Bank Bailout money used for Superbowl Party

[midnight]

Source: ABC News

Despite a near collapse that required $45 billion in federal taxpayer bailout funds, Bank of America sponsored a five day carnival-like affair just outside the Super Bowl stadium this past week as President Obama decried wasteful spending on Wall St. Tickets were available for purchase for between $12.50 and $18.50, with proceeds from ticket sales going to local youth initiatives. It was the 18th year for the "interactive fan festival" and the first that Bank of America has sponsored it.




Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6782719&page=1

---

One wonders why after taking so much money from taxpayers to bailout the banks bad investment decisions, that they would turn around and make another bad investment decision, and host a five day carnival like event? The fact that some here on D.U. have already lost their home, and are discussing where to find food to eat at cheap rates will most likely be as outraged as I was when reading this.

[Southpaw07]

1. Infuriating....

but sadly, not shocking at this point.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

2. And meanwhile the pensioner that lives across the street is bringing home

fewer and fewer groceries each week.

[Life Long Dem]

3. The setting doesn't work

Who would have spent any money on this? Next to the stadium? Just sounds Blah...

[tomreedtoon]

84. The game itself reportedly cost $4300 per ticket.

To participate in some carnival-like games for $19 a head must have seemed like a bargain to the ordinary Joes out there who will never actually see a Super Bowl in a stadium.

If you want an example of how corporations make everything expensive, shove around the little guy and sit there preening themselves, I can't think of anything better than the Super Bowl. (And full of "the best ads in the TV world" costing $3 million for thirty seconds, including sexism, violence and bad CGI animated animals.)

[Blue_Tires]

4. coming next week: "Bank bailout money used to lobby for more bank bailout money"

and they'll get it, too

[Gman]

5. It's called marketing

and I'm not sure it was a bad decision to sponsor this.

[raystorm7]

13. Exactly what i was thinking...Nothing to see here! seriously move along. This is a non-story

[nichomachus]

16. Then it was superbly shitty marketing

Marketing is about public image and appearances. This was a terrible image.

The average person looking at this -- especially a person who has no health care and is in danger of losing his job -- will think "Gee, my tax dollars were given to these people to throw huge parties, while had had a six pack of off-brand soda and a couple of bags of day-old Cheetos."

That's not the idea you want your marketing to leave in people's heads.

If you remember, the reason we gave them billions of dollars of our money is because they were going to fail, if we didn't.

I don't see how not being able to fund even a supposed "charity event" would have led to the bank's failure.

[Gman]

19. No, it's a business necessity for BOA to have a presence

and LOOK like they're a huge national bank that can sponsor a large event like this. It was a necessity for BOA to do this.

[Regret My New Name]

26. In this case it will hurt them though, don't you think?

Like nichomachus said, it was a poor move to do it at this time... Simply because people are going to view it as wasteful spending at this current time.

[Gman]

29. No. It's putting the bailout money to work

the marketing firms get to pay their people, the people that make the display stuff get to pay their people... that marketing event generated a lot of money for a lot of people coming from BOA and got them paid for another week or maybe two.

[Regret My New Name]

57. Even if that is completely the case

many view it as frivolous spending at this current time. Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from and agree that the flow of money is what is supposed to happen. It's just that at this current time this marketing will have the opposite effect because of the way people currently feel...

[stopbush]

49. A necessity? Give me a break. There are lots of businesses

in this country who are close to BoA in size. In fact, BoA is 9th on the Forbes 500:

1. Wal-Mart Stores
2. Exxon Mobil
3. Chevron
4. General Motors
5. ConocoPhillips
6. General Electric
7. Ford Motor
8. Citigroup
9. Bank of America
10. AT&T

Nobody has to do anything.

[Gman]

59. No, they don't have to do anything

then they eventually dry up and blow away.

That bailout money paid a lot of salaries and not just in BOA. You need to look at the other side of the equation too.

[stopbush]

61. I'm a marketing guy, so I believe in advertising.

But no company has to advertise in a specific forum, and as others have pointed out, good advertising doesn't result in bad publicity (if you believe in bad publicity).

BoA could have foregone this particular extravaganza.

[Gman]

74. With the benefit of our absolutely perfect 0-0 hindsight

it was a bad move. Lots of other events like the Final 4, NBA Championship series, etc. coming up that they can have a presence at after things calm down. Right now was probably too soon.

