Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-15-2010, 9:52 AM Reply   
Great Article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...488297188.html
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-15-2010, 11:36 AM Reply   
Rich guy wants to keep his tax cut and not have to give his employees HI is what I read.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-15-2010, 11:44 AM Reply   
Thats what I would expect you to get out of it John, because everyone knows the poor provide the most jobs and pay the most in taxes.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-15-2010, 12:33 PM Reply   
Excellent article!! I copied the following list from another web site.

Obama’s DISMAL Record speaks for itself, What he promised you VS what you got.

1- He promised you TRANSPARENCY= you got sealed documents, refusal to release records, stonewalling, 3AM votes.

2- He promised you a stronger America= You got him apologizing for America, under cutting America, bowing before potentates, Apology Tours .(( Kennedy gave us Apollo, Obama has given OUR Apology.))

3- Obama promised you new respect for America = you got his DENIAL of the hard won American Cold War Victory (July 2009)

4-Obama promised you line by line scrutiny of spending = you got blank check pass through.

5- Obama promised you NO lobbyist in his administration = you have gotten SCADS of them.

6- Obama promised you 4,000,000 new jobs= you got 9.6% unemployment.

7- Obama promised you government that listens to you =You got snake-oil sales meetings peddling Nostrums and hypocrisy: your righteous outrage and free-speech protests dismissed as "organized" (( by Mr. Community Organizer!! ))

8-Obama promised you straight dialogue = You got an army of recruited internet spam artists, spewing propaganda everywhere.

9-Obama promised you straight talk and no new taxes for the middle class = You got him playing "that depends on what your definition of tax is" word games and objecting to the use of dictionaries (Stephanopoulos interview 9/20/2009).

10= Obama promised you "free health care for everybody"= You are getting a nightmare Trillion$$ government takeover of our entire health care system.

11= Obama promised you "NO New Taxes" (except for the "rich") =You got a good lesson in just exactly what a "Stupid Tax" is.

12=Obama promised you transparency = You got the Great Obfuscator, Robert Gibbs, as White House Press Secretary, gushing gibberish.

13= Obama promised you (Clinton debate, 1/31/2008) "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are" = You got, well, you KNOW what you've gotten, and now (12/30/2009) C-SPAN petitioning (unsuccessfully) for access for the American people .... and now Obama negotiating with Union Leaders behind closed doors and handing them (1/15/2010) a sweetheart exemption from the punitive 40% tax on "Cadillac" healthcare plans which everyone else will be forced to pay

THE LIST CAN GO ON & ON & ON & ON & ON
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-15-2010, 2:19 PM Reply   
Oh that's right I forgot after 8 years of tax cuts the economy's booming and we were gaining jobs like crazy. Just like it says in this quote...

Quote:
6- Obama promised you 4,000,000 new jobs= you got 9.6% unemployment.
Oh wait... that 's not what it says.

It's unfortunate, but nobody seems to understand that the demise of our economy is because we are exporting 1/2 trillion of it each year as indicated by trade deficit. But that's Obama's fault right?

You know I get it. Obama has failed to deliver on the rosy picture every politician who wants to get elected paints. But the reason why we believe it is because we all want to believe that the economy can be fixed with no down side. Not happening. No politician is going to tell you that.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-15-2010, 3:19 PM Reply   
RonT, "hard fought cold war victory"? Everything you have posted in your cute list can be spun in either direction.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-15-2010, 6:47 PM Reply   
]Maybe, but why did the health care bill have NO republican backers? Could the health care plan be a bad idea?
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       10-15-2010, 7:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Maybe, but why did the health care bill have NO republican backers? Could the health care plan be a bad idea?
The Republicans have blocked or tried to block everything. It's called politics. ; )
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-18-2010, 7:41 AM Reply   
"Oh that's right I forgot after 8 years of tax cuts the economy's booming and we were gaining jobs like crazy. Just like it says in this quote..."

If you owned a business and knew your taxes were going to increase dramtically, while not knowing how exactly the new healthcare bill is going to effect your bottom line, and dealing with a mountain of new regulations that cost money to comply with, would you be out hiring?

Adding trillions to the deficit through government projects to produce short term employment, while pounding on small businesses with higher costs is not the way to decrease unemployment, or stimulate an economy. SB is our countries lifeblood. Help it thrive.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-18-2010, 8:04 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
If you owned a business and knew your taxes were going to increase dramtically, while not knowing how exactly the new healthcare bill is going to effect your bottom line, and dealing with a mountain of new regulations that cost money to comply with, would you be out hiring?

Adding trillions to the deficit through government projects to produce short term employment, while pounding on small businesses with higher costs is not the way to decrease unemployment, or stimulate an economy. SB is our countries lifeblood. Help it thrive.
I work for a small business that I own a percentage of. We design and manufacture electronic equipment mostly purchased by the govt. The biggest problem we have is that our closest competition is foriegn made goods from companies that are subsidized by their govt. The issue with our not hiring new employees has virtually nothing to do with the prospects of unknown new legislation or rules.

