OT: paying to withdrawl?

[uki]

anyone else having these kinds of problems? talk about a banking scam...

excerpts...

First, Arthur Santa-Maria called Bank of America to ask how to check the balance of his new unemployment benefits debit card. The bank charged him 50 cents.

He chose not to complain. That would have cost another 50 cents.

So he took out some of the money and then decided to pull out the rest. But that made two withdrawals on the same day, and that was $1.50.




Thirty states have struck such deals with banks that include Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase and US Bancorp, an Associated Press review of the agreements found. All the programs carry fees, and in several states the unemployed have no choice but to use the debit cards. Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 — even though they could decline charges for more than what's on the card.


Some banks, depending on the agreement negotiated with each state, also make money on the interest they earn after the state deposits the money and before it's spent. The banks and credit card companies also get roughly 1 percent to 3 percent off the top of each transaction made with the cards.

"It's a racket. It's a scam," said Rachel Davis, a 38-year-old dental technician from St. Louis who was laid off in October. Davis was given a MasterCard issued through Central Bank of Jefferson City and recently paid $6 to make two $40 withdrawals.

Neither banks nor credit card companies will say how much money they are making off the programs, or what proportion of the revenue comes from user versus merchant fees or interest. It's difficult to estimate the profits because they depend on how often recipients use their cards and where they use them.

But the potential is clear.

In Missouri, for instance, 94,883 people claimed unemployment benefits through debit cards from Central Bank. Analysts say a recipient uses a card an average of six to 10 times a month. If each cardholder makes three withdrawals at an out-of-network ATM, at a fee of $1.75, the bank would collect nearly $500,000. If half of the cardholders also call customer service three times in any given week, the bank's revenue would jump to more than $521,000. That would yield $6.3 million a year.



so this i what they teach you in those fancy banking, accounting, and buisness schools, eh? :rolleyes:

full article... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29286993/

[MightyB]

ethics are gone. We truly live in a morally corrupt society.

One solution that we should demand that would clean a lot of this up is that we should go after a separation of business and state with the same zeal that we go after a separation of church and state. Kick the lobbyists out of Washington.

[David Jamieson]

ethics are gone. We truly live in a morally corrupt society.

One solution that we should demand that would clean a lot of this up is that we should go after a separation of business and state with the same zeal that we go after a separation of church and state. Kick the lobbyists out of Washington.

lol.

dude, if you completely deregulated business the corruption would be much worse.

It is not the businesses that are the problem.

It is the banks and the refusal to regulate them at a federal and state level that would ensure that the bankers don't become the captains of the ship.

the real power is wealth. who cares who the politicians are, if you control the money, you control the country.

i dunno about you, but i am not at all interested in living in a country that functions like a faceless corporation and deals with it's people in the same way. that's where the reforms are needed.

[MightyB]

lol.

dude, if you completely deregulated business the corruption would be much worse.

It is not the businesses that are the problem.

It is the banks and the refusal to regulate them at a federal and state level that would ensure that the bankers don't become the captains of the ship.

the real power is wealth. who cares who the politicians are, if you control the money, you control the country.

i dunno about you, but i am not at all interested in living in a country that functions like a faceless corporation and deals with it's people in the same way. that's where the reforms are needed.

Did you not read what I said?

The fact is you have to have regulations written without undue influence from business. If you don't think that corporate lobbyists are the problem- look up the behind the scenes info about the prescription drug bill. F%^^'n disgraceful. And that's just one example of a government that's hostile and irresponsible to it's populace in favor corporate profiteering.

[David Jamieson]

Did you not read what I said?

The fact is you have to have regulations written without undue influence from business. If you don't think that corporate lobbyists are the problem- look up the behind the scenes info about the prescription drug bill. F%^^'n disgraceful. And that's just one example of a government that's hostile and irresponsible to it's populace in favor corporate profiteering.

the problem isn't that there are lobbyists, it is that there are not enough grass roots lobbyists to counter those things that you are taking issue with.

