Why do you think the Bank of America executives no longer need a bailout?

[ColbertWatcher]

I thought the country was going to fall apart if they didn't get socialism government assistance their share of the "stimulus package".

Now, they're saying they don't need the money anymore.

Why?

Did they suddenly find funds they didn't count before (like Norm Coleman "finding" ballots that weren't counted)?

Do they want the country to fail?

Or is it because they can't live on less than $500,000/year?

What's going on?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. The latter, the $500,000 per annum diet.

[Donnachaidh]

2. Don't f*ck with their play money.

NATIONALIZE these a-holes. Toss ALL the corporate bastards out and then AUDIT every single one of them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Aren't they attached to Barclays Bank?

[underpants]

4. I have read (here and elsewhere) that not all of the banks were in that dire of straits

they went along with the buyout mostly to make it appear more grave and, of course, because it was (WAS) free money.

See, we are all in this together :grouphug:

[Critters2]

5. It's the $500,000 pay cap. They don't want to live with any rules.

Which means, of course, they never needed the money to begin with. Bastids.

[wtmusic]

7. Bingf*ckinggo. nt

[dkofos]

6. They refuse to cut their own pay.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Strings attached... something similar happened in the 1930s

all the way to the bad bank for assets.

Can I get off this repeat of history train ride now?

It ain't funny anymore