|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 25 2018 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away That and "please clap".
You shouldn't have made fun of his exclamation point.
|
On January 25 2018 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It would be amazing if someone could primary and win thus getting rid of her ass once and for all. Show nested quote +IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.
The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.
In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.
She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.
Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)
King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.
That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.
It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway. Source
I have no idea who you're talking about even after trying to read the whole article. Are you talking about hartman?
|
On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away
Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right?
Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead.
Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee.
Source
The future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me.
|
To be perfectly honest, I would prefer more banks charge fees for their services directly. Many of their “free” services are paid for by pushing the costs to other aspects. Like debit card fees. If those were tacked on to the price of all of our purchases, we would use cash far more. But instead we are unaware the charge even exists and we assume everything costs nothing.
|
On January 25 2018 05:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right? Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead. Show nested quote +Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee. SourceThe future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me.
I think you may have missed the entire discussion about how most bank charge these sort of fees and how those economics work.
|
On January 25 2018 05:25 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 05:18 a_flayer wrote:On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right? Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead. Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee. SourceThe future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me. I think you may have missed the entire discussion about how most bank charge these sort of fees and how those economics work.
He also missed most of what happened during the french revolution so don't hold it against him.
|
On January 25 2018 05:25 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 05:18 a_flayer wrote:On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right? Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead. Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee. SourceThe future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me. I think you may have missed the entire discussion about how most bank charge these sort of fees and how those economics work.
Banks make money off of offering free checking accounts. The change with free checking accounts simply allows them to make even more money off of those with the least to give and some more off of those who can meet the requirements.
So it makes something profitable, more profitable by screening out those that are benefiting more than they may contribute (this is the "pro" everyone focused on) but it also increases the profits off those right on the edge and shoves them down if they make a mistake or unforeseen circumstances arise.
It's a popular thing for banks to do, but it doesn't make it not an asshole move.
|
On January 25 2018 05:22 Plansix wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I would prefer more banks charge fees for their services directly. Many of their “free” services are paid for by pushing the costs to other aspects. Like debit card fees. If those were tacked on to the price of all of our purchases, we would use cash far more. But instead we are unaware the charge even exists and we assume everything costs nothing.
as would I; but that's no thow the world works; and so people will work around human psychology to their benefit; and to hide fees so they're less palpable, as that's where the business goes.
the same issues apply with taxes as well; lots of ways of hiding them.
though even if the fees were upfront we might not use cash much more; cash comes with costs of its own after all.
|
Remember when Bank of America wanted to charge some fee for each debit card transaction? I don't understand how they are such nickel and diming assholes, have their executives get such ridiculous bonuses and then get bailed out by the government? And why people haven't rioted about it.
|
On January 25 2018 06:03 mierin wrote:
Remember when Bank of America wanted to charge some fee for each debit card transaction? I don't understand how they are such nickel and diming assholes, have their executives get such ridiculous bonuses and then get bailed out by the government? And why people haven't rioted about it.
Each debit card transaction costs money. There are fees associated with the service. The company that makes the card reader and transfers the funds charges fees. They are just paid for by the vendor, which cuts into their margin.
I’m not saying that Bank of America is cool for trying to charge, but people should not be under the impression that using their debit card is free. There are companies skimming off the top of every purchase and that cost gets passed on to everyone but the person using the card, including the bank. Personally, I do not think it is a healthy system because so many costs are hidden.
|
On January 25 2018 05:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It would be amazing if someone could primary and win thus getting rid of her ass once and for all. IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.
The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.
In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.
She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.
Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)
King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.
That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.
It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway. Source I have no idea who you're talking about even after trying to read the whole article. Are you talking about hartman?
lol same. I was like wtf is even going on here.
|
On January 25 2018 06:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 06:03 mierin wrote:
Remember when Bank of America wanted to charge some fee for each debit card transaction? I don't understand how they are such nickel and diming assholes, have their executives get such ridiculous bonuses and then get bailed out by the government? And why people haven't rioted about it. Each debit card transaction costs money. There are fees associated with the service. The company that makes the card reader and transfers the funds charges fees. They are just paid for by the vendor, which cuts into their margin. I’m not saying that Bank of America is cool for trying to charge, but people should not be under the impression that using their debit card is free. There are companies skimming off the top of every purchase and that cost gets passed on to everyone but the person using the card, including the bank. Personally, I do not think it is a healthy system because so many costs are hidden.
It's kind of a crap system in general. Well a bit with debit cards, but more how much you are incentivized to use credit cards (cash back + credit rating) even though that means digging into the margins of where you shop (which doesn't matter if you are at Walmart, but does if you're at your local Mom & Pop restaurant or whatever).
On January 25 2018 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On January 25 2018 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It would be amazing if someone could primary and win thus getting rid of her ass once and for all. IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.
The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.
In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.
She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.
Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)
King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.
That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.
It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway. Source I have no idea who you're talking about even after trying to read the whole article. Are you talking about hartman? lol same. I was like wtf is even going on here.
