Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Merchants beat bankers in Senate debit card vote

Wed Jun 8, 2011 2:59 PM EDT
business, politics, us, federal-reserve, card, fees, debit-card, debit-card-fees
Alan Fram, Associated Press
David French of the National Retail Federation says debit and credit card fees benefit bankers at the expense of consumers.
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>FILE - In this Nov. 2, 2009 file photo, a customer swipes a MasterCard debit card through a machine while checking-out at a shop in Seattle.  Consumers are wedged in the middle of a fight between bankers and merchants as the Senate plans a showdown vote Wednesday June 8, 2011 over whether to limit fees that stores pay financial institutions every time a debit card is swiped.    (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, file)</p>

FILE - In this Nov. 2, 2009 file photo, a customer swipes a MasterCard debit card through a machine while checking-out at a shop in Seattle. Consumers are wedged in the middle of a fight between bankers and merchants as the Senate plans a showdown vote Wednesday June 8, 2011 over whether to limit fees that stores pay financial institutions every time a debit card is swiped. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, file)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Merchants triumphed over bankers in a battle for billions Wednesday as the Senate voted to let the Federal Reserve curb the fees that stores pay financial institutions when a customer swipes a debit card. It was murkier, however, whether the nation's consumers were winners or losers.

As a result of the roll call, the Fed will be allowed to issue final rules on July 21 trimming the average 44 cents that banks charge for each debit card transaction. That fee, typically 1 to 2 percent of each purchase, produces $16 billion in annual revenue for banks and credit card companies, the Fed estimates.

The central bank has proposed capping the so-called interchange fee at 12 cents, though the final plan could change slightly.

Victorious merchants said the lowered fees should let them drop prices, banks said they could be forced to boost charges for things like checking accounts to make up for lost earnings and each side challenged the other's claims. Consumer groups were not a united front, either: While the consumer group U.S. PIRG said consumers would benefit, the Consumer Federation of America took no formal stance but said it was concerned about what both industries might do.

Travis B. Plunkett, the consumer federation's legislative director, said the amount of savings that stores pass on to consumers would depend on how competitive their markets are. He said he also worried that the Fed's current proposal might be too restrictive, which might tempt banks to "use that as an excuse to increase charges on customers they value the least, low- to moderate-income customers."

In Wednesday's vote, senators trying to thwart the Fed's rules needed 60 votes to prevail but fell six votes short, 54-45. That delivered a victory for Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, who muscled the provision into last year's financial overhaul law requiring the Fed's action.

Durbin's support on Wednesday represented an erosion from last year, when the Senate included Durbin's provision in the overhaul bill on a 64-33 vote. Much of the drop was explained by a dozen senators — including nine Democrats — who switched from backing Durbin in 2010 to voting to delay the Fed action on Wednesday.

Of the 12, just four are seeking re-election next year: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; and Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

Thirty-five Republicans joined 19 Democrats in backing the unsuccessful effort to block the Fed. Thirty-two Democrats, 12 Republicans and an independent voted to let the central bank move ahead, while Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., did not vote.

Wednesday's roll call shot down a proposal by Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., that would have delayed the Fed rule for a year. In the meantime, the Fed and three other agencies would have studied whether the Fed's current proposal is fair and rewritten it if at least two agencies decided it wasn't.

Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer program director for US PIRG, which represents state public interest research groups, said some banks might curtail the rewards programs that many attach to their debit cards, such as awarding cash back or airline miles. But he said checking account fees would not rise.

"There will be competition," Mierzwinski said. "Banks will be forced to come up with innovative ways to lower costs in their card networks."

Camden R. Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, challenged that, saying the Senate vote would mean that "consumers of lower socio-economic status will get hammered" because bank fees would rise.

"Where do people think banks get the money to subsidize these products" like free checking accounts, he said. He also challenged assertions that stores would pass the savings from lower fees to customers.

"Does anybody not smoking dope believe merchants will pass some big windfall to consumers?" he said, adding later, "I mean, what are they going to cut prices by, a penny?"

Merchants, however, argue that they will be forced to lower prices to reflect the curbed debit card fees.

"The retail industry is the most competitive business environment going today," said Brian Dodge, spokesman for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents many large merchants like Target and Home Depot. "There is no doubt competition would drive any interchange savings out of the system, which would be reflected by lower prices."

Affirming that was Dennis Lane, who has owned a 7-Eleven store in Quincy, Mass., for 37 years. He said he pays $7,000 to $10,000 annually in credit card swipe fees.