Adding trillions to the deficit does not create new permanent jobs. But it does stabilize the economic for a period. However that isn't the problem. The problem is best represented by the trade deficit. It illustrates three basic fundamental problems.
  • One, the increasing difficulty of maintaining cash flow in the economy as a result of the exodus of 1/2 trillion dollars each year.
  • Second, the lack of manufacturing jobs that create exportable products.
  • Third, the inability of the govt to recover spent funds in taxes through dollars circulating in the economy as a result of the money leaving the economy.
I know that people like to gravitate towards simplistic explanations like that offered in the link you posted. Companies like Home Depot are exceptionally sucessful because of their purchasing power and the ability to purchase cheap foriegn made goods in bulk. Home Depot, Wal Mart and companies like them are not going to be the first on the block to highlight the devastation that this is doing to our economy.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-18-2010, 8:52 AM Reply   
Then theres the little thing called competitive advantage. So what keeps us from having the advantages? Well like you mentioned, cheap labor over seas is killing our export advantage due to low costs of labor. What is being done about that?

While you can divert the jest of the point, you can't dismiss the fact that the uncertainty he is creating is hampering our recovery.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-18-2010, 9:14 AM Reply   
The gist of the point is that focusing on heath ins and tax policy is misguided in that it's not what's substanually hampering our recovery.

The problem is that we as a country need to recognize that achieving a goal of a zero trade deficit is a matter of national security. After doing so we can stop diverting our attention to less significant points that have no particular association with the big economic picture. The days of the knee jerk "protectionism is bad" reaction is going to need to come to an end. What means do we plan to take to mitigate the lost of such significant amounts of cash in the economy? That's probably the single most important question we can ask right now.

Unless we acknowledge this goal as a central theme it will be almost impossible to achieve any progress. The downside to a reduced deficit is hige in terms of politcal pressure and international affairs. Foriegn countries are dependant on sucking the *** of the American cash cow. And when it drys up they will turn against us and blame America for the problems in their own economies. There are many successful American retailers who's business model will fall apart when the availability of cheap imported goods are curtailed. Not to mention rising prices at the consumer level. Imported goods are America's herion, and no addict goes down without a fight.

Or we can just keep blaming the party in power and fooling ourselves. But this economy isn't going to recover unless something the govt does something that counters this affect. And that may just mean the fed injects more money into the economy. Countries dependant on our exporting dollars may prefer that to drying up the well or protectionism.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-18-2010, 9:46 AM Reply   
The party in power is the only one that can do something about it. What are they doing?

and while I agree that HI and Tax policy are not all that is hampering our recovery, these uncertainties cannot be ignored.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-18-2010, 10:09 AM Reply   
You could focus on the real issue instead of perpetuating political partison delusions. That's not an attack aimed at you, it's what *all* of America is doing. I have no idea how we get our politicians to face up and acknowledge the real issues. I'd just like to see people argue over why the trade deficit isn't the real issue. What's so bad is that we all seem to think that it's not a problem. When someone mentions the lack of manufacturing jobs, the standard reply is.... "we aren't competitive", as if that's the end of the story.

Why not start with an analysis of what it would take to for those foriegn companies to meet the same requirements placed on domestic companies? Things like minimum wage, health insurance, worker safety, environmental protections, tort liability, union laws, disability/maternity accomodations, taxes, etc... and tarrif those types of imports to level the playing fields.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-18-2010, 10:27 AM Reply   
Well in the case of manufacturing you get into absolute advantages and they are not mutually beneficial.

The problem with with foriegn companies, is they are just that. Foreign. We have no jusidiction on them. I did hear of a concept called "Trade Certificates" but have no real knowledge of the overall implications, just that they would help level out the deficit by pulling more dollars here, kind of like cap and trade.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-18-2010, 11:19 AM Reply   
I am glad to hear someone discuss the issue of trade deficit. Now we are on track to getting something done and this is what I have been bitching about for years. What is the effect of certain political parties wanting to continue to put high cost environmental policy on businesses? What is the cost of increasing taxes on business? What is the cost of putting so many other little regulations on businesses? They all add to overhead. Overhead means we can not compete. Even things like mandating housing loans for the poor have cost us dearly because they opened up money to all parties and it just got taken advantage of. Only a few got ahead for a brief period while everyone had to be paid more money to stay even which in turn makes us less competitive with foreign countries.

You want to say everyone getting caught up in politics is not looking at the real solution. I say I recognize which party is trying to constantly trying to shove constant regulation down our throat in the name of internationalism. They don't care because that is the goal of theirs and the sooner people reject them the better we will be. What do people think the politicians mean when they say they are a citizen of the world (Obama)? It means just that. YOU, ME and EVERYONE in the United States of America is that top 1% that they continue to do class warfare against. It is just the people are too stupid to realize they are one of the sheep in the barnyard. When the goal is to spread the wealth and you consider yourself a citizen of the world, the people of the USA are the people they are trying to spread it from. It drives me crazy when all the evidence is right there in front of us. Their words, the actions, everything is right there and no one will see it.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-18-2010, 12:56 PM Reply   
^Delta, don't you realize you are a "sheep"? You just chose to buy into the B.S. of another "barnyard".
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-18-2010, 2:36 PM Reply   
Delta, I've heard you bitch'n for years, but it hasn't been about the trade deficit. I understand that the issues you bitch about are related, but it still isn't addressing the problem head on. The solution isn't allowing companies to pollute our environment, kill our workers, and pay poverty wages worse than minimum wage. The issue of national security applies to everyone of all economic levels. It isn't a matter of protecting the wealthy and letting everyone else go down.

