Intel Corp (INTC)

[spokeshave]

OT-E and last one...

So do you think the public should have no say, especially when it comes to their tax money bailing out an institution "too big to fail"?

I think the public should have no say whatsoever in contracts between employee and employer.

On the other hand, the public can and does have a say in who they elect to represent them and spend their money. However, there is absolutely no constitutional means for the public to decide how the money is actually spent. In short, the public has no say whatsoever regarding who or how the government bails out. None.

The government had their chance to do DD. Congress decided to explicitly permit previously agreed upon contracts to prevail for companies accepting bailout money. The language saying just that is in the recovery act.

Now, the Treasury Department, Congress and the President got caught with their pants down and are trying to deflect blame by pillorying these people for accepting bonuses that Treasury, Congress and the President previously had explicitly endorsed. That's simply wrong.

... it's hard for me to feel sorry for richly rewarded members of a failed institution who already have theirs...

Fair enough. You are free to feel sorry, or not, for whomever you choose. However, keep in mind that "richly rewarded" and "already have theirs" is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt that there are people who could easily be convinced that you, or I, or anyone else on this board is overpaid and has too large a slice of the pie. Once a government has established that it is OK to seize wealth from people who have legally and rightfully earned it, simply because it is "too much", then nobody who has wealth in any degree is safe.

Contracts are legally binding...

Honestly, I don't see why this discussion didn't stop right there...