Occupy Wall Street/occupy Federal Reserve

[ruckman101]

I went to CUs decades ago. I got tired of being treated like scum and charged more for services because I was poor.


neal

[Velokid1]

Checking acct, no fee.
Checks, free.
Debit card. No ATM fee. All fees at non-CU ATMs are refunded to my acct.
Best auto loan rates in the state.
Tellers are friendly and seem to like their jobs.
Paperless (no deposit slips etc)
No min balance required.

Now to be fair I have always hated Chase and Wells-fargo both for screwing me over when I was in a vulnerable spot, but the final straw for me was actually something small. Wells fargo decided a couple mOnths ago to force chk acct holders to open savings accts by charging a $10 mo checking fee (was always free before) that would be waived if you had a savings acct. Every teller would act very serious and concerned about me and not tell me why but insist i recv a phone call (from a more heavily trained actor and salesperson). Well I hate the phone and I hate people who are paid actors pretending to care about me. "Mr Velokid, I am noticing that you are being charged $10 per month for what should be free to you. Thats just not right. Can Cynthia call you to figure out what is amiss with your acct?" cmon you KNOW whats "wrong" with my acct.

[Lanval]

Can someone explain why Credit Unions are better than banks? I belong to both but want to move to the CR.

Syl,

The short answer is this: Credit unions are essentially owned by the share holders, who are the actual depositors. In other words, when you're a credit union member, you own the bank, and you're working for yourself. As a consequence, the rates/services are much more reasonable, because there is no reason to earn more than is necessary to pay for the cost, since you'd only be taking money from yourselves.

Here's the wikipedia link to Credit Union; it's quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union

Best,

Michael L

[Amskeptic]

Can someone explain why Credit Unions are better than banks? I belong to both but want to move to the CR.

Syl,

The short answer is this: Credit unions are essentially owned by the share holders, who are the actual depositors. In other words, when you're a credit union member, you own the bank, and you're working for yourself. As a consequence, the rates/services are much more reasonable, because there is no reason to earn more than is necessary to pay for the cost, since you'd only be taking money from yourselves.

Here's the wikipedia link to Credit Union; it's quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union

Best,

Michael L

I have had a 20 year association with HSBC bank that is ready to be terminated. I will look into a local credit union.
As a citizen protest, I am also ready to terminate my 30 year association with my Citigroup Sears Card (lodging) and Citigroup AT&T Universal Card (fuel). I *do not like* Citigroup.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

Switching to credit unions will probably save you the person some. Switching to a credit union may do something little to the money cartel, but not nearly enough. They still play by all the major rules enforced by that criminal cartel that created the federal reserve bank, and of course still use the criminal printed FIAT currency.

[ruckman101]

Steve I'm more than happy to take all that evil criminally printed FIAT cash off your hands for you. Let me know and I can PM you a mailing address.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Steve I'm more than happy to take all that evil criminally printed FIAT cash off your hands for you. Let me know and I can PM you a mailing address.


neal

Yes, it does at times seem you have a love affair still with the criminal elements in our system. You at times want more of it.

But no thanks for now, as long as the big mob with all their guns are in town running the show I will stick to using the their criminal money which is the only money allowed (this is where guns come in again). But, I can see clearly enough to see how it is a wrong, but like I eluded to, to avoid them using a gun at me to kill me or put me in jail, I will still use their criminal fiat currency to stay playing in this game. Maybe it thirty years I will be a martyr, but not ATT.

[ruckman101]

Bartering is a legitimate option.


neal

[Spezialist]

Switching to credit unions will probably save you the person some. Switching to a credit union may do something little to the money cartel, but not nearly enough. They still play by all the major rules enforced by that criminal cartel that created the federal reserve bank, and of course still use the criminal printed FIAT currency.

Do you vote?

[ruckman101]

While there has been outrage over violence in or near occupy camps, it seems a pale pittance when compared to the violence directly related to "Black Friday" shopping events. Sounds safer in the camps.


neal

[Amskeptic]

While there has been outrage over violence in or near occupy camps, it seems a pale pittance when compared to the violence directly related to "Black Friday" shopping events. Sounds safer in the camps.

neal

I agree. I'd rather get sprayed by a cop than a shopper.
Colin

[ruckman101]

Hey Steve, Kucinich is on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFt ... ture=share



neal

[dingo]

4 minute explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm7Z3sOqE84

Does anyone believe this "4 minute explanation" to be true? If so, how do we justify further regulations without addressing the problems with fiat money first?

Yes..in a simplified version. What part do you have questions about ?

The video says that "only the government has the power to issue fiat money but banks can create it through lending", what does that mean? "Issue" and "Create" sound like the same thing; my question is, who determines the volume of the money supply? The banks or the government?

The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.

The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.

Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.

A fresh narrative of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 emerges from 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions. While Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.

‘Change Their Votes’

“When you see the dollars the banks got, it’s hard to make the case these were successful institutions,” says Sherrod Brown, a Democratic Senator from Ohio who in 2010 introduced an unsuccessful bill to limit bank size. “This is an issue that can unite the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There are lawmakers in both parties who would change their votes now.”

The size of the bailout came to light after Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, won a court case against the Fed and a group of the biggest U.S. banks called Clearing House Association LLC to force lending details into the open.

The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma -- investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort -- and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis. Clearing House Association fought Bloomberg’s lawsuit up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the banks’ appeal in March 2011.

$7.77 Trillion

The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

[Velokid1]

Eat them for breakfast!

[BellePlaine]

Eat them for breakfast!

It wouldn't do any good unless we take away this All You Can Eat Money Buffet.

7.77 trillion dollars just watered down the value of the dollar, made the rich richer, inflated the price of goods, and shrunk the value of any little bit of money our savings accounts.