NCLC Report: States Force Jobless to Pay Needless Fees
Didn't see anybody snag this yet, but the morning was still young. Could be somewhat
significant with all the eMoola floating around out there now in bennies.
For one observer’s end of it: you can wonder here whether or not there’s a sweet setup again,
and a nice big one. First we we have a Fed Statute that prohibits
divisions from requiring
the recipients to open accounts as a condition for benefits.
Does your mind’s ear hear anything familiar with the setup yet?? Banks including JPMorgan
Chase & Co., U.S. Bancorp and Bank of America Corp... “seizing on the opportunity..”
like blood in the water, boys?
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Jobless Americans are paying millions in unnecessary fees to collect unemployment benefits because of state policies
encouraging them to get the money through bank-issued payment cards, according to a new report from a consumer group."
"In five states — California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland and Nevada — unemployed people aren't offered direct deposit at all. The report says that
setup is illegal under a federal law that bars states from requiring benefits recipients to open an account at a particular bank.”
Here's the whole schpiel,
But wait... if there's a direct deposit to your checking account (if you HAVE one) there isn't a
fee attached unless you agree to it. It looks like if there's a bank fee involved with the card, and
you HAVE to buy one because you never had a checking account me amigo, HEY... the Feds
now valiantly step in.
Could it possibly be that the policies are set in place to automatically juice the benefits so the
rather large cash cow can get sliced up and passed around a little?? Don’t know about you,
but I smell a kickback like from a wet four-by-four in a cheap radial saw.
Where’s my pizza pie mitt? Did anybody get the number of that knuckleball?
Don't you wonder as we're more required all the time to buy something, that the money isn't
getting funneled off somewhere other than what we're supposed to be buying.
Finally and as a subspecies being of Illnoise, it can only make you wonder more about the
practice of a certain state’s licensing authority-- now selling no-owner car insurance to
people who need a driver’s license; but CAN’T under law until they have insurance.
like protection, Louie. Nope, doesn’t sound like the R-word to me.. I know it may be off topic
by a quarter mile, but the racketoids seem to be flourishing lately in various crannies.
Your thoughts and accelerants on my post welcome:Flame On.
edit on 29-1-2013 by derfreebie because: The decision of the judges aren't final unless there are nine of them.
29-1-2013 by derfreebie because: Oops, no link. And the decision of the NINE judges is finally final.