from another list... When I first re-located into my small, rural Floridian town of 11.2 square miles about four years ago, the first thing I was taken by was all the bail bondsmen's shops on every street corner... and in between. I even commented to a long time friend that Florida must be "wild" because I had never in my life seen so many bail bondsmen in one town. The people who read our emails must have sent my comments on to the powers that be because within a year, most of the bail bondsmen's shops had been relocated to side streets and farther out of town.
In the place of all the bail bondsmen's shops over the last year have sprung up a plethora of banks. For a tiny town it left me scratching my head. We have one main road that leads to a much greater and sprawling town that could far better support all of these banks and I figured it must be due to all of the plans to over-develop this place (like Arizona) with tract housing on every square inch of available lake and pasture land around here. On one corner alone there are three banks with two more just up the street a bit (actually, one of them is a credit union). Considering that Florida is one of the top three most hard hit by unemployment; California; Swartzenagger (R), Florida; Crist (R), Sanford (R), it really left the average citizen wondering why banks were mushrooming up all over the place. Ah,... then someone sent me the article below. Now I get it; now I understand that We the People are in for the biggest screwing over imaginable of the long term variety. I mean, what bank spends a dime on anything but themselves unless it's means a profit, right? Why else would banks be interested in buying land and putting up brand new branch bank buildings unless they smelled a cash cow. One thing we can truly count on in these times is the never ending greed of those who own us... the money industry. Not only do we need to get off of fossil fuel, we also need to get off relying on the banks. They have corralled us by forcing us to accept checks and electronic funds (instead of coin of the realm) so that we have no place to go to convert forms of promissory payment into viable currency. We need to be aware of the latest bank scams regarding accessing our money and make every effort to pressure our representatives to supply us with at least ONE method of getting ALL of our money out INTACT. We cannot trust the banks to act in our best interests and it's up to us to stay aware and handle our own money in such a way that doesn't see a slow hemorrhaging of our ever dwindling resources. One would think in a time of crisis the banks would throttle back on their predatory behavior to give people a chance to get on their feet but too many years of Republican rule have made them callous and bold such that they are even after the unemployment checks and funds that will be coming into this job-less little burg, as elsewhere. Komodo Nothing changes if nothing changes You'll never get the truth from a pack of lies CHECK THIS OUT: Jobless hit with bank fees on benefits Feb 20, 12:25 AM (ET) By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD 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. (C) (C), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) (BAC), JP Morgan Chase and US Bancorp (USB) (USB), 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. The banks say their programs offer convenience. They also provide at least one way to tap the money at no charge, such as using a single free withdrawal to get all the cash at once from a bank teller. But the banks benefit from human nature, as people end up treating the cards like all the other plastic in their wallets. The fees are raising questions from lawmakers who just recently voted to infuse banks with taxpayer money to keep them afloat. Steven Adamske, spokesman for the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, said he wasn't aware of the debit card programs before he was contacted by the AP, but was concerned about card holder fees. "Our hope ... would be that banks who are getting federal assistance would forgo these kinds of fees as we're trying to help everyone in society deal with this recession," Adamske said. Some banks, depending on the agreement negotiated with each state, also make money on the interest they earn after the state deposits the money and before it's spent. The banks and credit card companies also get roughly 1 percent to 3 percent off the top of each transaction made with the cards. Neither banks nor credit card companies will say how much money they are making off the programs, or what proportion of the revenue comes from user versus merchant fees or interest. It's difficult to estimate the profits because they depend on how often recipients use their cards and where they use them. But the potential is clear. In Missouri, for instance, 94,883 people claimed unemployment benefits through debit cards from Central Bank. Analysts say a recipient uses a card an average of six to 10 times a month. If each cardholder makes three withdrawals at an out-of-network ATM, at a fee of $1.75, the bank would collect nearly $500,000. If half of the cardholders also dial customer service three times in any given week (the first time is free; after that, it's 25 cents a call), the bank's revenue would jump to more than $521,000. That would yield $6.3 million a year. Rachel Storch, a Democratic state representative, received a wave