Me too, I thought it was a good article when I saw it, but the way it was posted I have no idea who is being talked about.
|
On January 25 2018 06:22 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 06:13 Plansix wrote:On January 25 2018 06:03 mierin wrote:
Remember when Bank of America wanted to charge some fee for each debit card transaction? I don't understand how they are such nickel and diming assholes, have their executives get such ridiculous bonuses and then get bailed out by the government? And why people haven't rioted about it. Each debit card transaction costs money. There are fees associated with the service. The company that makes the card reader and transfers the funds charges fees. They are just paid for by the vendor, which cuts into their margin. I’m not saying that Bank of America is cool for trying to charge, but people should not be under the impression that using their debit card is free. There are companies skimming off the top of every purchase and that cost gets passed on to everyone but the person using the card, including the bank. Personally, I do not think it is a healthy system because so many costs are hidden. It's kind of a crap system in general. Well a bit with debit cards, but more how much you are incentivized to use credit cards (cash back + credit rating) even though that means digging into the margins of where you shop (which doesn't matter if you are at Walmart, but does if you're at your local Mom & Pop restaurant or whatever). Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2018 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On January 25 2018 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It would be amazing if someone could primary and win thus getting rid of her ass once and for all. IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.
The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.
In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.
She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.
Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)
King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.
That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.
It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway. Source I have no idea who you're talking about even after trying to read the whole article. Are you talking about hartman? lol same. I was like wtf is even going on here. Me too, I thought it was a good article when I saw it, but the way it was posted I have no idea who is being talked about.
Sometimes it feels like StealthBlue will see an article headline and think "That sounds insanely liberal. I'll go post it.".
|
On January 25 2018 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 05:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 25 2018 05:18 a_flayer wrote:On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right? Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead. Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee. SourceThe future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me. I think you may have missed the entire discussion about how most bank charge these sort of fees and how those economics work. Banks make money off of offering free checking accounts. The change with free checking accounts simply allows them to make even more money off of those with the least to give and some more off of those who can meet the requirements. So it makes something profitable, more profitable by screening out those that are benefiting more than they may contribute (this is the "pro" everyone focused on) but it also increases the profits off those right on the edge and shoves them down if they make a mistake or unforeseen circumstances arise. It's a popular thing for banks to do, but it doesn't make it not an asshole move.
There are fairly significant overhead costs for a bank associated with a 'free' checking account. The bank needs to have branches, ATM's, customer service reps and other employees.
As P6 said, it's more that this cost structure is not very transparent. A retail bank is probably making very little money (they may even be losing money) or individual checking accounts. Most of their actual profit comes from other products, like mortgages, loans and business services.
On January 25 2018 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 06:22 Logo wrote:On January 25 2018 06:13 Plansix wrote:On January 25 2018 06:03 mierin wrote:
Remember when Bank of America wanted to charge some fee for each debit card transaction? I don't understand how they are such nickel and diming assholes, have their executives get such ridiculous bonuses and then get bailed out by the government? And why people haven't rioted about it. Each debit card transaction costs money. There are fees associated with the service. The company that makes the card reader and transfers the funds charges fees. They are just paid for by the vendor, which cuts into their margin. I’m not saying that Bank of America is cool for trying to charge, but people should not be under the impression that using their debit card is free. There are companies skimming off the top of every purchase and that cost gets passed on to everyone but the person using the card, including the bank. Personally, I do not think it is a healthy system because so many costs are hidden. It's kind of a crap system in general. Well a bit with debit cards, but more how much you are incentivized to use credit cards (cash back + credit rating) even though that means digging into the margins of where you shop (which doesn't matter if you are at Walmart, but does if you're at your local Mom & Pop restaurant or whatever). On January 25 2018 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2018 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On January 25 2018 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It would be amazing if someone could primary and win thus getting rid of her ass once and for all. IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.
The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.
In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.
She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.
Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)
King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.
That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.
It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway. Source I have no idea who you're talking about even after trying to read the whole article. Are you talking about hartman? lol same. I was like wtf is even going on here. Me too, I thought it was a good article when I saw it, but the way it was posted I have no idea who is being talked about. Sometimes it feels like StealthBlue will see an article headline and think "That sounds insanely liberal. I'll go post it.".
I hypothesize that there's a bot that makes most of his (is that the right pronoun?) posts. It occasionally glitches up.
|
On January 25 2018 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On January 25 2018 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It would be amazing if someone could primary and win thus getting rid of her ass once and for all. IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.
The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.
In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.
She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.
Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)
King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.
That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.
It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway. Source I have no idea who you're talking about even after trying to read the whole article. Are you talking about hartman? lol same. I was like wtf is even going on here.
I think that may have actually been part of the intent of the article. Giving publicity to King over them.
Of course, that makes it a pretty ineffectual article if you aren't in the loop.
