Citigroup Inc said it will start charging a monthly fee of $10 on checking and savings accounts with combined balances of less than $1,500, joining a growing list of banks seeking to recoup revenue lost under new financial industry regulations. The fee will be waived if a customer completes one direct deposit and one online bill payment per month through an account, or maintains a balance of at least $1,500 in checking and savings accounts, Citigroup said on Friday The change takes effect in December. Under Citi’s current fee structure, customers are not required to maintain minimum account balances but must complete five transactions a month through an account to avoid a monthly fee of $8. Citigroup said it will not charge for debit card use or online bill payment. Stephen Troutner, head of banking products for Citi’s U.S. consumer bank, said free debit card use could woo customers from other banks that are weighing whether to charge for debit card use, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co. “Customers have told us in no uncertain terms that is a huge source of irritation,” Troutner said. New York-based Citi is the latest bank to tinker with its fee structure following changes in U.S. consumer banking regulations and laws over the last two years. New regulations — part of a broad financial sector reform effort — limit overdraft fees and other penalty fees banks can charge. In response, many banks have begun introducing monthly service fees for accounts, debit card use and visits to branches. Bank of America Corp, the largest U.S. bank by assets, added checking account fees last year. The BofA changes include an ebanking account, which allows customers to use ATMs and online banking for free but charges a monthly fee of $7 for teller visits or receiving paper statements. (Reporting by Joe Rauch in Charlotte, N.C.; editing by John Wallace) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.
Continue reading …Citigroup Inc said it will start charging a monthly fee of $10 on checking and savings accounts with combined balances of less than $1,500, joining a growing list of banks seeking to recoup revenue lost under new financial industry regulations. The fee will be waived if a customer completes one direct deposit and one online bill payment per month through an account, or maintains a balance of at least $1,500 in checking and savings accounts, Citigroup said on Friday The change takes effect in December. Under Citi’s current fee structure, customers are not required to maintain minimum account balances but must complete five transactions a month through an account to avoid a monthly fee of $8. Citigroup said it will not charge for debit card use or online bill payment. Stephen Troutner, head of banking products for Citi’s U.S. consumer bank, said free debit card use could woo customers from other banks that are weighing whether to charge for debit card use, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co. “Customers have told us in no uncertain terms that is a huge source of irritation,” Troutner said. New York-based Citi is the latest bank to tinker with its fee structure following changes in U.S. consumer banking regulations and laws over the last two years. New regulations — part of a broad financial sector reform effort — limit overdraft fees and other penalty fees banks can charge. In response, many banks have begun introducing monthly service fees for accounts, debit card use and visits to branches. Bank of America Corp, the largest U.S. bank by assets, added checking account fees last year. The BofA changes include an ebanking account, which allows customers to use ATMs and online banking for free but charges a monthly fee of $7 for teller visits or receiving paper statements. (Reporting by Joe Rauch in Charlotte, N.C.; editing by John Wallace) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.
Continue reading …According to Ma Bell, AT&T covers 97 percent of all Americans. Of course, that’s including those “one bar of EDGE” places that are uncovered so far as reality’s concerned, but regardless of all that — there’s no denying that AT&T’s LTE launch is on the subdued side. With Verizon rolling out five times more LTE markets this month than AT&T is even launching with, the country’s largest GSM carrier definitely has some catching up to do. Regardless of the standings, the company appears to have (quietly) gone live with five LTE markets as of today, with Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio, Dallas / Fort Worth and Houston getting first dibs. The source link below takes you to the new coverage map, as well as to a promise from the carrier to expand “4G LTE” (not to be confused with the other 4G, more accurately known as HSPA+ ) to 15 major metropolitan areas by the year’s end. Notice how rural areas aren’t mentioned, despite plenty of grandstanding near D.C.? Don’t worry, guys — it’s just Rethinking Possible . [Thanks, Marcus] AT&T flips 4G LTE live, nearly 97 percent of America wonders where the party is originally appeared on Engadget on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 12:29:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Back from the brink and fully roasted, Charlie Sheen now understands the mistake he made last February. Which is good, since there were a lot of them. The former “Two and a Half Men” star, then the highest paid man on television, went off the rails following a winter drug overdose, going on insane radio rants, co-habitating with two young “Goddesses” and throwing nasty words at his show’s executive producer, Chuck Lorre. The long string of insanity saw the show’s season end early and Sheen get booted from the cast, which he soon sued over in March. Fast forward six months, and he seemed understanding, if not contrite, on an appearance on “The Tonight Show” on Thursday night. “I realized I was pretty much ‘losing!’ I thought I could come back — kind of like you did,” he said to Jay Leno, referencing both the “winning” catchphrase that he coined during his run of craziness, and Leno’s return to the “Tonight Show” desk. When asked if he was bitter about being let go from the show, Sheen was realistic. “No, I’d have fired my ass, too,” he laughed. All’s well that ends well; Sheen will soon have his own new TV show, an adaptation of the film “Anger Management.” WATCH:
