[Scott from the Left Coast]

Then the question becomes how do you help the employees without helping the company at large? By helping the employees you are also helping Bush's "rich oil buddies" (Demo speak). Those "rich oil buddies" now face personal bankruptcy from the legal hell they've gotten themselves into -- so how do you bail out the employees without bailing out the company (and by extension its executives)?

I thought Waxman and Lieberman were against that sort of thing? Apparently, they're just the hypocrites we've all thought they were.

Lieberman said that O'Neill acted like a "laissez-faire" Treasury Secretary from the 19th Century. So what do want Joe? You want O'Neill to bail out the "rich buddies" from their own begotten hell and save the company? You want the campaign contributors to get their quid pro quo in billions? I thought you were for campaign finance reform, Joe?

Actually, Joe, I really think your just an imbecile prostitute. You don't give a flying F about 401ks or employees in Texas, if you did maybe you could start up a fund using money donated by the 50 multi-multi-multi millionaire (and more) FAT RAT Senators to help re-inlate those 401ks.

[Wphile]

Joe is just trying to save Citi-Corp, Enron's biggest creditor, and coincidentally, Joe's biggest contributor. A tangled web indeed.