var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

corporatedrone

February 20, 2009 9:22 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

It's also a huge money saver to the programs, which is why states are doing it... While I do have sympathy for those incurring excess fees, the setup is usually structured so that you CAN get your money out without paying anything - you just have to get it out the \"right\" way. My question would be if any of the money that the state/program saves is increasing the total amount of aid available.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

aerick79

February 21, 2009 5:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@corporatedrone: Yes it is a money saver, the reason why they went to the PPD cards were a lot of the checks were getting stolen fomr peoples mail boxes. With the cards it really eash to block down the card and reiss a new card. it takes a lot longer to stop payment on the checks and reiss a new one. We have people call in almost everyday saying that they lost the card or it got \"stolen.\"

I am a Banker that handles these PPD cards.

$\"user-pic\"$

sumgai

February 21, 2009 4:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@corporatedrone:

Huge money saver??? For who?! The State! They're essentially passing their costs onto you. Fuck that shit. We already pay taxes to the state. We all know how wickedly inefficient governments are with money. Don't tel me the state cannot afford to print checks. They already have the damn machines and paper to do it. Direct deposit would be fine. Don't require me to pay your fees.

$\"user-pic\"$

zentec

February 20, 2009 9:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@corporatedrone:

I have hard time believing that the cost of printing a check and dropping it into the mail is more than the cost of printing a card, mailing it, maintaining the IT infrastructure and transmitting transactions are any less. Nor do I think it's any less than an ETF from the government to a checking/savings account.

While you can withdraw all your money for free, that's not the intent. The companies running these programs are hoping that they don't, or don't know they can and thus profit off the backs of people who need every damned penny they can find. That I think is the objection to some very questionable morals/business intent.

$\"user-pic\"$

joepa1

February 20, 2009 11:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentec: If this wasn;t cost effective the banks and govt's wouldn;t engage int he practice. The banks are mnaking their duckets on the merchant interchnage fees. I susopect that this allows them to price the cards below cost or the cards and the checks.

As for the fees, you can clearly ignore them by not ebing on the phone with customer service every second and by giving up some flexibiltiy in the withdraling of your cash. No different than the cost with getting your cash from an ATM out of network.

Keep in mind that paper checks are much less flexible than plastic. You can't walk up to any atm with a check and get cash even if you were willing to play the fee. You have to go to the issuing bank or you own assuming you have one. And since not everyone has a checking savings account the eft idea doesn't work. Don't want or need the flexibiity you won't incur the charge.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Brad Levy

February 20, 2009 9:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

when i got the card in the mail I hard three separate papers telling me what the fees are. Just take all the money out at once.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 1:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Brad Levy: How did you manage to take out all of your money at once? I receive a WEEKLY unemployment payment, which means I'd have to take money out four times. In Nevada, unemployment is handled via Wells Fargo. You can withdraw from a Wells Fargo ATM twice a month for free, I believe. I have bills to pay so I have to take the money out and put it into my bank account. It's very upsetting that bailed out banks are again exploiting consumers.

$\"user-pic\"$

thedark1

February 21, 2009 4:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@WorldHarmony: Now IF you have a bank account why would you want your money on the card? I would imagine you thought it would be easier but it is not. So did you change your deposit to your bank account or no?

$\"user-pic\"$

sumgai

February 21, 2009 4:06 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is insane. How in the world is mainstream media not all over this one?? They're being paid off too to keep quiet??? This fucking country is finished!! Seriously, this country is over. No more America. It's officially fucked for life.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 9:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's unconscienable.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Lcstyle

February 21, 2009 5:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think you meant unconscionable, and yes your right. That's the perfect word to use for these banks:

un⋅con⋅scion⋅a⋅ble -adjective
1. not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.
2. not in accordance with what is just or reasonable: unconscionable behavior.
3. excessive; extortionate: an unconscionable profit.

Once again the lower and middle classes get screwed.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Will Robinson

February 20, 2009 9:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is outFUCKinrageous !

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 9:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

In my state banks cannot charge you any fee for giving you a cash advance on your unemployment debit card.

