Here's my tip:

Vote Obama

Yup, I run into them all day long... most of them don't think the bailout is necessary or desirable.

They will have lots of time to discuss this great theory on the unemployment line.

Here is Nader on the 'Bailout' Bill.

He IS an expert about our government gone wrong.

He says any bailout, if one is even needed, should come after sufficient public hearings with the REAL economic experts.

He says more than that. Check it out.

This country is being railroaded on Paulson's Plunder.

Rob a bank.

Sarah Palin is a disgrace.

El Cid @ 10:

Well, at least it isn't everyone pretending to be civil engineers who now know all about the structural strengths or weaknesses of the World Trade Centers and any other suspicious buildings, but couldn't design a single suspension bridge if you offered them as much money as they wanted.

...as long as they don't blink.

ROTFLMAOFFFFFFFFF!!!!!
heheh. Excellent topic John..
Good on Yaa.!!

Thanks for the laugh, John.
Like Obama said in the debate: We have to start dealing with things before they become a crisis.

We need more deregulation and tax breaks for the rich.

The mantra of those that don't know what to do about the economy.

Here is Glenn Greenwald on the failure of the journalists again on the 'Bailout'.

Just like Iraq.

Just like the Patriot Act.

Stop Paulson's plunder.

I can see an economist from my dining room window, so i guess that makes me...

Put it all in cranberry sauce! Thanksgiving will never die! BUY BUY BUY!!!!!

Excuse me, but what's your point, John? And what's with the front load of "vote Obama" comments on the thread? Both McCain and Obama favor this massive giveaway to the rich and careless. Nobody else will benefit at all. If Obama would come out and denounce this ludicrous bill, he'd win in a landslide. But he won't, because he's a bought and paid for shill.

I'll admit to getting a little "long in the tooth" age wise, so to speak, but man. What a world we are living in. It never ceases to amaze me. When corporations make billions profit, have you ever heard any of them offer to pay down any nation's debts? Have you ever seen the CEO of say, GM, go on national television and say "well, we had a great year and made 17 billion profit, so we're going to assist in paying off the national debt?" Yet even if they have 20 years of crazy ass profits, the minute they lose 5 cents, they run to the government with hands wide open. It's amazing.

I may not be crazy about the Federal Reserve system, but I'm glad that Bush Jr. didn't have his hands directly on a Central Bank for the last 8 years. You think we're f***ed now? At least the Fed is fairly independent.

I am surprised McCain is not taking the gamble by going on the Senate floor and oppose the bailout since they loaded it up with pork.

Could turn this election around.

getalife @ 31:

I am surprised McCain is not taking the gamble by going on the Senate floor and oppose the bailout since they loaded it up with pork.

Could turn this election around.

Doubt it. We all know what caused this. GOP backed deregulation.
They can spin this all they want. But the bottom line comes down too the GOP.

Folks are probably tired of being raped by priests.

Well El Did is two for two. Loved the silver lining offered in @10

Sorry El Cid. Clumsy fingers tonight.

Courtesy of Fact Check.

A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCain’s friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm “stripped safeguards that would have protected us.” The claim is bogus. Gramm’s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists – not to mention President Clinton – praise it for having softened the crisis.

A McCain-Palin ad, in turn, blames Democrats for the mess. The ad says that the crisis “didn’t have to happen,” because legislation McCain co-sponsored would have tightened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, the ad says, Obama "was notably silent" while Democrats killed the bill. That’s oversimplified. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, did not bring the bill forward for a vote. And it’s unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.

In fact, there’s ample blame to go around. Experts have cited everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan.

.
.
. All I'm interested in is the truth.

Everybody is a (sic) Economist now

They're just following congress' lead.... I listened to Kucinich the other night on Maddow's show -- he was utterly clueless about the current issues and possible crises. John Boehner and the rest of the house republicans also seem utterly clueless. This isn't about the equity markets folks!

For those people who keep whining about the basic functions of the Fed and cry havoc over the loss the bimetallic currency standards, I suggest you actually research numerous depressions which America endured between the civil war and 1905.

Great post, John. We can only assist in moving things forward if we are totally honest, realistic, and committed. The "reform and resolution" we need to bring our economy and our government back to the productive, innovative, and constructive state it once was will take years of effort and adjustment. The "bail out" is an attempt by a host of Americans advised by the best we have who, even though they have different political motivations, actually are on the hook for the impact of this initial step to stem the damage to the global economy. No one knows what action today is guaranteed to be the "best". We all have ideas, concepts, and wishes but they all cannot be resolved in one act.