"Whenever I can reduce my cost of doing business, any responsible retailer reduces costs to the consumer," he said. He also said those savings could allow him to hire summer workers.

On the other hand, the head of a credit union in Mountain Home, Idaho, said slashing debit cards fees would have a huge cost for his business.

Curt Perry, president of Pioneer Federal Credit Union, says cutting the fee to 12 cents per swipe would cost him $780,000 a year. The new fee system would not take into account such expenses as covering fraud, which he said cost him $170,000 last year, leaving him considering options like charging a fees for debit cards or checking accounts.

"We'd have to pass that on, we'd need to generate that revenue from somewhere," he said.

___

AP reporter Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Alan Fram's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: American_Politics, EconVine
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (70)
Z1P2

Most confusing article ever?

  • 7 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:26 PM EDT
Deep_Thought

Interesting...

Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. the market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factories of production based upon their individual interests rather than upon a macroeconomic plan.

Welcome to the ranks of Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and the former Soviet Union.

Anyone got an idea what is going on?

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 7:01 PM EDT
Paul Lucero

STOP Charging pay off or stop paying your credit card costs. The Banks are insolvent and when they blow-up your credit will be slashed to zero and your interest payment will be jacked through the roof!

Get out of consumer credit now!

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 10:12 PM EDT
AZPADDY

And conservative lawmakers were going to bat for the bankers.....again.

This time they lost. This time. They'll be back, holding the flag of the Tea Party as they do the bidding of big business.

Some things never change.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 11:37 PM EDT
Socialist Plant

This time they lost. This time. They'll be back, holding the flag of the Tea Party 

Even British journalists know the Tea Party is a faux "grass-roots movement". But you're absolutely right, bankers may have lost this battle, but to them, the war is far from over.

  • 5 votes
#1.4 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 12:10 AM EDT
teabagged

It was murkier, however, whether the nation's consumers were winners or losers.

Losers; you cretin! Consumers will continue to be gouged by the merchants and the banks.

  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 1:28 AM EDT
Cooper1

Ha Ha! I loved this line...

"Does anybody not smoking dope believe merchants will pass some big windfall to consumers?"

Freakin' HIGH-larious!

  • 2 votes
#1.6 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 9:46 AM EDT
Nick46

"Merchants beat bankers...." Very questionable. Be careful what you ask for you may get it. This is like pushing on a ballon it may give here but it affects some other part.

    #1.7 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:54 AM EDT
    AZPADDY

    "Big windfall"??

    WHAT "Big windfall"?? If you think reductions or regulations of fees being charged for processing transactions are "Big Windfalls", You probably also believe Rush Limbaugh's obesity is the result of a "glandular disorder".

    Whenever I hear how a banking industry lobbyist or C.E.O. says that they "may be forced to use creative methods to replace lost revenue", I can't help but believe they must be suffering from temporary amnesia. These institutions can increase almost all of their "revenue streams" (read: Fees) whenever the mood strikes them.

    They just hate being told they can no longer gouge merchants for what amounts to an almost costless transaction. Every merchant pays these fees based on the amount of the average ticket (sale). Restaurants pay some of the highest fees because they have a lower average sale, and a merchant selling big ticket items pays the lowest fees.

    Ever wonder why American Express cards are not widely accepted? It's because their fees are about twice what Visa fees are. That said, Merchants are not about to pass any savings on to us consumers. If the argument that they will pass any savings along were true, why aren't they offering discounts to cash buyers now??

    This whole issue is about how big banks are gouging merchants, and the merchants are finally fighting back. It's telling to see which politicians line up behind the banks.

    That alone should be enough for their constituants to vote them out.

      #1.8 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:59 AM EDT
      Nick46

      They just hate being told they can no longer gouge merchants for what amounts to an almost costless transaction.

      So the fact that they spend $millions on a computer infrastucture and support is "costless"?

      I work with many merchants and they will always say you are gouging them no matter how good the price.

      • 1 vote
      #1.9 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 11:36 AM EDT
      CMlawyer

      Merchants beat bankers says it all. Consumers are left out in the cold again. (Unless you believe that the merchants were fighting for us little people?)

      • 1 vote
      #1.10 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 1:17 PM EDT
      AL-1735815

      Pay with cash and screw the banks.

        #1.11 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 2:40 PM EDT
        Nick46

        Merchants beat bankers says it all. Consumers are left out in the cold again. (Unless you believe that the merchants were fighting for us little people?)

        So you went to the store and purchased a 50 cent candy bar with a debit card. The merchant paid 44 cents for that transaction. How is the consumer being affected?