If we attack the economic problem as a trade deficit issue, then all possible solutions that address it can be compared and considered in that light. That includes the right for retailers to import cheap untarrifed imports. Lowering overhead for businesses is an important consideration, but you can't just make that the central theme or the real problem gets tossed aside. Tariffs on imports is a dangerous topic for a politician to raise. The amount of money that would be raised to destroy a politician that espouses such an idea would be IMO overwhelming. Making it a non-partisan goal to strive for a zero trade deficit would allow a level of protection for a politician to start pushing for protecting American industry in ways that a lot of people won't like.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-18-2010, 6:47 PM Reply   
Not a sheep at all. I understand cause and effect. I just don't have a delusion about basic financial sense and what happens when a political party completely attacks businesses all in the name of perpetuating class warfare. I realize that money and product will ALWAYS flow to the path of least resistance. That is a fact. Companies are not polluting and killing our workers. There are more than enough protections on the books to keep that from happening. I am pretty much in the middle politically and socially. I just recognize who is trying to screw us. The democrats had a great opportunity to tighten up some of the issue that was hurting the middle class even though they caused most of it by mandating money being used for certain groups. Instead they went on with more environmental naziism and pushing for more internationalism. What you have heard me bitching about is when people start attack posts on this board and completely ignore what is really happening. They ignore the actual policy and what they are trying to accomplish and go by political talking points.

I guess I can't get off the theme because it has long disgusted me. I have always said on here, that we need to get back to where democrats were for America first but more importantly the workers. It would be nice if we could strive for zero trade deficit but it won't happen. When Bush 1 signed NAFTA we were screwed at that point. I know what money is going to try and do. That does not bother me because I can expect it. Kind of like that guy that you know that is a real A-hole. You can deal with it because you know who they are and can plan for it. The people who were supposed to be on our side completely have thrown us under the bus and I can not forgive them.

Tariffs don't work. If we do one, they just do a different one. Again, you have to look at the laws that help get us to this point. We don't even mine many of the things that go into our products. I don't even think we have the structure set up for even silicon wafers for chip manufacturing. We have this mentality that we can not mine, pump or do anything for our own natural resources. We that in our back pocket, we absolutely can not do a trade war.

You have to face it. We are now becoming children of the world. Thanks a lot folks. You voted us into economic slavery and did not even know it because we don't teach finance in schools. We teach art and music instead.
Old    Cliff Griffin (seattle)      Join Date: Mar 2002       10-18-2010, 7:08 PM Reply   
Many oft those who voted for Obama did so in a sudo subversive effort to absolve their racial guilt and their ancestors racial wrong doings. In most Americans eyes that mission has been accomplished. Anyone who dug a little deeper into his platform knew this administration wasn't really going to amount to much.

What's real concerning to me is the current mindset of the Reps. They were never willing to go so far as to put a black man up on the pedestal but the way things are starting to shape up they may be willing to put a babbling moronic MILF in the whitehouse.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-18-2010, 8:53 PM Reply   
Paul, my liberal friend, here are some facts I'd like you to consider. The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009. It was actually January 3rd 2007--the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate--the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Now, think about this. January 3rd, 2007, was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress: At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,354 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION! Remember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco's! Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001, (because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening). And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA. And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving. Also, check out this link http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-18-2010, 8:56 PM Reply   
I apologize, Paul. I mean to put John, my liberal friend.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       10-18-2010, 9:36 PM Reply   
thanks for that Ron T.
I just wish that the GOP would remind the public of those things.

only 15 more days!!!
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-18-2010, 10:00 PM Reply   
That is the GOP's main problem, they just will not admit when they make a mistake(s). They are infamous for passing the buck. They remind me alot of how Alabama fan's act prior to the arrival of Saint Nick. Always flashing back to the "glory days" when Bear Bryant was coach, which is eerily similar to how the Republicans always flash back to the days of ole Ronny.

Cliff, I wouldn't bank on the GOP sweeping of both the House and Senate. I think they still have the Dems with the Senate majority, but what do you expect when you nominate loons like O'Donnell?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-19-2010, 7:25 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
I apologize, Paul. I mean to put John, my liberal friend.
The only thing I get from your post is that you are not capable of understanding the damage of exporting 4% of our economy each year. And that somehow a Democratic Congress magically destroyed the economy while Bush was President.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-19-2010, 8:06 PM Reply   
OK, fair enough, one last example. Remember the banking regulations that have recently passed? Take notice in the article "To make up for lost fees, he also started thinking of new products." What the article's writer doesn't understand is this will destroy mos community bank's revenue. This, in combination with the unknown health care cost, has the little man NOT CORPORATE BANKS, wondering how they are going o keep the doors open Just a brief example of these do gooders ruining business for everyone. If you don't believe me, ask your local banker--in private--he next time you see him/her.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-19-2010, 8:07 PM Reply   
Sorry, I forgo to post the article http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Say-go...&asset=&ccode=
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2010, 6:23 AM Reply   
Ron, unknown regulation is not what the little man in business is most worried about. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying. The reason for lathargic hiring is because of the uncertainly of future revenue. No one is confident that the economy is going to recover along with sales. This is the same kind of BS thinking that led people to believe that investment money is more important than revenue from sales. People spending money is better than people saving when it comes to the economy.

And what exactly is this "do gooder" ruining business for everyone? Are you talking about the restrictions against banks loaning people money (i.e. ATM overfdrafts) and charging highly punitive fees without informing the customer? If so then I couldn't give a crap about the "everyone" you speak of. It's a practice that preys on the most vunerable, should be stopped, and was. Anyone that argues that they should get free checking on the backs of people who unknowingly get charged $35 to be loaned $0.15 won't get an ounce of sympathy from me.

