wiegie Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) About ten minutes ago, in a bi-partisan fashion, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to make it illegal for companies like Wal*Mart to open up their own banks. While this probably seems like a good idea to all of you knee-jerk anti-Walmarters, basically what this bill (HR 698) does is protects the special interests of the existing banking industry which wants to limit the competition it faces. Likely to be especially hurt if this bill becomes law will be the poorest people in our society who have little access to the banking industry as it currently exists and must instead seek out places like PayDay Loan companies for basic banking services. Edited May 21, 2007 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I've never understood the anti-Wal-Mart crowd. Don't like Wal-Mart not offering a comprehensive health-care packages for non-skilled positions? Go work somewhere else. Don't like Wal-Mart's anti-union stance? Go work somewhere else. And given Wal-Mart's 70% yearly turnover rate, that's just what people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Thank you Nancy Pelosi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 You dipsh|ts--only 16 representatives in total voted against this bill. It's not a Democrat vs. Republican bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You dipsh|ts--only 16 representatives in total voted against this bill. It's not a Democrat vs. Republican bill. Hit the brakes, morans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You dipsh|ts--only 16 representatives in total voted against this bill. It's not a Democrat vs. Republican bill. that is certainly true. it is also true that this bill didn't pass or even get through committee at any point during the previous 12 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Typical law makers bending their knees to PACs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 You dipsh|ts--only 16 representatives in total voted against this bill. It's not a Democrat vs. Republican bill. Facts don't stop them from throwing their poop against the wall to see what sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 that is certainly true. it is also true that this bill didn't pass or even get through committee at any point during the previous 12 years. uh, the whole idea for the ban didn't even come up until 2005 when Walmart indicated that it might go into the banking business. The bill appears to have progressed pretty much unencumbered since then. Also, in both the 108th and 109th Congress, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that began to address the issue by restricting nationwide branching and prohibiting certain commercially-owned ILCs from offering interest on business N.O.W. accounts. http://financialservices.house.gov/RetailersInBanking.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 that is certainly true. it is also true that this bill didn't pass or even get through committee at any point during the previous 12 years. This probably has something to do with Walmart not trying to be a bank in the last 12 years. But maybe I'm just a master of the incredibly painfully completely and totally obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Glad I actually read the thread. I thought the title was, "Did it feel Good? Holy Roller just bent you over. I don't recall bending anyone over since, hmmmm, Saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 (edited) If the Congress was that in the pocket of banks they would have taken more steps to limit the proliferation of credit unions ... Edited May 22, 2007 by Beaumont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 While this probably seems like a good idea to all of you knee-jerk anti-Walmarters, basically what this bill (HR 698) does is protects the special interests of the existing banking industry which wants to limit the competition it faces. And this is a change how exactly? Don't our vaunted "representatives" always protect the special interests of those who fork over the most cash? This time the banks were wise enough to cut the Dems in on the handouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 About ten minutes ago, in a bi-partisan fashion, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to make it illegal for companies like Wal*Mart to open up their own banks. While this probably seems like a good idea to all of you knee-jerk anti-Walmarters, basically what this bill (HR 698) does is protects the special interests of the existing banking industry which wants to limit the competition it faces. Likely to be especially hurt if this bill becomes law will be the poorest people in our society who have little access to the banking industry as it currently exists and must instead seek out places like PayDay Loan companies for basic banking services. I remember vaguely seeing a representative of Walmart in some sort of committee meeting discussing this topic last year. My very rudimentary understanding of the potential problem with allowing companies like Walmart to enter into business as a lending institution has to do with the risk of comingling funds or some such between their retail and bank businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 But maybe I'm just a master of the incredibly painfully completely and totally obvious. actually, you are the master of masturbatastically redundant adjectives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 yah and the fbuckers forgot the lube again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 If the Congress was that in the pocket of banks they would have taken more steps to limit the proliferation of credit unions ... Credit unions face fairly significant restrictions on scale and scope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 This probably has something to do with Walmart not trying to be a bank in the last 12 years. But maybe I'm just a master of the incredibly painfully completely and totally obvious. or the master of really ghey parties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 22, 2007 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 I remember vaguely seeing a representative of Walmart in some sort of committee meeting discussing this topic last year. My very rudimentary understanding of the potential problem with allowing companies like Walmart to enter into business as a lending institution has to do with the risk of comingling funds or some such between their retail and bank businesses. This is indeed one of the major reasons cited for opposing these new types of banks. Here is a link that talks more about the issue: http://www.phil.frb.org/pcc/legislative/2007/1q/index.cfm The history of banking regulation in the US is an area I have done a fair amount of research in and I personally think the main areas of concern with these new banks are either overblown or could be addressed with regulations rather than imposing the ultimate regulation of just banning the new type of banks altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 actually, you are the master of masturbatastically redundant adjectives. I'm a wordsmith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchico Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Glad I actually read the thread. I thought the title was, "Did it feel Good? Holy Roller just bent you over. I don't recall bending anyone over since, hmmmm, Saturday. I thought it was about you also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I miss Charles Keating! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 (edited) Credit unions face fairly significant restrictions on scale and scope. How so, other than their charter? There are some credit uniions with hundreds of thousands of members. And credit unions have tax free advantages over banks. They issue credit cards, loans, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Unions Edited May 22, 2007 by Beaumont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Walmart Congress the banking industry Man it's hard to find a side to argue for on this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I miss Charles Keating! I miss michael keaton ..has not worked much lately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.