Replies

As Alan Keyes noted, this bailout is socialistic. It undermines one of the basic operating principles of the free market, that your profits are derived b taking a risk. When we nationalize the risk, we destroy one end of the system, and thus destroy the other.

Furthermore, we bailed ot the banks in 1983 and the result was that we got to this point.

It’s not the taxpayers’ job to bail out the bankers.

When you subsidize something you get more of it; this bailout subsidizes corruption and stupidity. Guess what that brings about.

And finally, a point to make if you have any Democrats in your family: this is a massive transfer of wealth from the working people of this country to the rich.

We beat the Dubai Ports deal. We beat the amnesty bill. We cna beat this. But it will take the same kind of persistence.

Stay on your Members of Congress like white on rice.

It is already depositors that are the responsible creditors. In case everyone just forgot, the end "reckless lenders" lending to the "reckless deadbeats" you all love to castigate, are all bank depositors. You are the lenders, and the banks are your borrowers. If they misused the money lent to them, guess who is on the hook for it.

So do you want to lose your money as a reckless lender, or have the rich bail *you* out, paying according to the tax code?

Sure right, how much money does wall street pay the treasury every year, and how much do the top 5% of incomes pay the treasury every year? And then, the "working people" of this country, do any of them have deposits in any banks?

Me I'd rather this hit were paid the way we all agree is as close to fair as we've been able to agree on, when something concerns us all. But if you'd rather have the losses be allocated by chaotic bank runs and nimbleness moving assets around the world in a deflationary smash, have at it. You will lose.