(nevermind, the next paragraph says who the Democrat in question was)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2018 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 06:22 Logo wrote:On January 25 2018 06:13 Plansix wrote:On January 25 2018 06:03 mierin wrote:
Remember when Bank of America wanted to charge some fee for each debit card transaction? I don't understand how they are such nickel and diming assholes, have their executives get such ridiculous bonuses and then get bailed out by the government? And why people haven't rioted about it. Each debit card transaction costs money. There are fees associated with the service. The company that makes the card reader and transfers the funds charges fees. They are just paid for by the vendor, which cuts into their margin. I’m not saying that Bank of America is cool for trying to charge, but people should not be under the impression that using their debit card is free. There are companies skimming off the top of every purchase and that cost gets passed on to everyone but the person using the card, including the bank. Personally, I do not think it is a healthy system because so many costs are hidden. It's kind of a crap system in general. Well a bit with debit cards, but more how much you are incentivized to use credit cards (cash back + credit rating) even though that means digging into the margins of where you shop (which doesn't matter if you are at Walmart, but does if you're at your local Mom & Pop restaurant or whatever). On January 25 2018 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2018 05:16 Sermokala wrote:On January 25 2018 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It would be amazing if someone could primary and win thus getting rid of her ass once and for all. IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.
The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.
In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.
She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.
Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)
King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.
That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.
It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway. Source I have no idea who you're talking about even after trying to read the whole article. Are you talking about hartman? lol same. I was like wtf is even going on here. Me too, I thought it was a good article when I saw it, but the way it was posted I have no idea who is being talked about. Sometimes it feels like StealthBlue will see an article headline and think "That sounds insanely liberal. I'll go post it.".
Probably just reposts his entire Twitter feed without much regard as to whether there’s actually any quality to any given story.
|
On January 25 2018 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 25 2018 05:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 25 2018 05:18 a_flayer wrote:On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right? Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead. Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee. SourceThe future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me. I think you may have missed the entire discussion about how most bank charge these sort of fees and how those economics work. Banks make money off of offering free checking accounts. The change with free checking accounts simply allows them to make even more money off of those with the least to give and some more off of those who can meet the requirements. So it makes something profitable, more profitable by screening out those that are benefiting more than they may contribute (this is the "pro" everyone focused on) but it also increases the profits off those right on the edge and shoves them down if they make a mistake or unforeseen circumstances arise. It's a popular thing for banks to do, but it doesn't make it not an asshole move. There are fairly significant overhead costs for a bank associated with a 'free' checking account. The bank needs to have branches, ATM's, customer service reps and other employees.
Sounds like you're trying to disagree without disagreeing with anything?
As P6 said, it's more that this cost structure is not very transparent. A retail bank is probably making very little money (they may even be losing money) or individual checking accounts. Most of their actual profit comes from other products, like mortgages, loans and business services.
You know those other services are why they have most of the overhead right? If bank branches primary purpose was to service checking accounts they would have been replaced with ATM's already.
EDIT:I feel like this previous fact and that processing plastic is significantly cheaper than processing checks (overhead) is lost on people.
|
I've always been of the impression/opinion that the overhead for processing debit and credit is just more spread out. Rather than a charge per check, its fees, fraud, ATM and service costs. It is just diffused.
|
Overhead for checks is basically paid up front by the account holder. You pay for the checks you use, more or less.
Credit and debit processing, for the most part, is paid by the businesses.
|
On January 25 2018 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 25 2018 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 25 2018 05:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 25 2018 05:18 a_flayer wrote:On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right? Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead. Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee. SourceThe future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me. I think you may have missed the entire discussion about how most bank charge these sort of fees and how those economics work. Banks make money off of offering free checking accounts. The change with free checking accounts simply allows them to make even more money off of those with the least to give and some more off of those who can meet the requirements. So it makes something profitable, more profitable by screening out those that are benefiting more than they may contribute (this is the "pro" everyone focused on) but it also increases the profits off those right on the edge and shoves them down if they make a mistake or unforeseen circumstances arise. It's a popular thing for banks to do, but it doesn't make it not an asshole move. There are fairly significant overhead costs for a bank associated with a 'free' checking account. The bank needs to have branches, ATM's, customer service reps and other employees. Sounds like you're trying to disagree without disagreeing with anything? Show nested quote +As P6 said, it's more that this cost structure is not very transparent. A retail bank is probably making very little money (they may even be losing money) or individual checking accounts. Most of their actual profit comes from other products, like mortgages, loans and business services. You know those other services are why they have most of the overhead right? If bank branches primary purpose was to service checking accounts they would have been replaced with ATM's already. EDIT:I feel like this previous fact and that processing plastic is significantly cheaper than processing checks (overhead) is lost on people.
My point is that you're incorrectly framing fees on checking accounts as the bank squeezing money out of individuals. What's 'free' to individuals actually costs the bank something, and charging account fees is to cover those costs which they used to simply eat.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of a primary purpose of a bank from. Think of it more like a grocery store, which sells all sorts of things even though some things make them more money than others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
