>>Why do we always try to hold the beneficiaries of charity to higher standards than those who give it? They're just people like others, and being recipients of charity, they have their share of bad/low education, substantial abuse, dysfunctional family life etc.
>
>Because in this case, it is not charity.

True. I was just sarcastic (and in tune to my other message that I paraphrased here). Charity assumes there will be those who accumulate from those who can't, so the roles will be so forever. This was just pumping in of more Mickey Mouse money, which will make the donors incapable of seriously accumulating anything but more debt for a number of years, and the beneficiaries are already expanding their business... nice.

>The corporations are expected to pay it back and as mentioned,

Will the interest on this loan be greater than the inflation the bailout will cause?

>...the recipients are not individuals but businesses.

Wow! So the old bullstool about corporation-is-a-person is finally repealed? Yooohooo - gimme that beer!