• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bailed Out Bank of America Sponsors Super Bowl Fun Fest

Advertising. Was branded all over the place. They also had reps on hand to explain products and sign up customers.

Like I said, standard stuff.

Standard even in an economic crisis when they asked for and received bailout money?
 
Oh? Like whom, and what?

:lol: thanks but no thanks. We (my company) went to court and won over it.

Advertising. Was branded all over the place. They also had reps on hand to explain products and sign up customers.

Like I said, standard stuff.



So. Tell me how much did this cost, and how many new checking accounts could possibly be signed up. :lol:


The standard needs to be changed when you are using bailout money.,
 
:lol: thanks but no thanks. We (my company) went to court and won over it.

Right.


So. Tell me how much did this cost, and how many new checking accounts could possibly be signed up. :lol:

You tell me. You're making the accusation that this was inappropriate.


The standard needs to be changed when you are using bailout money.,

Well, be sure to report back what you did with every penny of the tax rebate checks you've gotten yourself, so we can decide whether or not it was appropriate use.
 
Last edited:
Standard even in an economic crisis when they asked for and received bailout money?

It's a standard practice for a company the size and stature of BoA at the largest media event in the first quarter of the year, yes.
 


Indeed.


You tell me. You're making the accusation that this was inappropriate.




Well, be sure to report back what you did with every penny of the tax rebate checks you've gotten yourself, so we can decide whether or not it was appropriate use.





Why? That was my money in the 1st place. :2wave:
 
What's the point of advertising for new customers when probably 90% of them won't even be eligible for new loans due to tighter credit requirements? The bailout money was not for advertising, it was for freeing up credit.

Of course, we can't know if BoA used any of the bailout money for this advertising, because BoA has not recorded or accounted for what they've done with one penny of the bailout money.

FOXNews.com - Where'd the Bailout Money Go? Shhhh, It's a Secret - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

In order for the company to show where it allocated the money it would have to essentially "open its books" and make its entire budget public.
 
Why? That was my money in the 1st place. :2wave:

Right. And in the time I worked for BoA, it paid about 50 billion in corporate income taxes alone, let alone its shareholders being taxed on dividends.

Bottom line -- it's conducting its business according to standard practice.
 
So you are suggesting BOA went into this blind?

Like most marketing strategies aimed at an audience as large as the ****ing Super Bowl? YES. Doritos doesn't pay 3 million dollars a commercial so they can target people who don't eat junk food. They pay 3 million dollars so that even if only 20 million of the 100 million who watched the super bowl buy chips they buy Doritos. If 2 million after that decide they want to buy Doritos then that is a return that Doritos wasn't planning on. Seriously - the super bowl isn't rocket science. Advertise. Get old customers buying again and new customers if you can.

I mean really. Lets see a thousand ^ new customers...

There's a word missing there somewhere.

Ok that sounds like a stretch. how much did this shindig cost. Divide that by the average deposit account....

Again. Doesn't matter. New customers are new customers regardless of how you want to measure the sizes of their accounts. Banks aren't really interested in how much money you have as long as you have an account with them. They only start caring once you start putting large amounts of money into it.

I dunno. Seems like they could have chosen a better way.

During Superbowl weekend? Are you out of your mind?
 
Last edited:
Right. And in the time I worked for BoA, it paid about 50 billion in corporate income taxes alone, let alone its shareholders being taxed on dividends.

50 billion?

Do you have a link please.


Bottom line -- it's conducting its business according to standard practice.


If this was not bailout money, fine. It was so not fine.
 
50 billion?

Do you have a link please.

They publicly reported profits of about 14 billion a year for 10 years. Corporate rates are 35%. Federal only, of course.


If this was not bailout money, fine. It was so not fine.

How do you know they used bailout money?

And what's a legitimate marketing expense/campaign/event? And who made you the arbiter of it?
 
How do you know they used bailout money?

And what's a legitimate marketing expense/campaign/event? And who made you the arbiter of it?

Dude....seriously don't even try this. Advertising at an event that is watched by not only 100 million people in America alone but countless millions around the world is bad - mkay? I mean it doesn't even make sense. The potential for thousands of new customers is not enough reason to spend money putting your company out there. /eNd SaRcAsM.
 
Dude....seriously don't even try this. Advertising at an event that is watched by not only 100 million people in America alone but countless millions around the world is bad - mkay? I mean it doesn't even make sense. The potential for thousands of new customers is not enough reason to spend money putting your company out there. /eNd SaRcAsM.

Seriously! Companies should be BANNED from advertising! Why would I bank with lots of financial services want to advertise to a massive audience of potential clients? That's STUPID. Really, getting word out about a new product during one of the largest events in television for a year is retarded. Who wants to have more customers? That's dumb.

Sarcasm Off. :rofl
 
Right. And in the time I worked for BoA, it paid about 50 billion in corporate income taxes alone, let alone its shareholders being taxed on dividends.

Bottom line -- it's conducting its business according to standard practice.
Standard practice got us in trouble.
 
This is a little excessive imo

Well, what they should do is itemize their expenses and run them through some kind of federally appointed comptroller.

I do think breaking banks of this Gilded Age bull**** they've made a habit of in the last decade, but as a general point I recognize the necessity of PR events.
 
Standard practice got us in trouble.

No. Standard practice was circumvented by law because it was "racist." Giving loans to people with no demonstrable history of paying or ability to pay is what got us into trouble.
 
Standard practice got us in trouble.

As Harshaw pointed out, it's not. The repeal of key aspects of the GSA by Republicans was a massive deviation from standard practice for decades. The use of mortgages as social policy on a wide scale (remember CRA loans were a measly $20 billion, less then the bailout to Detroit) wasn't standard practice. Conservative, standard practices don't lead to the Neil Bush (yes, that's dubya's brother) S&L crisis.
 
In order for the company to show where it allocated the money it would have to essentially "open its books" and make its entire budget public.
Only if they misappropriated the bailout money into their "entire budget" instead of just boosting their credit capitol like they were supposed to.

When you borrow money from a bank, they track every penny of that money and often they want to know exactly what you're spending it on. So when banks borrow money from ME, I expect exactly the same traceability and accountability that they expect from their borrowers. The fact that they didn't, and the excuses they've given for why they didn't, just makes me sick. Friggin thieves!!
 
As Harshaw pointed out, it's not. The repeal of key aspects of the GSA by Republicans was a massive deviation from standard practice for decades. The use of mortgages as social policy on a wide scale (remember CRA loans were a measly $20 billion, less then the bailout to Detroit) wasn't standard practice. Conservative, standard practices don't lead to the Neil Bush (yes, that's dubya's brother) S&L crisis.

Sure. And the Clinton amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act, coupled with Democrats' blocking of efforts to regulate the secondary markets created by them (again, this would be "racist" because it would have dried up subprime lending, and thanks for the contributions, Mr. Raines) had nothing to do with it. Because lending to someone with 480 credit was conservative standard practice, of course.
 
Sure. And the Clinton amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act, coupled with Democrats' blocking of efforts to regulate the secondary markets created by them (again, this would be "racist" because it would have dried up subprime lending, and thanks for the contributions, Mr. Raines) had nothing to do with it.

Of course. The Dems were just as bad. Both parties screwed us by using mortgages as a country wide social policy tool.

Because lending to someone with 480 credit was conservative standard practice, of course.

Conservative in making my wallet fat for the time being? :2wave:

Either way, standard practice was long abandoned. Thus, we agree that American is wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom