Good karma brings good luck

[maine_Jim]

I think I've earned some good karma rewards. Last week I had a teller hand me an extra $50 back in change and I let her know. She was most pleased. The next day I noticed a wallet sitting on the tellers table full of money. I handed it to the teller and she said she would call the guy. --

Since then I've had a lot of good luck.

I took a road trip and picked up a $120 in halves, they had about $90 in silver in them and included my first Bens. A couple days later I stop at a bank and the teller hands me my first Walker out of her till. Today I stopped at a couple banks - at the first one the teller hands me 2 40% and a 90% and says she had been saving them for me and to make sure I come back for more. Same thing happens at two more banks then finally at the last bank the teller hands me a 1970-d! I'm gonna pick up four boxes tomorrow - hope the good karma continues!

Maine_Jim

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[BBcardsRI]

So stealing (keeping the money the bank gave you is stealing in my opinion) is ok as long as the victim is someone you consider to be bad?

This kind of thinking scares me when think about the need to hire employees for my firm. If they decide you don't pay them enough, don't give them a raise when they think they deserve it, etc., they can just take matters into their own hands.

I am not here to judge anyone who would keep the money as above stated. I would bet that everyone on this board has taken something that does not belong to them at some point in their life-either as a teenager, young adult, etc. But that does not change the fact that it is still wrong, even if the victim is a wealthy, greedy institution.

Jim

Nice try Jim... but your analogy is flawed.

Look at it this way: you mention that taking the $100 from a bank is like STEALING from your employer. And what is moreso: that they do so because they feel they aren't paid enough, etc.

THAT analogy would equal this scenario = a bank teller doesn't think they earn enough, so they sneak $100 out of their fellow tellers tray and into their purse/wallet.

NOT this one = a bank customer is given $100 extra when making a withdrawal/exchange and decides to keep it instead of giving it back.

The CORRECT analogy with YOUR business would be this = you pay an employee $100 extra in overtime they didn't work, and they cash the check and don't tell you/payroll about the difference.

This is an OBVIOUS difference, though I know you won't see it differently in regards to thinking MY analogy shows everything to be okie dokie and that taking the money is ok.

So... to get to the point:
Let's say you as a business owner are making $100 million a year as the head of your company. You keep a HUGE portion of your business profit for yourself instead of giving bonuses and raises to your employers. Sure... they earn more than the minimum wage... but what about inflation... cost of living raises? Or even more simply... why are you being greedy instead of sharing the wealth? Just because you are in power and you can? Because that is what bankers do. What is worse, is that you as the owner of your business are doing so much to making money in the short term for YOURSELF that you are making HORRIBLE decisions for your business. In light of this, your business will go bankrupt, while you stay rich, and the pensions of your employers will go up in smoke due to your greed.

In light of all of the above... isn't that employer who got the paycheck for an extra $100 a little less evil for not telling payroll about it? If they did give it back it would just end up in your YOUR greedy pocket, you... the individual who will soon DESTROY the employers life by leaving them without a job or pension or any form of financial well being.

The above is just how banks work.

The above analogy would translate to this (incase you don't see the parallels already):

The banker runs his bank to make maximum profit for himself. He gives out loans to people who don't have good financial standing, and to people who do have good financial standing, he gives even bigger loans for. Donald Trump calls him up and asks for a $200 million loan... the banker says no, but I'll give you $300 million instead (true story btw... according to The Donald anyway). Why did he do this? Well, because he makes money based off of how much money he lends. The more he lends the more he makes. Why do you think there are so money loans out there that are bad? Why do you think the government is calling for a $700 BILLION bailout to buy those bad loans to prevent all these banks and institutions from failing? The banker is destroying his bank and running it into the ground for personal profit. A customer comes into the aforementioned bankers bank and cashes a check for $500. He is given $600 because two of the bills stuck together. He notices this on his way out of the bank but doesn't say anything and pockets the extra $100.

This man is evil? This man is a theif?

I don't see it that way Jim.

