Well, they don't get to veto legislation, so what they will or will not have any of is sort of a moot point.

###### Now thats funny! You just told everyone if we dont like how Wall Street or corporations manage money or ignore ethics we can sell our stock or take a controlling interest in the company (which requires vastly more money than most of us will ever get without hitting a lottery). Thats funny indeed that you say the corporate types dont get a veto......you could run for office couldnt you? But then you wouldnt make near as much money then. The people rightly point out our lack of control over the actions and or misdeeds of corporate America because few of us can hope to control their actions EXCEPT through the actions of our government which is there to act in our mutual interests as a reward for supporting democracy. So yes, the government can and should step in when corporations are acting against the interests of the population.

" I think it's obvious that we needed more regulation than we had regarding these mortgage investments; in retrospect it's obvious that it's impossible to know the real value of these assets but since housing was the one sector of the economy seeming to do well, almost everyone on both sides of the aisle was too afraid to question it."

###### Actually prior to the efforts of McCain and his pals there were lots of laws and oversight--they were removed by the majority conservative government to make our financial institutions "more competitive" because those stifling ethics and limitations kept them from taking really big risks. Arguments about the Fannie/Freddie changes which allowed more minorities to gain a stake in property ownership are stupid.....when you lay off a large number of people who once had jobs which legitimately showed the needed an income to borrow enough to buy a home, it isnt the people getting let go who took a loan they couldnt afford who is at fault because at the time they could afford the loan--the real problem is in fact an economic model which discourages long term employment.

"At any rate, the need for regulation does not equal a need to tar and feather executives of financial institutions. I haven't seen anyone here that is angry at the executives articulate a cause and effect that shows a need for the government to take the rather intrusive step of telling corporations how much they're allowed to pay their employees."

###### Two points here. First of all if we (the people of the USA) are asked to bail your ass out then yes, we get a say in what you are paid and what you are paying....or you can and should sink financially. Any financial institution which gets bailed out is now a ward of the state and subject to the control of the state--we have become stockholders and can and should dictate changes and rules now in these banks and investment houses. Secondly, dont confuse limits with laws......if you are intentionally making millions or billions on what amounts to a financially questionable scheme then what we are discussing is not a banker but a con artist and last I knew this was breaking the law....if you are hiding risk and seeking to camoflauge it from the investor or the public then yes, you are in fact breaking the law and belong in jail. There is certainly no effort being discussed to control your income within the confines of the law, but removing oversight and controls which are meant to protect the public and the taxpayer didnt make it OK to engage in illegal activity.

" It's just been a lot of generalities to try to paint over what I think is really just unhelpful class warfare. I think TTC is right; create targeted regulation to reign in harmful behavior instead of trying to punish scapegoats."

###### Class warfare is the conservative lingo for "damn we got caught". When the rich get that way through deceit and questionable behavoirs (like the work of Wall Street banks which went overboard with risk at our expense). Laws put into place after The Great Depression kept us out of depression ever since--and when removed look what happened.....we teeter on the brink again. It is not class warfare to seek protection of the general population from the work of scams artists in three piece suits.