In the details ...

Check out the following paragraph buried down in this Yahoo! news story:

"The massive infusion of taxpayer money into the financial sector has largely failed to thaw the nation's credit markets, while some financial institutions used the money to pay dividends, buy other banks and pay out big year-end bonuses to employees."

I once wrote, in this very blog, that we should stop our whining when it came to how the government was going to divvy up the bailout cash and put our trust in our elected leaders, because the issue was so mind-boggling insane that plebeians such as ourselves could never understand.

I still believe that. All most people did back when the bailout was discussed was winge about how they should get the money instead of big business. They didn't have a complex understanding of the intense details involved; they just wanted to cry.

But a financial institution being the recipient of these funds, and then using them to dish out big year-end bonuses is something different. That wasn't the purpose of the bailout, and we the people have every right to grab our collective pitchforks and torches and head to the castle.

(We also have the right to cry about the government giving the bailout, but that won't do you any good.)

It must be asked - what detail here was missed? Were there no strings attached to the money given that was intended to free up credit? If there were no strings, why not? Did the government just trust the banks to play nice? Why didn't they play nice? Why did they think it was appropriate to shell out large bonuses? Is this going to help the recovery of our economy?

Enquiring pitchfork holders want to know.