|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 19 2024 05:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2024 00:35 Gorsameth wrote:
aside from the notion that a negative balance should be an opt in, rather then the default, the notion of overdraft fees itself is absolutely bonkers. Paying interest if your in the red, sure it is a loan after all, and this interest is generally a fair bit higher then an actual loan from the bank would be, but there is absolutely no need for an additional charge per transaction other then 'because they can'. Exactly. And the best proof that it doesn't need to be that way is that it isn't that way. That is, in a lot of countries which are not the US. I don't know if any countries except the US have overdraft fees, but Germany doesn't. Which is a very good thing, and banks seem to survive just fine without preying on the poorest citizens.
Instead of charging you for overdrafting, in EU they just charge you for withdrawing the money you actually own instead. At least if you want to withdraw in convenient EURONET locations
|
On January 19 2024 07:16 Branch.AUT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2024 05:08 Simberto wrote:On January 19 2024 00:35 Gorsameth wrote:
aside from the notion that a negative balance should be an opt in, rather then the default, the notion of overdraft fees itself is absolutely bonkers. Paying interest if your in the red, sure it is a loan after all, and this interest is generally a fair bit higher then an actual loan from the bank would be, but there is absolutely no need for an additional charge per transaction other then 'because they can'. Exactly. And the best proof that it doesn't need to be that way is that it isn't that way. That is, in a lot of countries which are not the US. I don't know if any countries except the US have overdraft fees, but Germany doesn't. Which is a very good thing, and banks seem to survive just fine without preying on the poorest citizens. Instead of charging you for overdrafting, in EU they just charge you for withdrawing the money you actually own instead. At least if you want to withdraw in convenient EURONET locations
I've never been charged for withdrawing money in Europe this side of the 21st century.
|
Well that entirely depends on Your banks agreements with ATM operators. If Your bank has an agreement with Euronet that cash withdrawals are free of charge then they are free of charge.... I use to have free withdrawals from Euronet but now my bank switched to different operator.
|
On January 19 2024 19:20 Silvanel wrote:
Well that entirely depends on Your banks agreements with ATM operators. If Your bank has an agreement with Euronet that cash withdrawals are free of charge then they are free of charge.... I use to have free withdrawals from Euronet but now my bank switched to different operator.
This is true. When travelling abroad you also have to be careful and make sure you use an ATM operator that has an agreement with your bank (i.e. don't withdraw money at an airport).
|
On January 19 2024 07:16 Branch.AUT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2024 05:08 Simberto wrote:On January 19 2024 00:35 Gorsameth wrote:
aside from the notion that a negative balance should be an opt in, rather then the default, the notion of overdraft fees itself is absolutely bonkers. Paying interest if your in the red, sure it is a loan after all, and this interest is generally a fair bit higher then an actual loan from the bank would be, but there is absolutely no need for an additional charge per transaction other then 'because they can'. Exactly. And the best proof that it doesn't need to be that way is that it isn't that way. That is, in a lot of countries which are not the US. I don't know if any countries except the US have overdraft fees, but Germany doesn't. Which is a very good thing, and banks seem to survive just fine without preying on the poorest citizens. Instead of charging you for overdrafting, in EU they just charge you for withdrawing the money you actually own instead. At least if you want to withdraw in convenient EURONET locations
They do that here too. If you're withdrawing out of their loosely defined network you can get charged by both the bank and the ATM machine's company.
|
|
|
Sounds like standard Trump gibberish. If you just write down what he says, it looks like that, and has looked like that for ages.
|
|
|
United States42489 Posts
I’m sure it makes sense to the audience. There was probably a Fox News conservative victim segment on Farage’s private bank discontinuing him as a customer just because he didn’t meet the account requirements.
|
United States24660 Posts
So it looks like Congress is continuing to kick the funding cans down the road? It's actually very disruptive if funding for the year isn't approved.
Tuesday, the DC government shut down for a snow day (telework-ready employees generally teleworked instead). Today, the conditions seem worse, but the government did a 2-hour delay with an option for unscheduled telework. I suspect OPM is worried about too many snow days getting politicized in this extremely hostile environment.
|
On January 20 2024 02:03 micronesia wrote:
So it looks like Congress is continuing to kick the funding cans down the road? It's actually very disruptive if funding for the year isn't approved.
Tuesday, the DC government shut down for a snow day (telework-ready employees generally teleworked instead). Today, the conditions seem worse, but the government did a 2-hour delay with an option for unscheduled telework. I suspect OPM is worried about too many snow days getting politicized in this extremely hostile environment. Republicans are being unwilling to govern.
I suspect the TreasonFreedom Caucus wants another shutdown, so Johnson needs the Democrats to actually pass anything, and he is willing to work with them to kick the can a little further down the road but he isn't willing to completely abandon the far right and actually work out a full budget with the Democrats.
I would expect the can to get kicked until the new Congress comes in at this rate (assuming one side will actually get a majority in both chambers)
|
On January 20 2024 00:45 KwarK wrote:
I’m sure it makes sense to the audience. There was probably a Fox News conservative victim segment on Farage’s private bank discontinuing him as a customer just because he didn’t meet the account requirements.
Fox News or the BBC
We acknowledge that the information we reported - that Coutts' decision on Mr Farage's account did not involve considerations about his political views - turned out not to be accurate and have apologised to Mr Farage," the BBC said in the corrections and clarifications section of its website.
|
|
|
Kwark's post implies that Nigel Farage had his account discontinued "just because he didn’t meet the account requirements." I think my post succinctly refutes that idea.
