On Feb 6, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > On Fri, February 6, 2009 1:51 pm, Chris Gehlker wrote: > >> It's as if these politicians just can't wrap their heads around the >> notion that the banks failed, the the shareholders lost their equity >> and that there is a bail out at all. As the article points out, some >> of the same repubs who have been advocates for very strict >> requirements for other welfare recipients oppose any requirements on >> bank executives. > > What I'm wondering about, is why no caps yet for GM and Chrysler?
Indeed. > > > But yeah, it's insane and completely out of touch to oppose caps on > execs > at the failed financial institutions. And it is in no way the > harbinger of > socialism or overburdensome regulation - it's simple common sense > and an > appropriate step to take. Prior to Obama, we handed over $350b > basically > without conditions - I'm glad to see someone has the slimmest hint > of a > spine when it comes to setting conditions on extraordinary > interventions. I actually agree here. If they want government money then they can accept the terms that come with it. They are absolutely free to not take the money and do what they want. I think it's money down a rat hole either way, but we shall see. Chuck _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