The attitude of "let someone else take care of it" is what is the root problem in my opinion and it's not one group or another. THe active groups are DOING something and they are doing it to their own agenda.

If there was real offense taken to what's happening, then there would be a measure of real action taken, which there isn't which indicates apathy and if people don't care, then **** em. That's how it works everywhere else in the world, so why not in america? You just expect people to do stuff for you gratis? nuh uh.

You want something done right, you really do have to do it yourself.

[1bad65]

It never ceases to amaze me how people get up in arms at banks for charging a few dollars for ATM fees and such, but think that giving away ~40% of your total income in taxes is fine.

Look at California, they take over 8% for state income taxes and this year they wrote out IOUs to people who overpaid! And I don't see people up in arms over that, or that on the front page of MSNBC.

[1bad65]

the problem isn't that there are lobbyists, it is that there are not enough grass roots lobbyists to counter those things that you are taking issue with.

It darn sure is lobbyists fault. Your just giving them a pass because Obama's Cabinet is full of them, despite his LIE that he would have no lobbyists in the Cabinet.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It never ceases to amaze me how people get up in arms at banks for charging a few dollars for ATM fees and such, but think that giving away ~40% of your total income in taxes is fine.

Look at California, they take over 8% for state income taxes and this year they wrote out IOUs to people who overpaid! And I don't see people up in arms over that, or that on the front page of MSNBC.

Don't even get me started on that wonderful PROVISIONAL tax know was INCOME TAX !!!
:mad:

[1bad65]

Don't even get me started on that wonderful PROVISIONAL tax know was INCOME TAX !!!
:mad:

I'm serious. If I take ONE of my bi-weekly checks and add up the amounts taken out by the government, it is more than my bank charges me in fees for the ENTIRE YEAR. Yet who do people get mad at, the banks or the government? It's ignorance on parade.

[SimonM]

ethics are gone. We truly live in a morally corrupt society.

One solution that we should demand that would clean a lot of this up is that we should go after a separation of business and state with the same zeal that we go after a separation of church and state. Kick the lobbyists out of Washington.

I say we just nationalize the banks myself.

But failing that getting rid of the lobbyists would be a good thing...

And modifying campaign fundraising laws to prevent large-scale corporate donations altogether, make a reasonable maximum cap on campaign contributions from private individuals.

And unlike some people I think income tax is necessary, a good idea, and not something that should be got rid of.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm serious. If I take ONE of my bi-weekly checks and add up the amounts taken out by the government, it is more than my bank charges me in fees for the ENTIRE YEAR. Yet who do people get mad at, the banks or the government? It's ignorance on parade.

Well, I don't pay bank fees, Lisa is a BA for the Royal Bank.
Nevertheless it never seems to amaze me how we go like lambs to the slaughter wehn we fork over 25% and UP of our hard earned money to the government for some PROVISIONARY tax measuer that was not suppose to be permanent !

[SimonM]

SR: Taxes go to the common good (in theory).

Bank fees simply line the pockets of bankers.

There is no comparisson.

[sanjuro_ronin]

SR: Taxes go to the common good (in theory).

Bank fees simply line the pockets of bankers.

There is no comparisson.

Banks employee many people?
They loan you money.
The government has people on their payroll that WE pay for and they TAKE our money.
yep, no comparison.
:p;)

[1bad65]

I say we just nationalize the banks myself.

But failing that getting rid of the lobbyists would be a good thing...

Learn history before calling for nationalization. It always fails when compared to capitalism.


And modifying campaign fundraising laws to prevent large-scale corporate donations altogether, make a reasonable maximum cap on campaign contributions from private individuals.

We already did EXACTLY that with McCain-Feingold. So whats your point?

[1bad65]

Banks employee many people?
They loan you money.
The government has people on their payroll that WE pay for and they TAKE our money.
yep, no comparison.
:p;)

Simon has bought into the class warfare rhetoric that American liberals preach. He ate it hook, line, and sinker.

