First Midwest Bank Statement: Fill & Download for Free

About 25 years ago, I had overdrawn at the bank (in the time of check writing, and before debit cards) 7 days before my next paycheck. It was a stupid accounting error, and I wrote a check to someone who swore they had cashed it; but it had missed the deadline for the statement (the oatmeal and ramen part of my life). It was enough to send my account into the negative by $500. My first apartment, my first job, and I had just started accruing a savings account. I had done it on my own, as after college I was “on my own” with no more help from family (25 years ago in the midwest, my undergraduate degree was paid in full).I panicked, what little savings I had was already gone. My next check would not cover the overdraft fees and my rent. The bank kept honoring the checks, tacking on a service fee and over draft fee (because I had the good bank that didn’t want to embarrass me with bounced checks <sigh> but killed you with service fees and overdraft protection interest).My dad called randomly. I was feeling sorry for myself. My dad could tell from the sound of my voice that I was not in a good place.“Hey, what’s going on?”“Nothing.”“You don’t sound good.”Then I let him have it, the whole sordid tale of woe. How I was a horrible book keeper, how I had failed at life and was going to have to live in the streets.“Wow,” was all he said. He didn’t say much after that, filled me in on my siblings’ shenanigans. Told me menial stuff about life back home, I asked if I could have my room back, and he laughed.I felt better, went to sleep. Waking up the next day I felt calm.My dad called me at work the next day, told me to call the bank and make sure everything was okay. He had just put some “let loose and party” money in my account. It was never to be spoken of again; nor was the situation EVER to be repeated.In the times when 10$ still covered a fast food meal for 4, he had deposited $1000 dollars in my account. The gift covered all the money I had to use from savings, the overdraft fees, and service fees, it covered my mistake. He told me I didn’t have to pay it back, but I was never to speak of the gift to anyone. Most importantly, he emphasized, there would be no “next time.”

I suppose there are several ways of answering or interpreting that question.Most police are hourly employees. They get a base rate for the first 40 hours they work in a week, and 1.5X that rate for the 41st hour on. Because of unconventional shift schedules (10 or 12-hour shifts), that rule may be skewed slightly.Police may be paid a fixed additional sum for uniforms and equipment, or for earning a college degree, or for maintaining a high level of fitness, or for performing certain duties, such as being a detective or a field training officer. This might be $X per month, or an extra hourly rate, or a percentage of an hourly rate.Police get a paycheck every two weeks, or possibly once per month. Some have their pay deposited directly into their bank accounts, and get a statement of earnings and deductions.Some police are paid very well for a job that seldom requires more than a high school diploma or a two-year degree. The police in the medium-size city where I live make about $90,000 per year before overtime. In other parts of the country, especially small towns in the South and Midwest, they might only make $8-$10 per hour.Police do not get a commission on the tickets they write, although some people think otherwise.