          #1.12 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 4:10 PM EDT
          AZPADDY

          The .44 cent "transaction fee" is just one of several fees the merchant is charged for the priveledge of accepting your debit/credit card for purchase. Where do you think the "cash back" from Discover Card comes from? Not from the issuing bank, that's for certain.

          The banks have been the ones reaping a "windfall" profit, not Merchants.

          Nick46: "So the fact that they spend $millions on a computer infrastucture and support is "costless"?"

          Any proof that banks have spent "$millions" on computer and infrastructure / support", or are you just knee-jerk defending corporations?

            #1.13 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 4:42 PM EDT
            Nick46

            Any proof that banks have spent "$millions" on computer and infrastructure / support", or are you just knee-jerk defending corporations?

            Proof? I have worked in the IT industry all my life. I can tell you first hand that the buildings, people, software, hardware, on-going support and all the other ancillary services cost $millions. And large corporations such as banks have multiple sites and backup sites.

            • 1 vote
            #1.14 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:00 AM EDT
            Reply
            FL Independent

            While I might be in favor of lower fees, exactly how does Congress or the Fed have a say on what fees bank can charge and how much? What business do they have trying to give themselves this power?

            • 1 vote
            #2 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:34 PM EDT
            1standlastword

            FL

            What business do they have trying to give themselves this power?

            The people have put new faith in the government and empowered it to protect us from predatory bankers and Wall Street greed.

            I think we agree that govenment "interference" in commerce can be limiting and frustrating...yes...but banks have to start over to earn the trust and confidence of most Americans.

            Don't you agree?

            And if it is their revenge you are concerned about the only power that can counter that is the government.

            The government is our intercessor to protect merchants and the consumer--atleast on this one

            • 22 votes
            #2.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:51 PM EDT
            Z1P2

            exactly how does Congress or the Fed have a say on what fees bank can charge and how much?

            If you don't know what business the FED has making rules for banks, you need to go back to school.

            • 22 votes
            #2.2 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:02 PM EDT
            FL Independent

            @1stand

            The people have put new faith in the government and empowered it to protect us from predatory bankers and Wall Street greed.

            Really? When did that happen? I certainly dont have more faith in them nor do I remember having that option during voting. Government was quite complicit in what happened. I dont particularly trust them to fix the problems. They dont exactly have a good track record.

            And if it is their revenge you are concerned about the only power that can counter that is the government.

            I dont know how you got the idea that I cared about revenge from the banks. I have no concern about that. What I am concerned about is government starting to micromanage an industry and start telling them what they can charge for their services. If they start doing this with banks, whats to stop them from doing to other industries.

            @Z1P2

            If you don't know what business the FED has making rules for banks, you need to go back to school.

            If you dont know the difference between a generic and meaningless statement like 'the Fed makes rules for banks' from what I said, then you dont belong in the discussion. I didnt ask what business does the Fed have making any rules for banks. And obviously the Fed did not already have this power otherwise the Senate wouldnt have needed to vote to give it that power. Didnt really think the whole thing through did you?

            Unless the Senate is trying to claim that the fees violate usury laws, which it did not state, then the banks are not breaking any laws with their fees. So again, where would Congress get the idea that they have the authority to give the Fed this power? What would stop them from granting such price control powers for any other industry?

            Dont get me wrong, Im no friend of the banks, especially the larger ones like BofA. However, I am also leery of government and them just granting themselves more power.

            • 1 vote
            #2.3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:52 PM EDT
            FL Independent

            If they really cared about properly regulating the banks, why do CDSs still exist? This is straight up gambling and they shouldnt be allowed to do this, especially with our money.

            • 3 votes
            #2.4 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:59 PM EDT
            AmusedinVa

            And obviously the Fed did not already have this power otherwise the Senate wouldnt have needed to vote to give it that power.

            Actually the Fed did have the power and authority to enact the rule. What this vote was about was that some Senators tried to override the Fed's decision. In this instance the Senate got it right and stood up for consumers against the greed of the mega banks.

            • 7 votes
            #2.5 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 5:24 PM EDT
            Socialist Plant

            I certainly dont have more faith in them nor do I remember having that option during voting

            Then why do you live in America if you do not have faith in your elected leaders? Granted, they are, shall we say, "morally flexible" characters, but there are well-meaning politicians out there.

            I may complain about our government, but I always keep in mind, I could live somewhere else, and it might be worse.

            • 6 votes
            #2.6 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:00 PM EDT
            1standlastword

            FL #2.3

            What I am concerned about is government starting to micromanage an industry and start telling them what they can charge for their services.

