Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due to bad credit? PLEASE HELP!
May 13th 2003, 9:00 am
#16
Sursum corda
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond Hill, GA USA
Posts: 38,860
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
Originally posted by meauxna
Many times the customer is charged a fee by the owner of the ATM and a fee by their own bank.
Many times the customer is charged a fee by the owner of the ATM and a fee by their own bank.
May 13th 2003, 9:00 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
Duckie wrote:
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>Matt/Danielle wrote:
>>and do not charge a fee if you need to use another bank's ATM,
>>domaestically or internationally.
>
> just a stupid question, but dont go the fees for going to differant atm
> not to the owner of the atm?
>
Most ATM's in the US generally charge fees to non customers, because
they want to be paid for using thier machine and the associated costs of
the transaction. (Yes, it is profitable to do this at $1.50)
Additionally, most banks charge customer a fee to use another bank's
ATM, because they get charged for the transaction. Yes, WAMU does make
quite a bit of money from its domestic and international $3 charge for
this.
AFAIK, Etrade will charge non customers to use its machines. It won't
charge its customer's to use another banks machines. But, it won't
reimburse you for the fees. I had an account at AEACU where they
actually refunded the fees charged by other banks for using ATM's.
Presumably, this is because they:
1. Are a Credit Union
2. Don't have a great coverage area for ATM's
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>Matt/Danielle wrote:
>>and do not charge a fee if you need to use another bank's ATM,
>>domaestically or internationally.
>
> just a stupid question, but dont go the fees for going to differant atm
> not to the owner of the atm?
>
Most ATM's in the US generally charge fees to non customers, because
they want to be paid for using thier machine and the associated costs of
the transaction. (Yes, it is profitable to do this at $1.50)
Additionally, most banks charge customer a fee to use another bank's
ATM, because they get charged for the transaction. Yes, WAMU does make
quite a bit of money from its domestic and international $3 charge for
this.
AFAIK, Etrade will charge non customers to use its machines. It won't
charge its customer's to use another banks machines. But, it won't
reimburse you for the fees. I had an account at AEACU where they
actually refunded the fees charged by other banks for using ATM's.
Presumably, this is because they:
1. Are a Credit Union
2. Don't have a great coverage area for ATM's
May 13th 2003, 9:31 am
#18
Account Closed
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 206
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
Originally posted by Mrtravel
imkimmy wrote:
>
> This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not a
> participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because of
> NAFTA.
This was possible many years before NAFTA.
imkimmy wrote:
>
> This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not a
> participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because of
> NAFTA.
This was possible many years before NAFTA.
Kimberly
May 13th 2003, 10:09 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
imkimmy wrote:
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>imkimmy wrote:
>>>This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not
>> a
>>>participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because
>> of
>>>NAFTA.
>>This was possible many years before NAFTA.
>
>
> That is why my statement was in the present tense.
My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>imkimmy wrote:
>>>This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not
>> a
>>>participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because
>> of
>>>NAFTA.
>>This was possible many years before NAFTA.
>
>
> That is why my statement was in the present tense.
My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
May 13th 2003, 11:27 am
#20
Account Closed
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 206
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
Originally posted by Mrtravel
imkimmy wrote:
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>imkimmy wrote:
>>>This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not
>> a
>>>participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because
>> of
>>>NAFTA.
>>This was possible many years before NAFTA.
>
>
> That is why my statement was in the present tense.
My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
imkimmy wrote:
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>imkimmy wrote:
>>>This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not
>> a
>>>participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because
>> of
>>>NAFTA.
>>This was possible many years before NAFTA.
>
>
> That is why my statement was in the present tense.
My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
May 13th 2003, 4:31 pm
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
imkimmy wrote:
>>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
>>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
>
>
> I think your point is just to argue.
No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa requirements
for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
>>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
>>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
>
>
> I think your point is just to argue.
No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa requirements
for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
May 14th 2003, 2:47 am
#22
Account Closed
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 206
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
Originally posted by Mrtravel
imkimmy wrote:
>>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
>>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
>
>
> I think your point is just to argue.
No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa requirements
for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
imkimmy wrote:
>>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
>>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
>
>
> I think your point is just to argue.
No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa requirements
for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
May 14th 2003, 3:33 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due to bad credit? PLEASE HELP!
You said "Travel between US and Canada is because of
NAFTA." The present travel policy was in place before NAFTA.
"imkimmy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
> > imkimmy wrote:
> >
> > >>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
> > >>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think your point is just to argue.
