many unscrupulous individuals acting in the loan field and they SHOULD be exposed. However, my original view remains intact. When you incur debt you MUST realise that the fates can conspire against you-redundancy/market collapse/illness or any other factors-so it is IMPERATIVE to shop around for the most suitable loan. Read the small print and, most of all, have a back up plan. In an ideal world this young lady should have been able to do what she did. We are NOT, however, in an ideal world. And, until a purely altruistic banking system is put in place-which ofcourse wouldn't work. ("Er, yes sir, my company has gone bust so i'd like another £250k interest free loan,thanks".)We have, sadly, a system which is flawed and imperfect. But, rather than using colourful language and rhetoric (rape. asshole) why don't you give us your solution?

>> ^A10anis:
But, rather than using colourful language and rhetoric (rape. asshole) why don't you give us your solution?


Tax the shit out of anyone making more than 30 million USD a year.

99% on every dollar over that mark.

El problemo solved.

*****

And, bank-wise,
I have no problem
letting banks loan money
that they do not have,
just as long as they do not
demand money
from people who do not have it.

what you looking for? a cookie?

No – I’m patiently explaining that the things you are calling “evil companys’ controlling lives” are no more sinister than basic contractual obligations that can be simply and efficiently avoided with a tiny bit of planning and common sense.

but i have to wake up in the morning and look myself in the mirror.a clear conscience is a thing of beauty.

I agree. I love it. Part of my clear conscience is the fact that I have no debt and knowing that nothing but common sense, planning, and basic mathematics got me there. And everyone else can do it too.

Nazis… Bankers… i would have thought i would not have to write an essay to get you to understand this very salient and important point on the matter of this young lady.

No offense, but your analogy is ridiculous. Are you seriously comparing a concentration camp victim’s suffering to that of a credit card debt holder? Holocaust victims were arbitrarily murdered and tortured because of race. Credit card debt holders are expected to fill the terms of a contract that they agreed to. There is no equivalency.

i give historical context you call it "opinion".

Specifically I said, “SOME of what you call historical context is opinion”. Go look at your post again and weed out the opinions before expecting me to call it history.

b.it is the full responsibility and fault of the politicians who ALLOW themselves to be bought and paid for.banks and other institutions hold no such responsibility.

I repeat – there is a little law in the US that we call the Bill of Rights. It allows you to support advocacy groups for gay marriages, abortion rights, environmental causes, and so on. That SAME RIGHT also allows businesses to petition for laws that benefit them. It is called free speech. If you don’t like it, then there are plenty of nations that don’t have it. Perhaps you’d find their political atmosphere more amenable? Yes – it is entirely the fault of politicians if they pass bad laws. A group is just exercising their right to petition. It is the politician that passes the law.

maybe the difference is between you and us lib/leftie/whiner/cry-babies is that we wont ##$$ over for a dollar.

Oh? Health Care reform isn’t screwing the entire nation over for dollars? Cap & Tax isn’t a big huge screwing of the entire planet for money? I think you have an entirely naïve point of view in regards to just how much money the left-wing screws Joe Q. Public for every day.

Regardless, in this situation I don’t see the banks screwing people for dollars. I see them expecting people to fill the terms of their agreements. I’m a firm believer in consequences. If people make a bad decision, then they should pay the consequences. I objected to the bailouts. They were stupid. If the banks made bad decisions, they should have been allowed to fail. Same with GM, and every other place that has soaked up TARP funds. I’m all for the banks paying for their mistakes.

But you know what? I think the customers who spent money they couldn’t afford should pay their bills too. I don’t see why bad borrowers should get a free ride.

way to miss the point winston.
conflation,deflection and congruence.
which all equal your myopia.
i am not going to waste another post on your inability to get the point.(ok..i'm lying)
my conflation of the man working the concentration camp showers was his decision to participate in the elimination of thousands while he,himself,may be a great guy.this is a moral argument not one of semantics.
i already stated my stance on "evil corporations" but you seem content with putting words in my mouth to make your point.
a point,by the way,i actually agree with but it has nothing to do with what i was trying to convey.
now you wish to direct the discussion on health care yada yada yada....
thats an entirely different discussion.
this discussion has begun to bore me.if you are unwilling or unable to see the moral courage this woman has by standing up and doing what she felt was righteous,then i dont know what to tell you winston.
have fun with the pink elephant in the room.

if you are unwilling or unable to see the moral courage this woman has by standing up and doing what she felt was righteous

The bank is conducting itself legally. What you object to is that BoA offers credit to people who are 'risky' borrowers. You call it 'predatory'. Hmmm - what other entity does exactly the same thing...? What organization has been telling banks to lend money to people who "can't afford it"? Whose policy is it to "spend our way out of debt"?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30388.html

My position is that it is stupid policy to lend money to people who are risky borrowers. It is unsustainable, foolish, and destructive at the business level AND the government level. But it is not IMMORAL. This womans 'stand' has nothing to do with morality. It a disagreement on how a company should conduct business.

When you disagree with how a company does business - you quit. You don't stick around violating the terms of your employment and doing stuff that will get you fired. You stand up straight, quit the job, and leave with your head high. She didn't. She slunk around, kept taking paychecks, disobeyed orders, bucked policy, and at finally got thrown out the door kicking and screaming like a baby. Then to cap it off she's got the cheek to make a whiny video about how unfair it was. Bullcrap. She got exactly what she deserved.

Now - I wholeheartedly agree with her opinion that money should not be lent to people who can't afford it. She and I are sympatico there. But she's saying it's 'wrong' and I'm saying it is merely 'stupid'.

However, I find it interesting that you agree with her sentiment that such practices are 'wrong' at a moral level. So - tell me - will you follow her example and condemn the current administration's practice of 'aggressively marketing' debt spending to people who can't afford it? After all, according to your moral code such actions are 'evil'. Will you support evil, or will you condemn and abandon it?