Comments on: Bailout banks thriving: Is that good or bad for small business?

By: Lee Reid

Lee Reid — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:19:44 +0000

It would the right time for the country to slow down on monies going out to lazy men on disabilities
that enjoy drinking beer continously. Any man child except menatally retarded individuals should
be put in work programs for their want of welfare. Stop this loss of money to the Social Security
program. It’s bad in Maine.
Lee Reid

By: Mike Harden

Mike Harden — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:30:34 +0000

Trickle Up now that’s a program that was suggested on the internet and it sounded as though it was a joke, but it works. Send the money out to public not private sector just send people money and they will spend it. Some will wasted it, no different than giving out raises to lower the amount of return to be paid to the government on the bail out money, that is not going out to the real small business any way.
I believe American’s are afraid enough that some of us would pay off credit cards and lower mortgages balances (that makes banks nerves). Those who purchases items would create cash flow, tax revenue and so on. I like the Trickle Up simply because I have had enough of the Trickle Down effect. Because the only thing that has trickled down from Capital Hill on me so far stinks.
In closing it goes down hill it stinks, up hill it’s good but that sounds too much like the last Administrations way of spinning things? The current Administration sounds good but it starting to sound like the same song just louder music to me with a teaspoon of sugar.

By: Nina B

Nina B — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:11:35 +0000

Just once, I would love to see Capitol Hill subscribe to the “trickle up” theory. It seems to be working for cars buyers and Ford Motor Company with the Cash for Clunkers program.

And I would love to see the banks pay back the tax dollars they got through the bail-out program with those billion dollar profits.

By: Tim A

Tim A — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:50:23 +0000

I think that that the packages were assembled too hastily, not necessarily too quickly. I also think that the large Wall Street Banks have long held strong sway in congress and elsewhere on Capitol Hill, and that their concerns were addressed while those of the rest of the country from small businesses to individual citizens were largely ignored.

Really, if the money spent on the large banks had been given outright back to citizens, much bad debt would have been paid off, banks would have collected more capital that way, and the economy would have responded more strongly.

But, since the Teapot Dome scandal and earlier, D.C. and Wall Street have paid for each other. In many cases, the bonuses paid by these banks were close in value to the bailouts received. Seems kind of pointless.