What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
70 Comments
- momzilla54, on 02/24/2009, -0/+60Before reading the article: I bet Bank of America is one of them.
After reading the article: I told you so! - anubis2night, on 02/24/2009, -0/+35Bank of America is the RIAA of Banks, ***** B of A !!!!
- hashinclude, on 02/25/2009, -0/+22If you hate the big banks so much, why not vote with your money (or unemployment checks as the case may be) and find a local credit union? They're much smaller, and are better equipped to deal with personal problems. Plus, CUs are non-profit orgs, so they're probably a much better place to entrust your money. I do. Find one at http://www.creditunion.coop/
- tricksforfree, on 02/24/2009, -11/+27When I was living in Phoenix AZ, I went to Bank of America to cash my Unemployment check. It was in the upper class white part of town and Bank of America wanted $5.00 dollars to cash my check. I refused to pay it and complaind, and went to one across town. The one I went to had a armed guard standing out side before you went in to the bank. There were no white people in the bank just Illegal Mexicans and I thought I was in Mexico or South America. Bank of America is noted for issueing credit cards to Illegal Mexicans at a higher rate then White people. I hope in this recession Bank of a America goes broke because of the way they treat there CUSTOMERS like crap.
- bromac, on 02/25/2009, -2/+17Wow, that was blatantly racist. Now the illegal mexicans are the cause of the Bank of America collapse. That's rich. Tell me that again. I could use a laugh.
How the ***** do you know that when there's no white people, the only other option is that the mexicans are illegal? I'm from Canada, and things may be different there, but here even the ***** janitors at banks need a full security check. I highly doubt that a BANK that asks for social security numbers every ***** day wouldn't do so from their own employees. It doesn't make a lick of sense.
Who's to say that the white people in the first bank aren't illegals from Eastern Europe or other places where there are also white people?
Your nation is broke because the WHITE PEOPLE are all living in half million dollar houses, and driving 2-3 new vehicles, and with 3 or so credit cards maxxed out with nice *****. It's laughable that you think it's minorities that are spending themselves into the ground. What planet are you on again? - publiclurker, on 02/24/2009, -6/+21So, did all of those with darker skins actually admit to you that they are here illegally, or did you just rely on your klan supplied bigot kit?
- Deveak, on 02/25/2009, -0/+13I personally don't support vigilante justice unless it gets results, WHICH IT DOES!
- shalb, on 02/25/2009, -1/+14Heh... With the economy in such a crappy state, there are still ***** looking out to make a profit by stomping on those who can barely survive.
- bromac, on 02/25/2009, -0/+11Here in Canada, you can take any government check and cash it at any bank, as long as you have ID.
It's part of these things called "banking laws" we have here. You guys should look into them, they're handy at keeping banks from doing stupid ***** like they're doing in the states.
Banks exist at the whim of the government, to facilitate a healthy financial system (which includes helping the government distribute monies, probably to be deposited eventually into an account at their bank, via cheques) and allow people to store monies. They make money on investing deposits, in exchange for interest, in effect using YOUR money to make them money. This is in the form of loans (mortgages, personal loans, auto loans, etc.) and securities.
There's no reason for them to charge a "service fee" to hold your money because they're already making money by you just giving it to them to hold for a while! They're already getting bitchslapped here in Canada for the service fee shuffle.
And they certainly shouldn't be charging a service fee to cash a government cheque, which won't bounce. It's the least they could to do given what the government does for banks in return. - emmettgolf, on 02/25/2009, -1/+12They are the same ones who have always made a living stomping the wealth out of people.
- DaNuKaSAN, on 02/25/2009, -0/+10Suddenly...writing "I have a gun." on the back of a deposit slip doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
- RungeKutta, on 02/25/2009, -0/+9Did you read the article at all? If so then you completely missed one of your points - so keep reading my comment and you should hopefully figure it out:
* He called up to ask how to check his account balance, and they charged him $0.50.
* He went to a BoA ATM machine to withdraw $80 and later the remaining $250, and they charged him $1.50.
