Uncle Sam Wants Your Opinion on Card Fees

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Originally, banks offered overdraft protection for a fee. And if they had given one overdraft protection as a service, they were required to disclose that fact to you.
A slight rule change -- under the Bush criminal enterprise -- and the banks were free to add such a "service" without telling you. The result was billions in profits for the banks. (And we are bailing them out, instead of them using the massive funds on which they sit to bail themselves out?)
I discovered this the hard way; and when asked about it, the bank said it was to "protect the customer from [the] embarassment" of an overdraft. They refused to call the method what it obviously was: either overdraft protection, or [extension of] credit.

JNagarya of MA 12:28PM March 30, 2009

The bank should refuse to process any transaction for which you didn't have adequate funds in your account. Now they've figured out that they can make more money if they process the transaction, then hit you with a steep overdraft fee. Bank of America did this to my granddaughter, she was already having problems and this didn't help.

Sandra Prescott of TN 9:24AM March 30, 2009

of how voters have abdicated their responsibility to properly control corporations. When we finally wake up and realize that corporations are CONSTANT scam risks, we will have a better country.
At least we now have a crisis that is shaking us to action and a Democratic administration willing to recognize the need.
When you pay $40 for being overdrawn $2, you were eaten by a loan shark. Your loan shark was a CORPORATION that you, through your government, are supposed to be able to define, limit and control. Your conservative Supreme Court thinks the corporation is a "person". It is not. Never was.

Muser of NM 10:39AM March 26, 2009