Citing the BBC also succinctly displays that Nigel Farage-Coutts scandal is not some Fox News narrative since most people would naturally not consider the BBC to be a MAGA mouthpiece.
|
|
|
United States42489 Posts
On Farage, not being a publicly reviled bellend is also an unstated requirement. Private banks exist because they have a certain cachet and reputation that people are willing to pay extra for. The club can only exist if it is the kind of club people want to join and that means protecting its image above all else. Farage does not have a positive image in the UK, not even among the people who might be clients of a private bank.
He is not, nor ever was, a serious politician. UKIP was only ever a protest party. Even after Brexit BoJo never gave him the time of day. He’s a grandstanding populist rabble rouser.
If a private institution catering to the elite desires to discontinue its association with a grubby pleb like Farage then I fail to see how conservatives could have any valid complaint. The invisible hand has spoken.
|
It's also rich to call private banks part of "the left". If *banks* are part of some leftwing conspiracy, then there is nothing left on the right.
|
On January 21 2024 03:34 Acrofales wrote:
It's also rich to call private banks part of "the left". If *banks* are part of some leftwing conspiracy, then there is nothing left on the right.
Indeed, “the left” is often a vacuous euphemism for things people who identify with the right don’t like
|
On January 20 2024 22:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2024 19:20 BlackJack wrote:Kwark's post implies that Nigel Farage had his account discontinued "just because he didn’t meet the account requirements." I think my post succinctly refutes that idea. Citing the BBC also succinctly displays that Nigel Farage-Coutts scandal is not some Fox News narrative since most people would naturally not consider the BBC to be a MAGA mouthpiece. Kwark was suggesting that Trumps nonsense came from Fox News stories about nonsense. He guessed it was farage, but turns out “debanking” is nonsense they talk about frequently. You can tell he guessed because he said “probably “. His guess was likely pretty close.
It wasn't a difficult thing to work out even if you had never heard of the term before, rather than saying he made it up and go "uhh what could this nonsense possibly mean," you could have applied basic English etymology to deduce the meaning, or searched the meaning yourself. Like it's not an achievement not to understand what he's talking about if people you probably think are 80 IQ racists can figure it out. You seem to think it's important enough to bring up but not important enough to expend a few calories to understand what the situation and ideas are.
Kwark is Anglocentric so he immediately jumps to Nigel Farage being the culprit. Also due to his personal loathing of the idea that a random man can just become a politician, achieve something, and leave, without the approval of another politician who he doesn't like at all either. While it's true that this issue is not unique to the US - it's spring up all over the West, or at least I can speak to the Anglosphere for sure - nor is the issue of extrajudicial financial persecution new, probably not Nigel Farage specifically that the US frontrunner for president is talking about.
Shane Ginsberg was banned from YT for no reason after posting a Vivek interview, thereby freezing him out of the money he'd left there.
Paypal, which has always been capricious, bans conservatives for no reason, locks them out of money they already have and stops further business. Also tried to implement a steep "misinformation" tax - which is a pretense for another big tech company to stick its hands deeper into speech police.
Kanye West was another case.
There are other people, non-profits and charities and businesses who have had their ability to do business lost or hamstrung because of this.
The probably most notable example if you look at the issue of financial blacklisting or debanking without regional blinders on, was in North America, not England, when Canada's liberal government had protestors' accounts shut down without legal process or recourse.
Jim Jordan noted that this administration's DOJ (the same one that labeled parents domestic terrorists, and the sequel to Obama's DOJ whose IRS attacked conservatives) has recommended associating various innocuous transactions with far-right "extremism" - probably to 1) have the appearance that this administration is doing something competently to stop extremism and 2) further oppress its opposition within the lines of what you can get away with by plausible deniability:
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-01-17-jdj-to-bishoff-re-ti-request.pdf
On January 21 2024 02:58 KwarK wrote:
On Farage, not being a publicly reviled bellend is also an unstated requirement. Private banks exist because they have a certain cachet and reputation that people are willing to pay extra for. The club can only exist if it is the kind of club people want to join and that means protecting its image above all else. Farage does not have a positive image in the UK, not even among the people who might be clients of a private bank.
He is not, nor ever was, a serious politician. UKIP was only ever a protest party. Even after Brexit BoJo never gave him the time of day. He’s a grandstanding populist rabble rouser.
If a private institution catering to the elite desires to discontinue its association with a grubby pleb like Farage then I fail to see how conservatives could have any valid complaint. The invisible hand has spoken.
You should have stated that requirement before you were apparently proven explicitly wrong by that BBC source, right?
At any rate it's been fruitful: Now we see the endgame of principled progressivism that saw its modern incarnation birthed in the Occupy Wall Street movement in the midst of the 2008 financial crash - "Pleb, you are not elite enough to have a bank account."
Remember, people of all sides who read Kwark's mocking of a straw conservative "Look, the free market that can do whatever it want hoisted you by your own petard!" - before getting sucked in by this BTFOing of a person who doesn't exist, ask how you think people can participate in a market without access to (digital) financial services to begin with - especially in ones where CASH is not legally mandated. And then ask whether you think it's a good or bad thing for people to get cut off from financial services no matter their background or politics, remembering that despite whatever you might hope, your "team" might not be the one calling the shots in the future, and we're trying to have a society here - and you quickly find that the question of whether private financial institutions whose investments are constantly BAILED OUT BY THE US TAXPAYER, to which you have NO PUBLIC ALTERNATIVE, and whose deposits are guaranteed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, have a right to suspend your finances will-nilly, is a simple and resounding NO.
|
United States42489 Posts
At yes, private banks catering to the hidden elite are part of occupy Wall Street which in turn is part of the progressive agenda and not a short lived reaction to Bush bailing out the big banks. It all fits together if you have enough red string and a big enough wall.
At a certain point your posts are indistinguishable from an AI trained on YouTube comments on Alex Jones videos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