BOA is in trouble because of fraudulent practices in packaging and reselling mortages.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-20-2010, 6:24 AM Reply   
Ron T, community bank or not, anyone that would bank with someone that charges 35.00 overdraft fee over a bank that doesn't, needs to have their head examine. Free checking was offered banking on the fact that many of the customers would overdraft and get charged the fees. The banks knew what they were doing. Say one day you have 10.00 in your account. In the morning, you do a debit for say 3.00 (theoretically you still have 7.00 in the account) and then say in the afternoon you do a transaction for 5.00 (now you have 2.00 in your account, supposedly), and then in the evening you do a transaction for 11.00. So you should be 9.00, to the negative, and incur the 35.00 fee which should put your account balance at -44.00. But that is not how the banks operate, with the high-tech software that most have implemented. The transactions will not actually hit your account until the evening and the software will "reorganize" the transactions. So the 11.00 transaction will hit the account first, so 10.00 (what you began with) - 11.00 = 1.00 + 35.00 fee = -36.00 (your new balance). Then the 3.00 so there's another 38.00 and your new balance is -74.00. Let's not forget the 5.00 transaction and another 40.00. So now your balance is -114.00 thanks to the reorganization of transactions.

If the new regulations hurt the "community banks" that bad, they can always get into the payday advance business which is essentially what they are doing with these crazy fees.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-20-2010, 7:44 AM Reply   
This is just a first in all of the regulations that are needlessly being imposed on banks. You'll just have to wait on the rest, but they are coming. Don't discrdedit my friend's point--I don't know why he would lie to me about the regualations--until you talk with some of your local bankers. My point is that the free market will work out the problem. Jeremy, you're right. If you don't like the bank change. THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT. We don't need regulators--do gooders--dictating how business is done, Forcing banks to make loans to individuals who cannot affford the loan in the first place is part of what got us in this mess. I don't mind paying overdrafts if I make one but eventually, the banks will have to make up the revenue and I would be concerned if I were a small business owner because they make more deposits than anyone. America is getting to the point where lazy and irresponsible behavior is actually rewarded. That's a big mistake.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 7:45 AM Reply   
" unknown regulation is not what the little man in business is most worried about"

Wrong. We are bombarded with new rules that A) kill our noninterest income, and B) cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with. FDIC insurance went up from 16K per year to 150K per year with a three year mandatory prepay, our merchant exchange fees are being hammered by the new Dodd act, decreasing noninterest revenue. We are now told that we cannot charge overdraft fees on customers that don't opt in(that just means we return/reject your transactions at point of sale), and there are 500 new regulations that went with the bill that have not even been written. They just have the authority to write them. So saying we are not concerned with what might come out of it is just plain false.

Jeremy,
What you are talking about is biggest first. Some banks do pay that way. There isn't some magical new software that does it. Accounts are reconciled at the end of the day. Your bank can choose to pay the largest first, or the the smallest first. Most banks (that I know of) pay the smallest first and would charge on the last $11. If you don't like overdraft fees, don't spend money you don't have. The alternative like I said, is your transaction is just denied at the point of sale, which can be pretty embassing at the grocery store.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-20-2010, 7:55 AM Reply   
Excellent explanation, Paul, and this is just one example of why the current administration has earned the reputation as being unfriendly to business.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2010, 8:55 AM Reply   
I thought we were talking about the "little man in business" not crooks in the banking industry. ATM overdraft fees are the most crooked business practice I've seen directed at the poorest segment of society. Anyone who like's free services on the backs of victims doesn't deserve any consideration.

Quote:
If you don't like overdraft fees, don't spend money you don't have.
This legislation gives people the power to do just that. Now we have the power to tell the bank.. "no thanks, I don't want you to loan me money." And the banks hate it. This is why they are so transparent in their lack of morals. I can't believe anyone has the nerve to publically come out in support of such a thing. The banks were desparately trying to trick people into believing that allowing overdrafts on their ATM card was a service.

Quote:
Forcing banks to make loans to individuals who cannot affford the loan in the first place is part of what got us in this mess.
I hate hearing people say the govt forced banks to make these loans. The legislation may read that way, but the reality was that once the rules allowed it the banks went overboard by lying about proof of income, pushing appraisers for higher appraisals, and generally anything that would close the deal and bring in the closing fees.

Quote:
America is getting to the point where lazy and irresponsible behavior is actually rewarded. That's a big mistake.
No America is full of people rationalizing why they should get something for free. Your own argument is that you should get free services paid for by the those who exhibit "lazy and irresponsible behavior". Are you really that ignorant that you can't follow your own rationale. Why not just pay for the services you get instead of expressing distain for those people who you expect to pay for your free bank services?
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 9:11 AM Reply   
"ATM overdraft fees are the most crooked business practice I've seen directed at the poorest segment of society."

I was never speaking to ATM overdraft fees. We never allowed those in the first place. This legislation goes a lot further than ATM fees though.

"The banks were desparately trying to trick people into believing that allowing overdrafts on their ATM card was a service."