If we devote the same energy to all the complex follow-on decisions and legislation that will come in the months ahead as we have to letting everyone know we have a better answer to this first step, we will make real progress. As far as this legislation is concerned, we do not have to carry the extraordinary load of "what if we are wrong?" The folks doing their best at the moment do carry that responsibility and compromises to the idea solution will be made - by all.

It didn't take an expert to see this coming. But plenty did. People across the political spectrum have been spelling it out for decades now. Take Kevin Phillips's "Politics of Rich and Poor" published in the late eighties.

If you read, saw, or listened to any of the following, you are a relative expert:
Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"
Any Kevin Phillips book for the last twenty years
Doug Henwood
Dean Baker
Joe Stiglitz
James Galbraith
DemocracyNow!
Ralph Nader
David Cay Johnston
Any WTO teach-in
Any Labor Union Policy Accessment
Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch
Even . . . dare I say . . . Ron Paul was more astute than these Wall street Jackasses.

You might not have seen any of the above since they probably have never been featured up the DNC leadership's assholes. Instead you thought the shit you were hearing on CNBC, CNN, the networks, the NYT, the WaPost was all astute commentary.

You feel like you are surrounded by experts only because your half-wit neighbor now seems smarter than Bob Rubin. Well, guess what Jack, he always was.

I agree, only real certified economists should be allowed to have a position on this. The real economists should take over the tv stations by force if necessary so they can have unlimited airtime to convince us to just pay the ransom and then things can go back to normal.

The nerve of these ignorant taxpayers poking their noses where they don't belong, don't they realize the kidnappers might get spooked and kill the economy????

If and when the bailout passes congress, the dollar will tumble. If you have been watching the dollar as the market tanks, the dollar strengthens. .71 against the Euro up .04 within the last few weeks. I may have too much confidence in Ron Paul's assessment of this bailout, but until he is proved wrong, my confidence remains.

El Cid @ 38:

So if the Federal Reserve is so horrible, does that mean we'd be so better off with a Central Bank? We tried that. Several times. That didn't work out either.

When the government does its constitutional duty to coin money WITHOUT interest, the people are better off. When the government abdicates that duty and allows ANY private central bank to print as much money as they want, charge us interest to use it, they take control of the economy (which is what we have right now).

And we don't need more government regulations. If a business commits fraud, they should be prosecuted and all ill gotten gains should be given back. Other than that all the regulations do is protect big business from competition, which is bad for all of us. It is an absolute fact that economic prosperity is directly proportional to the freedom of markets (absence of government manipulation).

motherjones july/august 2008 issue

But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security) will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.

In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important—and more lucrative—than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the CFTC's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets."

These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdow

bbk @ 44:

I have a degree in economics... so, Sup?

It doesn't count unless you support paying the ransom.

The only question that really puzzles me anymore is why we're not retro-actively bailing out Enron.

MADMAX @ 56:

I'm certainly no expert on the economy, just like I wasn't an expert in the potential for Iraq to threaten our country. I was against the war from the get-go, because I didn't trust Bush. I still don't trust him and definitely don't trust our government to do the right thing about this economic crisis. In other words, I'm adamantly against this so-called bail-out.

The American public is responsible for this mess. We employ the people that let this crisis occur. The only way we're going to learn is to suffer through it. Too many people have no comprehension of what the war in Iraq has cost this country in financial security, amongst, of course, the loss of life and limb of our son and daughters. If they did, the war would have been over years ago. I'm absolutely disgusted with my country right now. Present company (for the most part) excepted.

FU, it isn't like I can go up and hand them a pink slip and say, "You're fired." I really get tired of people who blame the victim.

El Cid @ 29:

I may not be crazy about the Federal Reserve system, but I'm glad that Bush Jr. didn't have his hands directly on a Central Bank for the last 8 years. You think we're f***ed now? At least the Fed is fairly independent.

He could not have done it at all, that's the point.

constituent @ 55:

motherjones july/august 2008 issue

But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security) will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed.

In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important—and more lucrative—than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the CFTC's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets."

These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdow

BINGO!

Hold on. You mean Megan McArdle and Jim Cramer aren't economists?

MADMAX @ 66:

Ron Says: FU

Really Ron? Why do you think this country is in this mess? The majority has spoken since year 2000. With the promise of big tax cuts and big 401k profits, we're voting for the politicians that will enhance our personal lives, not the one's that would do the best thing for the country in whole. This is not blaming the "victim". We, as citizens, are responsible for this mess. More than half of the voting public are freaking morons. It's time to pay our dues.

By the way, FU, too.

Obviously, you haven't read that Gore actually won Florida and the SC handed it to Bush and in Ohio and New Mexico their were more than enough votes disenfranchised or outright stolen that would have put Kerry in. So, FU.

Dispatches: How the Banks Bet your Money spelled it out Feb 25 2008. I was persuaded, then.