Also, you can probably avoid transaction fees by heading to any grocery store that accepts debit cards, buying something you'd purchase anyway and getting cash back.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 1:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bellesouth: I tried going the cash advance route and the bank gave me such a hard time. \"we can't do that.\"\"we don't offer that service.\" etc. etc. when they DO OFFER IT. It's a fight every week unless I can get there every time the same teller or manager is on duty.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 9:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What about residual money...small amounts that aren't withdrawn? Even 72 cents per card can add up quickly.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

AustinTXProgrammer

February 20, 2009 9:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: That would be an issue at the end, but they are only distributing one card, and then reloading it each week.

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 3:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: True, but still with thousands unemployed and constant turnover of that population, there is going to be some residual, especially if it costs more to find out your balance than you have on the card.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

valen

February 20, 2009 9:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My home state, Missouri, currently uses a system called the \"Missouri Access MasterCard\". The card is issued through \"Central Bank\" of Jefferson City, MO. These are the fees associated with the card:

ATM Withdrawal or Balance Inquiry at Central Bank or Allpoint locations, Bank Teller Withdrawal, Purchase POS - Free
ATM Cash Withdrawal at Other Locations - $1.75
ATM International Cash Withdrawal - $3.00
ATM Balance Inquiry at Other Locations - $0.50
ATM Balance Inquiry International - $1.00
Electronic Withdrawal (ACH) to Checking Account - $2.50
Automatic Voice Response Unit (first usage per week is free) - $0.25/call
Replacement Card (first replacement per year is free) - $5.00
ATM/Purchase Decline - $0.25
Inactivity (180+ days with no purchase/withdrawal/purchase activity) - $1.50

Notification of deposits to the card are only available by cellular phone SMS (text) messaging. There is no email notification option. Cellular telephone companies charge usage fees for SMS messages.

As an added bonus, there is a binding arbitration clause which requires all card related arbitration to take place in Jefferson City, MO.

This PDF has all the fine print goodness associated with the card: [www.fsvsecurecard.com]

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 10:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I live here too. If I lose my job, I'm going straight to McDonalds. At least I'll have an actual paycheck while I look.

Screw this crap. Fees and scams are too rampant. This is beyond ridiculous.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 9:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I got one of these from the state of Texas when I was out of work in 2007. They allow at least one free withdrawal per deposit, so I just pulled my cash out and put it right into my regular account at another bank.

It's not without hassle (I confess to some grumbling on my part), but it might actually be faster for people to get their hands on money than if they were sent an actual check.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

yso

February 20, 2009 10:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

in ny state you can pick direct deposit instead of the debit card.

go for the DDeposit!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 11:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, that simply is the way to go. There is something wrong altogether if you don't have a bank account this day in age. Some people like me even have multiple just in case.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 10:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why wouldn't you just do direct deposit like the article says is an option? What is wrong with people.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 1:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@trellis23: Nevada offers paper checks or the debit card. No direct deposit.

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

February 21, 2009 12:29 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@trellis23: You'd be surprised how many people don't have banks and use currency exchanges. There's a reason those things are on every block of a major city (esp. poorer areas). The problem is that it creates a cycle of sorts. Paying all those fees makes it harder for them to save to open an actual account. It's even harder with banks imposing all sorts of fees for low balances, returned checks, etc. So it makes it that much harder to save money, get out of debt, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 12:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I haven't used a checking account in six months.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Applekid

February 20, 2009 10:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Does anyone have a list of which states mandate these carnie-cards so I can deliver swift kicks in the ass to my reps if they let it happen?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

February 20, 2009 10:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

As far as I know, anywhere these cards are used, you can opt for direct deposit. The cards are used if you decide not to do so.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

February 21, 2009 5:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: In Texas you do not have an option. However, you get one withdrawal per 2 weeks free, and you can use your card at point of sale for free, so you can get cashback. Still, I wish I had the option because direct deposit would be better, but I am grateful for the money because times are tough.

