Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

And our bank accounts are

Posted By: Marmann on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: He was not honest. - sm

in such wonderful shape today, right?


We now live in a fascist society where the Bush government is buying the banks.


Socialism would be a giant step forward.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.

Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
Government prying into people's bank accounts nothing new.

And they're not just snooping on terrorists, as they claim.


http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06


Pay too much and you could raise the alarm


By BOB KERR
The Providence Journal
28-FEB-06



PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail.

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that everything changed after 9/11 thing.

But not Walter.

We're a product of the '60s, he said. We believe government should be way away from us in that regard.

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

When you mess with my money, I want to know why, he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

The more I'm on, the scarier it gets, he said. It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy.

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to others, he said.


(Bob Kerr is a columnist for The Providence Journal. E-mail bkerr@projo.com.)



(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.)


Wrong on both accounts.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

McCain did stay and shake hands with the audience members. He even introduced his wife around and posed for pictures, just like Obama did. So get over it.

As for, "began his answer with, 'I bet you never heard of Fannie Mac or Freddie Mac before...'" Well, you're just flat out wrong.

You could have checked your facts, but if you're an Obama support I'm sure you're not used to doing that, so let me enlighten you.

Here was McCain's response to the question: (quoted from the official transcript)

Well, thank you, Oliver. And that's an excellent question because, as you just described it, "bailout" when I believe that it's "rescue." Because -- because of the greed and excess in Washington and Wall Street, Main Street was paying a very heavy price, and we know that. I left my campaign and suspended it to go back to Washington to make sure that there were additional protections for the taxpayer in the form of good oversight and the form of taxpayers being the first to be paid back when our economy recovers, and it will recover, and a number of other measures.

But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis. But you know, they're the ones that with the encouragement of Senator Obama and his cronies and his friends, in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back. And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said, we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess. Meanwhile the Democrats in the Senate and some and some members of Congress defended what, what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They, they resisted any change. Meanwhile they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Senator Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history, in history. So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets. We will buy -- we will shore up these institutions, but it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market. And we're going to have to buy up these bad loans. And we're going to have to stabilize house, home values.

And that way Americans can -- like Allen -- can realize the American dream and stay in their home. But Fannie and Freddie were the catalysts, the match that started this forest fire. There were some of us -- there were some of us that stood up against us; there was others who took a hike.

75% accounts for the former McC supports
to realize what "country first" means in the face of an election defeat. Think about it. BTW, the 6.8% was injected into the mix for the sake of accuracy.
we pick up new accounts all the time...
like I said, the cpl pay is low comparatively, but I do alright. By the way, I certainly didn't mean to offend you!
Any word about money market accounts?

Battle over UBS secret accounts to take months

 


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UBS_SECRETS?SITE=VACUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
More control coming?  Thanks, but no thanks.  I have a brain and like to think for myself.  See link below.
what exactly is a bank run?
x
Check your bank.........
A financial advisor on the Today Show this morning warned all Americans who have more than $100,000 in the bank, to shift their money to other banks that are FDIC insured. The FDIC only insures up to $100,000 per person. That does not mean different accounts within the same bank or different branches of the same bank. DIFFERENT insured banks. I, myself, do not have to worry about this as I don't even have a fraction of that, but I find the fact that this advisor felt the need to come on the air and spell it out very telling. She also said your bank will tell you that you just need to create more than one account within the same bank - NOT TRUE. She also said to watch the stocks of your bank - if stock prices continue to fall - get the he11 out!  BTW, greed is a sin, eh?
Bank of Obama

 Because everyone deserves a bailout!


http://www.bankofobama.org/


Bank of America to cut 35,000 jobs.......sm
over the next 3 years.  Weren't they the ones who put money in your savings account every time you made a purchase? 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BA6ZD20081211?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
The feds should use the bank & Wall St.
Then put a lien on, and sell, their fancy mansions in upstate NY, their yachts, their Mercedes, etc.  Let their kids to go public school instead of fancy private ones.   They're the greedy ones who got us into this mess, let THEM pay for it, not us.
If it's a felony to incite a bank run, then
shouldn't these people on Wall Street be prosecuted?  After all, if they hadn't done what they did to the economy, then we wouldn't have to withdraw our money.
Yeah! Could I rob and bank and claim to be
nm
What is the bank bail-out if not socialism? s/m
Maybe you'd have better luck with your employees if you gave them a raise.  If you have a profit margin that allows you to give them a 25% bonus, surely a 10% raise wouldn't cause you to suffer too much.
Bank executives will be getting bonuses
and we are fighting over crumbs and religion.
"Central international bank" = sm
One-world currency. Interesting.
Who benefited from the bank bailout?

