Are the unemployed bailing out some bailed out banks?

[Kwatt]

I guess the bailout money from the fed wasn't enough.
So, they are going after some of the secondary bailout.
Why not, father always told me when you get a man down KICK him.



Found HERE

Quote from here Want to Know more...

For hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs during the recession, there's a new twist to their financial pain: Even as they're collecting unemployment benefits, they're paying bank fees just to get access to their money.

Thirty states have struck such deals with banks that include Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase and US Bancorp, an Associated Press review of the agreements found. All the programs carry fees, and in several states the unemployed have no choice but to use the debit cards. Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 ? even though they could decline charges for more than what's on the card.

"It's a racket. It's a scam," said Rachel Davis, a 38-year-old dental technician from St. Louis who was laid off in October. Davis was given a MasterCard issued through Central Bank of Jefferson City and recently paid $6 to make two $40 withdrawals....

 

[heyheybooboo]

BofA took out a full page ad in The Charlotte Disturber today (page 3A, no less) proclaiming their expansion and extension of credit ...




(wait for it)







cards!


Fee Pigs FTW!

 

[StageLeft]

I read that. It's not great, but it does save those states potentially some money, like with checks. Honestly, that money should be passed onto these unemployed folks, even if it's just a few bucks to cover any potential charges with the ATMs. It's true the fees can mostly be avoided, but the comment from one bank that if they use it right they have no fees is pretty dastardly, considering that bank only makes money when they "don't use it right".

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I read that. It's not great, but it does save those states potentially some money, like with checks. Honestly, that money should be passed onto these unemployed folks, even if it's just a few bucks to cover any potential charges with the ATMs. It's true the fees can mostly be avoided, but the comment from one bank that if they use it right they have no fees is pretty dastardly, considering that bank only makes money when they "don't use it right".

Even if they use it right the 1.5 - 3 % fees the merchants pay is taken out of the local economy.

The worst argument for it I read was "Some people don't have bank accounts and were being charged a fee from a local check cashing place".
The solution is to make everyone pay whether they need it or not.



What a country.