And by the way this $5 fee thing that banks charge is completely bogus. I've had tellers either wave it occasionally, or tell me that I can bring in any receipts up to 30/60/90 days and if I open an account with said bank, they'll refund me for every one of those check-cashing fees. I'm cashing a check at the bank that issued it, it's not like it's going to be a big gamble if the check will clear or not. Secondly, I don't know about all banks but Wells Fargo ONLY DOES IT WITH PAY CHECKS. Before I had an account with them, I cashed a personal check someone gave me and there was no charge on that. But with my paycheck, yup. Shows you that it has *nothing* to do with risk of the check bouncing since you would figure that paychecks bounce a lot less than personal checks...
So why are you defending the bank so much? You don't think that the law and their size have enough going for them or what? - blindhammer, on 02/25/2009, -0/+9I hear that banks bludgeon baby seals as well.
- AlienMushroom, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5Before B of A ate Fleet Bank, I hated Fleet, because I never dealt with B of A before.
After they merged, I hated B of A even more. Negative plus negative don't equal to positive. - Marmot, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5Pretty nice -- you mean all I need to do for this free money is lose my job and substantially larger paycheck?
Where do I sign up? - BassMastr, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5What even better is when the check bounces b/c the bank decided to hold a check for 5 or 7 business days. First they hold your money forever and then they charge you 34 bucks b/c they wouldn't free up 2% of your deposit. *****.
- RungeKutta, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5Oh ***** you. Why are you defending Bank of America? I suppose you feel that this people taking this "free money" need to be punished at every chance?
I guess you don't even work so shut the hell up. If you DID WORK, you would have some idea why your statement is full of *****. - DankNugzPlz, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5Somehow I'm not surprised by this. Man, I hate banks.
I know in Pennsylvania that they do offer direct deposit of unemployment benefits. - haikuFU, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5Whatever, that's *****. Every BoA customer knows that every time they call or withdraw money, a large man named Vinny comes over to their house within a couple of days and either takes fees from you, or breaks your Behymen.
BoA also sneaks into your kid's room in the middle of the night and tells them that your are an evil person and give their toys away when they are at school.
BoA also killed Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, and your cat that you thought a car ran over. - Marmot, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5
FTA:
"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."
Completely without fee? - ultar6, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4All along I thought that payroll insurance deduction from my check actually entitled me to unemployment benefits. Silly me.
- pintomp3, on 02/25/2009, -2/+6Obviously legality is not an issue when the skin color is white. That's why the European immigrants came through Ellis Island so easily. You think Lou Dobbs would support setting one of those up on the southern border?
- ronaldinho, on 02/25/2009, -1/+5Unbelievable. These banks do not have a heart. However, I'm most pissed about how banks try to keep everything a secret and not telling people that doing this and that would incur a fee.
- UMDWei, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4While we're at it, who can we complain to to lower the ridiculous bank fees for overdraft? $5 is a slap on the wrist... but when part of the overdraft is due to the compounded $29 or $34 fees, that's just ass rape.
- ultar6, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4Are you in Bizarro World? Criticizing credit unions is more likely to get you dugg down on Digg. Credit unions are the beacon of honesty and responsibility compared to the banking behemoths. The world of big bad banks is hell bent on causing death by a thousand (exorbitant) fees.
- OneRottenTomato, on 02/25/2009, -4/+8No need for kits. They use their bigot ray vision.
- archer104, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4I heard that the bank and my money were in the closet making babies...and I saw one of the babies...and the baby looked at me.
- ultar6, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4Nope. BoA puts restrictions on access to your money. They laud the convenience of their networks of ATM's and branch offices. If you dare to access YOUR money more than once in a day, they must charge you for double-dipping.
The entire premise is ridiculous. You give them your money and while they have it, they count it as assets upon which their lending potential is based. You can withdraw your money in certain ways and incur no fees. You can withdraw your money in other ways and pay additional fees. As with any large bank, they'll accept your deposits, but they'll find ways to keep a little bit of it wherever they can. - Mavital, on 02/25/2009, -3/+6Were you a Bank of America customer? No. How do I know this? Because no bank customer gets charged a $5.00 fee to cash a check. Ever. You were basically walking into the bank and wanting a completely free service for the bank to 1) Let you walk in and keep real customers from getting to a teller, 2) Process your check, which isn't free by the way, and 3) Take the risk the check is fraudulent and lose the entire amount.