It stated that there was $500B loss in sub-prime mortgages and $750B loss in credit default swaps. I think that was joint U.S.- U.K totals.

The Senate passed the bailout 74-25.

AN economist.

AN!

"A" goes before all words that begin with consonants.

* a cat
* a dog
* a purple onion
* a buffalo
* a big apple

with one exception: Use an before unsounded h.

* an honorable peace
* an honest error

"An" goes before all words that begin with vowels:

* an apricot
* an egg
* an Indian
* an orbit
* an uprising

with two exceptions: When u makes the same sound as the y in you, or o makes the same sound as w in won, then a is used.

* a union
* a united front
* a unicorn
* a used napkin
* a U.S. ship
* a one-legged man

If you're actually an economist (like I am) this recent trend is especially annoying. Everyone thinks they know what they are talking about, and few do.

On the upside, people actually want to talk to me at parties now.

This crisis wasn't unexpected. Take this line from the 2005 IMF world financial stability report:

"The combination of compressed risk premiums and the rapid growth of instruments that lack transparency and afford the potential for taking leveraged positions in the credit markets is a potential source of vulnerability that merits attention."

I remember reading that years ago and thinking, "now there's an understatement."

Sadly, until major companies started going belly up, most people just didn't care. I bored the crap out of many people a few years ago trying to explain what a collateralized debt obligation was and why they made me scared. And, honestly a vast majority of economists had never heard of any of the new financial instruments and had no idea what was going on in those markets and definitely didn't know how large they'd gotten. Lots of finance guys knew about all this, but they were making insane amounts of money and they saw no problem with the way things were going.

The other problem was that so many of us had been saying "this is going to be bad" for so long and when it didn't happen, people started blowing us off thinking us to be silly doomsayers.

If you've ever seen 12 monkeys when they talk about the Cassandra complex, it felt a lot like that. Now that things have started to get ugly, everyone is running around going, "of course this would happen!" Its pretty annoying.

All the emails I get from colleagues, family, and friends saying, "we should have listened" or "I am going to frame those emails you sent me in 2005" make me feel a tad better though.

Ok, you're right...Maddow just said the same vote you did.

I am still confused. But that's nothing new. :D

From the post:

"Have you noticed that every person suddenly knows everything there is to know about how the economy works? Wow, it’s all so simple. Activists now know all there is about the dollar and oil prices and mortgages. I wonder why they never chimed in before…I started asking people for their stock tips since they are all experts now. We will all get rich quick. Right?"

Are you referring to our politicians? They're all of a sudden acting like the economic experts, telling us how to 'rescue' the economy..

upchuck @ 30:

Why are US taxpayers being asked to bail out saudi investments?

http://www.politicalbull.net/hidden_secret_of_the_financial_crisis.html

Because those investments prop up your "No payments till 2011" deal at Rooms to Go and the credit you need to buy a car, or a house.... or the short term loans that businesses need to fund projects or payroll.

It ain't that simple... yes it sucks, but it needs to get done.

Nylund @ 77:

If you're actually an economist (like I am) this recent trend is especially annoying. Everyone thinks they know what they are talking about, and few do.

On the upside, people actually want to talk to me at parties now.

This crisis wasn't unexpected. Take this line from the 2005 IMF world financial stability report:

"The combination of compressed risk premiums and the rapid growth of instruments that lack transparency and afford the potential for taking leveraged positions in the credit markets is a potential source of vulnerability that merits attention."

I remember reading that years ago and thinking, "now there's an understatement."

Sadly, until major companies started going belly up, most people just didn't care. I bored the crap out of many people a few years ago trying to explain what a collateralized debt obligation was and why they made me scared. And, honestly a vast majority of economists had never heard of any of the new financial instruments and had no idea what was going on in those markets and definitely didn't know how large they'd gotten. Lots of finance guys knew about all this, but they were making insane amounts of money and they saw no problem with the way things were going.

The other problem was that so many of us had been saying "this is going to be bad" for so long and when it didn't happen, people started blowing us off thinking us to be silly doomsayers.

If you've ever seen 12 monkeys when they talk about the Cassandra complex, it felt a lot like that. Now that things have started to get ugly, everyone is running around going, "of course this would happen!" Its pretty annoying.

All the emails I get from colleagues, family, and friends saying, "we should have listened" or "I am going to frame those emails you sent me in 2005" make me feel a tad better though.

No one actually uses Mary K cosmetics; the business model is an inverted pyramid scheme where you must sell the face paint. The trick is to get others to sell it – and they have to buy it from you. At some point, the last sucker is left holding the box of cream. That’s cool when the box of cream cost 24.95, but when a Bank bets $24.95B and they’re left holding, they lose, and have lost your deposits as well.

