<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Debit Card Reform: What Are Your Thoughts?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://masteryourcard.com/blog/2009/09/11/debit-card-reform-what-are-your-thoughts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://masteryourcard.com/blog/2009/09/11/debit-card-reform-what-are-your-thoughts/</link>
	<description>The best Credit Card Debt Blog online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:31:13 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Track Your Favorite Credit Card Legislation &#124; Master Your Card</title>
		<link>http://masteryourcard.com/blog/2009/09/11/debit-card-reform-what-are-your-thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-52011</link>
		<dc:creator>Track Your Favorite Credit Card Legislation &#124; Master Your Card</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:36:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masteryourcard.com/blog/?p=1635#comment-52011</guid>
		<description>[...] continued efforts to protect debit card users from exorbitant overdraft fees. We talked about Maloney&#8217;s crusade against overdraft fees here at MYC back in September 2009 back when the cause rallied under H.R.1456 &#8211; Consumer [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] continued efforts to protect debit card users from exorbitant overdraft fees. We talked about Maloney&#8217;s crusade against overdraft fees here at MYC back in September 2009 back when the cause rallied under H.R.1456 &#8211; Consumer [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: B. David Mehmet</title>
		<link>http://masteryourcard.com/blog/2009/09/11/debit-card-reform-what-are-your-thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-50409</link>
		<dc:creator>B. David Mehmet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masteryourcard.com/blog/?p=1635#comment-50409</guid>
		<description>.

NO PROBLEM

Have the banks offer &quot;opt-in&quot; and the public will have a choice in whether they want overdraft protection...solution solved. This mandatory overdraft protection based on an subjective and possibly an arbitrary study conducted by the banks is a bunch of hoopla.

The banks know exacly what they are doing. They are taking a single overdraft created by the consumer and using their creative accounting practice to multiple the overdraft fees. I would rather get denied on a two dollar cup of coffee and pull out the cash instead of paying $35 for that coffee later. In many cases, that $2 cup of coffee translates into $105 or more because when the bank re-orders the debits, more overdrafts are created without the consumer creating them.

Second, the banks claim that the &quot;amount&quot; of the debits dictate which payments are important. This is logically incorrect. It is the &quot;payee&quot; who is important. Leave it up to the crooked bank executives to miss such basic logic.

The bank executives are a bunch of filthy crooked criminals. They are criminals because they are violating 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1) by telling consumers the condition precedent to the assessment of additonal overdraft fees is insufficient funds. In fact, the true condition precedent is a pre-existing overdraft. Meaning, if a person has a pre-existing overdraft in their account, this could cause additonal overdraft fees without the consumer causing them by the bank re-ordering and paying debits from high to low. Without this pre-existing overdraft, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the banks creative accounting practice to create any overdraft fees.The banks never tell the consumer this in their contract. This violates 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1). That is why the bank engages in a practice to induce the consumer to believe they have more money in their account then they do. For example, the bank informs the consumer that their system cannot inform them on the correct available balance during the weekend, or the bank drops a hold on a debit to only later apply it. 

YOU BANK EXECUTIVES ARE A BUNCH OF FILTHY CROOKS AND YOU ARE ABOUT TO GET WHAT YOU&#039;VE ASKED FOR....MORE REGULATIONS....KEEP BEING CROOKED AND WE WILL REGULATE THE HELL OUT OF YOU UNTILL YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY ROOM TO MOVE. 

I SAW THIS YEARS AGO AND I WAITED FOR THIS DAY TO COME. NOW EVERONE IS WAKING UP TO THESE ROTTEN BANK EXECUTIVES. NOW PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE BANKS HAVE BEEN CHEATING THEM OUT OF THEIR MONEY...NOW PEOPLE WILL START TYING THE HANDS OF THESE CROOKED BANK EXECUTIVES. 


.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>.</p>
<p>NO PROBLEM</p>
<p>Have the banks offer &#8220;opt-in&#8221; and the public will have a choice in whether they want overdraft protection&#8230;solution solved. This mandatory overdraft protection based on an subjective and possibly an arbitrary study conducted by the banks is a bunch of hoopla.</p>
<p>The banks know exacly what they are doing. They are taking a single overdraft created by the consumer and using their creative accounting practice to multiple the overdraft fees. I would rather get denied on a two dollar cup of coffee and pull out the cash instead of paying $35 for that coffee later. In many cases, that $2 cup of coffee translates into $105 or more because when the bank re-orders the debits, more overdrafts are created without the consumer creating them.</p>
<p>Second, the banks claim that the &#8220;amount&#8221; of the debits dictate which payments are important. This is logically incorrect. It is the &#8220;payee&#8221; who is important. Leave it up to the crooked bank executives to miss such basic logic.</p>
<p>The bank executives are a bunch of filthy crooked criminals. They are criminals because they are violating 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1) by telling consumers the condition precedent to the assessment of additonal overdraft fees is insufficient funds. In fact, the true condition precedent is a pre-existing overdraft. Meaning, if a person has a pre-existing overdraft in their account, this could cause additonal overdraft fees without the consumer causing them by the bank re-ordering and paying debits from high to low. Without this pre-existing overdraft, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the banks creative accounting practice to create any overdraft fees.The banks never tell the consumer this in their contract. This violates 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1). That is why the bank engages in a practice to induce the consumer to believe they have more money in their account then they do. For example, the bank informs the consumer that their system cannot inform them on the correct available balance during the weekend, or the bank drops a hold on a debit to only later apply it. </p>
<p>YOU BANK EXECUTIVES ARE A BUNCH OF FILTHY CROOKS AND YOU ARE ABOUT TO GET WHAT YOU&#8217;VE ASKED FOR&#8230;.MORE REGULATIONS&#8230;.KEEP BEING CROOKED AND WE WILL REGULATE THE HELL OUT OF YOU UNTILL YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY ROOM TO MOVE. </p>
<p>I SAW THIS YEARS AGO AND I WAITED FOR THIS DAY TO COME. NOW EVERONE IS WAKING UP TO THESE ROTTEN BANK EXECUTIVES. NOW PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE BANKS HAVE BEEN CHEATING THEM OUT OF THEIR MONEY&#8230;NOW PEOPLE WILL START TYING THE HANDS OF THESE CROOKED BANK EXECUTIVES. </p>
<p>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Not the Jet Set</title>
		<link>http://masteryourcard.com/blog/2009/09/11/debit-card-reform-what-are-your-thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-49201</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Not the Jet Set</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masteryourcard.com/blog/?p=1635#comment-49201</guid>
		<description>Honestly, I&#039;m not sure why congress looks at credit and debit so differently.  I mean really, shouldn&#039;t they be in the same legislation, just different subsections?  It&#039;s all electronic transactions that banks are looking to recklessly profit from.  

The card companies have the same policies for each, why not the gov&#039;t?

Good post, btw</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honestly, I&#8217;m not sure why congress looks at credit and debit so differently.  I mean really, shouldn&#8217;t they be in the same legislation, just different subsections?  It&#8217;s all electronic transactions that banks are looking to recklessly profit from.  </p>
<p>The card companies have the same policies for each, why not the gov&#8217;t?</p>
<p>Good post, btw</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