[1bad65]

Sanjuro, don't back up your arguments with reason or facts when debating Simon. Doing so will get you put on his ignore list. ;)

[Lucas]

thats why you have to educate yourself and align yourself with a better bank.

the day of the big banks are over. go find yourself CDFI

[1bad65]

thats why you have to educate yourself and align yourself with a better bank.

the day of the big banks are over. go find yourself CDFI

While we are free to choose what bank we use, good luck telling the IRS you want a better deal!

Yet in some people's minds the banks are worse?!?!

[1bad65]

thats why you have to educate yourself and align yourself with a better bank.

But it's so much easier to blame 'the rich', the 'Neocons', and George Bush. ;)

[SimonM]

Banks employee many people?
They loan you money.
The government has people on their payroll that WE pay for and they TAKE our money.
yep, no comparison.
:p;)

I try to minimize my debt load. I won't say I don't have debt, that would be a lie, but I have much less than the average debt load (I think I'm under $6000 all-in at the moment). So banks lending me money... not a big service.

Frankly I'd rather live within my means.

And I'd rather contribute to a social security net for those who CAN'T live within their means.

And that means a government bureaucracy (workers who spend their payroll IN our economy, unlike banks that invest abroad) and that means taxes.

So to reiterate: Banks: Bad, cause flight of capital.
Taxes: Good, cause internal circulation of capital.

[Lucas]

But it's so much easier to blame 'the rich', the 'Neocons', and George Bush. ;)

lool, i suppose it might be more fun too.

[YouKnowWho]

I made my credit card payment on 8/1 for my August payment. Since I was driving to California from Tx on 8/15. I made my September payment on 8/15. I then made my October payment on 10/1. and November payment on 11/1. When I came back to Texas from California, I received a letter from my credit card company said that I was late on my payment twice and they had raised my 0% interest to 23%. I asked them why and found out that they had counted both of my 8/1 and 8/15 payments as the August payment (2 payment in 1 month). Since my next payment was on 10/1, they considered that was late for my September payment, and 11/1 was also late for my October payment.

I had explained to them what had happened, they waved my late fee charged but they won't change back to my 0% interest rate.

[1bad65]

YKW,

That's ridiculous. I'd try and get either a personal loan or another low interest credit card and pay off the credit card company you have now. Then write them a letter telling them off and how now they get NO business from you.

Also, that drive to California from Texas is a fun drive. ;)

[taai gihk yahn]

I had explained to them what had happened, they waved my late fee charged but they won't change back to my 0% interest rate.

dude, just get a manager on the phone and explain to him / her the reason why you are closing your account with their company; I would be stunned if that interest rate didn't drop back down immediately...

[1bad65]

Simon is missing the big picture. Small business people often use credit to make it from one job to another. Guys like contractors, painters, electricians, etc often buy materials for a new job on credit, then pay it off after the job is done and they are paid. Then the cycle repeats itself. When the credit/loans are not available, they suddenly are in a huge pickle.

A restauranteur or club owner might also get a loan to expand or open up a new location as well.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I try to minimize my debt load. I won't say I don't have debt, that would be a lie, but I have much less than the average debt load (I think I'm under $6000 all-in at the moment). So banks lending me money... not a big service.

Frankly I'd rather live within my means.

And I'd rather contribute to a social security net for those who CAN'T live within their means.

And that means a government bureaucracy (workers who spend their payroll IN our economy, unlike banks that invest abroad) and that means taxes.

So to reiterate: Banks: Bad, cause flight of capital.
Taxes: Good, cause internal circulation of capital.

