Reply #3: this is the silliest complaint yet. OF COURSE they're insolvent. why else give them all that money?

[unblock]

the whine shouldn't be about their insolvency, or the government's decision to basically fill the hole, however deep it turns out to be. that in any event was exactly what was advertised. it's not a sham, it's exactly as they described. the banks screwed up big time, and the federal government is bailing them out and covering their losses.

the whine should be about whether or not that was wise or whether or not there was a better way, e.g., letting them fail and starting up new banks with clean balance sheets in their place.

or the whine should be about whether or not more regulation or equity is needed in exchange for all the loot.

or even whether or not they should pay into a "too big to fail" fund when healthy, to spare taxpayers from footing the bailout bill.

but don't say it's a sham. it's exactly what they said it was, a bailout. institutions that aren't insolvent don't need a bailout.