Continue reading …As told to Jen Marlowe and Monifa Bandele. My son was six weeks old when I first brought him to meet his uncle, Troy Davis. You would have thought I gave Troy a gold bar. He was scared to hold my tiny baby. I literally had to just put De’Jaun in his arms and walk away. And he was like, “But he’s so little. Come, get him, get him, get him.” I said, “No, you get him. You hold him.” It was such a magical moment, because it was like I was giving my brother this gift. As a young child, De’Jaun didn’t understand that my brother, his uncle was incarcerated, much less slated for death. When the family was getting ready to leave after a visit, he’d say, “Come on, Troy, let’s go, let’s go!” But he couldn’t go with us, and my mom would say, “He’s in school. He can’t come. One day, he’ll come home with us.” As De’Jaun grew older, I explained to him that his uncle was in prison. But I had not yet told him that Georgia planned to kill him. He confided in his uncle more than anyone else. When De’Jaun was 12 years old, it became clear to me that my son understood far more than I had realized. Our dog, Egypt, had gotten out of the yard and had been hit by a car. We immediately brought Egypt to a vet who told us that the dog’s leg was broken in three places and would need extensive surgery to be repaired. If Egypt did not have the surgery, she would have to be put to sleep. The cost of the surgery was upwards of $10,000. As I drove De’Juan home, I wondered how in the world I would come up with $10,000. Putting Egypt down might be the only realistic possibility. In the silence of the ride, De’Jaun turned to me and said, “Mom, are you going put my dog to sleep like they’re trying to put my Uncle Troy to sleep?” I had to swallow this giant lump in my throat to hold back the tears. I didn’t know that he related the two things. That he knew they were trying to kill his Uncle Troy. And, he knew about which method that they would use to kill him. At that point, I decided that if I had to pawn my car, I wasn’t going to be able to put our dog to sleep. In addition to dealing with his uncle facing execution, carrying a full load of advanced placement classes in his high-school’s International Baccalaureate program, my son lives with the stress of me being critically ill. I have been battling stage-four breast cancer since De’Jaun was six years old. My original diagnosis was six months or less. That was over ten years ago. My brother, Troy Davis is on death row for the 1989 tragic murder of Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail. On Aug. 19, MacPhail was gunned down while rushing to the rescue of a homeless man being pistol-whipped in the parking lot of a Greyhound bus station. The day after the murder, a man named Sylvester “Red” Coles told the police that Troy was the shooter. Troy, then 19 years old, was arrested and eventually convicted in 1991, primarily on the basis of eyewitness testimony. There is no physical evidence linking Troy to the crime. The murder weapon was never recovered. Yet, he was sentenced to death. He has been on death row for 20 years, despite the fact that the case against him has completely unraveled. In fact, seven of the nine non-police witnesses later recanted or changed their testimonies, many stating that police coercion and intimidation led to their initial implication of my brother. Several new witnesses have come forward and implicated Sylvester Coles as the shooter. This is Troy’s fourth time facing execution. De’Jaun remembers the first execution date vividly. It was July 17, 2007. He was 13 years old. We went to go see Troy, and Troy wasn’t really worrying about himself. He was mostly worried about his family — about us. I was looking at my mother. She was praying, praying, praying. It was a lot of people constantly praying, constantly praying. Troy gave each family member a duty. What did he task his young nephew? He told him, “Just continue to do good in school, do what’s right, pick the right friends, watch over the family, and just respect the family. Respect your mom, your grandmother, and your aunties. Do what you love and have a good profession.” The execution was stayed within 24 hours of being carried out. The next year, Troy came within 90 minutes of being executed. My son is wise beyond his years. He’ll say, “My uncle is not the only one going through this type of pain … a lot of people really want someone to hear their case but they don’t have the power and resources.” He knows that over 130 death row inmates have been exonerated, found innocent since 1973, demonstrating just how many innocent people are convicted and sentenced to death. On March 28, 2011, the Supreme Court denied Troy’s final appeal, clearing the way for the state of Georgia to set a fourth execution date. Two weeks later, our mother passed away from “natural causes.” De’Jaun was the one who found her. She had just received a clean bill of health from her doctor the day before her death. I don’t think she could take another execution date. I believe she died of a broken heart. Over the years support has grown. Amnesty International, NAACP, the ACLU, ColorOfChange.org, Bishop Desmond Tutu, President Jimmy Carter, and many more have stood up for Troy. There is #toomuchdoubt in my brother’s case: There’s no physical evidence; seven out of nine witnesses have recanted or changed their testimony; there’s evidence that suggests there may be another shooter. But still, last week, the state of Georgia decided to issue an execution date — September 21st. We are turning up the truth, staying hopeful, and vigilantly praying that Troy’s life won’t be ended on September 21st. Our supporters have launched a number of campaigns directing people to the many ways they can support Troy. Please join them for Troy, for me, and for my son. A Peaceful Revolution is a blog about innovative ideas to strengthen America’s families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration with MomsRising.org, read a new post here each week. *Want to help save Troy’s life? Below are some links where you can take action: NAACP – http://www.naacp.org/pages/too-much-doubt Amnesty International – http://blog.amnestyusa.org/tag/troy-davis/ ACLU – https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3621 ColorOfChange.org – http://colorofchange.org *Here are some videos where you can get more information about Troy’s case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DGqRFM443Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMgARJjdOgc&feature=player_embedded
Continue reading …enlarge An interview that would never take place today. Click here to view this media One thing you have to say about the Firing Line series hosted by William F. Buckley was that he never shrank from an opportunity to book a controversial guest. Even though fireworks famously flew (as in the case of Noam Chomsky), it did make for good theater. One example is the famous interview Buckley did with former Black Panther co-founder Huey P. Newton , which was originally broadcast in February 1973. Huey P. Newton: “The question is; during the Revolution of 1776 when the United States of America broke away from England, my friend would like to know, which side would you have been on during that time?” William F. Buckley : “I think probably I would have been on, been on . . . the side of George Washington, I’m not absolutely sure. Because it remains to be established historically whether what we sought to prove at that point might not have been proved by more peaceful means. On the whole, I’m against revolutions. I think, as revolutions go, that was a pretty humane one.” Huey P. Newton: “You’re not such a bad guy after all. My friend will be surprised to hear that.” It goes rapidly downhill from there. A five minute video clip of this interview has been around for some time. This is the complete one hour interview and it covers a wide variety of subjects asked in the inimitable Buckley fashion with answers in the inimitable Newton fashion. Ah, the 70′s.