[Raineyb]

82. This is bullshit

The money was supposed to be used so that they could continue lending and thus make sure the economy doesn't collapse.

Throwing a 5 day party and not lending out the money is not what anyone had in mind. If they can afford to sponsor this party they didn't need any of our tax dollars. You cannot claim that the state of the economy depends on banks getting these funds then use it for a stupid party. With the economy as bad as it is how many people are willing to spend 20 bucks at a festival anyway?

Regards

[defendandprotect]

35. BS -- it's called corporate-welfare when it's our money ---

It's Advertising when it's their money --

We need to reverse these bailouts and make sure they are repaid -- pronto --

[Gman]

41. Yes, it's corporate welfare

and it is BS that they even had to get the money to begin with. Nevertheless, that money gave a lot of people a lot of work, which is also the intent of the bailout money.

Think about the other side of the equation too.

[defendandprotect]

44. We can support jobs without corporate-welfare ...

Nationalize failing banks and auto companies as other nations do --

What we bail-out .. we own --!!!

[Gman]

56. And the federal government owns part of BOA

they have been partially nationalized. The whole thing is a gargantuan fuckup by Bush, the magnitude of which we still don't comprehend. Regardless, now is not the time to let the huge banks fail. To do so is to make Bush's failure complete and the screwing of the American people complete. And now is not the time to put even more people out of work. And I'm not just talking about people that work for BOA.

[defendandprotect]

62. NATIONALIZING does not put anyone out of work . . .

in fact, it guarantees that the business and employees keep going ---

but not engaging in corrupt practices any longer!

In fact, we can put the auto workers to making all electric cars --- we need them!


And, btw, the auto makers were planning to lay off 20,000-30,000 workers and still are!

Had they not been in corrupt alliance with the oil companies to protect gas-guzzlers,

they wouldn't need bail outs.

[MisterP]

68. problem is, they think money came first, then labor

and they built a whole castle of wealth-equals-Providential-favor, all-wealth-was-earned-and-taking-it's-theft, and capitalism-equals-freedom upon this shifting sand
it came out of the 18th century (the Enlightenment, actually) by the rising middle class against the bitchy, paternalistic upper class: they wanted, elitism, but according to "worth" rather than birth

[defendandprotect]

72. When we use yardstick based on the dollar bill, nature and humans, labor...

all have little value -- money is simply a way to wield corrupt power --

we need to uninvent the dollar bill -- and capitalism.

[JDPriestly]

60. Bad Marketing because they are laying off over 30,000 people.

In marketing, every word, every gesture is meaningful. Hosting a big party while laying off 30,000 people and paying pensioners a pittance in interest on their life savings? That's not marketing. That's kicking the little guys while they are down. It's insensitive and obscene. I hope that Bof A's first layoffs are in their marketing division. How insensitive.

Here is the link on the layoffs.

Bank of America said on Thursday that it planned to cut 30,000 to 35,000 positions — among the largest layoffs ever — over the next three years as it digests its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. That could amount to more than 11 percent of the combined firms’ global work force of 308,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/12bank.html?em

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Marketing via charity

And probably not a bad decision... though I'd have to read more to get a stronger sense of that.

[customerserviceguy]

89. I have to wonder

what the story would have looked like if they had decided at the last minute NOT to do this, you'd have interviews with the executive directors of various youth charities grousing about not getting a chunk of dough.

Besides, these things are planned very far in advance, I'm sure the deal was sealed well before the big banking meltdown in October. They probably had paid in advance, and would not have been able to recover costs, even by "subletting" the space, advertising materials get printed up way in advance, too.

I'm not meaning to excuse B of A for bad business decisions, they make boneheaded ones every single day, but they certainly faced a choice of two negative alternatives here. I'm not sure that they picked the worst one.

[JerseygirlCT]

93. I agree.

And I'm biased, I'll admit. I work for a non-profit, and I see first-hand how so many charities depend on corporate support. I'm rarely going to knock a corporation for spending their money in that way. As I said elsewhere in this thread, until all those needs are met with gov't funding, we're going to need corporate support.

And yes, that support was probably pledged months and months ago at the least. Charities were depending on that money to fund their programs.

As you say, plenty of bone-headed moves. This isn't one of them.

