[Ren]

I’m another Wamu -> Chase customer. My accounts (2 business checking, 1 business credit card, 1 personal checking) were free with Wamu and remain free with Chase. I have a huge number of transactions go through one of my business accounts and frequent transfers. I have unlimited ATM transactions (at least I’ve never run into a limit), zero fees of any sort, easy and fast online banking (I only had the issue on one day last week, it was the first time ever, and still logging in fine today). I’ll be the first one to go online and complain if/when I have an issue, but it’s been years now, and so far they’ve given me no reason to switch.

Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.

Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.

[Ren]

I’m another Wamu -> Chase customer. My accounts (2 business checking, 1 business credit card, 1 personal checking) were free with Wamu and remain free with Chase. I have a huge number of transactions go through one of my business accounts and frequent transfers. I have unlimited ATM transactions (at least I’ve never run into a limit), zero fees of any sort, easy and fast online banking (I only had the issue on one day last week, it was the first time ever, and still logging in fine today). I’ll be the first one to go online and complain if/when I have an issue, but it’s been years now, and so far they’ve given me no reason to switch.

Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.

Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.

[Ren]

I’m another Wamu -> Chase customer. My accounts (2 business checking, 1 business credit card, 1 personal checking) were free with Wamu and remain free with Chase. I have a huge number of transactions go through one of my business accounts and frequent transfers. I have unlimited ATM transactions (at least I’ve never run into a limit), zero fees of any sort, easy and fast online banking (I only had the issue on one day last week, it was the first time ever, and still logging in fine today). I’ll be the first one to go online and complain if/when I have an issue, but it’s been years now, and so far they’ve given me no reason to switch.

Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.

Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.

[Ren]

I’m another Wamu -> Chase customer. My accounts (2 business checking, 1 business credit card, 1 personal checking) were free with Wamu and remain free with Chase. I have a huge number of transactions go through one of my business accounts and frequent transfers. I have unlimited ATM transactions (at least I’ve never run into a limit), zero fees of any sort, easy and fast online banking (I only had the issue on one day last week, it was the first time ever, and still logging in fine today). I’ll be the first one to go online and complain if/when I have an issue, but it’s been years now, and so far they’ve given me no reason to switch.

Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.

Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.

[Ren]

I’m another Wamu -> Chase customer. My accounts (2 business checking, 1 business credit card, 1 personal checking) were free with Wamu and remain free with Chase. I have a huge number of transactions go through one of my business accounts and frequent transfers. I have unlimited ATM transactions (at least I’ve never run into a limit), zero fees of any sort, easy and fast online banking (I only had the issue on one day last week, it was the first time ever, and still logging in fine today). I’ll be the first one to go online and complain if/when I have an issue, but it’s been years now, and so far they’ve given me no reason to switch.

Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.

Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=permabear]I know lots of people on this forum are waiting for houses to drop another 30-40% so they can get them at rock-bottom prices.[/quote]

Find a single post on this forum in the past year from someone who expects another 30-40% downside. I don’t think you can.

I’m in the bear camp, and like several others here, I’m guesstimating another 20% down on the coast at the outside, and it could take several years for that, assuming no more intervention.

[Ren]

[quote=permabear]I know lots of people on this forum are waiting for houses to drop another 30-40% so they can get them at rock-bottom prices.[/quote]

Find a single post on this forum in the past year from someone who expects another 30-40% downside. I don’t think you can.

I’m in the bear camp, and like several others here, I’m guesstimating another 20% down on the coast at the outside, and it could take several years for that, assuming no more intervention.

[Ren]

[quote=permabear]I know lots of people on this forum are waiting for houses to drop another 30-40% so they can get them at rock-bottom prices.[/quote]

Find a single post on this forum in the past year from someone who expects another 30-40% downside. I don’t think you can.

I’m in the bear camp, and like several others here, I’m guesstimating another 20% down on the coast at the outside, and it could take several years for that, assuming no more intervention.

[Ren]

[quote=permabear]I know lots of people on this forum are waiting for houses to drop another 30-40% so they can get them at rock-bottom prices.[/quote]

Find a single post on this forum in the past year from someone who expects another 30-40% downside. I don’t think you can.

I’m in the bear camp, and like several others here, I’m guesstimating another 20% down on the coast at the outside, and it could take several years for that, assuming no more intervention.

[Ren]

[quote=permabear]I know lots of people on this forum are waiting for houses to drop another 30-40% so they can get them at rock-bottom prices.[/quote]

Find a single post on this forum in the past year from someone who expects another 30-40% downside. I don’t think you can.

I’m in the bear camp, and like several others here, I’m guesstimating another 20% down on the coast at the outside, and it could take several years for that, assuming no more intervention.

[Author]

Posts