            If you have any money in a bank I'll bet you feel secure that the Fed has "micromanaged" said bank to insure your deposit.

            Govenment regulation is suppose to protect citizens. This is a piece of legislation that is intended to protect merchants and consumers from predatory practices that we KNOW banks habitually commit over and over.

            • 8 votes
            #2.7 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 8:03 PM EDT
            AZPADDY

            FL Independent

            It sounds to me as if you've become a willing victim of the anti-government propoganda that's been peddled with some success by conservative extremists.

            That rhetoric says the U.S. government can do nothing right, so we should place severe restrictions on our government - or even dismantle it, according to Grover Norquist - because the "Free Market" will light the way.

            BTW.....we're in the economic recession we're in due to that "Hands off" style of government conservatives love so much.

            • 8 votes
            #2.8 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 11:45 PM EDT
            FL Independent

            @Socialist

            Then why do you live in America if you do not have faith in your elected leaders?

            I dont live here because of who our temporary leaders are. I dont believe anyone in America lives here because of who the people who are temporarily in power are. That would be a dumb reason to live anywhere unless it was someone extraordinary.

            I may complain about our government, but I always keep in mind, I could live somewhere else, and it might be worse.

            Thats true but that really has no bearing on how good our leaders are, in whether or not they are trust worthy or if they make the right decisions. Always remember they are temporary.

            @1stand

            Govenment regulation is suppose to protect citizens. This is a piece of legislation that is intended to protect merchants and consumers from predatory practices that we KNOW banks habitually commit over and over.

            There are plenty of ways banks screw people and this was not the most egregious. Again, the article didnt particularly state that it found the fees to be predatory or break any laws. If that is what was determined it would have been important to include.

            If you have any money in a bank I'll bet you feel secure that the Fed has "micromanaged" said bank to insure your deposit.

            You are assuming too much and overplaying your hand. I have no problem with regulation and think the banking industry does need more regulation. But there is a still a line.

            @Az

            It sounds to me as if you've become a willing victim of the anti-government propoganda that's been peddled with some success by conservative extremists.

            Of course it does. That always makes it easier to dismiss people.

            That rhetoric says the U.S. government can do nothing right, so we should place severe restrictions on our government - or even dismantle it, according to Grover Norquist - because the "Free Market" will light the way.

            You are another one who is overplaying your hand and assuming too much. If someone states so purely for rhetoric's sake that would be true. The 'government' does nothing. People in the government are the ones who do things, and we havent had particular quality people making decisions for a while. We should have very defined rules and restrictions on government because they have proven that they will take more and more unless we do put limits on them. However, the 'free market' cannot be trusted to do things on their own. The government must be there as a balance to make sure they play by the rules. The free market, after all, is also made up of people, and people can and do make bad choices and will lie, cheat, steal, do bad things, etc.

            BTW.....we're in the economic recession we're in due to that "Hands off" style of government conservatives love so much.

            Im well aware of that. While I do lean conserative on some issues, I am more libertarian and have complained about the lack of regulation particularly in the financial and banking sectors. By your comments, you obviously wrongly assumed I didnt believe that or somehow wasnt aware.

            • 1 vote
            #2.9 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 11:23 AM EDT
            AZPADDY

            FL Independent

            Given the track records (and conviction records) of business vs. government, I'll trust government any day over business.

            Government has no incentive to rip us off. Business, on the other hand, has proven time and again to be untrustworthy.

            Who would you rather defend our shores....the U.S.M.C., or an "outsourced" private company, such as the company formerly known as "Blackwater"??

              #2.10 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 4:47 PM EDT
              FL Independent

              Given the track records (and conviction records) of business vs. government, I'll trust government any day over business.

              Given the track record of both, I dont trust either one and both should be watched. And the people in government tend to be more lenient to others in government who commit crimes when possible, because they dont want to be held accountable either. That is part of why most presidents dont want to go after previous administrations for crimes, because they dont want the next admin to go after them for what they did wrong.

              Government has no incentive to rip us off. Business, on the other hand, has proven time and again to be untrustworthy.

              People have different motivations. The people in government have various motivations. Not all are noble and beneficial to us. Many times their motives are not clear. With business, I know what their motive is. But again, neither should be trusted.

              Who would you rather defend our shores....the U.S.M.C., or an "outsourced" private company, such as the company formerly known as "Blackwater"??

              That is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. This isnt a government vs privatization thread.