Are you talking about an ATM card you use at a machine, or a debit card? If you are reffering to debit cards you use at a store, how is that not a service? If we allow you to purchase something with money YOU SHOULD KNOW YOU DON"T HAVE. Its not the banks responsiblity to balance your checkbook. We can still do this under the bill though. Customers have to opt in(which allows them to overdraft with a debit card) Guess what. Most do because they want the service.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 9:14 AM Reply   
" thought we were talking about the "little man in business" not crooks in the banking industry"

Most community banks are the "little man in business" Community banks give more to local communities than most other companies, through sponsorships, donations, community volunteering, and gifts.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2010, 9:20 AM Reply   
Then let them continue without engaging in crooked practices. Kind of reminiscent me of how the mafia is benevolent to the community but ruthless to it's victims.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 9:44 AM Reply   
So let me get this straight. You think that if YOU spend more money than you have and overdraft your bank account, the bank should just let you do it for free, even though THEY are taking a risk by allowing YOU to do so because you can't figure out how much money you have?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2010, 10:23 AM Reply   
No, I think that customers should have the option of being denied a loan that they don't know they would be taking. You can't spend more money than you have if the banks don't give it to you. Is it too unreasonable to say that you don't want a loan?

Seriously Paul, you can't be that stupid as to not understand the issue. It's apparent that you work in the banking industry from your previous post. Do you really expect me to believe that customers want a loan of 10 cents and are willing to pay $35 to get it? Trying to twist this into an issue of wanting free loans is dishonest. Again demonstrating my point about the banking industry.

I love all this talk of personal responsibility and then claiming that it's hurting business when they can't prey on irresponsible people in order to fund freebies for other clients, who apparently can't afford to pay for their own services. Remember the legislation doesn't prevent banks from offering OD protection and charging the $35 fee. It only gives customers the option of not taking automatic "stealth" loans with high fees.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 10:33 AM Reply   
First off, we don't charge overdraft fees for anything under $5. Do I think a fee on a $1 overdraft is rediculous, yes. Second, I think we got a little off point. I don't have a problem with people opting out of the service. You go to the store and don't have the money, the transaction is just denied. You write a check and don't have the money, the check is returned. Thats fine. As I said, most customers have opted into the service anyway. I think I thought you were trying to say that banks shouldn't be allowed to charge overdrafts.

and $35! We need to up our fee if thats what you're paying.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2010, 11:05 AM Reply   
I personally have never paid an ATM overdraft fee. But I know my daughter got two ($39 IIRC at Chase) because she went $0.18 over on a gas purchase and then went into the store and got another OD paying for a soft drink.

My argument was that the legislation requiring banks to allow poeple to opt out is a good thing. I'm not very concerned about what people pay that they agree to. And I don't mean agree to as in you can't have a bank account unless you agree to allow us to loan you money.

I find it hard to believe that most people opted in for two reasons. One, it's a bad idea and two, people who would get overdrafts don't strike me as the kind who would go out of their way to contact the bank to opt in. They usually get ODs because they aren't paying attention.

Just out of curiousity... has anyone reading this thread opted in to ATM OD "protection"?
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       10-20-2010, 11:41 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I personally have never paid an ATM overdraft fee. But I know my daughter got two ($39 IIRC at Chase) because she went $0.18 over on a gas purchase and then went into the store and got another OD paying for a soft drink.

My argument was that the legislation requiring banks to allow poeple to opt out is a good thing. I'm not very concerned about what people pay that they agree to. And I don't mean agree to as in you can't have a bank account unless you agree to allow us to loan you money.

I find it hard to believe that most people opted in for two reasons. One, it's a bad idea and two, people who would get overdrafts don't strike me as the kind who would go out of their way to contact the bank to opt in. They usually get ODs because they aren't paying attention.

Just out of curiousity... has anyone reading this thread opted in to ATM OD "protection"?
John, it sounds to me like you support people just passing the buck and blaming someone else for doing something stupid. Your daughter made a mistake and then had to pay for it. Maybe, just maybe she will learn from her mistake and not do it again. If she doesn't want to pay for OD fees than tell her to get rid of the debit card and get an atm card and use cash everywhere.

If you spend more then you have you should be punished. It is as simple as that. I have had it happen to me and I will admit is sucks but it is my own fault for not paying attention.

If
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 12:04 PM Reply   
ATM OD fee is not really the correct term. It really has nothing to do with an ATM.

So would it have been better for her to just be denied at the pump(although I agree $39 is a little stiff on an .18C overage)? Should she not be responsible enough to know how much money she has in her account? Is that the banks fault?
People opt in for a lot of reasons. If you go to a grocery store and know you have $300 in your account, but miscalculate and bring $350 to the checkout, do you want the bank to cover you, or do you want to have to put it all back? Id pay the $25(our fee).
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2010, 1:05 PM Reply   
Brett, I understand you may have reading comprehension problems and I sympathize with you for your disability.

Yes Paul, that's exactly the point I have made post after post. It would be better to be denied if you have chosen that route. But until now that hasn't been a choice.

WRT knowing how much money you have in your account. I agree that it's a good thing. But checking your balance can cost you several dollars. And I imagine one could OD their account checking to see how much they have. I'm curious as to why some people are defending this sort of business policy. The new rules don't prevent you from getting shafted on your own stupidity. The simply give you the tool to prevent yourself from screwing up.

I'm still wondering who opted in to the OD protection. Although now I believe banks are pushing more services like emailing you on an OD so that you can cover it before the midnight deadline.