The only debt I have is a Mortgage, and that is far less than the home is worth.
I don't have issues with anyone making money on lending me money I don't have.
Now, I can say this to you, Government is a need, no gray area there.
Taking money out of my paycheck and out of my employees paycheck BEFORE they even have a chance to spend it and then do with it what THEY want, that I am not a big fan of.
By the way, government can charge up to 24% interest on back taxes, taxes they shouldn't take anyway.
Governemnt gets:
Income tax
Sales tax ( Federal and provincial)
Property tax
Gas tax
Land transfer tax.
Probably more but you get the picture.
More of your income goes to the government than you care to admit to yourself because if you do, you may kill someone !
Government also sells off our natural resources, sometimes at a lower rate than to US.
Government has more income than I care to think of and they invest abroad too by the way.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Simon is missing the big picture. Small business people often use credit to make it from one job to another. Guys like contractors, painters, electricians, etc often buy materials for a new job on credit, then pay it off after the job is done and they are paid. Then the cycle repeats itself. When the credit/loans are not available, they suddenly are in a huge pickle.

A restauranteur or club owner might also get a loan to expand or open up a new location as well.

And the only thing small businesses get from the government is AUDITS.

[SimonM]

Government also sells off our natural resources, sometimes at a lower rate than to US.
.

That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

And one I think we would be more likely to agree on.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

And one I think we would be more likely to agree on.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand banks, government is just worse, that's all.
At least banks don't pretend to be about "the people".

[1bad65]

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand banks, government is just worse, that's all.
At least banks don't pretend to be about "the people".

Very well said.

Also, banks at least admit it's YOUR money, Government thinks it's THEIR money.

[SimonM]

A government should be for "the people" that is what it exists for.

And by that I mean all of the people, not just the ones who drive lexuses or even the ones who voted for the ruling party.

However doing away with taxation won't fix this. What should be an issue is how the government choses to allocate tax income and income from husbanded national resources to enrich the public good.

[MightyB]

Ok- we hear that tariffs are bad, etc. but what about not introducing new tariffs or protectionist policy, but a policy system that reflects exporting what's good about capitalism. All that I see with our totally "free" market is a system that lacks accountability to giving people a decent life.

Our businesses say that wages are too high, or good environmental policy costs too much so they export the labor to circumvent good humanistic policies. Well, let's start charging companies that do this some type of penalty. Figure out a cost for the environmental damage that their new plant in the third world is doing and asses that to everything that's imported from that location. Or find where they're not paying a fair wage that's comparible to the value of doing that job in the US and assess a penalty. Penalize heavy for illegal labor practices such as using child labor or legalized sweat shops.

We are a very exploitive culture and it's encouraged by our government. We're not raising the standards of living for the third world- instead we're systematically lowering ours to match theirs. That's not right. We need policies that protect people from corporate greed.

[1bad65]

A government should be for "the people" that is what it exists for.

Well Obama is for 'The People'. He is just for the people who don't pay income taxes and who got themselves into financial messes by signing ARMs on houses they couldn't afford.

[sanjuro_ronin]

A government should be for "the people" that is what it exists for.

And by that I mean all of the people, not just the ones who drive lexuses or even the ones who voted for the ruling party.

However doing away with taxation won't fix this. What should be an issue is how the government choses to allocate tax income and income from husbanded national resources to enrich the public good.

Well, there becomes the issue, if government is base don Taxes and in the case nowadays, income tax, then those that pay the most should get the most in return.
The government has no right to tax income, it never did.
The paces an act, that was never made a Law, for a provisionary tax during war time to increase revenue.
And they kept it, with out putting it to a vote.
Does that sound right to you?

[1bad65]

We're not raising the standards of living for the third world- instead we're systematically lowering ours to match theirs. That's not right.

This is EXACTLY what socialists like Obama believe government economic policies should bring about.

Just read my sig.

[1bad65]

Well, there becomes the issue, if government is base don Taxes and in the case nowadays, income tax, then those that pay the most should get the most in return.
The government has no right to tax income, it never did.
The paces an act, that was never made a Law, for a provisionary tax during war time to increase revenue.
And they kept it, with out putting it to a vote.
Does that sound right to you?