              • 1 vote
              #2.11 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:35 AM EDT
              Nick46

              While I might be in favor of lower fees, exactly how does Congress or the Fed have a say on what fees bank can charge and how much? What business do they have trying to give themselves this power?

              They do have the power to regulate inter-state commerce. This is not unique. But the banks can also just quit providing that service. I wouldn't stay in a business that was not profitable.

              • 1 vote
              #2.12 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:13 AM EDT
              FL Independent

              They do have the power to regulate inter-state commerce.

              No one is questioning that, but the question how deep do they get to dig in their power to regulate. Does it mean they could potentially set the price for every single service that a company offers that can be used across state lines? What criteria do they use to set the price? Is it arbitrary? Are there standards they are using?

              But the banks can also just quit providing that service. I wouldn't stay in a business that was not profitable.

              Or they could also shift the fees to something else like they usually do. They will find a way, and more ways, to charge us. Is the Fed gonna play whack-a-mole with all the banks fees until they have them totally locked down (which part of me would like to see)? But then what would prevent Congress from deciding they need to do that in other fields of business as well?

              • 1 vote
              #2.13 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:51 PM EDT
              AmusedinVa

              What criteria do they use to set the price? Is it arbitrary? Are there standards they are using?

              In general the courts have ruled many times that the regulation of commerce is relegated to issues of safety and matters that have have significant overall economic consequences in addition to the normal stuff like preventing scams and other crimes. In the case of the Fed or the SEC and some other agencies in regulating banks and Wall Street firms their actions are typically to prevent fraud and abuse but also to judge and limit economic negatives of actions which have a bad overall effect on a level field among all businesses.

              But then what would prevent Congress from deciding they need to do that in other fields of business as well?

              In a quick answer the court system. Congress already took that leap off the cliff with the "health care reform" bill they passed and now the courts are dealing with the fallout. It's not always a speedy process but the courts are a good safety check against an over wielding Congress in most instances.

              • 1 vote
              #2.14 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:39 PM EDT
              FL Independent

              @Amused

              In general the courts have ruled many times that the regulation of commerce is relegated to issues of safety and matters that have have significant overall economic consequences in addition to the normal stuff like preventing scams and other crimes.

              Thats all generic and meaningless. It leaves things open to very wide intepretation. And that doesnt come close to answering the questions. Preventing fraud and abuse are easy and straight forward. Determing if a bank is charging too much for a known fee, thats not so straight forward.

              It's not always a speedy process but the courts are a good safety check against an over wielding Congress in most instances.

              Nothing has been decided yet. And (it seems) the courts have been loaded up more lately with more partisans on both sides.

                #2.15 - Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:45 AM EDT
                Reply
                Virgil Starkwell

                You can thank the Executives with the Seven-Eleven Japan Co. Ltd. for taking part in this. So what the FRB didn't like it, Bernanke will just print up more money to make up the loss.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:39 PM EDT
                Mike-475880

                Seems like this would be good news for small businesses.

                • 13 votes
                Reply#4 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:43 PM EDT
                1standlastword

                Yes...that would me

                • 8 votes
                #4.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:55 PM EDT
                Reply
                ttikki50

                heck yeah a big win for small businesses. Im sick of paying these high fees for card transactions I also think they need to limit the time the bank can hold the money as well. some banks will hold that money for 30 days, WTF. I need that money to pay bills. I wonder what they need my money for that takes 30 days to release it, I really wonder. Lets see 16 billion sitting in a bank for say 30 days, thats A LOT of intrest just right there.

                • 7 votes
                Reply#5 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 3:56 PM EDT
                BZe1

                While the money is sitting in the bank for thirty days they are loaning it out and making a profit i.e. interest on your money, while you wait for the check to clear.

                It is easy these days to check whether the money is there to support the check or not in these days of computers, but these banks are trying to fool folks that we are still pre internet banking.

                It is time the govt step up to the plate and work for the citizens of this country rather than for big biz as per usual.

                The polititians need to realize that once you are voted in you are now supposed to be a leader and not someone who is constantly running and preparing for the next election.

                If the govt do not serve and protect the people what is their function then?

                It is time for the masses to take the govt back from corporate america and from the teabagger luddites who want to make corporate america richer at the expense of the poor and middleclass.

                If the masses lose their healthcare like Medicare and Medicaid then Congress should lose their govt funded healthcare also.

                If the civil servants lose their pensions then Congress should lose their pension also.

                If the seniors lose or have their Social Security cut then Congress should lose or have their pensions cut also.