If he gave the money back... it would give the bank $100 extra in funds. Assuming we were still on a semi-realistic fractional banking system that used a real ratio of say... 9:1 (instead of the essential infinite ratio banks use nowadays), that means that $100 dollars equals THOUSANDS of dollars that the banker can make in loans that he couldn't make if you gave that $100 back. You are allowing him to make more money by loaning out more money, and are hurting your own bank account and everyone else that belongs to the bank because the bank is going to go into failure that much sooner because you gave the banker the ability to hurt you and everyone else that much more.

Take the $100, don't give it back, and do everyone including yourself a favor.

~Dave

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[ugotit22]

So stealing (keeping the money the bank gave you is stealing in my opinion) is ok as long as the victim is someone you consider to be bad?

This kind of thinking scares me when think about the need to hire employees for my firm. If they decide you don't pay them enough, don't give them a raise when they think they deserve it, etc., they can just take matters into their own hands.

I am not here to judge anyone who would keep the money as above stated. I would bet that everyone on this board has taken something that does not belong to them at some point in their life-either as a teenager, young adult, etc. But that does not change the fact that it is still wrong, even if the victim is a wealthy, greedy institution.

Jim

Nice try Jim... but your analogy is flawed.

Look at it this way: you mention that taking the $100 from a bank is like STEALING from your employer. And what is moreso: that they do so because they feel they aren't paid enough, etc.

THAT analogy would equal this scenario = a bank teller doesn't think they earn enough, so they sneak $100 out of their fellow tellers tray and into their purse/wallet.

NOT this one = a bank customer is given $100 extra when making a withdrawal/exchange and decides to keep it instead of giving it back.

The CORRECT analogy with YOUR business would be this = you pay an employee $100 extra in overtime they didn't work, and they cash the check and don't tell you/payroll about the difference.

This is an OBVIOUS difference, though I know you won't see it differently in regards to thinking MY analogy shows everything to be okie dokie and that taking the money is ok.

So... to get to the point:
Let's say you as a business owner are making $100 million a year as the head of your company. You keep a HUGE portion of your business profit for yourself instead of giving bonuses and raises to your employers. Sure... they earn more than the minimum wage... but what about inflation... cost of living raises? Or even more simply... why are you being greedy instead of sharing the wealth? Just because you are in power and you can? Because that is what bankers do. What is worse, is that you as the owner of your business are doing so much to making money in the short term for YOURSELF that you are making HORRIBLE decisions for your business. In light of this, your business will go bankrupt, while you stay rich, and the pensions of your employers will go up in smoke due to your greed.

In light of all of the above... isn't that employer who got the paycheck for an extra $100 a little less evil for not telling payroll about it? If they did give it back it would just end up in your YOUR greedy pocket, you... the individual who will soon DESTROY the employers life by leaving them without a job or pension or any form of financial well being.

The above is just how banks work.

The above analogy would translate to this (incase you don't see the parallels already):

The banker runs his bank to make maximum profit for himself. He gives out loans to people who don't have good financial standing, and to people who do have good financial standing, he gives even bigger loans for. Donald Trump calls him up and asks for a $200 million loan... the banker says no, but I'll give you $300 million instead (true story btw... according to The Donald anyway). Why did he do this? Well, because he makes money based off of how much money he lends. The more he lends the more he makes. Why do you think there are so money loans out there that are bad? Why do you think the government is calling for a $700 BILLION bailout to buy those bad loans to prevent all these banks and institutions from failing? The banker is destroying his bank and running it into the ground for personal profit. A customer comes into the aforementioned bankers bank and cashes a check for $500. He is given $600 because two of the bills stuck together. He notices this on his way out of the bank but doesn't say anything and pockets the extra $100.

This man is evil? This man is a theif?

I don't see it that way Jim.

If he gave the money back... it would give the bank $100 extra in funds. Assuming we were still on a semi-realistic fractional banking system that used a real ratio of say... 9:1 (instead of the essential infinite ratio banks use nowadays), that means that $100 dollars equals THOUSANDS of dollars that the banker can make in loans that he couldn't make if you gave that $100 back. You are allowing him to make more money by loaning out more money, and are hurting your own bank account and everyone else that belongs to the bank because the bank is going to go into failure that much sooner because you gave the banker the ability to hurt you and everyone else that much more.

Take the $100, don't give it back, and do everyone including yourself a favor.

