Interesting question (you might have to think hard about this one)

I thought this was pretty interesting because technically the money is that of the tax payers, and you wouldn't be taking money from someone else, you would just be asking for your money back (like if you had an account). He kind of joked about it, but like he said: I wouldn't want to be the one testing this logic, but it would be an interesting defense.

I suppose to test that theory, one would have to figure out how much of that money would actually be from the tax money one paid. Or at the very least, what one's per capita portion of the money would be that that particular bank received. Obviously it would be illegal to ask for more than your fair share. Per capita is probably easier to figure out than the tax portion as one doesn't know how many people actually end up paying taxes after refunds have been handed out and how much. It is an interesting theory but not one anybody is likely to test, lol. We'll just have to live with what the bozos we elected into office decided to do. By the time people completely realize what's going on it's to late for this round of bailouts but hopefully in two years new elections will give us a different kind of congress as many representatives will get the boot from their constituents. At least one can only hope for that.

I really would like to hear someone bring this up. I think it would be very interesting.