Wasn't the $700B Bank Bailout to prevent this kind of thing?

Either your smoking something illegal or your actually thought the banks had all good intentions in voluntarily following the Feds requirement for utilizing the bailout the way the fed intended them to.

Stop for a moment and reason on this situation.

If you are a bank and you have access to the bailout, ethically you (large bank like BofA) are supposed lend to other not as big banks so that money can continue to flow and keep industries and jobs going.

The only thing is Banks are looking out for themselves and their own solvency.
example: If bank A (smaller bank) wants to borrow from bank B (BofA), but bank B is unwary of bank A's financial ability to payback the bank, they are not going to undertake that risk, even though the bailout money is intended for them to do so.

You could apply that same example to the case in the plant in IL.
BofA is trying to say that it is the plants fault for not run *** their business right, but Banks are in the business of taking on some risk with their lendees. A person could reason if BofA was concerned about how that plant managed their business so as to cause a liability for the bank in not paying back loans. Then why Did BofA not follow that same ethical guidelines when they were giving out loans to sub prime lendees that they knew could not pay back the loan.

They are trying to play a double standard and if BofA thinks it is not going to affect them they better think again.
If you watched the rest of the story on the plant, the Gov. of Il said the state's agency would stop doing business with BofA.
Stop and think how that is going to have a Domino effect. More states will that BofA or any other larger bank that pulls that are going to do the same thing.
That is not even mentioning the number of people that watched that and said, " You know what! I think I will pull my money out of BofA to".
Small local banks, that do not have a high risk as major banks do are going to profit from this huge mortgage corrupted meltdown and from cases of what you saw on the news today.
I personally prefer a local bank to a major bank.

That was the idea when the bailout was originally put to Congress.

Sec Paulson has since changed the plan - and used the money to prop up the share price of the banks.

.

Yes and no,

Since we do not know the reason behind bank of america refusing to loan that company money.

We didn't bail the banks out, to have them make more bad loans.

From the sound of it, it seems like that company had far more problems than simply not being able to get a loan from one particular bank.

Bank of America is not responsible for paying the salaries of this company. Why is it that only union companies are being shown on TV as needing of money from government, and why so are they always being shown as being mistreated. Unions are the problem in all these scenarios, they are useless in today's market (overpriced and under producing) B of A is not responsible for this company not being competitive

This was the greatest robbery in all of world history. It was meant to enrich the few at the expense of the many. I'm not surprised things are getting worse.

Yes well that was the "hope" that they would start lending. But instead they have been using the money to acquire smaller banks and basically apply it to operating expenses and expansion plans.

In other words, it was money thrown down a black hole.

Because we didn't put any stipulations on the money in legislation.

The money is a free for all... and not even the government knows where it all went.

Any number of things, the beauty and horror of it all is we don't and never will know what it was that truly brought this about.

Most interesting