PDA

View Full Version : Rand votes with Wall Street on (failed) debit card vote




cindy25
06-08-2011, 07:19 PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00086

specsaregood
06-08-2011, 07:35 PM
Do you think he should have voted some other way on that amendment? why?

cindy25
06-08-2011, 07:55 PM
Do you think he should have voted some other way on that amendment? why?

this is a hard one; in theory a business should be able to charge what they feel the market will bear. but banks are increasingly public utilities, and MasterCard/Visa are certainly a duopoly. should the electric company be able to charge whatever they wish?

even Ron is supporting legislation (rightly so IMO) that would not allow banks to refuse certain businesses (medical marijuana shops).

TheDriver
06-08-2011, 08:16 PM
LOL, who in their right mind thinks the Federal Reserve should set prices for any business?

sailingaway
06-08-2011, 08:57 PM
What provision of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate how we use our debit cards and how much we are charged for them? You are buying someone's spin that this was against the people and for wall street. It was pro more power to the state, is what it was.

Kregisen
06-08-2011, 09:00 PM
Without spending time to look at this bill, what is the bill? Is a vote of yea getting the federal government involved?

Carehn
06-08-2011, 09:01 PM
Its price fixing. Are we for or against price fixing?

cindy25
06-08-2011, 09:14 PM
Its price fixing. Are we for or against price fixing?

that's why this is such a hard call; the entire MasterCard Visa system is price fixing. what should be allowed is to let stores charge (add on) the credit card / debit card fees. if they had been able to from the start this monster would never have grown.

Brett85
06-08-2011, 09:17 PM
Could someone summarize the bill?

Carehn
06-08-2011, 09:19 PM
that's why this is such a hard call; the entire MasterCard Visa system is price fixing. what should be allowed is to let stores charge (add on) the credit card / debit card fees. if they had been able to from the start this monster would never have grown.

Maybe but force cannot be used to fix the problems caused by force.

cindy25
06-08-2011, 09:29 PM
Maybe but force cannot be used to fix the problems caused by force.

but banks are public utilities; they have govt insurance (FDIC)

angelatc
06-08-2011, 09:30 PM
this is a hard one; in theory a business should be able to charge what they feel the market will bear. but banks are increasingly public utilities, and MasterCard/Visa are certainly a duopoly. should the electric company be able to charge whatever they wish?

.

Price caps create shortages.

angelatc
06-08-2011, 09:33 PM
Could someone summarize the bill?

Cap debit-card swipe fees at 12 cents per transaction.Currently it is a 1 to 2 percent fee, an average of 44 cents per transaction. THe banks should sue all the way to the Supreme Court, but they won't.

Brett85
06-08-2011, 09:37 PM
Cap debit-card swipe fees at 12 cents per transaction.Currently it is a 1 to 2 percent fee, an average of 44 cents per transaction. THe banks should sue all the way to the Supreme Court, but they won't.

That sounds like price fixing. What was Rand's reason for supporting this?

cindy25
06-08-2011, 09:39 PM
What provision of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate how we use our debit cards and how much we are charged for them? You are buying someone's spin that this was against the people and for wall street. It was pro more power to the state, is what it was.

the commerce clause regulating interstate commerce

cindy25
06-08-2011, 09:40 PM
That sounds like price fixing. What was Rand's reason for supporting this?

Rand was supporting the amendment to allow a higher fee

low preference guy
06-08-2011, 09:40 PM
the commerce clause regulating interstate commerce

that means congress can keep commerce regular, i.e., without barriers, not intervene with it

Brett85
06-08-2011, 09:44 PM
Rand was supporting the amendment to allow a higher fee

Ok. That makes more sense.

Carehn
06-08-2011, 10:01 PM
but banks are public utilities; they have govt insurance (FDIC)

Yes. Banks have done a wonderful job at socializing losses but i still do not support price fixing to get back at them. It would only hurt the small guy anyway. One way or the other the cost will find a way to the consumer and the shit will always roll down hill. You can try and stop it but you'll just end up with shit at the bottom of the hill and on your hands.

Vessol
06-08-2011, 10:12 PM
Rand was supporting the amendment to allow a higher fee

Rand was supporting an amendment that let the free market be the free market.