                If we are going to have a voucher system to pay for healthcare then Congress should have a voucher system tied to the same amounts of monies and with means testing for the amount of moneys the receive on the voucher to pay for their healthcare.

                Congress should not be able to vote themselves a pay raise as they wish.... their pay raise should be voted on ever 2 to 4 years ..... as an item added to the ballot. Let the masses decide whether they are doing a good enough job to get a payraise, just like any other employee in a firm have to go through a eval for a pay raise.

                There should not be any automatic pensions after being in congress for 20 years or for however long they stay there. Pension should not start until the person who was in congress 65 years old, and then what ever they receive as Pension should lower what ever they receive as Social Security or visa versa.

                Like many to most public employees these folks in Congress should also bear a larger share of the cost of their health insurance cost upon retirement, to where they could be required to fund the whole cost of their premiums.

                These folks were elected to do a job. Their interview was running for office. Now it is time to do the job and stop playing politics.

                It is time for serious campaign reform and the electorial college need to be dumped. In this day and age when we are so interconnected that if a guy sexting can become news all over the country that we need to have these electorial college folks that harken to the distant past of horse and buggy or steam trains...... Why should 2 states have the power to dictate who is on the ballot?

                No wonder the govt has been highjacked by corporate america at the expense of the masses, and or we end up with polititians that are only catering to their big donors?

                Isn't it time that the masses start separating sexual morality from fiscal morality? A polititian sexting is not half as bad as a polititian messing with my pocket book and my rights to privacy, not to be illegally searched etc imo.

                This is a country based on laws not religeon or religeous laws imo. It is time to get back to where we had separation of church and state imo.

                What a polititan does in his private life is his or her business providing he or she is not doing something illegal as per the laws of this county. It is against the law to to do things like using public funds to pay for private assignations or committing treasonous acts like selling the country's secrets, selling their votes or taking payola etc i.e. working against the the masses to benefit themselves.

                The republicans are always talking about testing people before they can vote...... perhaps the polititian should be the ones who are tested and must pass the test, both written and oral before they are allowed to move forward to running for public office. LOL

                Well I have had my rant for the day......

                One should hope that the polititian once elected should be

                • 5 votes
                #5.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 5:28 PM EDT
                Nick46

                WTF. I need that money to pay bills. I wonder what they need my money for that takes 30 days to release it, I really wonder.

                Solution: accept only cash. If you want the bank to take the risk then they hold it 30 days. There are several "touch points" for the transaction and they all take time.

                  #5.2 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:17 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  Fushi2Deleted
                  TDR

                  I haven't seen this explicitly mentioned in term of bank card fees, but banks have taken a disproportionate amount of GDP. Historically, they have been 7.4 - 7.7 percent of GDP and now they are taking 8.9 - 9.4 percent of GDP. The additional amount that they are taking away from GDP has not been productive. By reducing fees, the FED and federal government as a whole are giving money back to businesses and bank customers so that the economy can be more productive.

                  Basically, more money for main street instead of Wall St.

                  • 7 votes
                  Reply#7 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:09 PM EDT
                  fronco

                  Whats in it for the consumer, or maybe they have not determined that yet. but the republicans will have some kind of access to the pot of gold, you can count on it.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#8 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:28 PM EDT
                  TDR

                  I don't know how card fees affects consumers, but the FED has made other decisions that have reduced fees that banks can charge (e.g. over draft fees, credit cards interest rates, etc.). These regulations were in place back in the 70s and 80s but were slowly eroded over the last 30 - 40 years. The FED and federal government are trying to rebalance the system. The banks got greedy without regulations. They only have themselves to blame.

                  • 4 votes
                  #8.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:42 PM EDT
                  F Pfarr

                  TDR -

                  Do you know what the 2 heaviest government regulated businesses in the USA are? Insurance and Banking. There will be fallout from this without question. If this is a Dickie Durbin deal, we'll be @!$%#ed in the long-run.

                  Blame Congress if you don't like the banking industry....They've screwed it up.

                    #8.2 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:52 PM EDT
                    McSpocky

                    TDR

                    I don't know how card fees affects consumers, but the FED has made other decisions that have reduced fees that banks can charge (e.g. over draft fees, credit cards interest rates, etc.). These regulations were in place back in the 70s and 80s but were slowly eroded over the last 30 - 40 years. The FED and federal government are trying to rebalance the system. The banks got greedy without regulations. They only have themselves to blame.

                    Banking definitely needs no fewer regulations, and more regulations would benefit everyone.