Oh and I'd just use my CC if my debit is denied. I have a real CC. Not a debit card with a CC logo.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-20-2010, 1:10 PM Reply   
No, John, I'm not wanting anything for free--I'm not a liberal--but I also do not appreciate paying for or encouraging irresponsible behavior either. I guess I'm not making my point clear. If you read the article again, BOA was already moving away from charging fees becasuse they were losing customers., so, IMHO, the problem will have eventually worked itself out.--without all of this unnessary regulation--or BOA would have eventually been out of business. To me, the Dems are pretending to be friend to the community banks but in reality are forcing them into consolidatiion or even worse bankruptcy, which means banks like BOA will continue to thrive. Paul also mentioned the Dodd Act. Remember him? One last thing..Forcing banks to give loans was just a bad idea, especially when the gov. knew the default rate was going to be high, but I don't blame the banks for making loans that the gov. required them to make. Barney Frank himself assured the public that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound so why not loan away. It was only taxpayers' money. Social programs are good in theory but usually will not work because too many pepole take advantage of them, so regulating community banks out of business or forcing them to become "check cashers" is not a good idea either.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 1:18 PM Reply   
Its called balancing a checkbook. I believe they still teach it in highschool. I don't know of any banks that charge you for checking your balance. If yours does, its time to leave. Even if they did, they cannot charge an overdraft for a bank related fee. I doubt banks are going to email you if you OD. That would take a lot of time and money. Keeping your account positive is YOUR responsiblity. Not ours.

As I said. We probably have 1-2% of our deposit holders that didn't opt in. They recongnize a service when they see it and know if they scew up it will cost them for their mistake, but won't leave them stranded or get their checks returned. You would be suprised at the type of people that OD. Its not just irresponsible types.

"But until now that hasn't been a choice."

Well, that may be how your bank is, but we have always allowed the choice. You have always had to sign up for our OD protection.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-20-2010, 1:26 PM Reply   
"the Dems are pretending to be friend to the community banks"

No. They never pretended to be. They are just to stupid to figure out that sound policy on the big banks isn't usually sound policy on the community banks.

"Forcing banks to give loans was just a bad idea, especially when the gov. knew the default rate was going to be high, but I don't blame the banks for making loans that the gov. required them to make."

We were never forced to give loans to anyone. The Gov. pressured Fannie and Freddie to start buying the paper.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-20-2010, 3:24 PM Reply   
OK, then what is the Community Reinvestment Act? And how did the development of sub-prime loans come about? And who specifically pressured Fannie and Freddie to start buying the paper?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2010, 5:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
Its called balancing a checkbook. I believe they still teach it in highschool.
I haven't balanced my check book since I was in college.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
I don't know of any banks that charge you for checking your balance. If yours does, its time to leave. Even if they did, they cannot charge an overdraft for a bank related fee.
Chase bank...

"$2 each for any non-Chase ATM withdrawal, balance inquiry or transfer."

I have no idea if they can change an OD fee for a balance inquiry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
I doubt banks are going to email you if you OD. That would take a lot of time and money. Keeping your account positive is YOUR responsiblity. Not ours.
Not a matter of responsibility. It's a matter of customer service in a competitive environment. Also at Chase now...

"FREE Account Alerts sent by phone or e-mail to help you avoid fees"

Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
As I said. We probably have 1-2% of our deposit holders that didn't opt in. They recongnize a service when they see it and know if they scew up it will cost them for their mistake, but won't leave them stranded or get their checks returned. You would be suprised at the type of people that OD. Its not just irresponsible types.
Are you talking about OD protection that automatically moves money from one account to another? Because I have that. But a lot of people getting hit by fees don't have any money except in their checking account. They are the ones getting the big fees for overdrawing their accounts with ATM purchases. I think we are talking about two different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
Well, that may be how your bank is, but we have always allowed the choice. You have always had to sign up for our OD protection.
I think we are getting mixed up on the terminology. I'm talking about opting out of getting overdrafts on an ATM card. Not opting out of overdraft protection by moving money from one account to another.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-21-2010, 7:31 AM Reply   
"Chase bank...

"$2 each for any non-Chase ATM withdrawal, balance inquiry or transfer."

I have no idea if they can change an OD fee for a balance inquiry."

Well yes for foreign ATM use you get charged, but there are other ways. Online banking, money line etc...


"Are you talking about OD protection that automatically moves money from one account to another? Because I have that. But a lot of people getting hit by fees don't have any money except in their checking account. They are the ones getting the big fees for overdrawing their accounts with ATM purchases. I think we are talking about two different things."

I was not refering to moving money. We offer OD protection if you sign up that automatically covers you up to a certain amount(based on history and acct. use). If they overdraft, they will not get anything rejected up to that amount. they still get the OD fee though.



By law they cannot charge you an overdraft if a bank fee takes your acct. Negative.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2010, 8:45 AM Reply   
I still have a hard time believing 98% of your customers signed up for that. Since the law was passed banks have been pushing to sign up for what the law gave you the option of not having. IMO this is a bad thing to sign up for and the question still stands...

Has anyone reading this thread signed up to allow overdrafts on their ATM card?

IMO anyone with enough money in the bank in alternate accounts that they can move money quickly to circumvent OD fees should have a REAL credit card and still be able to pay if their ATM is declined.

BTW, I also had my bank remove the CC logo from my ATM card so that it cannot be used to access my bank account without a PIN. A debit card with a CC logo is not a credit card because you are getting no credit. It's just a poorly secured debit card that can be used in slightly more situations.

Last edited by fly135; 10-21-2010 at 8:48 AM.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-21-2010, 9:16 AM Reply   
"BTW, I also had my bank remove the CC logo from my ATM card so that it cannot be used to access my bank account without a PIN. A debit card with a CC logo is not a credit card because you are getting no credit. It's just a poorly secured debit card that can be used in slightly more situations. "

How is it any less secure than a credit card? Just because they removed the logo, doesn't mean it can't be run as a credit.


