Megan Corse

Working model, ambitious actress, writer on the brink

Megan Corse

Megan Corse
Location
Eau Claire, Wisconsin,
Birthday
August 22
Bio
From small town, to big city, and back again. I write about what moves me, eludes me, and usually what chooses me. In my spare time I try to avoid working three jobs so I can continue acting, modeling, singing, and writing...I guess that's seven jobs. Thanks for reading.

MY RECENT POSTS

Megan Corse's Links

Salon.com
JANUARY 7, 2011 3:51PM

MONEY and WHINE

Rate: 1 Flag

Here is what my innervoice tells me when I see a Conservative Republican speaking or when I read something they've written:  MONEY MONEY MONEY, WHINE WHINE WHINE.

 Yesterday I resolved an issue with my Chase checking account in which they charged me multiple overdraft fees.  This was not for multiple overdrafts, mind you, but for my account "remaining in the negative" after I'd deposited money to compensate for the initial overdrafted amount, and then they issued the first overdraft fee which put me back in the negative.  Add to this the fact there are no Chase banks or ATMs within at least 50 miles of my current address, the only way I could get money into that account was to make a transfer.  Luckily, I sold an item on Ebay and promptly initiated a transfer to the Chase account with that money, which would have covered the negative amount the first overdraft fee caused.

The telephone banker I spoke with said if my account remains negative for 5 business days they can charge a "Extended Overdraft Fee"...the legality of this fee is dicey at best...is it right to charge me again when it was their first fee that put me in the hole, again?

 My transfer arrived the day after they charged the "extended" fee, which I just noticed last night.

I made a fuss straight away with this telephone banker, and although he was quick to say they'd take care of it after I stated "I'm pretty sure charging multiple fees is illegal now", he remained firm on Chase's "right" to charge the Extended Overdraft Fee if my account stays in the red.

Hmm, yeah.  I was able to deposit enough money to cover the initial overdraft, and it was their fee that caused the additional negative amount, and thus the only money the bank was losing out on was what they decided to charge me.  In other words, I covered my ass and eventually the first fee, but they still wanted more money from me, and charged a second fee.

What does this have to do with Conservatives? you might be asking.  Well, upon looking up the new overdraft fee laws here on the good ol' Internet, and among several recent class action lawsuits involving our favorite monolith banks and their overdraft fee practices, I found an article called Congress Destroys Free Checking Accounts by Blocking Overdraft Fees for the Irresponsible.  What struck me most about the article were the comments people left about it.  "Unethical" was the word used most often by people explaining the ridiculousness of this author's point.  There is no reason, whatsoever, for banks to be able to allow charges to go through on your card or in your account when there are not enough funds available...it's about MONEY.  The banks want it and they will make multiple efforts to get as much of it from you as they can scheme.

The Republican reasoning for saying banks should be able to do whatever they want to certain, "irresponsible" people baffles me.  So greed is OK as long as it's directed towards people that "deserve" to be scammed?  Yeah...this mentality is the big fucking problem in this country right now.

This article really focuses on the supposed loss of free checking that results from these overdraft laws:  "The elimination of free checking thanks to Congress’s unwise restrictions on overdraft fees will harm low-income people by driving them back to check-cashing stores that charge them money to cash every check."  I'm actually not disagreeing with him here, except for the unwise restrictions part.  Banks ARE starting to put new conditions on what was once free checking, like having to use your debit card a certain number of times per month, and if you cannot achieve that you must have a monthly direct deposit that meets a required amount.  However, when he says "This is becoming a pattern for Congress, passing laws forcing responsible people to subsidize irresponsible people..." all I'm hearing is WHINE.  The law that Congress passed is extremely necessary and a huge step in regulating banks again, because these excessive charges are bottom-line unethical, and more importantly, a symptom of greed.  What this writer should be saying is thank you to Congress for looking out for the people, finally, and then turn to the banks and say "Just because you're getting your ass handed to you does not mean you can create another way to fuck me over."

 Americans WHINE way too much, all of us.  We whine about what the government is doing and not doing, but proceed to do jack shit about it.  Sorry guy, you've got this one all wrong.  The Democratic Congress was not fucking you over, you're already being fucked over and they're trying to find ways to remedy that.  Just because they change something doesn't mean the object of change, banks in this case, will respond kindly.  And the reason is they still want MONEY.  Therefore, it's our job to keep fighting back and say no asshole, this is my money and you need to stop stealing it.

Quit whining.  Stop making excuses for money-grubbing corporations and voracious politicians.  Reeducate yourself on the difference between right and wrong.  Then, do something about it.  This country is defunct of action.  The reason we keep getting screwed by the greedy is because we keep letting it happen.  It's time to take action.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
WORD!!! Let's also keep in mind that our corporate welfare program (stimulus money) just gave several large banks the money they needed to bail out their own infractions and go buy up several smaller banks.
corporations own the government. the latest spokesman is named Barrack Obama.
ps try reading about Elizabeth Warren and the new Consumer Protection Agency. my guess, its probably toast.
@Phil Circle - Word right back at'cha!
@vzn - you're not wrong, but this is the first time in 8 years we've seen the government attempt to regulate something again, so I hope they can keep doing it. I've heard of Elizabeth Warren, I'll look into her further.
Chase is one of the worst. Find a credit union.