Banks are businesses too. I guess the "in" thing is to bash them, but you have to realize the HUGE level of risk that comes with cashing checks for non-banking customers. I think $5 is a small price to pay to expect a bank to take on the risk of cashing your check and let you fill up their teller lines even though you aren't a customer. - Elsewhere42, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3Every time I see something like this it reminds me how corporations have the same psychological profile as a psychopath.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-01.htm - Mavital, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3Like I said above, you can go to any ATM and withdraw the funds for free. In fact, the guy in the story could have walked over to the ATM *in the branch* and withdrawn the money. This is simply a story to raise more negative press on the banks.
There are very logical reasons why the debit cards are issued instead of checks. First, it eliminates check fraud which is a huge issue these days. Second, it actually allows easier access of funds as you can use the debt card at any place that takes Visa. Third, instead of the person having to go to a bank and stand in line, he/she can just go to an ATM.
The issue here is the idiot in the article probably went to the teller line, the teller said "Sir, I can't withdraw funds without charging $5 but you are happy to use the ATM five feet from here", and the guy made a huge fuss just to get on the news. - cheddabobb, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3@MavitalMavital: *gasp* _You_ are retarded. You don't even understand the irony of the article. These people are unemployed during a financial crisis created by banks like BoA. I'm guessing an open minded individual like you also doesn't see the conflict of interest created by the commercial bank taking advantage of the state-provided unemployment funds, not to mention the downright unconscionable practice of taking advantage of people at their weakest.
Banks like BoA have essentially destroyed themselves by taking obnoxious risks and now they want to charge ridiculous fees to try to get back on their feet, and they want to take it from the people who can afford it the least. It's despicable. - Dustin00, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3Using a bank = MEGAFAIL
Credit Unions rule! - m0deth, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3How the ***** are these people "not real customers"??????????
Did BoA, JP Morgan Chase, and the slew of other "efficient private entities" chosen to host unemployment acconts take money to run those accounts?
***** YES THEY DID, whether it's an individual account or not, they are customers....we could always go back to the way it was done before with checks and cut them the ***** out of the money loop!
I live in RI, and have almost the same problem, except, and this is just beautiful.....Chase is our chosen carpetbagger bank to hold unemployment funds(making them money outright), but they chose to offload the actual banking to a bank with branches a whopping 3 thousand miles away! ***** why not make it a Canadian bank.....or just go all the way and use Bank Julius Baer. heh
I have one ***** rental ATM I can use in a 30 mile radius, which breaks down constantly due to the obvious overuse it gets. Other than that, I have no way to just get all my unemployment money without paying some contrived fee.
The best part is when they arbitrarily 'hold' funds going into my account for a day when it should have cleared according to the State officials, you know the ones they ask you NOT to call to verify payment?
Let's see, do that to a random amount of people....once in awhile, skim interest...rinse repeat....how much has been stolen? My guess is, nobody will ever look, so nobody will ever know. - bromac, on 02/25/2009, -1/+4Except...um...I'm white. And I realize that we generally have it better than minorities, especially as far as credit goes?
- Ascus, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3You are joking, the banks hit the small time clients because they no they don't have the means to sue them.
- GrooTheWanderer, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3BoA was the second gunman behind the grassy knoll.
- lolfantastic, on 02/25/2009, -2/+4Typical of a bank.
- Marmot, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2The best has to be cascading overdraft fees, where overdraft fees wipe out any attempts you make to bring your account positive -- thus leading to more overdrafts.
I had that happen a while ago, and the timing absolutely sucked. My memory is a little hazy, but I remember I checked one morning and found that a number of debits had posted overnight, and as a result I was overdrawn by something like $6.00. I transferred over $200 from another account to bring myself positive and have enough left over for some additional charges I was expecting to post that day. I don't remember the amounts, but the $200 deposit would have easily covered them. Let's call it $140 total.
