Dick Durbin calls for a run on a bank - Obama says banks don't have a right to profit

papajohn56

New member
Jun 16, 2008
7,256
211
0
SC
Durbin to Bank of America Customers: ‘Get the Heck Out of That Bank’ - ABC News

Obama Blasts Bank of America's Debit Fee

"‘You don't have some inherent right just to – you know, get a certain amount of profit."

let me get this straight -


1 - Durbin creates amendment to make it so debit swipe fees are capped

2 - Banks respond by charging debit usage fees

3 - Durbin is appalled that banks try to recover a lost source of revenue, and calls for a *run on the bank*.


Isn't inciting a run on the bank a felony? And did Obama just conveniently forget the Basel III requirements that basically say, "yes, a Bank MUST profit this much to capitalize"?
 


I'm sure the other banks will begin to do the same thing at some point.

Only if this plays out in their favor. If a lot of customers leave, other banks won't implement it. If customers just complain, then the other banks will.

Now, if the big banks all collude like the airlines and started implementing fees at the same time so the customer doesn't have other options, then it'd be a whole different matter.
 
...Now, if the big banks all collude like the airlines and started implementing fees at the same time so the customer doesn't have other options, then it'd be a whole different matter.

But that would be illegal.

Oh wait...I forgot this is America where banks can do whatever they want without repercussions.
 
Citi announces new fees on checking accounts - Oct. 4, 2011

With the new regulation that caps how much revenue banks can get from the swipe fees they collect from merchants, banks must look for other ways to cover that lost income, explained Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior counsel of the American Bankers Association.

We need more regulation and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to protect us.*
 
I'm still not certain why people are freaking out about this... it's $5/mo. Banks have been charging monthly fees on certain checking accounts at least since I opened my first checking account when I was 18. Most of the time though, if you maintain a certain balance or have one of the better checking accounts you wind up with more services and don't have to pay fees. I'd put money on banks doing this with the debit fees as well.
 
So I thought all these politicians were supposed to be in the back pockets of the big banks? So why would they be butting heads like this? It's just for show, right? HELP ME UNDERSTAND GUYS
 
An interesting part of the Durbin Amendment is that the gov't changed the 1.5% cap to 22cents per transaction that banks can charge. That's why they are scrambling to start charge fees (and eliminating free checking and benefits) .

The flaw is that while they capped what banks can collect they didn't cap what merchant account processors had to pay out. But most banks will still be losing tons of money. Our model (as a merchant account processor) is to pass that savings on to the customer and charge a flat low fee. So in essence, etailers and merchants get to the lowest possible rates and keep get to keep more money.
 
Congress sucks at regulating banks, see pic:

309648_2498030260222_1536851625_32813117_1476141785_n.jpg
 
You've been on Wickedfire for 4 years and you still don't understand capitalism? If Bank of America loses customers and revenue as a result of people leaving because of those fees, then other banks will NOT implement it. Other banks and credit unions will attack those fees as a way to steal customers from BofA.

If people lay down and take it in the ass, then other banks will line up for their turn as well.

That's how it should work in theory. But you're forgetting the fact that most of the major banks aren't really competitive. They all trade with each other, and you can bet there's a lot of on-the-quiet notes comparing that goes on.

Remember: It's only an illegal cartel if you get caught.
 
As you can see form the graphic a couple posts up - government regulations have been eliminating competition for them.

All that bank consolidation is the result of government regulations? Can you point to any specifically? I would've thought it would be the opposite - the lack of government oversight or regulation that has allowed all those mergers to take place...
 
Ok, the glass steagall act is considered a problem because suddenly ibanks were able to gamble with deposits because they didn't have to separate themselves anymore.

Banks are ok gambling with deposits because of the FDIC. You guys always stop thinking one step too early. The problem here is regulation. Glass Steagall is necessary because the government gave banks cover. Deregulation just pulled the wool of the wolf that is FDIC.

I don't think you can point to one occurrence in the financial meltdown that can actually be attributed to less regulation if you are honest about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LotsOfZeros