Well first off Mr. and Mrs. Legislator, why are there loopholes that allow these heinous acts by the banks? Were not these rules and regulations written by you and your pals? Maybe you got too close to the banker while you were writing them,eh? Maybe they offered you more money then the ordinary citizen is able to slip into your pocket!
You are such a shameful bunch in Washington. I’ll bet you don’t want your children to read the newsclips that follow your career.
What a bunch of worms.

So when a bank (professional money managers) screws up their money, they get a bailout.

But when a person screws up, the very same bank can cut off their life supply?

Capitalism Rocks

The concept of the IRS is that all income is taxable notwithstanding the source wether it came from legal or illegal activities with only a few exceptions. That’s how Al Capone got his comeuppance when he failed to pay his income taxes.

It appears that the banks are following this same train of thought of that of the IRS when it comes to seizing funds from delinquent depositors.

It is written in stone that the financial industry is just “too big” to fail and must be bailed out under any circumstances as they are the underpinning of our society.

The forgiveness of the liability of the toxic assets incurred by these institutions is the “right” thing to do. The management of these institutions should not be personally held accountable for errors in judgement, but instead be compensated for the positions held.

Small depositors with legal liabilities should not be considered on the same playing field with that of major lending institutions that find themselves in financial trouble.

The individual small bank depositor is just “too small” to be saved and doesn’t deserve to be given the consideration as the major players on Wall Street.

If the small depositor does not have sufficient funds to pay for their food, shelter, medical or other necessities of life, is it the responsibility of the financial institution to make this moral judgment?

The banks have the right to levy service charges and other fees on delinquent depositors as banks are in business to protect and make money for their stockholders and are not charitable organizations.

<i>Bank of America Corp. froze the accounts of Ellistine and Roosevelt Thompson, a disabled couple in their 60s in Macon, Ga., whose only source of income is from Social Security.

Because the Thompsons had no access to their money, they couldn’t retain a lawyer. Bank of America turned over all the benefits, some of which they set aside for their burial, to a debt collector pursuing a debt from the mid-1990s.

The couple learned from a TV news program that creditors can’t take Social Security benefits. They contacted Georgia Legal Services Program, which last year sued the bank seeking the return of the couples’ money.

A Bank of America spokeswoman declined to comment on the case, saying the court had placed a confidentiality order on it, adding: “Banks are required by law to honor garnishment orders or risk being held in contempt. We freeze accounts because the law says we must when we receive an order to do so.”<i> Ibid—Wall Street Journal

What I don’t understand is how the debt collector could get a legal order on debt that is over 10 years old. Isn’t there a statute of limitations when after 7 years have passed the debt is no longer actionable. That B of A must be accepting “orders” written on toilet paper. I suppose all I have to do is find a rich account holder and declare that I have a “legal order” to B of A, and then let the money roll in.

Congress once again haven’t been doing their jobs in closing these loopholes regarding banks seizing social security benefits for satisfaction of garnishment orders. But the banks don’t need to add insult to injury by piling on the extra fees when balances go negative. Just one more example of how no one is looking out for us average citizens but corporations are taken care of just fine.