[Dover]

6. Well, instead of paying taxes this year I'm gonna throw a BIG block party and you're all invited!n/t

[chimpymustgo]

11. I'll use my taxes or bailout money to bring caviar and champagne! Thanks!

[KansDem]

28. ALLRIGHT!!! Let me know where you live so I can use my taxes to charter a private jet!

Let's see, Dover said the party was somewhere around here...

[midnight]

58. I'm in Wisconsin.....

[Cronopio]

30. Exactly. I sense a widespread tax revolt brewing. nt

[liberal N proud]

7. Cut them off

No more money, they obviously can't manage what they already were given before.

[LeftHandPath]

8. I want my money back...

with interest and penalties.

[jsamuel]

9. Alternate title: Bank Bailout money used for Charity Drive

?

[surrealAmerican]

10. It's not as if this was a party for the executives.

It was a charitable event. I'm not nearly as concerned about some of the bailout money being used to benefit youth organizations as I am about executive bonuses.

[Still Sensible]

12. The fact is that it probably didn't cost that much

(gee does anybody know just what it cost?) and they were probably committed to it many months ago. I'm a lot more concerned about banks that used the money for consolidation, or Wall St. fat cats buying corporate jets, or using taxpayer funds to pay enormous bonuses to the same idiots that got themselves (and us) into this mess.

[midnight]

23. "The bank refused to tell ABC News how much it is spending

as an NFL corporate sponsor, but insiders have put the figure at close to $10 million." I'm not sure if this buys a plane, but I think a chairtable act of keeping a couple thousand people in their house is a much better commitment to follow through on.

[Still Sensible]

36. Don't disagree

and they should disclose how much they spent... charity event or not.

[JDPriestly]

64. They committed to paying their employees months ago too,

but they are still planning to lay off about 30,000 or more of them. It's obscene to spend money on a big party like that when you are laying off so many people.

Here, again is the story on the layoffs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/12bank.html?em

[JerseygirlCT]

94. Yes, exactly. nt

[Romulox]

46. What right does BOA have playing Santy Claus with TAXPAYER monies, hmmm?

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Well, until and unless Uncle Sam covers the needs in our society

non-profits will have to continue to depend in large part on this sort of "playing Santy Claus". Would you prefer to see needy people go without?

As someone said above, I'd sure rather see this than fat executive bonuses.

[Romulox]

95. Sorry, but that's laughable: give billions in taxpayer $$$ to banks so they can give us back scraps

Ridiculous. :hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

96. No, I think you're being ridiculous

We did indeed hand them a whole load of money, and that does entitle us to know how it is being spent.

Community relations/charity - call it what you will, but that's the sort of spending that is expected from corporations - and the sort that ought to be encouraged.

Now, as I said, if you'd like to restructure everything about our society, to the point that there are no needs being left unfilled, and charities no longer need seek the funding they need in order to fill those needs, then dandy. Corporate charity can go the way of the dodo and all is good. Until that happens, charities need that money, and corporations - the good ones anyway - understand that's part of what they must do in order to be good citizens.

Yell about exec. perks all you want; I'm right with you. But this doesn't fall into that category at all.

[Romulox]

98. It's hard to argue such a bizarre point.

You assert that charities and the American people would be better off if taxpayer money was given to corporations, (no strings attached!) and then begged back by a needy populace who was naturally excluded from the taxpayer funded "bailout" in the first place. All as a side effect of the "BOA NFL Experience" tent.

I assert that all involved (except for BOA executives and potential "NFL Experience" tent-goers) would be better off if we distributed the funds directly to those in need; after all, it is taxpayer money.

Without all the obfuscation about "restructur everything about society" , it's really not possible to defend the first POV. I don't want to restructure everything--just the part where we give trillions of taxpayer dollars (no strings attached!) to multinational corporations while a significant portion of our population lives in abject poverty. :hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

99. No, I did not

I said that as long as there is need, I'd much rather see corporate dollars go to help with that. If you have a way to eliminate that need - if you can work some magic and have those gov't dollars go directly to those in need, then great.

But that's not the case. And that's not the reality. And the reality is that if corporations have money to spend, it's far better spent on charity than on executive perks and sky-high salaries. Is that really so hard to understand?

Corporate charitable dollars are good news, not something to castigate them about.

