Karl Denniger has been talking about this for weeks now.

At this point I'm not even angry really anymore. I didn't vote for this administration, I voted against my current senators(though I like my house rep). I contact the offices of my representatives and get nothing useful back in return.

Aside from joining some armed revolt, what more can I do?

Also, even though banks are a "person" (a Corp.) and pays "taxes", unlike regular people, they get to charge other people for their services to make up their taxes. So in effect, the amount of taxes they pay are relatively meaningless. The bank customers, and the rest of the public, end up paying all of it via IRS or fees.

Purpose a stupid scheme, get a stupid result

Let's face it, we let them get too big, to the point that if they don't get what they want, they threaten us with failure (and then put a further strain on a weakened economy). They know that if we punish them, we punish ourselves. The solution to the problem was probably to allow them into a structured failure where we nationalize them for a short time, until we can sell off their assets. But we had to many problems, Bush was very friendly with the banks and didn't want to do that. Obama was too afraid of further stoking the "socialism" boogeyman by letting them fail and then nationalizing them (like we do any other bank that fails). So calling him a communist and facist may have prevented him from doing the capitalist thing by allowing the banks to fail in a structured way (again, like we've done with other banks in the past).

The fed is also owned in no small part by some of the biggest banks who have received the bailout money. Such as BoA and JP Morgan.

So believe me, it's only the tax payers that are going to get screwed.

@Sean Masters: Yea, I think we are being a little too helpful with the banks. Loaning them needed capital is one thing because we get it back. They should have left the old mark-to-market rule intac, realizes your losses bow by selling the toxic assets for cheap to raise capital (maybe some sort of incentive for this like if they can pay back some of the bailout money or w/e if they healthy enough) or leave them on your books with huge unrealized losses. That's what happens when you gamble, we'll prop you up, but it won't be free.

Face it the government has been bought and paid for by the banks. I don't even know if a revolution at this point would stop the Banks, Federal Reserve and Treasury from destroying America.

This will not stop because no one can stop it. Everyone just wants the economy back to where it was, but in the mean time, the banks are going to continue to rape and pillage everyone.

Like a spoiled child they will continue to try to get their way...and more than likely the stupid parents (government) will give in again.

Billy just one more cookie before bed and that is it!

How about the buyers bid what they are comfortable with bidding and the banks just lower their damn expectations? Isn't that how nearly every pricing model in a mixed market works?

@SacraBos: They also can't set the price too high though because they are paying for half of it right? So it has like limited ability to be abused.

@SacraBos: How about, if you have some of our bailout money you're not eligable? That shoould eliminate most of the people who could take advantage of this.

They aren't going to be able to do this, are they? Or is this something ELSE our gov't is doing to screw us over in the name of saving us?

This PPIP is yet another case of our government doing something that sounds good on paper, but is bad in practice.

I've been sitting here for a few minutes trying to come up some simple additional rules, and can't really see any way of doing this such that the Fed (or really, us taxpayers) aren't going to get fleeced for it.