~Dave

lol
Dave that was essentially what ive been tryig to say. You however put alot of arguements behind it that i felt but could not put into words
Thanks
Also we have heard your views but im interested
If you had to make a decsions righ now what do you think you would do?

 

[jim4silver]

So stealing (keeping the money the bank gave you is stealing in my opinion) is ok as long as the victim is someone you consider to be bad?

This kind of thinking scares me when think about the need to hire employees for my firm. If they decide you don't pay them enough, don't give them a raise when they think they deserve it, etc., they can just take matters into their own hands.

I am not here to judge anyone who would keep the money as above stated. I would bet that everyone on this board has taken something that does not belong to them at some point in their life-either as a teenager, young adult, etc. But that does not change the fact that it is still wrong, even if the victim is a wealthy, greedy institution.

Jim

Nice try Jim... but your analogy is flawed.

Look at it this way: you mention that taking the $100 from a bank is like STEALING from your employer. And what is moreso: that they do so because they feel they aren't paid enough, etc.

THAT analogy would equal this scenario = a bank teller doesn't think they earn enough, so they sneak $100 out of their fellow tellers tray and into their purse/wallet.

NOT this one = a bank customer is given $100 extra when making a withdrawal/exchange and decides to keep it instead of giving it back.

The CORRECT analogy with YOUR business would be this = you pay an employee $100 extra in overtime they didn't work, and they cash the check and don't tell you/payroll about the difference.

This is an OBVIOUS difference, though I know you won't see it differently in regards to thinking MY analogy shows everything to be okie dokie and that taking the money is ok.

So... to get to the point:
Let's say you as a business owner are making $100 million a year as the head of your company. You keep a HUGE portion of your business profit for yourself instead of giving bonuses and raises to your employers. Sure... they earn more than the minimum wage... but what about inflation... cost of living raises? Or even more simply... why are you being greedy instead of sharing the wealth? Just because you are in power and you can? Because that is what bankers do. What is worse, is that you as the owner of your business are doing so much to making money in the short term for YOURSELF that you are making HORRIBLE decisions for your business. In light of this, your business will go bankrupt, while you stay rich, and the pensions of your employers will go up in smoke due to your greed.

In light of all of the above... isn't that employer who got the paycheck for an extra $100 a little less evil for not telling payroll about it? If they did give it back it would just end up in your YOUR greedy pocket, you... the individual who will soon DESTROY the employers life by leaving them without a job or pension or any form of financial well being.

The above is just how banks work.

The above analogy would translate to this (incase you don't see the parallels already):

The banker runs his bank to make maximum profit for himself. He gives out loans to people who don't have good financial standing, and to people who do have good financial standing, he gives even bigger loans for. Donald Trump calls him up and asks for a $200 million loan... the banker says no, but I'll give you $300 million instead (true story btw... according to The Donald anyway). Why did he do this? Well, because he makes money based off of how much money he lends. The more he lends the more he makes. Why do you think there are so money loans out there that are bad? Why do you think the government is calling for a $700 BILLION bailout to buy those bad loans to prevent all these banks and institutions from failing? The banker is destroying his bank and running it into the ground for personal profit. A customer comes into the aforementioned bankers bank and cashes a check for $500. He is given $600 because two of the bills stuck together. He notices this on his way out of the bank but doesn't say anything and pockets the extra $100.

This man is evil? This man is a theif?

I don't see it that way Jim.

If he gave the money back... it would give the bank $100 extra in funds. Assuming we were still on a semi-realistic fractional banking system that used a real ratio of say... 9:1 (instead of the essential infinite ratio banks use nowadays), that means that $100 dollars equals THOUSANDS of dollars that the banker can make in loans that he couldn't make if you gave that $100 back. You are allowing him to make more money by loaning out more money, and are hurting your own bank account and everyone else that belongs to the bank because the bank is going to go into failure that much sooner because you gave the banker the ability to hurt you and everyone else that much more.

Take the $100, don't give it back, and do everyone including yourself a favor.

~Dave

Dave and Keith,

First let me say this my last post on this issue. Second, I don't give 2 $hit$ what you guys take, retain, steal, find, etc, in the future. Justify it however you want.