Wall Street, Citigroup, AIG, Fannie May/Freddie Mac, the car companies.


I don't want a check either but wouldn't be nice if they would give us the money instead of coming up with all these carppy bogged down packages?


What would you do if they would give us $30K or more?  That would probably cost less than what they are proposing and you know darn well, that money would go into the economy faster than their plan.


 


I was speaking about bank bailouts
not the stimulus. Two different things.

Since the banks are crying that they are losing money because of people not paying mortgages, etc., would it not make sense to boost them back up by providing the money THEY ARE GOING TO GET ANYWAYS to the homeowners first and therefore killing two birds with one stone?

Or no, lets just throw more money at them with no stipulations and no rules and bend over and continue to take it while they go on another vacation and laugh all the way to the bank. That definitely makes more sense.

Since people who rent aren't involved with the mortgage/bank crisis, no they would be left out of this one. But like Zville posted, they could be covered under the stimulus side of this "economic relief" that's being proposed.

How does it not tick you off that all the businesses are getting a bailout and "infusion" of cash but the average citizen is still going to suffer for the next two or three years?


Wanda on the bank bailout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KADr2KG5aso
No need to wonder...current mortgage bank crisis...
brought to you courtesy of greedy democrats on Congress and greedy Democrats at the top of Fannie Mae. The handwriting is on the wall. This one's on you. McCain saw it coming in 2005 and the dems shut him down. Well, we are reaping what they sowed. To quote Toby Keith...how do you like them now?
Bank Bailout Facts (2-min. video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JUWYEc0Fg&feature=related 
Bank Bail Out True Facts
 
Everyone and their mother withdraws their cash from the bank.
dd
No, not at all. But, leaves the bank with no money to loan.
dd
World Bank computer hacked
I don't believe for one minute the computers were hacked by some kids just trying to do it.  I find it very disturbing this originated in China.  Why haven't we been told about this before now, a year later?   This is China's government doing this.... When will we ever learn our lessons and stop doing business with communists countries.  We buy all their crap, because we are indebted to them to the tune of trillions of dollars, and they buy nothing from us.  Now there's fair trade at its best!!  Of course, what happens when you are indebted to someone/somthing?  You kiss their butts!!!!!!
Fed approves Chinese Bank CCB to open in US

Am I the only one who finds this scary?


Fed approves Chinese bank CCB to open office in US


Mon Dec 8, 5:15 pm ET


WASHINGTON (AFP) –– The US Federal Reserve said Monday it had authorized China Construction Bank, a leading Chinese state bank, to operate in the United States.


The proposed New York City branch of CCB "would engage in wholesale deposit-taking, lending, trade finance, and other banking services," the Fed said in a statement.


The US central bank recalled that China Construction Bank Corporation (CCB) is 57.0 percent owned by the Chinese state, 19.7 percent by US banking group Bank of America and 5.7 percent by Temasek Holdings, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Singapore. The remainder of the capital is publicly traded.


CCB is the second-largest bank in China, with total assets of approximately 1.1 trillion dollars, it noted.


The Fed said it had determined that CCB had adequate anti-money laundering safeguards and had committed to respect US laws on money laundering.


CCB's own funds exceed the minimum set by the 1998 Basel Capital Accord and "is considered equivalent to capital that would be required of a US banking organization," the US central bank said.


CCB would be the fourth mainland Chinese bank -- excluding banks in Hong Kong -- to open operations in the US, after the Agricultural Bank of China, the Bank of China and the Bank of Communications.


The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China's top bank, also has asked the Fed for authorization to open a branch in New York.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081208/pl_afp/uschinabankregulatebankingcompanyccb


Ahem. The West Bank is not theirs. Neither is Gaza.
So just how does that justify illegal settlements and settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank?
GW started socialism with the bank bailout..
So go fry your baloney.
After seeing what happened when the last administration's bank bailout.....
There has to be some oversight somewhere! The banks can't/won't tell us what happened to the money...........
Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization

by: Krishna Guha and Edward Luce, The Financial Times


photo
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has come out in favor of nationalizing some banks. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)




    The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.


    In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.


    "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."


    Mr Greenspan's comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.


    "We should be focusing on what works," Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. "We cannot keep pouring good money after bad." He added, "If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it."


    Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that "in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control" of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.


    The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would "allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them."


    But he cautioned that holders of senior debt - bonds that would be paid off before other claims - might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.


    "You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."


    Mr Greenspan's comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.


    In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the "most sweeping recovery package in our history", Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.


    "We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises," said Mr Obama. "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles… but it does mark the beginning of the end."


Let's riot and throw bricks through bank windows

So much for transparency. Treasury refuses to give bank bailout information.

This again from the McClatchy news group, which is not conservative by any means:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65195.html