Political Communication blog

So basically the people that the government bailed out are now subject to the government saying how much they can get paid. Which kind of makes sense if you think about it. Why should those executives continue to make the big bucks they made before the bailout if they had to be bailed out in the first place. So it makes sense to cap their pay until the institute can pay the government back for the bailout. If I'm totally misunderstanding this then correct me, but that's what it seems like to me... and quite frankly, kinda makes sense.
 

Normally, I don't think that the government has any right to meddle in the economic business of others. However, the federal government's job is to look out for the welfare of the nation, not the individual (although we like to believe otherwise sometimes.) Had these bankers not recieved bailout money and then went ahead and rewarded themselves with their annual bonuses, I might think differently. Unfortunately, the top bankers seem severely misguided as to what is appropriate use of the funds. Had these top employees done a fantastic job these past years, I'd say give them the money. However, they've done just the opposite and don't deserve my tax dollars on top of their salary plus the heft extra at the end of the year. I say regulate!
 

I just think that the government has to large of a hand in banking/the whole process. I think the government has too much control over secular financial institutions; such as, banks, stock market, and all components of Wall Street.