[Romulox]

100. You don't get it: they're not "corporate dollars"--they're TAXPAYER dollars (with more to come)

[JerseygirlCT]

101. I'd prefer to see ANY dollars (they're all green, you know?)

go to support charitable causes than go toward corporate perks or executive salaries.

How's that?

The fact is, they already have the money. And they'd probably already committed money to this cause. I'd far prefer them to continue to meet their charitable obligations than the alternative.

[Romulox]

102. LOL. The argument you're putting together now is called a "false dichotomy".

"go to support charitable causes than go toward corporate perks or executive salaries."

I agree with you 100%. But there are more choices than the two you laid out: 1) give the money to Wall Street so they can feed us back crumbs; or 2) no money goes to needy causes.

Option 3) would be: "Taxpayers distribute money directly to needy causes, bypassing Wall Street and Bankers altogether.

"The fact is, they already have the money."

No, that's not "the fact". They are scheduled to get more in the next round of the TARP.

[JerseygirlCT]

77. Exactly. Me either. nt

[terisan]

14. We the People paid for an extravagant Super Bowl Party at White House for Congress Reps

and others. I doubt there was an austerity menu and doubt the guests had to wear sweaters to keep warm. I doubt any ordinary citizens from our general population were there.

The fundraising among the super wealthy that went on for the Inaugural Balls made me sick. Hundreds of thousands raised from Bundlers over and over again. Rich Dems flying in on corporate jets while they scold me about filling up my gas tank in my 14 year old auto.

How much of Bank of America' s ticket sales actually go to local youth initiatives ? We never hear those figures. Having worked for some charitable events my suspicion is that it is a pittance.

The excesses of the politician and the loose spending of government money by and for them bother me just as much as Bank of America.

I don't like government telling me we are in dire straits while they are dining on taxpayer-purchased filet mignon. Spam sandwiches would do nicely, send the steak to the people losing their homes.

And some typical citizens should always be invited to mix with the politicians and report back to the people.

I am looking for radical change in the political landscape and politician's behavior not Republican lite.

[midnight]

27. I too became suspicious over the charitable contributions

explanation.

[defendandprotect]

38. This should have been SUPERBOWL Sunday for Homeless in America --!!!

and for impoverished children, especially --

For ehat is real in America --

[RayOfHope]

79. Iknew there was a party but didn't know the specifics? Have a link or are you just guessing? n/t

[Kablooie]

15. So let's cut their taxes so they will have even MORE money to party with. Whoohoo!

[defendandprotect]

39. After cutting corp-taxes for decades...they needed bailouts--!!!

We're going in the wrong direction..

Increase corporate taxes and stop bailouts--!!!

[ixion]

17. not to mention the fact that these same banks have turned the screws on their "customers"

by jacking rates and fees.

It is truly infuriating.

[natrat]

18. i am sorry this is dodd,frank obama's fault etc for writing bad legislation

[BobRossi]

20. Add to this all the pork.

We are getting screwed.

[4lbs]

21. Did BofA say how much of the ticket sales proceeds were going to youth initiatives?

Otherwise, the actual amount could be anywhere from 1% to 100%.

"Sir, you sold tickets for $20 each and said that the proceeds would go to charity. You sold a million tickets, but I see on this ledger that only several hundred thousand dollars went to any charity."

"Well... I didn't say ** ALL ** the proceeds now, did I?"

[Sisaruus]

92. tax write-off?

Or I give Bank of America $20 to attend and BofA give my $20 to the charity but BofA get the tax write-off for my charitable contribution.

McCormick Tribune had that down to a science - to attend a charity event they sponsored (but the charity organized) all across the country, you were actually writing the check to a McCormick Trib account. They in turn "donated" the proceeds to their own foundation. The foundation then issued a check to the charity and met some of the fund-distribution requirements to maintain their foundation status.

[sakabatou]

22. FUCKERS!

[OhioChick]

24. What's Obama going to do about this?

Anything?
I'm sure he's been made aware...

[Jim Sagle]

55. Hope and change, it's what's for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

[radfringe]

25. ....why am I not surprised?

[Doctor_J]

31. Most Old Europeans would have dragged these people from their offices

by now. Americans are so hate radio-brainwashed they either don't care or think this is great, because when THEY get to be Citibank CEO, they want to do this too.