Fuck price controls from the central planners.

White Bear Lake
06-08-2011, 11:05 PM
So do the bill pass (the one capping the fees)? I'm assuming it won't get by the House, hopefully.

Sentient Void
06-08-2011, 11:45 PM
Anyone who supports this price cap, needs a lesson in basic economics.

I work in the financial industry for a *major* commercial bank, and all recent new govt regulations over it, as expected, just ended up making things worse for the average consumer - not better. Higher minimum balances, higher fees, more fees, etc.

The banking industry is fucked up enough due to the Fed and it's central planning, and all of the regulations the federal government imposes over it - literally regulations from the letter A to the letter Z. And then some. It's absurd.

You don't solve problems caused by central planning with MORE central planning. It's retarded logic. The goal should be to roll BACK the state - not give it more authority.

jtstellar
06-09-2011, 06:23 AM
the commerce clause regulating interstate commerce

this guy/woman was a member since 07? serious?

steph3n
06-09-2011, 06:33 AM
The banks are setting this all up they 'own' the fed, the fed is 'setting the rules', they are 'opposed to the fed'...it's all a lie, it is all a sham to get people up in arms.

tangent4ronpaul
06-09-2011, 07:10 AM
I'm not real happy with this. Back with the bailout, congress shoved a bunch of stuff down the banks throats and back then ATM feed were about $1 a transaction. Then they started going up, and up and up. Today they are $4 a transaction. It's free if I go to my credit unions ATM, but that isn't close so I'd spend about as much in gas to save that $4 fee. This is a closed semi-monopoly. Only so many players and like cable/fiber/directTV the costs are all really high and stay high because competition is kept out.

Am I happy with Rand's vote? HELL NO!

TheState
06-09-2011, 07:15 AM
I agree with Rand, price controls are never the right measure no matter how much govt/corp collusion there is in that sector. It's a further step in the wrong direction.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-09-2011, 07:18 AM
I welcome any legislation that will stifle free checking and be a boon for the alternative currency economy. I look forward to more alternative currency options. :)

So when is this sucker anticipated to pass and go into effect?

juleswin
06-09-2011, 07:23 AM
Ok. That makes more sense.

Am shocked that you did not give Rand the benefit of the doubt. Actually am not, you always play the devils advocate in these type of issue. Put on your thinking hat and ask yourself if you would want the govt to reduce the price of doctor visits since doctors through govt schools and govt sponsored student loans are sorta like a public utility and if you say no then you want patients to pay higher fees for healthcare

That makes sense right?

thedude
06-09-2011, 08:01 AM
I know some of you have figured it out, but I wanted to repeat it again. This was a vote on an AMENDMENT to the underlying bill, NOT on the bill itself...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112JLQhys:e52612:

Text begins under the bold heading:


SA 392. Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. Corker, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Carper, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Coons) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 782, to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; as follows:

Read the AMENDMENT before opining on whether this vote ON THE AMENDMENT was positive or not...

David Adams
06-09-2011, 01:12 PM
Rand's vote was the right one. Durbin's price-fixing stunt goes into effect on July 21.

Austin
06-09-2011, 01:53 PM
I'm not real happy with this. Back with the bailout, congress shoved a bunch of stuff down the banks throats and back then ATM feed were about $1 a transaction. Then they started going up, and up and up. Today they are $4 a transaction. It's free if I go to my credit unions ATM, but that isn't close so I'd spend about as much in gas to save that $4 fee. This is a closed semi-monopoly. Only so many players and like cable/fiber/directTV the costs are all really high and stay high because competition is kept out.

Am I happy with Rand's vote? HELL NO!

Uhh, if you don't like the fees a bank charges for ATM transactions, go to a different bank.

This reminds me of the Chase ATM fee thread. Everyone was up in arms that Chase was thinking about charging $10 per ATM transaction. What the thread didn't specify was that the fees were only applicable to non-Chase customers. We may not like that from a consumer standpoint, but it is wholly in line with the free-market. You simply choose to not do business with Chase as a non-Chase customer.

It's a shame that some folks on the forum are more concerned about using the government to regulate Wallstreet than they are about protecting the free market.