But Dave, your high school level debate skills don't make a difference in my view. Number one, did the teller give Keith the 100 dollars as a gift? Did he earn it? Was it out of his account? The answer to all these questions is NO.
It was mistakenly transferred to him, much as if it was erroneously deposited in his account by mistake.

True there is no way it can ever be proven, but for arguments sake let us say it could be proven what Keith did. In my state he could be charged and convicted of either stealing or receiving stolen property at the misdemeanor level. This is in reference to a State criminal charge. Since this involved a bank it could also be a Federal matter too. Not that this would ever happen because the teller would have no idea what happened to the money, but I bring this up only to show that such behavior would be considered criminal in my state assuming he retained the property and did not return it upon discovering it.

Pretty simple. It did not belong to him. He retained it knowing it did not belong to him. It is not like he found it on the street and could not ascertain the owner. And oh yes, those big, mean, and rich banks deserve to be cheated because they are big, mean and rich. Your populist and socialist BS sounds great in your early 20s when the world looks mean and bad, but maybe when you mature a bit and become a business owner you will see things differently.

You can justify such behavior however you want, but anyone with any sort of ethical balance knows it is not right, which was shown by the vast majority of posters on this issue.

My example of a thieving employee was more to show how a sliding-scale position on ethics allows someone like Keith to justify his behavior, even though it is wrong. He admits that if it happened at a store he liked he would give it back or some other example of a "good" company who is not deserving of being victimized. If what he did was not wrong, then why keep the money in any situation?

I think that since both of you claim to be "religious" yet condone this type of activity is further verification to me and reason as to why I abhor organized religion and many if not most people who I know who claim to be religious.

Over and out.

 

[ugotit22]

So stealing (keeping the money the bank gave you is stealing in my opinion) is ok as long as the victim is someone you consider to be bad?

This kind of thinking scares me when think about the need to hire employees for my firm. If they decide you don't pay them enough, don't give them a raise when they think they deserve it, etc., they can just take matters into their own hands.

I am not here to judge anyone who would keep the money as above stated. I would bet that everyone on this board has taken something that does not belong to them at some point in their life-either as a teenager, young adult, etc. But that does not change the fact that it is still wrong, even if the victim is a wealthy, greedy institution.

Jim

Nice try Jim... but your analogy is flawed.

Look at it this way: you mention that taking the $100 from a bank is like STEALING from your employer. And what is moreso: that they do so because they feel they aren't paid enough, etc.

THAT analogy would equal this scenario = a bank teller doesn't think they earn enough, so they sneak $100 out of their fellow tellers tray and into their purse/wallet.

NOT this one = a bank customer is given $100 extra when making a withdrawal/exchange and decides to keep it instead of giving it back.

The CORRECT analogy with YOUR business would be this = you pay an employee $100 extra in overtime they didn't work, and they cash the check and don't tell you/payroll about the difference.

This is an OBVIOUS difference, though I know you won't see it differently in regards to thinking MY analogy shows everything to be okie dokie and that taking the money is ok.

So... to get to the point:
Let's say you as a business owner are making $100 million a year as the head of your company. You keep a HUGE portion of your business profit for yourself instead of giving bonuses and raises to your employers. Sure... they earn more than the minimum wage... but what about inflation... cost of living raises? Or even more simply... why are you being greedy instead of sharing the wealth? Just because you are in power and you can? Because that is what bankers do. What is worse, is that you as the owner of your business are doing so much to making money in the short term for YOURSELF that you are making HORRIBLE decisions for your business. In light of this, your business will go bankrupt, while you stay rich, and the pensions of your employers will go up in smoke due to your greed.

In light of all of the above... isn't that employer who got the paycheck for an extra $100 a little less evil for not telling payroll about it? If they did give it back it would just end up in your YOUR greedy pocket, you... the individual who will soon DESTROY the employers life by leaving them without a job or pension or any form of financial well being.

The above is just how banks work.

