Banks Hit Jobless with Fees on Unemployment Comp

[Rstanley0312 0]

Also, if you normalize for religious giving vs. strictly humanitarian giving (ie, giving $100k to a megachurch is not the same as giving $100k to the Red Cross) the picture becomes even murkier.

It depends on the church! My church is considered a "mega church" but if you look at the numbers on what we give...... 20% goes to maintaning the church, salaries, etc. 80% is given away. One notable project was that we built the largest AIDS hospice in Africa. I am just saying that you cannot generalize like that. I would say the Red Cross as much as I do believe in it..... they give less of what they take in than my church does. My church however is not dominant GOP or Dem., I would say it is pretty even.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[DanG 1]

I agree, and I have nothing against giving to your church. I gave money to a Christian based charity last year, and I'm not a Christian.

I was just pointing out that generalizations like "Republicans give to charity more than Democrats" don't really mean anything.

- Dan G

[Rstanley0312 0]

Well I agree with you on that point Dan.... like I said my church is pretty much split down the middle then there is me... a lonely Libertarian.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Would you like them to pick up usage fees for ATMs that are not their own for the unemployed as well? LMFAO.

Nope and we weren't talking about that, so why bring a seperate issue into it?

I do expect the bank to not charge an overdraft fee to a welfare customer. They have the ability to just not let the payment go through.

I expect them not to charge a fee for a phone call. As pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't believe there is an incremental cost to them.

And who do you propose should PAY for the banks to change their accounting software to recognize the welfare accounts and not assess any charges against them?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I agree, and I have nothing against giving to your church. I gave money to a Christian based charity last year, and I'm not a Christian.

I was just pointing out that generalizations like "Republicans give to charity more than Democrats" don't really mean anything.

There is no way to prove or disprove WHERE the charity money is given, so YOUR generalization doesn't mean anything either.

I *will* say that most of the religious folks I know consider tithing a duty to the church and charitable giving as a separate issue, however, that is too small a sample size to say if it is valid or not.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Quote

There is no way to prove or disprove WHERE the charity money is given, so YOUR generalization doesn't mean anything either.

Which generalization was that? I made no generalization, except for the one about generalizations not meaning anything.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There is no way to prove or disprove WHERE the charity money is given, so YOUR generalization doesn't mean anything either.

Which generalization was that? I made no generalization, except for the one about generalizations not meaning anything.

Quote

Also, if you normalize for religious giving vs. strictly humanitarian giving (ie, giving $100k to a megachurch is not the same as giving $100k to the Red Cross) the picture becomes even murkier.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

And who do you propose should PAY for the banks to change their accounting software to recognize the welfare accounts and not assess any charges against them?

No change in accounting software necessary. The software already is set to a certain limit when it comes to overdraft. Just set that limit to $0 for those accounts.

[DanG 1]

You're right. I generalized that giving to megachurches is different from giving to the Red Cross. Sorry, I thought you meant something else. I can see how my generalization is not accurate, especially in light of Stanley's post.

Can you also admit that your generalization regarding Republicans and Democrats was also inaccurate?

- Dan G

[TheAnvil 0]

They are not regular customers. They do not deposit money into these accounts to open them; it's deposited by the State on a regular bases for a limited time frame because the people in question have no income.

Completely different paradigm.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Your belief and reality don't agree.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And who do you propose should PAY for the banks to change their accounting software to recognize the welfare accounts and not assess any charges against them?

Doesn't appear that they had any trouble altering their software to implement a different fee structure.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So your standpoint is that all the call centre representatives were already working at their maximum, therefor the bank had to charge fees for the calls from the wellfare folk?

I find that very hard to believe and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And if you think that example was contrived or irrelevant, you must not be working in business.

Anyone in the real world that has even worked in, managed, supported a call center knows that an example of having a single person has little relevance to a real call center, esp one for a major bank. They're always operating at over capacity, esp if they're not charging per call. Cost centers will never be staffed like revenue centers.

Banks don't have to charge for these calls, but there's absolutely no question (aside from you) that there is a cost in providing people to talk to.

Since we can expect banks to be very capitalistic, it's up to the states to ensure that they are running a fair program.

[DanG 1]

I guess if I work for the state and they deposit my check into the bank I'm not a regular customer either.

Explain to me again how these people's banking experience is fundamentally different.

Or look at it another way. If the banks in question treated these people like regular customers, maybe some of them would stick around after they get new jobs. Or is that too forward thinking?

- Dan G

[TheAnvil 0]

No. In that scenario, you have a job with a regular income and long term potential of remaining with the bank, ergo long term profit potential for the bank by having your money in there. Completely different cost projection paradigm than an unemployed person who doesn't bank there and will not have income when those benefits run out.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And who do you propose should PAY for the banks to change their accounting software to recognize the welfare accounts and not assess any charges against them?

No change in accounting software necessary. The software already is set to a certain limit when it comes to overdraft. Just set that limit to $0 for those accounts.

