I'm guessing we're going to have to look at each company and their spending. I haven't looked into this story, but are they going to cause me to take tone deaf to a whole new level?!

James Dimon, you won't be travelling coach, and if you can't handle the flight, with all the capacity of commercial jets to keep you in touch, then you, sir, are too dammed important to fly at all.

Can we surround Mr. Dimon with the fluffy pillows?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

"Joseph Evangelisti, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, said no TARP money would be used to make any payments for new jets or jet hangar improvements. He refused to comment on whether JPMorgan had put a down payment for new planes, saying only that any future jet purchases would be part of its normal aircraft replacement policy, and that JPMorgan Chase will repay all TARP money before it makes any payments for new planes or renovations."

Maybe that's a lie, but it should be easy enough to keep an eye on it.

"The company says it's not using the TARP funds for the project"

  Paying already rich employees even more money doesn't always lead to domestic consumption because many of those people will invest most of that money rather make consumer purchases.

  "Investment" can be a good thing but not necessarily. The CDSs are a prime example, particularly when purchased by people without an interest in the underlying security. If I own a security and buy a CDS against that same security it is somewhat like purchasing insurance against decline in value of the security. But, if I buy a CDS against a security in which I hold no interest it's essentially straight-up gambling.

   My "gamble" can be argued to bring money to the market, but is it really doing that or more accurately placing money in one sector of the market (which is nothing more than a speculative pool on the relative performance of financial products) instead of placing money in market sectors that can lead to the creation of tangible wealth?

The understanding of where the bail out money is going is becoming timelier as it should. This is close to the transparency America should have but we are not yet at that point when one can turn to a public channel that has a report on all checks cleared for the day.

Yes, from your own bank, but how about the company you're investing your retirement in, yes those companies out there will need to open up the books instantaneously to investors. In other words if you go public on the stock market you really are public. An investor will not have to wait for a quarterly report because there is a good chance to cover up bungling in easy way as we are learning. More over the reporting of the trading will be open to the public. Everyone and anyone should be freely able to connect to exchange electronic reporting system.  

When Joe six pack can review publically what has been spent by his government with in the last hour is around corner or a ratio to proportion where corporations are making profits that do not fit into a fair cultural progression, or make sense with supply and demand principles will likely happen. Political and insider corruption should stick out like hell.

 We all will be able to call companies out to see who owns who by whom rather quickly.  Here, the public themselves could very well be the quality control or if you prefer the regulation in a free market. Which should be to core sense of a free market? Similarly as this blog does in a legal sense.

To be sure Characters like Crammer, of CNBC, will disappear, and so will many middle operators, Commenter's. A common investor will very likely be able to go to a local currency exchange to buy and receive stocks and bonds or trade in money and purchase securities as easy as and for as little as buying a lottery ticket or placing a bet in a casino. The system is so lopsided for the rich it is pathetic for any corporate head to even wonder why America middle class thinks so low off this system.

Corporate upper class has lived for a century in the Jekyll Island economy called the Federal Reserve, and I agree with Ron Paul this system the core of cultural corruption world wide, is unconstitutional and worse legally can not be not be audited, is out right hypocrisy and total economic tyranny. A monumental example of insider contradiction is MSNBC with commentaries or privy to trillion dollar deals by Andrea Mitchell wife of former Chairman of the Federal Reserve board Allen Greenspan. Here, likely doing favors behind huge money deals private and public.      

There is so much secrecy in accounting practices with this type of economy for decades of built in melt down rules that are not good for a free economy it is  no wonder if I could perceive and after a Harvard education Osama Bin Laden clearly could see the real way to destroy America is by the economy.

Since they feel that now is a good time to do frivolous things, can we scratch them off the list of people who could potentially get bailout money in the future?

Corporate management in this country is not subject to adequate controls in the interests of the stockholders.  Morgan/Chase buying this stuff with stockholders' money represents mangement buying themselves expensive toys with stockholders' money.