> >
> > No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
> > NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa
> > requirements
> > for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
> I didn't say that NAFTA changed the requirements for Candians entering
> the US as tourists...
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
NAFTA." The present travel policy was in place before NAFTA.
"imkimmy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
> > imkimmy wrote:
> >
> > >>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
> > >>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think your point is just to argue.
> >
> > No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
> > NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa
> > requirements
> > for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
> I didn't say that NAFTA changed the requirements for Candians entering
> the US as tourists...
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
May 14th 2003, 3:46 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due to bad credit? PLEASE HELP!
"imkimmy" wrote:
It's not common for me to agree with MrTravel but this appears to be clear
cut. You wrote:
> This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not a
> participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because of
> NAFTA.
We were talking about VWP. You correctly pointed out that Canada is not
party to the VWP. You then said travel is "because of NAFTA". This phrase
is rather bad English but we can assume that you were saying that instead of
using the VWP, NAFTA allows Canadians to enter the US as tourists visa free.
Without additional context it would be reasonable to assume that without
NAFTA you couldn't do this so MrTravel clarifies:
> This was possible many years before NAFTA.
At this point your correct response should have been, "Yes, you are
correct". Instead you are rambling on about present tense, etc. but your
original posting was not correct enough to allow you to do this. Let the
matter rest - you wrote a sentence that was open to interpretation, just
acknowlege it (silently or otherwise) and move on.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
It's not common for me to agree with MrTravel but this appears to be clear
cut. You wrote:
> This may sound like I am splitting hairs, but Canada is not a
> participant in the VWP. Travel between US and Canada is because of
> NAFTA.
We were talking about VWP. You correctly pointed out that Canada is not
party to the VWP. You then said travel is "because of NAFTA". This phrase
is rather bad English but we can assume that you were saying that instead of
using the VWP, NAFTA allows Canadians to enter the US as tourists visa free.
Without additional context it would be reasonable to assume that without
NAFTA you couldn't do this so MrTravel clarifies:
> This was possible many years before NAFTA.
At this point your correct response should have been, "Yes, you are
correct". Instead you are rambling on about present tense, etc. but your
original posting was not correct enough to allow you to do this. Let the
matter rest - you wrote a sentence that was open to interpretation, just
acknowlege it (silently or otherwise) and move on.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
May 14th 2003, 6:16 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
imkimmy wrote:
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>imkimmy wrote:
>>>>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
>>>>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
>>>I think your point is just to argue.
>>No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
>>NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa
>>requirements
>>for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
>
>
> I didn't say that NAFTA changed the requirements for Candians entering
> the US as tourists...
You indicated that travel between the US and Canada was permitted
because of NAFTA. This implies that before NAFTA, you couldn't travel
between the two without a visa. NAFTA has nothing to do with this.
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>imkimmy wrote:
>>>>>That is why my statement was in the present tense.
>>>>My point is that NAFTA didn't change it.
>>>I think your point is just to argue.
>>No, you stated that the reason Canadians didn't need a visa was due to
>>NAFTA. This simply isn't true. NAFTA didn't change the visa
>>requirements
>>for Canadians entering the US as tourists.
>
>
> I didn't say that NAFTA changed the requirements for Candians entering
> the US as tourists...
You indicated that travel between the US and Canada was permitted
because of NAFTA. This implies that before NAFTA, you couldn't travel
between the two without a visa. NAFTA has nothing to do with this.
May 14th 2003, 6:50 am
#26
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,477
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
Originally posted by Mrtravel
.
.
Rete
May 14th 2003, 7:14 am
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Having A Bonafide Marriage with no joint assets or accounts due
Rete wrote:
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>.
>
>
> Enough already. This thread is disintergrating into a free for all.
> Let's help the OP and not behave like children who haven't learned to
> graciously bow out of a discussion of who is right or wrong.
>
> Rete
Rete,
How does your followup and to the purpose of the discussion.
If you want it ended, then ignore it.
I am only replying in response to the other poster's statements, which
are clearly incorrect. NAFTA has nothing to do with the ability of
Canadians to visit the US without a visa.
> Originally posted by Mrtravel
>
>>.
>
>
> Enough already. This thread is disintergrating into a free for all.
> Let's help the OP and not behave like children who haven't learned to
> graciously bow out of a discussion of who is right or wrong.
>
> Rete
Rete,
How does your followup and to the purpose of the discussion.
If you want it ended, then ignore it.
I am only replying in response to the other poster's statements, which
are clearly incorrect. NAFTA has nothing to do with the ability of
Canadians to visit the US without a visa.