And remember, everyone gets to vote on our representatives who make tax laws. Even those who pay ZERO income taxes.

Our Founding Fathers had a solution, but it was taken away. That's why they said only land owners could vote, since they were the entire tax base back then. Now everyone can vote, even those who give NOTHING to the system, but take out every penny they need to live on.

The Democrats are for this, once over 50% of Americans get some sort of government assistance, their re-elections are almost guaranteed.

[Exadon]

This is EXACTLY what socialists like Obama believe government economic policies should bring about.

Just read my sig.

I voted for Obama. If I would have a chance to vote again I would still have voted for him. To say that he is a socialist is a stretch IMHO

but I have a bad feeling that is I go into all the reasons why I think this...this could turn into a bad Internet battle with threats of street fights and a line drawn in the sand at the end.

[SimonM]

Well, there becomes the issue, if government is base don Taxes and in the case nowadays, income tax, then those that pay the most should get the most in return.
The government has no right to tax income, it never did.
The paces an act, that was never made a Law, for a provisionary tax during war time to increase revenue.
And they kept it, with out putting it to a vote.
Does that sound right to you?

As I support the tax I'm fine with that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And remember, everyone gets to vote on our representatives who make tax laws. Even those who pay ZERO income taxes.

Our Founding Fathers had a solution, but it was taken away. That's why they said only land owners could vote, since they were the entire tax base back then. Now everyone can vote, even those who give NOTHING to the system, but take out every penny they need to live on.

The Democrats are for this, once over 50% of Americans get some sort of government assistance, their re-elections are almost guaranteed.

That is a tad extremist.
While I have always believed that "equality for all" means equality amongst equals and not "standardized mediocrity".
We also have a responsibility to care for those that can't or won't take care of themselves, if for no other reason than for public security and well being.

[sanjuro_ronin]

As I support the tax I'm fine with that.

Do you think that, IF they government would put income tax to a general vote, that it would win?
I would prefer a flat tax on everything of 25% ( for example).
Let me KEEP MY MONEY and I will do with it what I want.
Government can still tax ACTUAL INCOME, after the fact, not before it.

[SimonM]

While I have always believed that "equality for all" means equality amongst equals and not "standardized mediocrity".
We also have a responsibility to care for those that can't or won't take care of themselves, if for no other reason than for public security and well being.

On this we don't disagree. However I don't see high tax for the wealthy and assistance for the poor as "standardized mediocrity".

You want to see me get fired up about that issue let's talk education.

[sanjuro_ronin]

On this we don't disagree. However I don't see high tax for the wealthy and assistance for the poor as "standardized mediocrity".

You want to see me get fired up about that issue let's talk education.

I don't belive in tax % base don income, that is just, well, wrong.
Penalizing people for having a good job ??
And education shoudl be free for ALL that QUALIFY ( have the grades).

[SimonM]

Higher taxation is not punishment.

It's simply a recognition of the old creedo "from those as they are able to those as they need".

Are you suggesting that the percentages of taxation charged to the wealthy beggars them? Is it the poor buying mansions and driving sports cars while the rich eat KD and take the bus?

I agree that ability to perform should be the only criterion for education I am equally incensed by the fact that there are people who have the grades but can't pay for a seat in a school while others who have serious learning disabilities are pushed through on a separate standard just because they can foot the bill.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Higher taxation is not punishment.

It's simply a recognition of the old creedo "from those as they are able to those as they need".

Are you suggesting that the percentages of taxation charged to the wealthy beggars them? Is it the poor buying mansions and driving sports cars while the rich eat KD and take the bus?

Remember, if they didn't have the money to do that stuff, the people that make a living selling that stuff wouldn't have jobs.
One of the reasons of this mess we are in is people forgetting that we are all interrelated and interdepandant in terms of the economy.
One sector suffers we all suffer.
I think that, if people don't want A-rod to make 36 million a year, they should stop seeing him play.
I think that making people that make more, pay more is not "distribution of wealth", its saying, you make more, get i tto the rest of us.
Not cool.
Now, do I agree they people that have lots of money shoudl pay more, yes, for sure, to motivate them to SPEND more, rather than give it to the Feds for them to spend on "golf balls".
Know what I mean?

