Not only that reason...but banks have the right and often do in these times, hold up checks for 2 weeks +. Why in the heck it takes that long in these days of instant communication is beyond me, except banks like to "sit" on YOUR money..earning lovely interest. We never accept personal checks now for our business, instead we expect my clients to pay us in wire transfers, cashiers or certified checks... We have had too much trouble lately with our bank holding funds to the limits. ...Another new ploy of theirs, which I found out the hard way over the summer....is: say you have $5,000.00 in your banking account...money cleared ready to be spent, you then deposit a check for $10,000.00...suddenly the next day, you have a defict of $5,000.00 in your account!!! You write a few checks on the 5 grand you thought you had and they bounce..now you owe the bank several $35.00 fees for returned checks...if over the overdraft. This happened to me over the summer, and I am in the midst of getting the mess straightened out. It happened at Wells Fargo Bank which has been a good institute and has always deposited my funds and made them available within 2 to 4 days...so I was astounded!

All this tells me is everyone wants cash or credit these days... Little scary, when we can no longer write checks or expect a check to be in our funds within a week or less...

I understand banks holding on to our money in order to earn interest (that doesn't come to us)on it--I don't agree with it, but I know it happens, which is why I said I understood it.

But some credit card companies hold payment to the merchant, as well. At least, that's the reason given for gas stations, for example, insisting that you either have their own credit card, a debit card, or pay cash. Plus credit card companies charge the merchant a 'processing' fee, which small businesses can't afford, especially in WA.

I don't, however, understand how you could deposit a $10,000 check into an account that already shows a $5,000 balance and emd up the next day with a $5,000 deficit, CG. How did that happen?

This will all be moot when Congress passes the bill. I still ask, "What's Plan B, if Plan A doesn't work?"

And how will the tax-payers be re-paid, with interest, if it does work?

Law, the point of my story, as I'm sure you understand, is that we have the actual money (unless something happens to it through manipulation) to pay off our credit card debt. Can banks say the same thing for their ability to pay off their debts?

Oops, again I apologize--it's now way past my promised bed-time. Good Night!

We won't. Paying back the public is the oldest canard in political negotiation. It's similar to "the tolls will be removed from the highway once it's paid for" and "the check is in the mail."

Don't believe you will ever see a penny of that money and don't believe you'll even get an accounting because some of it will go to fund off-the-books secret projects, and the rest will be absorbed into the 'general fund.'

There's no money for better schools, there's no money for better veteran care, there's no money for improved health care, where did this seventy billion come from?

We need comments, opinions, suggestions, plans from our presidential candidates. One of them will find the entire pile of garbage on his desk in the Oval Office in a few weeks!

The 700 billion of our tax money handed over to Paulson to clean up his mess does not seem to impress the rest of the world. Even Russia closed all trading at one time today because the panic was out of control. Wink to them from your backyard, Mrs. Palin.... It might be the positive gesture they need.

I'd like to know, from a Republican, if this is an example of self-regulating financial institutions.



Countrywide was facing suits in eleven states before it was acquired by Bank of America and chose settlement rather than a trial.

Does the BofA expect to be repaid out of our $700B bailout monies or is it freeing up (or is Countrywide) it's own reserved monies to meet this settlement agreement.

I ask for a couple of reasons. First, if this is a settlement made possible by the bail-out, our tax money will be used to make big banks even bigger. Second, if the BofA or Countrywide is making their own money available for the settlement, why is a bail-out using our money needed?

Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought that bail out money was being used to purchase these troubled financial institutions and bring them under government ownership rather than being used as a direct loan to them...I will have to dig a little deeper as I kow the bail out plan involves lots of subcomponents and perhaps there are some direct loans.

Law, we often read the same things in different ways, as we should.

Bank of America bought Countrywide back in January of this year for $4B--as I understand it, that means BoA bought Countrywide's assets some of which include mortgage loans that remain solvent.

What isn't clear from the article is who's paying for the Countrywide legal settlement? Is it BoA, Countrywide or us?

Your assignment, should you accept it, is to find out...

I asked for a Republican's opinion because, if BoA and Countrywide are paying the bills, and if this is an example of deregulated self-regulation--or self-correction--then it's a good thing. If, on the other hand, the legal settlement will be paid for out of bail-out money, it's not a good thing.

I have to think that BoA knew the exact cost of the settlement plan prior to its purchase of Countrywide and that was factored into the $4B purchase price. In other words, there is money in some banks and they're using it to purchase failing financial institutions.

As a result of the panic caused by the dire warnings that led to approval of the bail-out, there's been a run on Wall St. as people pull out of the market in order to save what they can rather than lose everything.

See why I can't place blame?