                    • 8 votes
                    #8.3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 5:39 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    fuzzy mathematician

                    Thirty-five Democrats and 19 Republicans voted to delay the Fed's plan. Voting to let the rules take effect were 32 Democrats, a Democratic-leaning independent and 12 Republicans. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., did not vote.

                    This is an error; it should read: Thirty-five Republicans and 19 Democrats in favor of the Tester amendment.

                    Still it's a fairly bipartisan breakdown, something we don't see too often these days on the substance of policy.

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#9 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:57 PM EDT
                    Time Lord

                    ...whoopee, another "victory" for merchants and business. What about the $3.00 + "fees" that are charged to the public for simply using a non-human "machine" to dispense cash. The cash machine alone, saves the bank human time and money when preforming this simple electronic transaction. It simply boils down to "greed", gouging customers for "convenience"...!

                    • 4 votes
                    Reply#10 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 5:29 PM EDT
                    Nick46

                    I don't know of any bank that charges their "customers" anything for using their ATMs. If you are not a customer then you will be charged. Think of it as an ATM in a covenience store they are usually privately owned and you pay a fee.

                      #10.1 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:05 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      McSpocky

                      This seems mostly good, however, another effect from this is banks will be taking away reward programs for debit card users (some already have), and Banks and credit unions may do more than eliminate debit card rewards programs to recoup the lost interchange fees. Some financial institutions are considering a per-swipe charge. Others are talking about setting limits on the amount of a debit card purchase, as little as $50 or $100.

                      So while this may look like good news, it may came back to bite us in the ass. Only time will tell.

                      • 5 votes
                      Reply#11 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 5:45 PM EDT
                      Cynthia's Point

                      Credit unions are exempt..

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:12 PM EDT
                      klm-547227

                      We can always go back to good old cash and checks.

                      • 3 votes
                      #11.2 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:23 PM EDT
                      TDR

                      OH no, you mean we have to carry around cash and go to the bank before it closes? All laughing aside, there will be cheaper alternatives. If banks don't face the reality now they will be forced to in the future. An example is Amex purchase of Steve Cases' Revolution Money. Regulation isn't always a dirty word.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 8:27 PM EDT
                      Nick46

                      If banks don't face the reality now they will be forced to in the future.

                      That may be true. But reality does not always translate in a win for consumers. I would keep the ATMs and charge $5 to use it. Of course you can always come inside free. Depending on the time of day you can wait in line. And of course you are SOL on weekends.

                      The reality is no one wants ATMs to go away. The typical mentality that everyone has is that we don't want to pay for anything.

                      I had a service business and everyone complained the prices were too high. I provided excellent service with all the frills and people said they would rather have the no frill service. I took away the frills and lowered the price. Now they complained that they needed the frills. So I posted the frills and the price for each and guess what no one purchased a frill.

                        #11.4 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:16 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        smellsofpoo

                        Sounds like a good idea, but...what's really going on?

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#12 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:04 PM EDT
                        Cynthia's Point

                        A small victory for mainstreet and small business owners. Now, what about that consumer protection bureau?

                        • 3 votes
                        #12.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:23 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        Holly-348328

                        Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer program director for US PIRG, which represents state public interest research groups, said some banks might curtail the rewards programs that many attach to their debit cards, such as awarding cash back or airline miles

                        Well, the 'rewards programs' that my cards have attached to them are worthless and have already been cut anyway. I see this as a good thing, but I don't think it will save the consumer any money in the long run. Banks aren't prepared to give up that kind of revenue. They will find another way to make up any savings encountered here.

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#13 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:23 PM EDT
                        smellsofpoo

                        You are right, those banks will find another way to get their money out of our pockets.

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#14 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:29 PM EDT
                        Virgil Starkwell

                        You're right smells, there is no such thing as a kind banker.

                        • 2 votes
                        #14.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        RobDebo89

                        Was this court case a conundrum for the libs? I mean, banks versus business people...who were they rooting for.....or were they secretly hoping they would both lose the case somehow.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#15 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 6:55 PM EDT
                        tesla013

                        I got $20 says the consumer lost.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#16 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 7:26 PM EDT
                        RobDebo89

                        I agree, we can say goodbye to free checking, ATM fees will rise and I am sure all the big stores like Home Depot, Best Buy, Target--not to single out stores...just examples--- are going to pass the savings onto us.......Not

                        Is this an example of common ground?

                        • 1 vote
                        #16.1 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 7:59 PM EDT
                        Virgil Starkwell

                        Rob - Let's not forget service charges for bounced checks. Wells Fargo charges $35 for insufficient funds. It's only a matter of time when it gets jacked up another 5 or 10 dollars. What chaps my hide, is if you're overdrawn $1, you earn a $35 penalty. The banks truly have a cash cow going, especially with honest folks trying to make ends meet.