The above analogy would translate to this (incase you don't see the parallels already):

The banker runs his bank to make maximum profit for himself. He gives out loans to people who don't have good financial standing, and to people who do have good financial standing, he gives even bigger loans for. Donald Trump calls him up and asks for a $200 million loan... the banker says no, but I'll give you $300 million instead (true story btw... according to The Donald anyway). Why did he do this? Well, because he makes money based off of how much money he lends. The more he lends the more he makes. Why do you think there are so money loans out there that are bad? Why do you think the government is calling for a $700 BILLION bailout to buy those bad loans to prevent all these banks and institutions from failing? The banker is destroying his bank and running it into the ground for personal profit. A customer comes into the aforementioned bankers bank and cashes a check for $500. He is given $600 because two of the bills stuck together. He notices this on his way out of the bank but doesn't say anything and pockets the extra $100.

This man is evil? This man is a theif?

I don't see it that way Jim.

If he gave the money back... it would give the bank $100 extra in funds. Assuming we were still on a semi-realistic fractional banking system that used a real ratio of say... 9:1 (instead of the essential infinite ratio banks use nowadays), that means that $100 dollars equals THOUSANDS of dollars that the banker can make in loans that he couldn't make if you gave that $100 back. You are allowing him to make more money by loaning out more money, and are hurting your own bank account and everyone else that belongs to the bank because the bank is going to go into failure that much sooner because you gave the banker the ability to hurt you and everyone else that much more.

Take the $100, don't give it back, and do everyone including yourself a favor.

~Dave

Dave and Keith,

First let me say this my last post on this issue. Second, I don't give 2 $hit$ what you guys take, retain, steal, find, etc, in the future. Justify it however you want.

But Dave, your high school level debate skills don't make a difference in my view. Number one, did the teller give Keith the 100 dollars as a gift? Did he earn it? Was it out of his account? The answer to all these questions is NO.
It was mistakenly transferred to him, much as if it was erroneously deposited in his account by mistake.

True there is no way it can ever be proven, but for arguments sake let us say it could be proven what Keith did. In my state he could be charged and convicted of either stealing or receiving stolen property at the misdemeanor level. This is in reference to a State criminal charge. Since this involved a bank it could also be a Federal matter too. Not that this would ever happen because the teller would have no idea what happened to the money, but I bring this up only to show that such behavior would be considered criminal in my state assuming he retained the property and did not return it upon discovering it.

Pretty simple. It did not belong to him. He retained it knowing it did not belong to him. It is not like he found it on the street and could not ascertain the owner. And oh yes, those big, mean, and rich banks deserve to be cheated because they are big, mean and rich. Your populist and socialist BS sounds great in your early 20s when the world looks mean and bad, but maybe when you mature a bit and become a business owner you will see things differently.

You can justify such behavior however you want, but anyone with any sort of ethical balance knows it is not right, which was shown by the vast majority of posters on this issue.

My example of a thieving employee was more to show how a sliding-scale position on ethics allows someone like Keith to justify his behavior, even though it is wrong. He admits that if it happened at a store he liked he would give it back or some other example of a "good" company who is not deserving of being victimized. If what he did was not wrong, then why keep the money in any situation?

I think that since both of you claim to be "religious" yet condone this type of activity is further verification to me and reason as to why I abhor organized religion and many if not most people who I know who claim to be religious.

Over and out.

Say what you want Jim however i can agree to disagree and to be honest i can give a sh+* less what you think. I feel a certain way and i believe certain things. Your 100% right i would not do the same thing in a different situation. Different situation, different reasoning for what i believe.
Also if you think i will now feel a certain way b/c " the vast majority" feels a certain way your strongly mistaken. Furthmore i hope in future discussions you dont use your . "everyone else thinks this ways so u should to" stance b/c about 60 yrs ago a guy did that and it turned into alittle thing called the Holocust. An to be honest it sounds pretty stupid for a "Smart, successful businessmann" like yourself to be using.

I understand it must have been tough going to privat schools, and not working for a college degree. but us on the other side of 8 mile think alittle diff.
On this topic, and others, like talking down to people just b/c u dont agree with there thought process. In my neighborhood if you did that you'd get your ass kick. Im sure you have not or will not ever walk a mile in another "average Joes" shoes.

So cheers homie and give that silver spoon another lick

 

[BBcardsRI]

Did someone hit a nerve Jim? =)

Profanity... name calling...

I don't recall ever going to either of those extremes... I am simply conjecturing in a civilized fashion on a point of moral debate.

