A lot can be aimed at ObamaCo, but that's not where it began, obviously. I still remember driving across lower Michigan during the campaign-season bailout “crisis” week, late one night, and heard another part of the answer to your question on a talk radio program. It had to do with the first bailout bill failure and then another bill that was passed after, ahem, “sweeteners” were added to the legislation.

The remark I heard: “Now we know what the price of a Congressional vote is. grrrrr”

And it's odd you said “Money for nothing and your chicks for free”.
I had just heard that song prior to reading your post.

SPOOOOOOOKY!

I heard that Sachs is going to get paid 1 billion in tax payer money when CIT fails. CIT owes us 2 billion. How did this happen? I bet Paulson knows….

There's certainly no need to go beyond that and to demand they be taken over by government (notably by the federal government) or be viewed as a “public utility,” as some extremists do; but there is an overdue need for regulation reform (real reform, real regulation), and certainly an end to what isn't only moral hazard in the most blatant sense, but an ugly plundering of us, the peasantry.

Here is the thing…why should banks set aside money? They know we will bail them out. As long as they are too big to fail…why should they behave? We gave them all of that money…with very little new regulation…plain stupid.

When are we going to place strict regulations on these guys?

Money for nothing and your chicks for free.

Sid Burgess
National Director
NewsFifty