                        There is at least a silver lining though, Wells Fargo cannot charge more than $300 per day in overdraft fees. If only one of your transactions cause an overdraft while having numerous charged pending, the accumulative effect is devastating.

                        • 2 votes
                        #16.2 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 8:11 PM EDT
                        RobDebo89

                        PNC Bank offers 5 dollar overdraft protection. I think it is worth it. If I overdraw, they move money from a linked savings acccount to cover the overdraft, and charge me 5 bucks.....I assume that fee will rise as well, though. Have to keep it though, if a check bounces to the electric company or the mortgage, that will cost me on both ends...PNC and the company I wrote the check to.

                        • 1 vote
                        #16.3 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 8:26 PM EDT
                        TDR

                        Rob -- The FED is going to mandate free checking accounts from what I've heard with no fees as long as users have keep a minimum balance -- what banks use to do anyways, and ATM fees will be capped -- just like they do in Europe. Let's not forget that banks promised regulators that ATMs would reduce costs for consumers (liars), and as for all the fees that banks have been gouging the public with, those will being dealt with accordingly. Like I said, banks got greedy and took too much from the pie and they are being reeled in. Good for consumers. I only hope the U.S. gets the consumer agency.

                        • 3 votes
                        #16.4 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 8:42 PM EDT
                        Virgil Starkwell

                        I've never heard of PNC Bank, I live in Washington. Wells Fargo has the most awful reputation, but it is owned by a larger corporation, Norwest Bank of Denver if memory serves me correctly. I remember receiving notices from the bank regarding class action law suits against them, as they were compelled by the courts to notify all account holders in the event an account holder had grounds to join in the lawsuit. Some great bank!

                        You're right TDR, the banks did claim that ATM's would reduce cost.

                        • 1 vote
                        #16.5 - Wed Jun 8, 2011 9:10 PM EDT
                        RobDebo89

                        I am now reading that some banks are going to limit debit card transactions to 50 or 100 dollars, or totally eliminate them. I guess I will have to see hw I am personally affected and what my bank puts in place, but I use my debit card foor virtually everything, I dont carry credit card balances....if my bankl limits the transaction amount, or does away with it, I opersonally will not like that this was passed.

                          #16.6 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 8:59 AM EDT
                          tesla013

                          And folks wonder why I have no ties to any financial institution. I would rather pay 10 dollars to cash my check at the damn grocery store. One fee up front no strings no jumping out of the bushes on a statement a month later.

                          • 2 votes
                          #16.7 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:39 AM EDT
                          Nick46

                          If for some reason that check has a glitch the grocery store will charge you a fee.

                            #16.8 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 3:39 PM EDT
                            tesla013

                            Yep they will Nick, Once, right there in my face. Not twelve times on 14 seperate statements.

                            • 1 vote
                            #16.9 - Thu Jun 9, 2011 6:29 PM EDT
                            Jackie-355788

                            If you have a casino they will cash it for free :)

                              #16.10 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:51 AM EDT
                              Nick46

                              What chaps my hide, is if you're overdrawn $1, you earn a $35 penalty. The banks truly have a cash cow going,

                              Yes sir you used the correct word. PENALTY!! It means punishment. They don't want you overdrawing your account. No penalty means everyone would overdraw their account. Think of it like a speeding ticket. I had an overdraw many years ago (once) and it cost me $25 plus interest on the overdraw amount. I have never had an overdraw again.

                                #16.11 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:24 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                michaelparksDeleted
                                LatonyaMccarthyDeleted
                                LatonyaMccarthyDeleted
                                LatonyaMccarthyDeleted
                                Jackie-355788

                                Stick your money in a safe and better still make a run on the bank. And I would not put your money in Wall Street either that crap shoot is rigged... just sit on your cash like the rest of the bankers are and we use cash..

                                  Reply#21 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:49 AM EDT
                                  Leave a Comment:
                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                  FUN STUFF:
                                  • Leaderboard |
                                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                                  • Top of the Vine |
                                  • Newsvine Live |
                                  • Newsvine Archives |
                                  • The Greenhouse
                                  COMPANY STUFF:
                                  • Code of Honor |
                                  • Company Info |
                                  • Contact Us |
                                  • Jobs |
                                  • User Agreement |
                                  • Privacy Policy |
                                  • About our ads
                                  LEGAL STUFF:
                                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com