"I still have a hard time believing 98% of your customers signed up for that"

I don't care. Believe what you want.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2010, 9:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
How is it any less secure than a credit card? Just because they removed the logo, doesn't mean it can't be run as a credit.
Seriously Paul, do you really work in a bank? Not having the CC logo means it cannot be run as credit.

An ATM card with a CC logo is less secure because it removes money from your bank account when used. And it can be used without a PIN. With a credit card fraudlent transactions never see my bank account. And I never have to act to get my money back. I only have to act to get it removed from my bill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
I don't care. Believe what you want.
"The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators ... They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens".

William Graham Sumner, Folkways, 1906
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-21-2010, 10:01 AM Reply   
"Seriously Paul, do you really work in a bank? Not having the CC logo means it cannot be run as credit."

Got news for you John. It can still be run as a credit. The only thing card readers read is the strip on the back. The MC or Visa logo on the front is just that. A logo. All debit cards have a MC or Visa logo, depending on bank. They may say Debit card right on the card. You still have the option to run your debit card as a credit.

"And I never have to act to get my money back"

That was my point. You have fraud protection. Whether its easier to get it back on a cc or debit card probably depends on what companies you use.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2010, 11:39 AM Reply   
No, it does not work as a credit card. I specifically returned my ATM w/CC logo when it was issued automatically and asked for an ATM that does not work as a CC. I have verified it does not work as a CC just to make sure I got what I asked for.

Have you ever seen an ATM debit card w/o a CC logo that worked as a CC? I can't say for certain that there is no such thing, but I don't see why that would happen because it makes no sense for several reasons. Branding is important to CC companies, and because not all businesses take any card it's essential that the consumer know what kind of CC he has. It may not be necessary nowadays but it hasn't been that long ago that you had to provide the type of card when giving your number over the phone to make a payment.

I agree that all CCs have fraud protection. The difference with a real CC (i.e. one that gives you credit) is that the money never leaves your bank account. It doesn't take much to imagine the implications of money leaving your account without your knowledge. Anyone that has good enough credit to get a real CC should not use a CC tied to their bank account. To me that's just common sense.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-22-2010, 7:00 AM Reply   
I have never seen a DEBIT CARD that doesn't have a MC, or Visa logo. They have to have them to work through the merchant system to purchase things. The networks ATMs use are much smaller, while MC and Visa are usually accepted everywhere. Now if you're talking about an ATM card you get cash with, but can't use for purchasing at retailers, then yes of course.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-22-2010, 8:40 AM Reply   
Here ya go Paul. You do not have them (CC logos) to work through the merchant system to purchase things. This ATM card works everywhere ATM cards are accepted. That includes many retailers and gas stations. I would say that the norm is that ATM cards are accepted more often than not. But yes CCs are more widely usable than debit cards.
Attached Images
 
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-22-2010, 9:46 AM Reply   
Thats not a debit card. Its an ATM card. No you can't run ATM cards as Credit cards. There are a few places that will take them and they work it through just like an ATM transaction, but it will not work at most places like Auto zone, restaurants, department stores, etc... A lot of grocery stores and some gas stations will accept them though.




"I specifically returned my ATM w/CC logo when "

That was a debit card. I think we got off track with terminology.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-22-2010, 10:11 AM Reply   
Yeah, I have no idea what the difference is between an ATM card and a debit card. Everytime I stick a card (CC or ATM) in a reader it asks "debit or credit", so I just assumed when I have to select debit, I'm using an debit card. So what I've been saying all along is that I can't (and don't want) an ATM card that can be run as credit. I don't want a card that accesses my bank account without using a PIN.

If I get what you are saying.... it's that the distinction between and ATM card and a debit card is that the debit card has the CC logo and the ATM card doesn't. I think pretty much anywhere that has a card reader with keypad on the counter will take my ATM card. That includes drug stores, big box stores, and Home depot, in addition to grocery and every gas station. I'm not sure if it's currently true, but when I first joined Sam's Club they would take my ATM card but wouldn't take my CC.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-22-2010, 10:23 AM Reply   
Debit cards are accepted everywhere CC are. Debit cards don't nessecarily have to have the CC logo, but they access the same network and can be run as a credit where its a signature based transaction.

I think you are going to find that most places won't take your ATM card at the counter. Like I said some large retailers will if they are set up to do so. The only way to find out is go try and use it, and report back.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-22-2010, 11:02 AM Reply   
Well I've been using my ATM card for several years now and really haven't found that many places that don't take it. But I do have a certain pattern of use. I generally use my CC for most stuff, but use my ATM for groceries, Sams Club, gas, Home Depot, and drug store. Pretty much if there's a keypad on the counter they take it. That includes the Chinese fast food takeout.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-25-2010, 11:44 AM Reply   
"Are you really that ignorant that you can't follow your own rationale" Wow, and this statement coming from a man who doesn't know the difference between a debit card and a credit card. I now understand how liberals think. Thanks, John.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-25-2010, 11:46 AM Reply   
Sorry, I meant Atm not Credit Card.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-25-2010, 11:51 AM Reply   
RonT, I don't think that you are any place to identify someone's "ignorance". Show me where one can conclude that John doesn't know the difference between a debit and credit card.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-26-2010, 6:25 AM Reply   
"Yeah, I have no idea what the difference is between an ATM card and a debit card"
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2010, 10:40 AM Reply   
Laker, I didn't know the difference between and ATM card and a debit card. I bet you didn't either.

