So, if we the taxpayers are going to start buying (er, "injecting capital into") the big banks, shouldn't we be getting voting shares? Angry Bear asks a good question:

I wonder whom we are saving here?

In his remarks on Friday, [Paulson] carefully noted that the government would acquire only “nonvoting” shares in companies.

Well, we have seen one three-page plan: "Give me the money, honey. I know what do to. Just don't hold me responsible."

Then we saw another longer plan: "Give me the money, honey. I will try to follow its fuzzy outline, but I want to be able to adapt to circumstances."

Now we see another: "Well, maybe we should buy some shares. You know, be owners--but not influential owners. We can't tread on any rich toes, gouty from all those sweets."

Sheesh, I already own a piece of an insurance company, but I don't have health insurance.

And I already own a piece of some banks, but I can't get a decent rate on my savings account -- let alone a loan.

And now I get to buy stock, but not have any control over the company? What kind of deal is that?

Because, right now it looks like I'm getting some brightly colored scraps I could paper the walls with. Or burn, after the furniture gives out.