[BoulderDawg]

And education shoudl be free for ALL that QUALIFY ( have the grades).

I'm for a nationwide high school graduation test. This levels the playing field a little. We all know that high schools vary drastically across the country. I use to know a guy who graduated from high school with a solid B average but could barely read the newspaper. The exit test would expose this. It would also give us an indicator has to how good schools are doing.

However, yes, if you pass the exit test then you should have the right to a free college education. If you fail, you should have the right to go back and make up what you missed.

Also the GED is a total joke. I could have passed that in the 6th grade.

[Shaolinlueb]

bank of america charges you for everything. how do you think they make their money?

don't want to get charged for everything? find a credit union, they are better with the fee's.

[Exadon]

I'm for a nationwide high school graduation test. .


it is pretty absurd how schools are today. My Sister and Brother in law are both teachers…they tell me that (for the most part) their school will pass anyone. Even when they try to fail them.

We need to go back to the days of failing kids…and making them re-take a grade till they can pass all that is required

[SimonM]

Remember, if they didn't have the money to do that stuff, the people that make a living selling that stuff wouldn't have jobs.
One of the reasons of this mess we are in is people forgetting that we are all interrelated and interdepandant in terms of the economy.

I seem to recall that there are all sorts of 'cost of business' deductions one can make from income tax for that very reason. Another reason why our complicated and byzantine tax system is better than a 'flat tax'.



I think that, if people don't want A-rod to make 36 million a year, they should stop seeing him play.


And I don't patronize major sporting events. I watch MMA fights sometimes on youtube. ;)

All foolishness aside I have no problem with whoever the hell A-rod is making a large salary. I just have a big problem if he doesn't pay his taxes on that big salary.



I think that making people that make more, pay more is not "distribution of wealth", its saying, you make more, get i tto the rest of us.
Not cool.


Unfortunately it is not the duty of government to be 'cool'. It is the duty of government to see to it that all the citizens it supports can expect the same basic quality of life. If joe-entertainment-figure has to do without another mansion in order for ten families to have heat in the winter than, well, cool or uncool I am behind that.

And I won't trust that to the vagarities of the market. Too many idiots run it.

[Exadon]

Unfortunately it is not the duty of government to be 'cool'. It is the duty of government to see to it that all the citizens it supports can expect the same basic quality of life. If joe-entertainment-figure has to do without another mansion in order for ten families to have heat in the winter than, well, cool or uncool I am behind that.

I agree 100%.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I seem to recall that there are all sorts of 'cost of business' deductions one can make from income tax for that very reason. Another reason why our complicated and byzantine tax system is better than a 'flat tax'.

I have a small business, yeah, not so much bro, not so much at all.


All foolishness aside I have no problem with whoever the hell A-rod is making a large salary. I just have a big problem if he doesn't pay his taxes on that big salary.

What % should that be?
An shoudl that % be higher than a guy making 50K ?


Unfortunately it is not the duty of government to be 'cool'. It is the duty of government to see to it that all the citizens it supports can expect the same basic quality of life. If joe-entertainment-figure has to do without another mansion in order for ten families to have heat in the winter than, well, cool or uncool I am behind that.

Actually, it is the governments duty to be responsible with OUR money < OUR NOT THEIRS, cause it isn't theirs.
How's our pension plan?
How's our EI fund?
How much money was wasted on "golf balls"?
How about free trade?
I can go on and on and on....

Fact is, people tend to be more responsibel than government, why?
Because its OUR MONEY.
When was the last time you voted your self a raise?

[SimonM]

I have a small business, yeah, not so much bro, not so much at all.

