If you suckered a client out of $173 billion, with no service going in return for lucre in excess of the nominal GDP of Nigeria, don't you think you would expect a bonus from your employer too?

So let me get this straight, O and his boys (with the help of GW) push for $700 billion for the TARP bailout (with an additional $150 billion attached for pork), GW authorizes the spending of $350 billion, O and his boys authorize the other $350 billion with, all told $173 billion going to AIG.

Then, once he gets rolling, O and his boys steal $789 billion of our money for a Democratic payback package; another $75 billion of our money for a mortg@ge bailout package for deadbeats; appropriates a $410 billion ‘imperfect’ budget with 8,000 earmarks that O says was just an oversight “this time”; another $75.5 billion to further the wars, doubling our foreign aid to the tune of $50 billion; a billion here, a billion there, including $900 million for Gaza relief and another $20 million to transport and support Gaza refugees in the U.S., and this guy is railing about $165 million in bonuses to executives in a (used to be) private company that are guaranteed contractually?

This joker is the king of diversion and a three card Monty expert along with continuing to stir up class warfare.

“Pay no attention to the men indebting us back to the Stone Age; look at these evil rich gluttons in a private sector (used to be) business taking their bonuses.”

Saul Alinsky would have been proud.

What could be better than the President of the United States stoking the fires of class warfare and putting private citizens employed by AIG so much in harms way that they fear for their lives and need to be protected by hired guards?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602961_pf.html

Will our government ever learn? A short story that indicates they will and have not.

‘Joseph A. Petrucelli is one of the most cautious bankers in America. He runs East Bridgewater Savings.

Bad or delinquent loans? Zero.

Foreclosures? None.

Money set aside in 2008 for anticipated loan losses? Nothing.

“We’re paranoid about credit quality,” Petrucelli said. The 62-year-old chief executive has run the bank since 1992.

No bailouts needed, and the bank even turned a small profit. And how does Washington reward them? They get smacked for failing to make enough "community reinvestment" loans.

In fact, Petrucelli is so cautious that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. recently criticized his bank for not lending enough.

The FDIC’s negative review of East Bridgewater Savings Bank's loan volume is an anomaly in today’s current banking scene as lenders reel from their role in offering too many cruddy mortg@ge products to borrowers with weak credit.

Still, the FDIC slapped East Bridgewater Savings with a rare “needs to improve” rating after evaluating the bank under the Community Reinvestment Act....

But in the eyes of regulators, East Bridgewater Savings looks stingy. Its net loans and leases equaled 21 percent of assets. That compared with 72 percent among 385 savings banks across the country with assets between $100 million and $300 million.

“We want to make loans,” Petrucelli said. “But we also wanted to avoid the next blow up.”

So thanks to the politics of Barney Frank, this profitable bank that needs no bailout is now a bad guy. They're getting smacked around by regulators and pushed to make some of the same kinds of loans that got us in the Freddie/Fannie meltdown in the first place.

I'm not a regulator, Mr. Petrucelli, but on behalf of taxpayers everywhere, I want to say "thank you."’