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 1:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: not in nevada...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

FlashbackX01

February 20, 2009 10:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

AS soon as money gets placed in your account, withdraw all of it. One fee you get all your money.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 10:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Welcome to capitalism, where anyone can get rich- on the backs of your fellow man, of course.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Landru

February 20, 2009 10:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I see Delaware's influence here.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

fatcop

February 21, 2009 5:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Landru: And the former senator from Delaware is?????

$\"user-pic\"$

papahoth

February 21, 2009 12:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fatcop: someone not fat. and someone that had nothing to do with how the states implement this program. but i guess making stupid statements is more fun?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

rdm

February 20, 2009 11:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Literally just had to fill out a form today for the first time and was surprised to see the Debit Card notice... (Texas) Didn't even consider there were fees. Just thought of the inconvenience of getting the money into the bank to pay bills.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 11:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Arizona uses a card issued through Chase to distribute unemployment compensation, but there aren't any fees if you hand over the card and ask the teller at Chase to withdraw your money from the account. However, they do want you to know the total available funds.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 20, 2009 11:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Banks are struggling like everyone else today. Why deny them income sources? They are providing a service, even some might say a convenience. Let's not get all knee-jerk \"banks are evil\" here, OK?

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 11:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, why deny the banks a source of income? They need all the income they can get. It's only fair that the unemployed should share a cut of their benefits with the poor, poor banks. Quite right.

$\"user-pic\"$

jenjen

February 21, 2009 7:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Marshfield:
The reason people think banks are evil are actions like the ones described here. These are fees specifically created to suck money out of the people who are the most desperate and vulnerable and who can least afford it. The people who got tossed under the bus in this same crappy economy that prompted the banks to go crawling to the public teat. Gee, why would anyone think that was evil?

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 1:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Marshfield: My reaction is not a \"banks are evil\" statement. It's that the *states* are wrong for making this the way to get your unemployment compensation.

$\"user-pic\"$

papahoth

February 21, 2009 12:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Marshfield: The states' that implemented this should be covering it out of the program's funds.

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

February 21, 2009 6:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Marshfield:
Who is struggling?

In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton received $39.7 million in 2006. Tilton's 2006 compensation exceeded the airline's entire annual profit of $25 million reported by United's parent company UAL, Inc.

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

February 21, 2009 6:24 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Marshfield:
Wow. I don't even know how to start on a reply to your post.

The sub-prime mortgage business is also struggling, lets make it a law that anybody going for a mortgage has to get a sub-prime mortgage.

American car makers are also struggling. Lets make a law saying that anyone buying a new car has to buy from one of the Big Three.

Did you ever notice how over the years, if you were going to almost be late with a bank/credit card payment
the charge to do a payment by phone closely followed the cost of next day express mail delivery?
Their thinking was since it costs almost the same whether I mail it or phone it in, I will pay by phone and save the trip to the post office. Since when has the price of computing power gone up over the years?
They will do anything and everything in their power to nickel and dime (I'm sorry, Dollar and multi-Dollar) you to death. Since when does it cost $15.00 for a computer to process a phone payment? These Damn bank card are just one more way to stick it to hard working people. PERIOD!!!!

$\"user-pic\"$

sumgai

February 21, 2009 4:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The banks are NOT struggling and definitely NOT like everyone else. FUCK YOU to high hell for even suggesting that they are. They are making TONS of money and just got a free bonus check (a.k.a. George W Bush Bailout). They do not need to make more ridiculous amounts of money by order of state governments. They are making so much money that they are still paying their executives millions upon millions in salaries, bonuses, and stock options.

You know who's struggling these days? School teachers, students, office workers (who happen to be producing massive incomes for companies like banks that then try to fuck them over by playing games and attaching exorbitant fees), and everyone else trying to make ends meet.

Banks are not inherently evil, but this running up of the fees and all of the creative fees they've come up with lately is evil and these banks need to be stopped immediately.