I have to basically summarily disagree with Vinit Shah's analysis here, and the way that voters are grouped. Because, like the republicans, there's a large swath of people who tend to vote democrat, and they're not summarily lumped into economic buckets either.When Vinit is discussing "moderately politically involved democrats", fails to mention the big schism here. Union and Non-Union blue collar and lower-middle income workers. Union workers are concentrated in the midwest and northeast, whereas the southeast and parts of the west are less union. Union workers are drawn to Sanders' history of being extremely strong pro-Union, in ways that Hillary hasn't, Hillary's hedging with TPP vs. Sanders' unilateral blasting of it, is largely symbolic of what you'd see when the fight comes to supporting unions, union families, and pro-union workers.Middle class and low-income people, in addition, are too busy busting their tails off working 9-5 jobs to pay attention to every little detail about politicsI disagree with this statement of Vinit's. This isn't 1989, we don't have to watch the news, read the papers for weeks at a time, and have research on hand to determine what is going on. We have the internet and social media, even places like quora to fill people in if they have questions. They can be moderately politically involved, but still be well informed. I think implying that the two are connected is incorrect. I also disagree with the concept of picking a president based on efficiency. Vinit, though, is correct in saying there's a news fatigue going on, we're all sick and tired of hearing about the gridlock in Washington, but I think Vinit also is overvaluing what that means. Democrats, as a whole, believe that the reason that there's gridlock is at the hands of the Republicans, not Obama, and I think it's not a hard jump to see, with the way that Republicans attack Hillary now, that you're expecting more of the same.Even these moderately politically involved democrats don't want capitulation of popular goals by the president regarding health care, voting rights, domestic labor, etc. Because to democrats, much to the chagrin of the GOP, their primary focus is: 'how can the government improve the life of me and the people i care about'. Current GOP mantras fit along the line of Reagan's, 'how can government not interfere with my life and the life of people I care about'. It's easy, in my mind, to see how Sanders champions for the 'base', which I believe are Vinit's 'moderately politically involved democrats'. Sanders is looking out for them by discussing things that are important: education, jobs, income inequality, and banking. Banking? BANKING? Really, if you're a lower/middle income voter, you understand that the banks are screwing you, you see it in your bank statements, you see it in the fees, and what Sanders says, resonates a lot with the base, if only at the point and time the message isn't as widely distributed. If you're merely going off the issues of what's important to the 'liberal base', Sanders fits a closer mold to that base, on just issues, than Clinton does, in my opinion.They don't care about fantastical visions of the "Nordic model", or "universal healthcare", but rather, they vote Democratic because, to them, the Democratic Party is more practical than the Republican Party.I think this statement truly undervalues, and undermines the 'thinking' threshold that's in place here, that the group is incapable of understanding 'universal healthcare'. I think it's bogus, and it's absolutely rationale of 'practicality'. I understand universal healthcare because it's practical. I understand providing free state college to our kids, because it's practical. I understand protecting worker rights because... it's practical. They're a practical bunch, and in a lot of ways, Bernie Sanders appeals to that in quick order. He doesn't have as much exposure in the PoC circles yet, but, we're also really early in the election cycle.Moving on to the strategic and politically involved Democrats. To that, I'm going to just point to you to DFA's poll, the grassroots democratic group, founded by Howard Dean, that from last November that had Warren and Sanders beating Clinton in a poll [1]. Why? Because they're pushing the envelope left, they're fighting for candidates like Grayson, like Sanders and Warren, Obama and Franken. Voters resonate with these candidates, and this particular group pushed hard, and boasts over 1 million real members making political actions for progressive candidates. Clinton is an establishment candidate, not a progressive candidate. Obama was more of a progressive candidate, but ended up taking a much more moderate stance throughout his presidency. There's significant backing of Sanders among this group. I too, probably would fit in this group, but I see my friends, who are in the first group who are telling me, for the very first time, they've made a political donation and are looking to volunteer. About 15% of my friends have said this to me when discussing things. There's been a shift recently, with the recent polls in Iowa and New Hampshire showing Sanders gaining ground to Clinton. I think to a lot of people, Sanders isn't the pipe dream he was six months ago. This group cares about ideology enough, that have a slight disillusion to the Obama presidency, and how hard, how hard! the grassroot groups worked, and how little things have moved in a lot of ways. I think that, right now, it's a little to early to say "Clinton will win over more people, so we're going to vote for the winning horse", that's just silly. That's not how the primaries should work either. Let's just put it this way: Republicans HATE Clinton. They hate her. They unabashedly dislike everything about her. They also HATE socialists. So. The real idea for everyone else is: how do the candidates resonate with people. To a lot, I feel Sanders comes across as fresh, and new, that's capitalizing on a lot of the changes and sentiments of the American voting population when it comes to the issues. Sanders has large groups of likely primary voters turning out to see him. I think that it's impossible to deny that he's got potential in this.The Diehard democrat group, on the other hand, would realize that which of these republicans have literally, any chance? Which will have ANY chance? Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and ???. I direct you to: Dan Pozzie's answer to What are the chances that the Democrats will win the 2016 election?. I think, even with Sanders, that any Republican nominee has a very difficult climb. They'll vote in the election for a democrat, and whether it's Sanders or Clinton. And they should, and they will. They'll hold their breath and vote for Sanders, and if Sanders is nominated, Sanders will win.And Sanders can win. Sanders draws massive crowds, that harken back to elections past in early primary states.So, why choose Sanders? For me it boils down to a few things:1) Economic Inequality is an issue. Sanders follows Warren in lighting the torch against the income inequality that we see, whereas Clinton follows the establishment movement of the democrats and republicans in pushing for less regulation of businesses and protection for workers.2) He's supported gay rights since the 70's, whereas Clinton recently co-opted gay rights as a platform (after being opposed to it), as recently as 2012.3) Bernie Sanders is a man of reason and principle, and unlike some of the bloviated GOP candidates, keeps things succinct, you see it a lot in his message. He's got a mix of salient bits mixed in with policy, that you come out feeling like you understand where he's at on a position in ways that I can't feel about Clinton. Clinton feels more like a political opportunist, a governance politician, that's not going to move the root causes of disarray in our system.4) I can't tell you what Clinton's platform is. I honestly am not sure. I'm not even sure she's sure. This time, 2007, I knew what Obama was about, granted I was an Illinoisan at the time, but, I knew what Obama was like in the primaries. I don't know what Clinton is like, what her Agenda is, other than, like Romney, getting elected as President. I appreciate clarity, I appreciate running on a platform. But, Clinton doesn't have the angle that Obama did in 2008 or 2012, nor one that Sanders has now.5) I'm concerned about foreign policy, and I disagree with Clinton's handling of Foreign Policy while she was the Secretary of State, and I'm going to enjoy watching the backflips she makes to distance herself from that position that she was in while directing Obama's foreign policy. Her handling of MENA issues wasn't particularly deft, the work she put in with Asia had a major hand in pushing for TPP (which fractured democratic support, pitting progressives and unions against the establishment), and generally her work in Afghanistan and Pakistan left a lot to be desired in the region, considering how entangled America is there.6) Sanders actually cares about the Environment and Global Warming and is willing to act on it. If the Pope is talking about how it's a global, moral issue, you bet your bottom dollar it's probably something that you should work on if elected. I can say that, with Sanders, you'll see significant change on that front, whereas with Clinton, it's probably going to be the slow progress that's been made under Obama.In all: Sanders can win the Primary, and he can win the General. He, unlike Clinton, has electric excitement, that reminds you of Obama in '08. Not bad for a 73 year old man. He needs to break through to the Black Community early and often, and that's not an easy task. But, insofar as the under-45 vote (my demographic), the 'untapped' potential, is teeming with new people wanting to vote. I've had two friends who are looking to get their American citizenships in order to be able to vote in the Primary (after living in the US for 18+ years), I'm looking at friends who are donating and wanting to participate in ways that I haven't seen my friends do in the past 12 years, even for Obama in '08. There's movement, buzz, and it's going to be very interesting, but, most of all, the talk that "Bernie Can't Win", is mostly nonsensical politicking. The Socialist moniker doesn't hurt, because, lets be honest, the Republicans have lobbed it at Obama for 8 years, and it hasn't hurt him. So...[1] Liberal 2016 poll: Elizabeth Warren beats Clinton - CNNPolitics.com