Continue reading …enlarge An interview that would never take place today. Click here to view this media One thing you have to say about the Firing Line series hosted by William F. Buckley was that he never shrank from an opportunity to book a controversial guest. Even though fireworks famously flew (as in the case of Noam Chomsky), it did make for good theater. One example is the famous interview Buckley did with former Black Panther co-founder Huey P. Newton , which was originally broadcast in February 1973. Huey P. Newton: “The question is; during the Revolution of 1776 when the United States of America broke away from England, my friend would like to know, which side would you have been on during that time?” William F. Buckley : “I think probably I would have been on, been on . . . the side of George Washington, I’m not absolutely sure. Because it remains to be established historically whether what we sought to prove at that point might not have been proved by more peaceful means. On the whole, I’m against revolutions. I think, as revolutions go, that was a pretty humane one.” Huey P. Newton: “You’re not such a bad guy after all. My friend will be surprised to hear that.” It goes rapidly downhill from there. A five minute video clip of this interview has been around for some time. This is the complete one hour interview and it covers a wide variety of subjects asked in the inimitable Buckley fashion with answers in the inimitable Newton fashion. Ah, the 70′s.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Definitions are important to the context of this segment of John Boehner’s economy speech Thursday, so here they are: Job Creators = Corporate interests. If you were to take the member list for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, top Republican donors, and oil interests in this country, that would more or less be who John Boehner’s “job creators” are. “On Strike” = holding their breath (and assets) until they turn blue and get their way. It is antithetical to assume any relationship between worker strikes and the kind of strike Boehner is referring to in his speech. Workers strike because they are at a disadvantage against corporate interests and can only withhold labor as a way to expand their rights and their voice. The Boehner brand of “strike” is where already-powerful actors choose to withhold assets and investment in the economy in order to gain even more power than they already have, at the expense of workers and the health of the country. It’s an unpatriotic, ugly sort of strike. Now that the nomenclature is defined, I think it’s safe to say that John Boehner just admitted that corporate interests, in collusion with the Republican party, are intentionally sabotaging the United States economy in order to gain even more political power and strip everyone else of theirs. For some context, here’s a snippet from the transcript : “They’ve been undercut by a government that favors crony capitalism and businesses deemed ‘too big to fail,’ over the small banks and small businesses that make our economy go. “They’ve been antagonized by a government that favors bureaucrats over market-based solutions. “They’ve been demoralized by a government that causes despair when we need it to provide reassurance and inspire confidence. “My worry is that even after all of this, much of the talk in Washington right now is basically about more of the same. More initiatives that seem to have more to do with the next election than the next generation. . .initiatives that seem to be more about micromanaging economic decisions than liberating them. “I think the American people are worried about this too. “I can tell you the American people — private-sector job creators in particular — are rattled by what they’ve seen out of this town over the last few years. “My worry is that for American job creators, all the uncertainty is turning to fear that this toxic environment for job creation is a permanent state. “Job creators in America are essentially on strike. Isn’t it bizarre to have Boehner equate “the American people” with “private-sector job creators”? The job creators are the people who spend money on products and services offered by those private-sector businesses. If the people have no money, they won’t be spending any. This is Economics 101. It’s incredibly cynical, but not surprising, for John Boehner to endorse the concept of a strike provided that the outcome is even more power consolidated in the hands of a few. Perhaps he should have simply said “Oligarchy!” and walked off stage. It would have been more honest.
Continue reading …Glee star Jane Lynch won't be the first gay activist to host the Emmy awards show on Sunday night (Ellen DeGeneres did in 2005).
Continue reading …