Wrong - the software WOULD have to be changed to recognize the welfare accounts. So...WHO is going to PAY for that work to be done?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You're right. I generalized that giving to megachurches is different from giving to the Red Cross. Sorry, I thought you meant something else. I can see how my generalization is not accurate, especially in light of Stanley's post.

Can you also admit that your generalization regarding Republicans and Democrats was also inaccurate?

I don't see where you disproved that - only quibbled about churches vs. Red Cross.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And who do you propose should PAY for the banks to change their accounting software to recognize the welfare accounts and not assess any charges against them?

Doesn't appear that they had any trouble altering their software to implement a different fee structure.

ATM fees and phone access charges are a 'different fee structure'?

Please, do tell how these charges are somehow ONLY applicable to the welfare card holders, so that I can get MY little one-horse bank to stop charging me ATM access fees when I use my debit card and phone access fees when I call to verify my balance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Whew. Lots of free-market advocacy in here, but at 90+ posts and counting, not a single post yet to persuade me that this is not morally repugnant.

Here's a hint, guys: the proper answer to the question, "Have you no shame?" is not "Because I can."

[DanG 1]

Quote

I don't see where you disproved that - only quibbled about churches vs. Red Cross.

Why am I not suprised that you did not see that which you did not want to see? I suppose technically I didn't disprove it, merely showed that it is not provable, and therefore shouldn't be stated as fact.

The difference is probably lost on you.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't see where you disproved that - only quibbled about churches vs. Red Cross.

Why am I not suprised that you did not see that which you did not want to see?

I could say the same, given the information in the news article - did you have a point, other than I didn't take your supposition as gospel?

Quote

I suppose technically I didn't disprove it, merely showed that it is not provable, and therefore shouldn't be stated as fact.

From your own link (two paragraphs up from your quote)(please note religiosity isn't mentioned):

Quote

Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.

Quote

The difference is probably lost on you.

Sorry, but I'm not going to change my mind just because you say I'm wrong. Did I overstate the difference in charitable giving between the parties? Maybe, but 30% seems like a pretty good diffence to me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Clearly you refuse to recognize that the bank behavior is morally unjust. I'm trying to get you so see it through capitalist eyes. I just can't understand why someone who claims to be as business saavy as yourself can't see why fucking potential long term customers is a good business strategy.

Here's the scenario: I'm down and out. The state sends my unemployment benefit to Citibank. Citibank, because they can get away with it, charges me for breathing the fucking air in the bank lobby since that's air that could be breathed by regular customers. When I get a new job (and I will get a new job at some point) what's the one bank that I will never give my business to? Citibank. If they had treated me like a regular customer (because for the six months I could potentially be on unemployment I am one) I might just continue to bank there in the future.

Are you, and apparently the banks in question, so fucking short sighted that you can't understand that the $0.50 you squeeze out of me every couple weeks is not worth it in the long term? Or do you just hate poor people?

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Gosh darn it, you're right. The fact that the 30% figure disappears when you look at where the money goes is just not important. Republican giving to their University endowment and to the church to buy a new rectory is just as important as Democratic contributions to Habitat for Humanity and AIDS research.

Man, you are really good at this debating thing. And here I am all along assuming that facts matter. Really, I just need to keep posting the same unsupported drivel over and over, and eventually people will believe it.

Thanks for the lesson.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Gosh darn it, you're right. The fact that the 30% figure disappears when you look at where the money goes is just not important. Republican giving to their University endowment and to the church to buy a new rectory is just as important as Democratic contributions to Habitat for Humanity and AIDS research.

More supposition.

Quote

Man, you are really good at this debating thing. And here I am all along assuming that facts matter. Really, I just need to keep posting the same unsupported drivel over and over, and eventually people will believe it.

Thanks for the lesson.

You're not good at the sarcasm, however.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

You are good at being stubborn.

Are you ignoring the part of the article where the author admits that giving is tied to religiousity, not political beliefs? I'll quote it again:

Quote

Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.

Or later on, when the reporter takes two seconds to be fair and includes some criticism of this obviously biased researcher:

Quote

Alan J. Abramson, director of the nonprofit-research program at the Aspen Institute, a Washington think tank, questions whether Mr. Brooks is putting too much stock in data on giving, which Mr. Abramson describes as "mushy." He notes that surveys on giving put the percentage of American households who give to charity at between 50 percent and 80 percent — an incredibly wide range.

and later:

Quote

Much religious giving is akin to paying dues at a club; it goes for such things as paying salaries and keeping the lights on. And in their secular giving, Mr. Abramson says, it is conceivable that conservative and religious people may be more likely than liberal donors to give to charities like colleges and hospitals, which do not focus mainly on serving the poor. "Even if conservatives or religious people are more generous in that they give more, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're giving redistributively," Mr. Abramson says.

To try to wrap this up, because we're not getting anywhere, I readily admit that you might be right. Perhaps Republican are more charitable than Democrats. On the other hand, perhaps they are not. The only "data" out there seems to have been compiled by a conservate, religious author, and seems not to have been peer reviewed (which is one reason why people publish such studies in books rather than articles). I don't really care who is more charitable, I just don't think its fair for you to rely on claims that are not verifiable.

- Dan G