The fact that this topic makes you believe that this is a liberal issue says a lot about how you think. Pretty much like a partisan politcal idiot. Which is one of the main problems with our country right now.

Edit: and if you reread what you were initially saying... It was that you are upset about having to pay fees because irresponsible people are given the tools to control their use of the ATM. And as a result of the banks not making money off of them you'll have to pay for previously free services.

Last edited by fly135; 10-26-2010 at 10:45 AM.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-26-2010, 11:45 AM Reply   
" irresponsible people are given the tools to control their use of the ATM."


Once again we are not using the correct terms. Its not the ATM. Its using debit cards at point of sale, not knowing how much you have in your account and then overdrafting it. MOST(not all) banks will not allow you to overdraft at an ATM machine.


Now, this thread needs to quite down and die.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2010, 12:13 PM Reply   
When my daughter OD'd it was an ATM card at gas station. So my previous statement should have read...

" irresponsible people are given the tools to control their use of the ATM card."

So let's dispense with the semantics. The point is the same. And when I first posted this...

Quote:
BTW, I also had my bank remove the CC logo from my ATM card so that it cannot be used to access my bank account without a PIN. A debit card with a CC logo is not a credit card because you are getting no credit. It's just a poorly secured debit card that can be used in slightly more situations.
You had enough information to know what I was talking about. If I had been aware of the difference between an ATM and debit card and read that statement, it would have put me on the same page as the poster. The message is the same no matter what you call it.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-26-2010, 12:52 PM Reply   
She used it at a gas station(I assume at the counter). Thats not an ATM machine. An ATM machine is set up by the bank and is a free standing machine. Now, if she went into a gas station that had an ATM machine inside it(to get cash) and it allowed her to overdraft her account, then I have to agree with you that that is not a fair practice, and as I said, most banks won't let you do that.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2010, 1:16 PM Reply   
She used the keypad at the gas pump to buy gas, then used the keypad on the counter to buy a drink. No ATM was used. Got two OD fees as a result. They were $35 each (not $39 I said previously), and the pump was only over by cents (0.18 IIRC). I agree that it's unfair so that's why the law IMO is a good thing. It was Chase so we are talking about a bank that is big.

Not sure why it's OK if it's not an ATM. It was a debit transaction with an ATM card.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-26-2010, 1:29 PM Reply   
Cash withdraws at ATM machines are different than point of sale purchases. WHen you do POS they are forced through by the merchant system. The bank cannot stop them. They can stop an ATM withdraw(at a regular ATM) for lack of funds.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2010, 2:22 PM Reply   
So what you are saying is that the bank will still charge a $35 (or whatever for that bank) fee if an ATM card is used at a POS and there are not sufficient funds? I.E. the bank is forced to cover the charge? Or will it get bounced back to the POS company like a check with insufficient funds?
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-27-2010, 10:05 AM Reply   
Well the process is kind of complicated to explain. A lot of times when you use a card at a merchant, it is run as a preauthorization. Say at a gas pump, you run your card. It will preauthorize it for $1, even though you are getting $60 in gas. Say you only have 10 dollars in your account. It may take that charge a day to hit your account. So you have not opted in, and get the gas. The charge will hit your bank account, and the bank cannot send it back(since its a POS) or charge you for the overdraft. Once the account is negative though, it will just reject at the POS. So it is possible to get an account negative without opting in, and the bank cannot charge you for that. If someone is doing this often, the bank does have the right to pull your card for account abuse.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-27-2010, 12:09 PM Reply   
"Pretty much like a partisan politcal idiot." John, my liberal friend, glad to see you haven't lost your wit. My comeback is a bit oudated but I'm in a hurry, "It takes one to know one."
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-27-2010, 1:48 PM Reply   
Laker, why not explain to us how not knowing the difference between and ATM and debit card has any reflection on being liberal or conservative. You're the one that claims they are connected.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-27-2010, 7:43 PM Reply   
I apologize, John. Maybe I get a little carried away a times. On the other hand, I just can't support a man who makes references to me sitting in the back of the bus. To me, it's symbolic of Obama's agenda (through regulation) and in poor taste http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...ditch-slurpee/
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-28-2010, 8:59 AM Reply   
I think that fact that he used the term "ride shotgun" indicates he wasn't talking about a bus, but this is just a distraction. Neither political party is really fixing much of anything. They are both operating on get elected mode continuously.

The crux of our economic problems are not IMO being understood by either party. You can't create jobs with deregulation or regulation. You can't create jobs with tax cuts or tax hikes. The reality is that our economy is being stomped into the mud by consumer demand of products we don't make in this country. We are eventually going to have to understand that all Americans have to adopt a bit of protectionist policy, recognize the threat of the trade deficit, and slowly work towards the solution.

Money isn't even real. There is less than a trillion dollars of currency in existance and we lose 1/2 trillion every year of "on the book" money. IOW if the monetary lose was currency we wouldnt have any money in two years. What's important is productitivy and we are losing it. We need to focus on cause and effect. If the Chinese would value their currency at what the world believes it should be then the price of chinese products would go up around 25-50%. We cannot depend on creating new tech to solely support us in the future for 2 reasons. Not everyone can be a engr, scientist, researcher. And we need jobs for all levels of skil and intellect.

I might seem partisan because I believe the democrats are on a better track than the repulicans, but I am able to recognize they are both wrong.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:04 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us