I'm sorry you don't like my "high school level debate skills" Jim... but I least I HAVE skills in the field and am willing to use them as opposed to you who are so closed minded that you avoid having to discuss by stating your own opinion and then saying you won't reply anymore. If my debate skills are high school level... then your acts represent elementary school level, Jim.

Why do institutions of higher learning offer ethics classes if ethics and morals are defined so definitively, Jim?

I'm sorry that you are so set in your ways as to not welcome debate and discussion.

I call you out on your analogy, and you response is: uh... well... I was just using that as an example... nothing definitive. It's ok though Jim... we know I caught you.

I'm going to leave your snarky comments about religion alone, as they don't fit into the previous discussion. If you would like to bring that issue up, you can make a post about it in an off-topic type forum and alert me to it and I will respond there. Relgion is another topic I love discussing (and not just my Roman Catholic beliefs - if that was the case I wouldn't be toying with a religion/philosophy minor and have already spent so many hours studing hinduism, buddhism, christianity, new age religions, etc. etc. in classes and on my own time) so I would welcome you to do that.

I'm still in this post willing to debate with any takers, because unlike Jim, I am not close-minded and also unlike him, I won't resort to swearing and childish insults or state I won't reply anymore.

Love you Jim! =)

And Keith, I don't want to answer your question. I don't want to say why either because it would impact other people's responses too much... maybe I could PM you a response... I'll think about it. =)

~Dave

 

[ugotit22]

Jim
Im going to sit back now and watch an acutal smart person with actual facts handle you buddy. Cuz your arguement compared to daves was like a boxing match between tyson and martha stewart

 

[jonhls]

no offense meant to anyone,everybody will do as much or as little as they can get by with and still sleep peacefully at night.Everyone has different opinions on whats right and wrong i suppose.As i stated in earlier post i have had tellers return money to me in the past when they found their tray over.Would be interesting to know which drives them crazier to be over or under.If they cant trace were they are under at they just have to write it off but when they are over it creates lot of work to figure it out.And by the way it is possible in some caes to tell where they came up short ,at especially if checks or bill paying is involved,and they will call you about it,happed to my ex while we were still married long before i started crhing.she counted her change and they had it right.Yes she could have denied it but i was impressed they tracked it to her.In closing I'm reminded of what my dad always told me when i would try to explain why i had done something wrong"boy,it's all in how you rationalize things,if you have to spend that much time making something sound rigght maybe you should recondsider what ya did" then he would proceed to whip my a@@....guess he wasn't buying it.he wasn't a firm believer in to each his own...gl to all

 

[Mentone Grizz]

My two cents...........
From an accounting perspective, the books must balance.
What would I do? I would point out the blunder that had been made. I wouldn't want the teller to get heat for her innocent mistake. She would learn from the incident, and would be certain never to allow that to happen a second time.
Have I ever kept something that didn't belong to me that fell into my lap like that? Yes I have. I carry some guilt about that, too. Now, later in life, I hope to make up for some of (what I consider to be) my mistakes. Moreover, I hope that I have influenced my children to weigh their actions and maybe avoid some of the hazards that tripped me up.
On the flip side, if I find a $100 bill on the sidewalk, that sucker is in my pocket!
- Grizz

 

[BBcardsRI]

Thanks for the additional input you two.

Nice to hear how more people would react.

I've got another scenario:

You see someone at the coin counter in your bank or shopping center walk away without checking the reject tray. You walk buy and see some coins in it. They are heading through the exit/going through it. Do you run after them to tell them, or bring their coins to them... or do you pocket the change and go on with your banking/shopping?

~Dave

 

[Mentone Grizz]

In that scenario, I would absolutely tell them that they had left some coin in the tray.
If they had meant to abandon it, I suppose that they would then let me know that, and I would snatch it. If I walked away from coin left in the reject bin, or from my wallet left on the table, I would want someone to tell me. Otherwise, it would be taking advantage. Even predatory, in a way.
- Grizz

 

[jonhls]

I would have to flag them down and tell them they left thier change in slot,If they didn't think it was worth going back after then its fair game,and obviously if no one is near machine its up for grabs.A more common occurance for me is finding extra change in coin return at work.If anyone else is in cafeteria that has a pop ill always ask if they left thier change.Some say yes some say no....i still gotta ask

 

[waseeker]

Congratulations on the Silver finds.