[Tab]

32. Well, to be fair...

(and believe me, I have no great love for Bank of America)

some of these things are planned way in advance, contracts are signed, and the companies are obligated to them, regardless.

Hey, just like our mortgage.

[defendandprotect]

33. And no mention of homless yet--!! But corporate-welfare rules--!!????

[kmac3]

34. All Of These Many Articles Are Disgusting

There are no rules, regulations, laws or morality among the rich.
And it's obvious with this whole TARP plan
. . . the rich are taking care of the rich! :puke:

[xloadiex]

37. I guess I paid for for part

of this party. Citibank,Chase, and BOA all raised my interest rate for no apparent reason. I always paid more than the minimum and have never been late. In the meantime, we had fried bologna sandwiches for dinner last night. I hope all the fat cats enjoyed their Super Bowl feasts. I'll be waiting for my "Thank You" card.

[JDPriestly]

66. They raised yours on your debts, and they lowered the interest

rates on depositors. Somebody is making money somewhere. The puzzle is not fitting together. The missing money went somewhere. Maybe they should look under George W. Bush's mattress or under his desk where he was looking for the WMDs. I think the money went the way of Iraq's WMDs.

And that is where the bail-out money appears to be going too.

Not one cent until the beneficiaries of the first bail-out account specifically for every penny they got and where it is right now. No excuses.

[newtothegame]

40. Interesting...the implied story from the subject line is completely different from the actual story.

[peacetalksforall]

42. I don't think this is the year that they should be doing this, but they may have

signed two years ago.

But,if they got in at the last minute - ask yourself why they decided to do it knowing that they were broke until we helped them out.

The only reason I can think of is that they were trying to change their image.

If that's it - I think it is hypocritical.

There are many reasons to be disgusted with BofA by the greedy things they do and probably will continue doing.

They are not a friend. They tried to broadcast that they were.

They have a lot of changing and mending to do to make things right with the little people.

I want to remind everyone about the amazing rules they got our wimpy leaders to vote for when the bankruptcy bill was AGAINST us - compared to their whining, crying, pleading when they asked us to help them out in their equivalent of a bankruptcy.

Let's see them petition Congress to reverse the bankruptcy bill against us more beneficial to the citizens.

Do you remember how haughtily they were?

Do you know what kind of policies that all of the cc companies are making to squeeze SOME of their cc holders?

[truthisfreedom]

43. Nobody would care about stories like this if they hadn't started off with executive bonuses and jets

Now they're fucked.

[valerief]

45. Pissed? Yeah. Surprised? Not a whit. nt

[williesgirl]

47. This money was NOT intended for PR purposes - it was to LEND money to Americans and

businesses. Period. Fuck them - not one more dime. I for one want my money back and NOW.

[yurbud]

48. Wall St execs should be used for conjugal visits at maximum security prisons

[nightrain]

50. these companies have no conscience. I won't do business with them

until they start paying attention and doing something real for regular (hurting) people.

[hedgehog]

51. You've heard of trickle down theory , haven't you?

I know I feel like something has been trickled down on me!

[gauguin57]

52. My GOD! What is wrong with these people????

How can all these companies be so freaking, freaking clueless?

[orbitalman]

63. I agree, not only CLUELESS, but

completely divorced and disconnected from reality (*all these companies).

[orbitalman]

65. I agree, not only CLUELESS, but

completely divorced and disconnected from reality (*all these companies).

[Edith Ann]

53. Super Bowl

They need to audit these people and get this money back period.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

54. give the fucking money back

it's clear that Bank of America doesn't give a shit about actually helping people--here I am hoping to get a first time home buyer loan, and these bastards continue to give millions like myself the middle finger by doing shit like this?!

they need to fucking give the money back!!!

[gauguin57]

67. I think we're ready for some good, old-fashioned pitchforks and torches, folks.

Massive numbers of people, standing on the sidewalk outside corporate HQs, with torches, pitchforks, signs and bullhorns ... calling these effers OUT!

[flakey_foont]

69. nice

shameless a-holes

[bkkyosemite]

70. "Despite a near collapse" BULL SH*T.,,We are being lied to.

