Quote Originally Posted by Carpe Coma View Post
Which is essentially what they are doing. They now have a stake in these companies and exercising control. It is only the companies which are part of the bailout that are under these restrictions. Now, if you want to take it as a more general case and try to argue that individual shareholders should do this, that would require an enormously expensive proxy battle which the shareholder(s) would have to pay out his/her own pocket while the board can use company funds. There was a motion to require that executive pay be voted on by the stockholders. Shockingly, that did not get passed.

Big surprise there

This money is *not* a gift. The "package" is preferred stock which carries a required dividend payout if not bought back within five(?) years. Secondly, money doesn't evaporate, it just gets shuffled around. So your taxpayer money will be back in the coffers soon enough.

Not in my "coffers". (Expects my pockets to remain empty regaurdless of how it turns out)

The alternative is quite likely worse. The last time we had a meltdown of this scale, we did the opposite (simply not true, we ended up trying to socialize and got nowhere and then WW2 came and changed the picture)and it took over twenty years to pull out. Do I believe that they are doing everything correctly? Hell no. Is there a halfway decent chance that they will do more good than harm? Yes. Is there a more than half decent chance that they are doing more harm than good? You betcha!


This was coming since AIG execs were caught red-handed being idiots. It wouldn't matter who was in charge. The "sheep" already support him. He's the messiah, remember?
Yeah right? Silly me not to place blind faith in him...smh