Wow, it's seriously time for a major uprising in America. People, wake the hell up before your country is gone. It's coming fast.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Amanda Boles

February 20, 2009 11:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My husband has one of these debit cards. They are mandatory in Indiana for unemployment. You can do a direct deposit option, but it has to be deposited onto the card first, then you can transfer into your personal checking account. This does take two days to process. Or you can just go into a branch and withdraw all the money at a teller for free.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 12:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

In NC, you use the card at least until your direct deposit is processed (if you choose that option). Free withdrawals at Wachovia branches and no fees if you get cash back at point of purchase. I don't see this as a big deal because it saves NC money to use the cards instead of cutting/mailing checks every week. It also gets the money to the unemployed folks (like my spouse) much faster. Now it's saving the US taxpayers money, because NC's unemployment fund ran dry and the state borrowed a jillion dollars to cover this week's payments. The state expects to keep borrowing weekly for a while.

These cards aren't really new, either, but there are lots of newbie unemployed who've never encountered them before.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

papahoth

February 21, 2009 12:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Illiterati: The cost savings should be used to cover the fees, not the recipient's benefits.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

February 21, 2009 12:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have no problem with these if there's an option between Direct Deposit and this. Getting your check cashed at a local currency exchange might cost even more than the fees. I think some C-E's charge 3%. So 3% of $1000 is $30. All these fees suck, but less than the alternative.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 1:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What do you do, then? Just curious!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

pgh9fan1

February 21, 2009 1:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"..baled out banks..\"? Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't that be \"bailed\"?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 3:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

how is this any different than people getting the checks and going to a check cashing place and having to pay fees?

Because unemployed people used to do that all the time.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

sumgai

February 21, 2009 4:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

If you receive a check, you have the option to keep 100% of your money and just deposit it in your bank account. You're not forced to use a check cashing service. Not everyone on unemployment uses check cashing services. In fact, I bet it's a minority by far.

I would sue the State government in a class action lawsuit over this. If they require you to use these cards and fees are assessed, they are forcing you to give up part of your money. That is not legal or just.

$\"user-pic\"$

psm321

February 21, 2009 12:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sumgai: But as others have mentioned, in most states there _are_ ways to get money out of these cards without fees, you just have to be really careful and read the documentation closely to make sure you use the right method.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

sumgai

February 21, 2009 3:58 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

And they wonder why people blow up government buildings???

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

MrEvil

February 21, 2009 5:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The only way I think the d-bags in state legislatures will listen is if a TON of unemployed people marched onto the capital grounds and had a ceremony of cutting up the cards and tossing them in the grass.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

February 21, 2009 6:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

States are on a new test program to save money, decrease fraud and speed up benifits. They are using a microchip implant that operates like an ATM or credit card. it goes in your right hand. You get an extra five bucks a month in california if you use it.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 9:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have one in Indiana, I just use it as a credit card - no fees.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 21, 2009 1:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The bankers who designed this scam should be put in jail. they are no better than common theives. Obama should be up their ass right now making the banks rescind this policy. There is no need to tack on fees to unemployment cards....the banks are stealing state funds with these fees and ultimately stealing more tax payer money. unbelievable.

What's the alternative to pulling your money out of the banking system that doesnt involve a check cashing store? Or at least people should be moving their $ from the banks who are screwing people...hit the banks where it hurts, on the bottom line.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

aerick79

February 21, 2009 5:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FlyersFan: I hope you realize that the state agrees to the fees when the sign the contract with the bank.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

aerick79

February 21, 2009 2:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I am a banker that handles the PPD cards(Pre-paid debit) A lot of these people can't get a Checking acct. and they have to get these PPD cards to get to theri funds. It works just like a normal checking acct.

Most of people that complain about the fees don't read the Term and Condition of the card.

You might not like the fees but those fees pay my bills or a least some of them.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

February 21, 2009 4:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aerick79: And the bank is counting on people not reading the T&C because that's how they make money off this deal.

At least with a check you can go to the bank the check is drawn on and withdraw the money for free. That's what I used to do back when I couldn't get a bank account.