Current tax policy favors multinational corporations over small business owners. That is a problem. Conservative taxation policies would make it worse, not better, for small businesses. You want to know which party has the back of the small business person? The NDP (and the bloc).



What % should that be?
An shoudl that % be higher than a guy making 50K ?


With an income (post legitimate business expenses) of greater than 500K: 75%
At 50K it should be less severe.

And should I ever be in the position of earning an amount of money that rediculous myself and I am not taxed to that level I'll **** well give the difference to charity. I'm somebody who intends to live by his principles.



Actually, it is the governments duty to be responsible with OUR money < OUR NOT THEIRS, cause it isn't theirs.

Actually they ARE US (in theory). Let's work on making that a reality.



Fact is, people tend to be more responsibel than government, why?
Because its OUR MONEY.
When was the last time you voted your self a raise?
The events of the last year have shown that the bankers are less responsible than the government.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Current tax policy favors multinational corporations over small business owners. That is a problem. Conservative taxation policies would make it worse, not better, for small businesses. You want to know which party has the back of the small business person? The NDP (and the bloc).

NDP?
What makes you think that ??


With an income (post legitimate business expenses) of greater than 500K: 75%
At 50K it should be less severe.

Why? why woudl they have to pay more % wise? what is the rational behind that?


The events of the last year have shown that the bankers are less responsible than the government.

Canada is not the US, thank goodness, in that regard.
And even then, they still have a better record than the government.

[golgo]

Banks employee many people?
They loan you money.
The government has people on their payroll that WE pay for and they TAKE our money.
yep, no comparison.
:p;)

Actually, banks use the money we deposit to issue loans and make more money. So in a sense, we are loaning money to the banks at extremely low interest rates. This is why I have little patience for poor customer service at banks.

[Yum Cha]

I want less corruption, fewer rackets and a fair market,

Or, a bigger drink of the action....

[Oso]

this has been posted recently but fits here as well

NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GKOqdr0-e8

[1bad65]

Democrats are always against standardized tests for students and teachers.

Take a guess which party the Teacher's Unions give millions to....

[1bad65]

The events of the last year have shown that the bankers are less responsible than the government.

You really need to educate yourself on this topic.

Did the bankers pass the laws (like the CRA) saying banks HAD to make loans available to those who don't qualify?

[1bad65]

Also, whose idea was Social Security?

Bankers or government ;)

[Drake]

Big dummies. ATMs aren't free. Consider maintenance, installation, and the overall cost of one, not to mention that ones not belonging to your bank would clearly cost your bank extra to be able to let their customers use them. Think this one through, why don't you?

As for taxes, I'm middle of the road with that. You need to able to maintain roads, facilities, and other things necessary to allow us to continue living the way we do. I get where 1Bad is coming from with this. Tax only for necessary things. Extras often become monsters, draining billions of tax dollars. I also get where the left is coming from, though I think they exaggerate the issue.

[Drake]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4196835

[sanjuro_ronin]

Big dummies. ATMs aren't free. Consider maintenance, installation, and the overall cost of one, not to mention that ones not belonging to your bank would clearly cost your bank extra to be able to let their customers use them. Think this one through, why don't you?

As for taxes, I'm middle of the road with that. You need to able to maintain roads, facilities, and other things necessary to allow us to continue living the way we do. I get where 1Bad is coming from with this. Tax only for necessary things. Extras often become monsters, draining billions of tax dollars. I also get where the left is coming from, though I think they exaggerate the issue.

I don't know how it works in the states, but here, we have property tax ( city/municiple) that covers work done in your city and the city government.
We have provincial tax ( state tax) that covers provincal work, employees and provincial health care.
Then we have Federal tax that covers the fedral government and its roles ( military and such)
The we have deductions from our pay cheques for Employment insurance and for pension, that is sent to the fedreal government.
AND THEN we have income tax that goes to the Federal government too.
There is also fuel taxes and business taxes and so forth.