[libodem]

71. It's only OK when Republicans

are wasting taxpayer dollars. Bonuses, parties, whatever. All those give-aways under Bush. That was fine. But now when the people need help, the Republicans suddenly practice opposition. They must be afraid that some Democrats will spend on bonuses and parties. I know this is a senseless post but I feel so frustrated.

[damntexdem]

73. Well, I'm glad to see that some small part of the bailout was used wisely.

;-)

[sandyj999]

75. Looks like I'll be looking for a new bank.

We ended up with them when they bought out Lasalle Bank. I write very few checks and they were returning the cancelled checks and charging me $3.00. I never paid Lasalle bank a service charge for anything. I'm just not sure where to go but I think I'll be done with them.

[BartMang]

80. Haha

Its not a surprise it really isn't. It's a god damned shame.

[Plucketeer]

81. My outrage resevoir is spent

SO MUCH of this type of disrespectful SHIT keeps coming to light that I'm starting to get numb to it! Corporate America OWNS this country. They do with it as they please and there's NO escaping the endless brow-beating of their advertizing and greed.

I'm really sorry I brought kids into this world. The better thing would have been to not produce my own replacement and thereby CUT off corporate bloodsucking once I'm laid to rest!

[RoccoR5955]

83. That's not unexpected, and now the Repugs want more tax relief for these bass turds...

...in the "recovery package." I say they should be putting MORE taxes on anyone who grosses over $1 million/yr. Make that bracket the 100% tax bracket. WTF -- we are in for hard times, and those who can afford to do more SHOULD do more. Screw the tax breaks for these corporate welfare recipients, they need to repay WE THE PEOPLE!

[krister]

85. No big deal guys

All that money went towards stimulating the economy.

[marshall]

86. Avoiding wasteful spending is just for the little guy and gal

Those in power wanna have fun and be as comfortable as possible.

[Zuiderelle]

87. How idiotic. Now we should expect banks to stop sponsoring charitable events?

:eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

97. Apparently so.

I guess some people have had no dealings with charities, and no idea how they're funded?

[Haole Girl]

88. This just really pisses me off

:grr:

[pmorlan1]

90. Need Your HELP

This just makes my blood boil. This reminds me of a movie I just watched on Turner Classic Movies called The Gold Cadillac. This movie is not available for purchase here in the states (there are a few stray copies on ebay that cost a lot of money because they are rare). The movie is about a corrupt corporation and a woman who organizes the little stockholders in order to get rid of the corrupt company officers. It's a great little movie where the little guys win out over the corrupt corporate jerks. The reason I'm talking about this is because on the Turner website they have a place you can vote to express your interest in having a movie released to the market. I voted for this movie because I think it's message is so timely. Please take a moment and got to the Turner website and vote for this movie. Here is a link.

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=90715

Thanks.

[The Brethren]

91. Thank you Midnight for putting this information out there!

I'm fed up with crap!!!! And I am not surprised after watching what was happening during the Wall Street Bailout process. The bill reeked then and it still reeks. But watching the recipients of the bailout flaunt their misuse of our money --for free, is the last straw.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- both REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT politicians voted for this bail-out, despite their so-called anger over the bail-out.

Btw, I have yet to hear of one politician who voted for this bailout to come forward and claim that they actually did their homework and researched how each recipient, who as one politician during the voting said was "vital" to our economy, had handled their budgets prior to their billion dollar-begging-contest. Nor have I heard of one politician who voted for this bailout explain just how the recipients....like Bank of America, were going to actually use theses billions of taxpayers' monies for constructive use. And that somehow was going to help our economic infrastructure. I doubt that I'll ever hear a politician who helped this bill come forward and say they did their homework, like they should have, because that would mean that that politician actually say the financial truth of the matter and still voted for the bill. I can deal with double-talk with politicians most of the time, but when their double-talk involves over $850 billion dollars, that's a lot of crap to deal with.

The voters on this bill should've let Wall Street and the other pork businesses fall on their faces.

Yup, it would mean that a lot of very wealthy people at the top, including owners of the top banks, would suddenly have less millions and billions to help subsidize their lavish lifestyles. And without the Wall Street Bailout our economy would've continued to break down the same as it did with bailout. Except, as you mentioned Midnight, there are a lot folks without jobs and money right now, who are also losing their homes, and whom I bet $850 billion dollars could help -- stretched nationwide, would still significantly go along way with assistance.