Herre is a quote from the AOL article which announces the limits.

"Generally healthy institutions that get capital infusions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the future will have more leeway."

Here's my question. Why would a generally healthy institution need to tap taxpayer money at all?

As I have said before, every nickel of this money has been thrown down a rathole.

I just knew that you would be here on this one!

It's a decent idea, but it does not go far enough.
The one that does is - fire all of the greedy S.O.B.'s. That is the one and ONLY strategy that will bring back competence and integrity into the banking system. Fear of screwing up is an excellent deterrent.

As afar as the TARP money goes - trying to tie this to executive pay is more like a shell game. First, it is sort of grandfathered as those that are already there are not effected. So, what effect will it have? In some cases, like J.P. and Goldman, they don't really need it. However, there is always the matter of what came from the Federal Reserve, which is excluded from salary control. With that, any that take from TARP will not go to the other source. Nice thought, but it amounts to little more than good press for the public.
So much for the swinging door of politics. Obama has some decent concepts, but getting Congress to go along is another story. The Dems are going all out to include all kinds of nonsense into something that should be providing relief and the Reps are clamoring pork!
We have problems in the banking system, the SEC, Congress and the list keeps on truckin! You really think that anything, other than a depression, is on the horizon?
It will be a long and very hot summer, much hotter than usual.

I'm with you William. If the banks are going to be supported by taxpayer money why do we need any of these baffoons?

Actually, I expect the local small bankers who have limited exposure to the toxic gambles to survive. But as long as we've gone this far we might as well nationalize the big banks and let beaurocrats go ahead and run them instead of just pulling the puppet strings behind the curtain.

My big problem with the cap is how do you define which banks "didn't need" the bailout but took it anyway? As far as I can tell, it would be as good as arbitrary, and I don't want Obama and cohorts to pick the winners and losers - that's what the market is for. With the grandfather clause, it seems that this is nothing more than symbolic.

There's a regional bank where I live that took $1.6B, not because they needed it, but because they felt (and were told, wink and nod) that they couldn't remain competitive without it. I wish to God they hadn't taken it.

Trouble is, you can't nationalize some of those who received TRAP funds (not a typo) and not others. It's going to be an all or nothing game in the end.

If I had my druthers, I'd take back the money and work out a different plan - let the big-boys fail, then offer insurance (not loans) and tax incentives to let the small guys break the bigguns into pieces under better, regional management.

I don't like even the slightest steps toward nationalization. You think this recession is hard to get out of, you can ask South America how hard it was to re-privatize their industries in the '90s in the post-Dictatorship SA.

I do not support any bailout for anyone. I think the companies which might have failed, should fail. I think people stupid enough to buy a home whose mortgage they could not pay, should lose the house. Big thanks to
Barney Frank and the liberal Democrats for MANDATING the policy that forced our country into economic failure. They push any policy no matter the
realistic cost as long as everyone has the same as everyone else. Oh wait, isn't that communism? Yes, some CEO's get paid too much, but I don't want the government dictating the fine details of how to run
pay scales.....communism again. I have lost a bundle in this downturn, but would rather that than live in a socialist state.Hey Obama, keep the "change"...just like your non-taxpaying nominees. I guess
they just like to propose taxes for everyone ELSE.

I have several thoughts on this:
1) I agree that the CEOs of AIG, Bank of America, and Citigroup should all be fired - immediately. The list should also include the CEOs of General Motors and Chrysler, both of whom are every bit as incompetent as the CEOs of the former three.
2) TARP needs to be terminated and the finds which have been thrown into the corporate cesspools recovered at once - it that means seizing assets of the banks and other entities, so be it.
3) Those businesses which are destined for failure, such as AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, etc. should be allowed to fail. Other buisinesses will quickly fill any void and, overall, the impact to the economy will be relatively minimal.
4) As between the shareholders and the taxpayers, it is the shareholders who should sustain the loss - after all, when a company prospers, the shareholders do not forego their gain.

The Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money, said companies that got money from the bailout spent $114 million on 2008 campaign contributions and lobbying over the past year.

“Even in the best economic times, you won't find an investment with a greater payoff than what these companies have been getting,” executive director Sheila Krumholz said in a statement. “Some of the companies and industries that have received payments may now consider their contributions and lobbying to be the smartest investments they've made in years.”

Bank of America, together with newly acquired Merrill Lynch, spent more than $5.7 million last year in campaign contributions. Recipients included state political parties and candidates across the country, including Democratic Senate candidate Kay Hagan and Republican gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory in North Carolina.

The bank paid lobbyists $8.8 million. Only General Motors and insurance giant AIG spent more on lobbying.

Bank of America has received $45 billion of the $700 billion in bailout money Congress authorized last year.

From the Charlotte Observer