What I didn't realize was that six of those debits were already pending against my account, and the $33 per transaction overdraft fees hadn't posted yet. That came to $198, which neatly wiped out my $200 deposit, leaving me still negative even before any of that day's debits cleared. By the time my $140 in actual transactions had posted, I was now negative by $144. Also, the bank charged a $6.00 per day overdraft fee... and there were more debits coming for me the next day...
I think that one $6 overdraft eventually led to something like $400 in overdraft fees... The branch manager offered to refund me $66 of that as a one-time courtesy, as soon as I brought my account positive. It took me a few days, but I did my best. Strangely enough, after those few days had passed, that same manager couldn't recall ever having made that courtesy $66 offer... Hmmm...
The only thing that stopped me from moving my account to another bank was the knowledge that they would have all screwed me equally well... - ultar6, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2Add to that - the policy at banks is not to post transactions in the order received, but to post transactions from the highest dollar amount to the lowest and applying deposits at the end. They maximize their fee collection by doing this.
I haven't had an overdraft in fifteen years, but I've actually watched my bank whittle my balance down with all withdrawals done before they apply a deposit that was effective at 00:01 on that business day.
Their fees are a cash grab and the banks aren't averse to manufacturing conditions that will cause you to incur them. - bungoman, on 02/25/2009, -2/+4Hey there now, don't react reasonably to an article about big bad banks, you might get dugg down.
- o76923, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2You'd think there'd be at least one PR person employed at Bank of America. I mean banks are hugely unpopular at the moment. Shouldn't someone have suggested that they "waive all fees for recepients of unemplyoment benefits, to help American citizens through this tough time." I mean, I know nickle and diming people is profitable, but trying to become the bank on the "people's side" of the bank/people hatred has to be worth something.
- ultar6, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2Are you kidding? That's not how they roll. The fee-based model has become their cash cow. They were allowed to raise their late-payment fees from the neighborhood of $5-10 to $49, regardless of the balance. Same with over-limit fees, even if it was by $1. Restrictions on their interest rates were lifted, so they the ceiling hit something like 28%. Required minimum payments were relaxed so no one could actually pay off a credit card debt by making the minimum payment. Even if you have never missed a payment, credit companies adjust their agreement with you if you live in the wrong neighborhood or even shopped at a store that they don't see as desirable.
- m0deth, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2Yet another "conservative" that doesn't understand that unemployment insurance is forced insurance for the worker....as in...taken out of worker wages, not one employer yet has ever paid someone else's insurance when it comes to unemployment. Any employer who states otherwise is clueless to their own finances...or a thief.
and to Marmot, another wonder....how is 67% of your paycheck net substantially larger? oh wait, I forgot taxes too, so, even less than that really...I'm glad you passed economics class. I'll bet you still think "trickle-down" means something other than the steady stream of piss rolling down from the elite. - PopcornDave, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2No, but negative times negative does.
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2I've had it with the large banks that took bailout money. They are refusing to behave responsibly. My local credit union is looking better and better all the time.
- jazino, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1I want to know why unemployment needs to go on a debit card. Why not Direct deposit like the article said. The charges have been in place for a while here and they are asinine.
- siszam, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Yeah, they are usually called Republicans and Libertarians.
- miggie, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Why didn't you just have your unemployment check direct deposit in your own bank account instead of a check. That's what I do for my unemployment check.
- Mavital, on 02/25/2009, -4/+5News flash: This is a prepaid debit card which is a standard product across all banks. The customers who use it are given FULL information on where they can go and what fees they have to pay. Just because you are using a Bank of America *pre-paid debit card* does NOT mean you can go to a branch and demand money from a teller. If you had an ATM card that was linked to your checking account -- yes you can. But these are prepaid cards no different than a prepaid American Express card you can buy at CVS.
Just so you know, you can withdraw up to $500 a day from any Bank of America ATM with that card *completely without fee*. Had the person actually read the little note that came with his card he would know this.
The reason they charge $5 to use a teller is to keep actual Bank of America customers with shorter teller lines. Back in the day when Bank of America didn't charge a teller fee, the lines were filled with people looking to cash checks that had no banking relationship. It was put in place so that people would 1) get a checking account or 2) go to their own bank. This made the lines shorter for those who were actual customers.
Geesh. -
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is