Yeah, like that was hard. WaPo:

The U.S. government is dramatically escalating its response to the financial crisis by planning to invest $250 billion [of your money] in the country's [big] banks, forcing nine of the largest to accept a Treasury stake in what amounts to a partial nationalization.

Wow, forcing a big bank to take money. I suppose there had to be a sweetener? I mean, besides the $250 billion?

In pressing the bank executives to accept partial government ownership, Paulson's message was clear: Though officially the program was voluntary, the banks had little choice in the matter. In exchange for giving the Treasury minority stakes, the nine firms would jointly receive an investment worth $125 billion. The government would make another $125 billion available for the next 30 days to thousands of other banks and thrifts across the country.

Federal officials set conditions, telling the banks they could not raise their dividends without government permission and could not offer their executives new retirement packages, though the old packages would remain intact.

Of course, of course. (Wait a minute. What if the "new" retirement package was lower? Did anybody consider that remote possibility?)

Paulson told them the moves would shore up confidence in their own institutions, spark lending throughout the system and send a message to smaller institutions that there is no stigma in accepting federal funding. Though some were reluctant, all of the executives complied.

There you go. "No stigma." I guess, then, for homeowners there's no stigma in accepting bankruptcy after you use up your IRA and your 401K? Good to know.

There is a risk that banks will take the new government capital and use it to bolster their balance sheets but still not resume lending, and the Treasury is not getting any specific contractual guarantee to prevent that from happening.

Why on earth not?

But bank regulators, particularly the Federal Reserve, will lean heavily on the firms receiving infusions to use the capital to increase their lending to businesses and consumers.

How about if the big banks use the money to beef up foreclosure activities?

Oh, the stigma! P-l-e-e-e-e-a-s-e take my $250 billion! P-l-e-e-e-e-a-s-e! I mean, did Paulson have to go down on his knees again? If he wasn't already there?

NOTE Hey, if you don't want the stigma of dealing with a bank whose management totally shat the bed and then took more of your money to pay for cleaning the sheets and the mattress, bank local.

NOTE * If I understand -- experts correct -- preferred shares are first in line for dividends (good for the taxpayer) but non-voting (bad for the taxpayer if voting influences the direction of the company and that's a requirement). It seems to me that the nature of the stock determines the limits of the nationalization, but beyond that I can't go, knowing nothing about finance.