I find it abhorrent that an industry that happily accepted billions of dollars from the government not only continues to pay out massive bonuses but also screws over the very real people who are struggling.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

thedark1

February 21, 2009 4:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't understand why some people with bank accounts don't just have it deposited? Unless their bank account is always overdraw or something like that.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

rpm773

February 21, 2009 5:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I really don't see this being an issue with the banks. They're providing a service and they're getting paid for it. The states sign a contract with the banks for this. Obviously there must be some benefit for state governments to be doing this...either they're saving money or the officials in charge of this are getting some sort of kickback.

It seems to me that if closing down the unemployment payment processing department results in saved money, that money should either be forwarded to those collecting unemployment (to offset the bank fees) or returned to the taxpayer.

Regardless, I think the members of the pitchfork brigade here calling for the bankers' heads should probably be directing their criticism toward the state governments.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Joe Tarjetas

February 21, 2009 7:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Prepaid debit cards are a great option and will continue to grow in popularity. The fee's associated with printing, fullfilling, and mailing paper unemployment checks is becoming too much for states to budget. In addition, with so many people losing their banking privileges because of the current economic crisis, prepaid debit cards are the quickest way for unbanked people to get their funds. The speed of receiving your money is worth the fee's.

[www.1800tarjetas.com]

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

tworld

February 21, 2009 9:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This bank crap is totally out of control. These guys should all be in jail. This scam should be brought to the attention of President Obama, I bet he'd be appalled that unemployment benefits, usually chump change to begin with, will have fees taken out. Disgusting.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 22, 2009 8:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tworld: Um, have you ever looked into who has given Obama money for his Senate and Presidential campaigns?

He either knows about this specific issue and doesn't care or it will be brought to his attention and he won't care. Well, he might make a speech about it - but nothing will change.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Bog

February 22, 2009 2:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Having done a short stint on unemployment last year I was happy to find that my state simply mails a check every week that you qualify.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

ageshin

February 22, 2009 5:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

These deals stink. The states don't save money, rather they are paying a third party to distribute the money. I would fallow the money and would bet that some politico is being paid a good amount for doing this. The people wo don't benifit from this are the people who really need the money.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

February 22, 2009 8:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ageshin: If what the states are paying the third party to distribute the money is less than what they would have spent on printing and distributing the checks, then they do save money. Do you have evidence to prove that the states are paying these third parties more than what they would have spent themselves? If you do, please share.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Ysa

February 22, 2009 8:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm currently on unemployment and using one of these cards, a \"VISA\" through Bank of America. The fees look pretty nasty but so far I've avoided them by doing cash back on purchases instead of using an ATM.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

February 22, 2009 8:22 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Banks are rich. Because of their actions to give out more bonuses with the tax payers money instead of using it the way it was intended people still can not get a loan. Because of this more and more people are not buying, which means more and more job losses. Chances are right now you know at least 10 people that are unemployed and its not their fault. The point of all of this is the people who lost their jobs partially due to the banks should not have to pay more or even have the chance of paying more to the banks that are part of the reason why they lost their jobs in the first place. Even more so that the people that are on unemployment have payed taxes just in case an emergency like this happens, and now part of their emergency money can be swindled back to the banks that helped destroy their lively hood. It's not right. Banks don't care about family's, or even people in general for that matter. At the end of the day banks care about how much money they can take from you, not if you can feed yourself and your 5 year old daughter. With that said good luck America and i hope we wise up to the many ways we are getting screwed by these money hogs before it's to late.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

February 22, 2009 5:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is nothing short of crime - govt officals conspiring with banks to steal taxpayers money. Unemployment benefits are paid for in advance by the people claimign them - it is called FICA.

And the same govt officials signing unemployed people up for this explaitation would never be allowed to contract a govt service at those ridculous prices.

I am also willing to bet that the govt officicials signing up their states fort his will get kickbacks or jobs from the same banks.

Like I said, its a crime. Period.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

February 22, 2009 7:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Banks get a bailout, you loose your job, banks gets your money. I mean what's so hard to understand about the scam? That's exactly what it is. When the contract was negotiated the banks made sure it was weighted in their favor, and since the private sector pays more they have better negotiators than the government. People get this simple little card in their hands and they're going to use it and not pay attention to the fine print, and if you've ever received an info packet from the government or a bank then you know it's all fine print.

","","");