>>>How about shareholders first losing the profits they made? After all, every move made was justified by the uppermost duty of every financial officer in any of these risky businesses was to maximize profits for the shareholders. If they have reaped the benefits, they should also lose them - and only then, if there's no other way to clean up the mess, should the tax money ooze in.
>
>>One should know few things before posting it. In case of Fannie/Freddy nationalization, as you put it, shareholders will lose all equity, i.e. total 100% loss.
>
>Good. I've had enough of this corporate socialism, the tax money bailing out every fucqueing gambler and con artist out there, if only large enough. They enjoyed the gains, they should enjoy the losses too. That's how market is supposed to work.
>
>>By the way, taxpayers and shareholders are usually the same people.
>
>#define usually. Most of the shareholders pay tax. Most of tax payers are not necessarily shareholders.

About 60% of American households have position in stock market, i.e. they are shareholders. About the same percentage of American households pay taxes. I venture to say that these percentages are superimposed. Your idea that most taxpayers are not shareholders is clearly wrong.