As to the other issue with the $100.00 bill. The teller most likely came up short at the end of the day by $100.00. She had to make that money up from her own pocket not the banks. So you didn't "hurt" the bank, you hurt the teller.

 

[coinmojo]

Why should I give it back?

The banks and companies that run them are just going to missalocate their and by that I mean MY money and funds... why should I not hedge against their future collapse, poor decisions, and greed by not showing a bit of my own greedy side?

~Dave

About 4 months ago a teller handed me an extra 100.00 bill. I was walking out and realized it. I decided it was monopoly time and it was a bank error in my favor. I felt and still do that the greedy big banks have no heart when they forclose on a hard working father, or kick out a single mother, so screw them. I told the story on this very forum and got called every name under the sun. Although some may not agree its a shame the Jesus freaks of the world have to hate on someone b/c they dont agree. Like i said b4 if it was a mom and pop corner deli, or even the local supermarket i would not have done that, but banks SCREW THEM.
Just my 2 cents
Keith

Stolen.... Plain and simple. you knew it was wrong and you knew where it came from.

It is not like finding it on the sidewalk.

Religion is here to keep people from killing each other.

I'ts a wonder that society got this far.

Does it ever amaze anyone that more people don't die at 4 way intersections. It sure takes a lot of trust and people following rules. what if lot's of people felt that rules like stopping at red lights don't apply to them??

People who own a buisness deserve what they earn cause it's their buisness. They started it, if your don't like your job or your boss or how much money he keeps or makes , Start your own buisness or find another job , but be thankfull that someone in buisness gave you a job . No one owes you a job or lots of high pay or bonuses.... unless you either work for it or deserve it. oh and don't forget if a guy like jim did not start his buisness he could not offer people jobs.

I ain't smart but I ain't stupid........

Mojo

 

[ugotit22]

Why should I give it back?

The banks and companies that run them are just going to missalocate their and by that I mean MY money and funds... why should I not hedge against their future collapse, poor decisions, and greed by not showing a bit of my own greedy side?

~Dave

About 4 months ago a teller handed me an extra 100.00 bill. I was walking out and realized it. I decided it was monopoly time and it was a bank error in my favor. I felt and still do that the greedy big banks have no heart when they forclose on a hard working father, or kick out a single mother, so screw them. I told the story on this very forum and got called every name under the sun. Although some may not agree its a shame the Jesus freaks of the world have to hate on someone b/c they dont agree. Like i said b4 if it was a mom and pop corner deli, or even the local supermarket i would not have done that, but banks SCREW THEM.
Just my 2 cents
Keith

Stolen.... Plain and simple. you knew it was wrong and you knew where it came from.

It is not like finding it on the sidewalk.

Religion is here to keep people from killing each other.

I'ts a wonder that society got this far.

Does it ever amaze anyone that more people don't die at 4 way intersections. It sure takes a lot of trust and people following rules. what if lot's of people felt that rules like stopping at red lights don't apply to them??

People who own a buisness deserve what they earn cause it's their buisness. They started it, if your don't like your job or your boss or how much money he keeps or makes , Start your own buisness or find another job , but be thankfull that someone in buisness gave you a job . No one owes you a job or lots of high pay or bonuses.... unless you either work for it or deserve it. oh and don't forget if a guy like jim did not start his buisness he could not offer people jobs.

I ain't smart but I ain't stupid........

Mojo

Thanks for the insite mojo
very unique response too lol.
Stupid is as stupid does i believe

 

[BBcardsRI]

Nice angle Mojo.

I'm curious as to the person who said that $100 would come out of the teller's pocket/paycheck. I know we have tellers or people with teller wives/hubbies around here... is this true? Does a short draw come out of a paycheck?

Does that mean a long draw goes INTO a paycheck? lol

And as for the guy who checks the vending machine for extra change and asks people about it... I commend you.

I can honestly say that if I found extra change in a vending machine and did not see who was there before me that I would keep it and not walk into the cafeteria and try and find whose it is. I just don't have it in me. =)

~Dave