of complaints about the fees from autoworkers laid off from a suburban St. Louis Chrysler plant. She recently urged Gov. Jay Nixon to review the state's contract with Central Bank with an eye toward reducing the fees. "I think the contract is unfair and potentially illegal to unemployment recipients," she said. Central Bank did not return two messages seeking comment. Glenn Campbell, a spokesman for Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., said the congressman would support a review of the debit card programs nationwide. Another 10 states - including the unemployment hot spots of California, Florida and South Carolina - are considering such programs or have signed contracts. The remainder still use traditional checks or direct deposit. With the national unemployment rate now at 7.6 percent, the market for bank-issued unemployment cards is booming. In 2003, states paid only $4 million of unemployment insurance through debit cards. By 2007, it had ballooned to $2.8 billion, and by 2010 it will likely rise to $10.5 billion, according to a study conducted by Mercator Advisory Group, a financial industry consulting firm. The economic stimulus plan signed by President Barack Obama this week will increase federal unemployment benefits by $40 billion this year. Subsequently, there will be more money from which banks can collect fees. The U.S. Department of Labor allows the fees as long as states create a way for recipients to get their money for free, spokeswoman Suzy Bohnert said. "Beyond that, the individual decides how to manage his drawdowns using the debit card," she said in an e-mail. A typical contract looks like the agreement between Citigroup and the state of Kansas, which took effect in November. The state expects to save $300,000 a year by wiring payments to Citigroup instead of printing and mailing checks. Citigroup's bill to the state: zero. The bank collects its revenue from fees paid by merchants and the unemployed. "If you use your card the right way, you're not going to pay fees at all," said Paul Simpson, Citigroup's global head of public sector, health care and wholesale cards But that's not always practical. Arthur Santa-Maria, a laid-off engineer who lives just outside Albuquerque, N.M., said he didn't pay any fees the first time he was laid off, for several months in 2007. His unemployment benefits were paid by paper checks. He found a new job last year but was laid off again last fall. This time, he was issued a Bank of America debit card - a "prepaid" card in industry lingo - but he was surprised to learn he had to pay fees to get his money. He asked the bank to waive them. It said no. That's when Santa-Maria called back to ask how to check his account online. He logged on and saw that the call cost him a half dollar To avoid more fees, Santa-Maria found a Bank of America ATM at a strip mall and withdrew $80 at no charge. When he got back to his car, he decided to take out the rest of his money - $250 - and deposit it in his bank account.Afterward, Santa-Maria logged on to his account and saw a charge of $1.50 for two withdrawals in one day. "They're trying to use my money to make money," Stanta-Maria said. "I just see banks trying to make that 50 cents or a buck and a half when I should be given the service for free." New Mexico authorities bargained with Bank of America to get lower fees for unemployment recipients, said Carrie Moritomo, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Workforce Solutions. The state saves up to $1.5 million annually by switching from checks to debit cards. Bank of America spokeswoman Britney Sheehan pointed out that the fees charged in New Mexico are similar to those charged in the 29 other states with unemployment debit cards. The bank believes "the fee schedule is reasonable and consistent with similar programs," she said. Banks could issue unemployment debit cards with no fees for cardholders, but that would likely mean that states would have to pay more of the administrative costs, said Mark Harrington, director of marketing for Citigroup's prepaid card services. If a state demanded no cardholder fees and could pay the difference, Citigroup might enter such a contract. "We would be open to that," Harrington said. "We're not looking to structure any programs where we would lose money, but we're definitely flexible." Simpson noted that the cards can save money for jobless workers who have no bank accounts. In the past, these people had to use corner check-cashing shops that charged fees as high as 2 percent, or $6 for a $300 check. Now, they can swipe their cards at McDonald's, Wal-Mart or elsewhere for free. Kenna Gortler, a laid-off paper mill worker in Oregon, said her union is advising members to avoid the debit cards and sign up to get their benefits through direct deposit. More than 300 of her fellow workers have lost their jobs at the mill in the last three months, and horror stories about ATM fees and overdraft charges are starting to filter back to others who are just now signing up for their benefits. "It's discouraging," Gortler said. "People have limited funds and they don't need to be giving money to the banks. They need to be keeping that money to feed their families and pay bills." **** --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WebTV Dawgs/Dittos" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/WebTV-Pals -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
