You have entirely missed the point. Which subsidies are bigger is irrelevant to what I said. The financial quarter the stockbuybacks happened under is irrelevant to what I said.
When a company has used so much of their recent cash in stock buybacks, it is disingenuous to call stock bonuses ethically different than cash bonuses.
To say the same thing another way. If the company was willing to issue those stocks to pay bonuses, why didn't they issue those stocks and sell them instead of taking bailout money.
What's to suggest bonuses would not have been paid out in stocks even without the bailout money?
To me it reads as if grants reduced the loans they'd be taking, but they've rewarded their top execs with stock (meaning they need to have a lot of trust in company to they just arranged 3B worth of loans for).
To clarify my point: I just do not see a connection between bailout money and bonuses (mostly paid in stock), which the OP emphasizes. Your point stands regardless of subsidies.
When a company has used so much of their recent cash in stock buybacks, it is disingenuous to call stock bonuses ethically different than cash bonuses.
To say the same thing another way. If the company was willing to issue those stocks to pay bonuses, why didn't they issue those stocks and sell them instead of taking bailout money.