Anonymous wrote:Complaining about “debanking” means they don’t want to comply with money laundering and anti-terror financing rules. Why? Because if you deal with crypto, you literally cannot abide by the money laundering laws due to the anonymity of crypto.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?
At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.
$35 overdraft fees made sense when banks incurred real costs because of overdrafts. They don't anymore b/c of technological advances. Overdrafts haven't become more expensive over time. They've become less expensive.
And CFPB has nothing to do with debanking or repetitional risk. That would be agencies like OCC or FDIC. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/fdic-plans-eradicate-focus-reputational-risk/743591/
Do your own research and stop parroting other people's talking points. You might learn something.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?
At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.
$35 overdraft fees made sense when banks incurred real costs because of overdrafts. They don't anymore b/c of technological advances. Overdrafts haven't become more expensive over time. They've become less expensive.
And CFPB has nothing to do with debanking or repetitional risk. That would be agencies like OCC or FDIC. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/fdic-plans-eradicate-focus-reputational-risk/743591/
Do your own research and stop parroting other people's talking points. You might learn something.
Easy
Fix don’t write bad checks no overdraft fees.
That’s not easy for a lot of people.
How high do you think overdraft fees should go? $100 for each penny overdrawn?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?
At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?
At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.
$35 overdraft fees made sense when banks incurred real costs because of overdrafts. They don't anymore b/c of technological advances. Overdrafts haven't become more expensive over time. They've become less expensive.
And CFPB has nothing to do with debanking or repetitional risk. That would be agencies like OCC or FDIC. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/fdic-plans-eradicate-focus-reputational-risk/743591/
Do your own research and stop parroting other people's talking points. You might learn something.
Easy
Fix don’t write bad checks no overdraft fees.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?
At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.
$35 overdraft fees made sense when banks incurred real costs because of overdrafts. They don't anymore b/c of technological advances. Overdrafts haven't become more expensive over time. They've become less expensive.
And CFPB has nothing to do with debanking or repetitional risk. That would be agencies like OCC or FDIC. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/fdic-plans-eradicate-focus-reputational-risk/743591/
Do your own research and stop parroting other people's talking points. You might learn something.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?
At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
This is one of several CFPB rules they’ve CRA-ed (aka, killed) recently. The other big rule was for the CFPB to supervise nonbank tech companies that offer digital payments. I wonder why they’d do that. Didn’t someone with the initials “EM” want to get into digital payments? No conflict there.
To be real. It’s completely inexplicable why any “normal” (non-billionaire or non-loan shark) person would support the destruction of this agency.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.
Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?
Anonymous wrote:CFPB has had a target on its back since it was first instituted (GOP previously tried to take it down through the court process).
I’m honesty surprised they didn’t start with CFPB and instead went after USAID as the first scapegoat agency. Maybe they wanted to test whether it would work.