Except for the fact that money is involved (in what is it not?), I don't even see how this is a business matter. It appears to be either a crime or else a sign of incompetence. Congress is of the opinion that it isn't either of those.

Let's say it's bad luck, and that innocent bankers are being victimized, terrorized, by yokels. Why is it our response to have the government give these bankers tons of money, instead of our giving them something more conservative and along the lines of the 3,000 memoriums created and donated by the NYT on behalf of those who died as a result of their having been victimized on 9/11?

I'd be talking about tracking people, but these people would be victims instead of perps. The system would be the same one that Jews have employed to track every move of the worst criminals on earth. The price to be paid for this protection of bankers' rights would be that some bankers might find themselves unable to switch jobs without the yokels knowing about it and then refusing to do business (and attempting to dissuade Congress from doing business) with corporations who'd hired the bankers: those against whom the yokels are prejudiced. But the nation would have come out firmly in favor of bankers' rights, and isn't that the most that any of us can expect?

The bailout threatens to exceed the goals of that other Dem program, CHIP. The bailout doesn't afford bankers the opportunity of choosing anything so humble as joining the military so that they might attempt, one last time, to maintain themselves and their dependants. No, with the bailout, Dems are putting those for whom the nation is now responsible straight onto welfare, as though they were black people, and mostly female black people, at that.