It’s a messy, messy situation when public money starts supporting private businesses. To me the bottom line question is: if they are a good business, shouldn’t you leave them alone and let them spend the money how they see fit; and if they aren’t a good business, then why are we keeping them from failing?

(The answer to the second is simple: people don’t understand what happens when a company “fails”. They have no understanding of bankruptcy, and they believe that all of those jobs magically disappear. Politicians leverage this misunderstanding to spread fear, quoting ridiculous numbers of potential lost jobs, and suddenly campaign contributors are having their leadership positions — not the companies in any meaningful sense of the word — saved on the taxpayer’s dime.)

Let’s start talking to Congress about the financial companies that should be required to give the money they took under false pretenses back. (After all, since the money was intended to, as even the JS noted, to prop up failing institutions, and they didn’t need propping up, they have no business getting the money in the first place.) We should demand a return of the funds that were fraudulently acquired by such institutions.

They got some of my money, as a taxpayer. I hope they enjoy it, because that’s the only money of mine (or any and all friends I can influence) they’ll ever see.

To take away the inherent punishment for poor business practices and then complain when businesses practice poorly has always struck me as a little odd. Businesses all over the US are looking at their balance sheets differently now. They don’t need as much cash on reserves as they thought before the bailouts started. Maybe they CAN go to $TROPICAL_RESORT for that cushy break away from the hard working life. Maybe they CAN invest in $RISKY_INVESTMENT. Maybe they CAN buy back a ton of their stock. If the shit hits the fan, we know what will happen, and it’s not going to be failure of the company.