The credit default swaps worked this way. As long as the next sucker bought the package, the seller made billions. It was obvious to those that paid any attention it was going to unravel at some point, but what the hell – a 200M bonus is a 200M bonus. Greed, apparently, is only good for a while…

I noticed this today at work. Funny observation.

Invest in bling, Johnny boy. All the bling you can get yer hands on. Gold, silver, diamonds, rubies, cats eyes, milkies, steelies, copper wiring, copper top batteries, aluminum cans, bike spokes, bottle caps......

Someone's got to figure out the economy because as it stands now we are all getting screwed.

Simon @ 48:

To be fair John, some of us were able to predict this on a scale of years prior to the occasion, and to us the question becomes why those with the power to act did not.

Economics seems very simple, there are easily grasped principles which are widely known. However, this situation shows precisely how even individuals with very high qualifications failed to grasp the realities of what was unfolding.

I applaud your comment here, but I am compelled to point out that you do sometimes argue points on economics here on this blog in a very simplistic manner.

Cheers,

I do, but I don't pretend to be an expert. it was an observation that everyone is running around with all this expertise suddenly. It's a very difficult thing to grasp. Remember right before the dot com bubble blew up, everybody including my great uncle was giving stock tips...lol

If they don't want to listen to what we say (in not supporting this bill and their voting for it anyway) we need to start a grass roots effort to change the law so that we don't have to pay taxes, except as stated by the original constitution. We have to fight for a gold or silver standard.
We have to make an Amendment to the Constitution, punishing those who swore an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution, and if they go against that oath, instant jail time and they lose their position.

We can't let these crooks take over our country and rob us to help pay of the financial obligation to foreign banks, finance these unConstitutional no-win wars, and stop handing bailouts to companies that fucked up.

The Motor City fucked up putting so much money into gas guzzling cars instead of eco, gas friendly cars. I mean... how long have they been around? There are cars THAT RUN ON COMPRESSED AIR. It's their fault. In a free market, if they dont adjust to the needs of the time, they need to just fade away and let the next big thing in.
Banks want to give loans to people who they know are lying and without doing background checks... that's their fault. If they want to treat debt like liquid reserves, fuck them.
Want to fight wars because you somehow think it's going to unite the country, FUCK YOU. You need to be taken out back and fucking hung for being a traitor and the cause of American deaths.

There's obviously a plethora of crap that i'm not even touched... but we need todo something more than just stand on a street corner, call some fuck who DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, or write shit on the internet.

Da Commish @ 72:

I've a Master's in Econ and completed the first year of a PhD in Econometrics. I worked at the Federal Reserve Bank (of SF) for eight years.

And I haven't a clue as to the root cause or how to fix it. Derivatives and hedging has completely changed the markets.

We are in uncharted territory.

As to the brokers, I always ask "If it's such a great money-making deal, what do you need me for?"

Come on now, it's not so difficult. Economists came up with a couple really cool computer models for securities pricing and next thing you know, businessmen found a way to get rich quick off of it without knowing what the hell they're talking about.

everyone that balances a checkbook IS an economist, you elitist...

and i wonder why Dems get such a bad name.

Sadly,it's probably true that average schmoes can predict economic outcomes as well as analysts and experts. I wouldn't turn to either to get rich quick formt he stock market either:-)

I consider myself a hobby economist and can honestly say I have a better record than the talking heads. The difference between me and someone like say Kudlow is that I'm out here living the economy!

Planet B @ 99:

everyone that balances a checkbook IS an economist, you elitist...

and i wonder why Dems get such a bad name.

Apparently this thread was created to provoke...

Anybody who has proven able to protect their families economic survival is the ultimate "economist"....

So I agree with Planet B because you just categorically made the efforts of a large part of the population's positive financial efforts inconsequential. That very effort is the foundation of a healthy economy....

The problem is that we've built too many houses, and for the foreseeable future we have invested too much in the capability to produce more houses. The government can absorb some of the shock, but people will lose jobs, especially those close to housing. They are going to have one heck of a rainy day.

Fuck you too. I didn't know jack about FISA until I read experts on the Constitution explain how we got screwed. But that figures that everyone now thinks they're an expert, Big Brother's messing with their loot- which is waaaaaaaaaay more important than the fourth fucking amendment. Give me broke and free, asshole.

Planet B @ 99:

everyone that balances a checkbook IS an economist, you elitist...

and i wonder why Dems get such a bad name.

I agree w/you on that.

I'm also wondering why individual consumers must be able to go into debt to keep the economy going? I don't even USE checkbook, I pay for everything with automatic w/draws & checks, so maybe my question is ridiculous.

But I really don't understand why we would prefer that Americans return as quickly as possible to becoming prolific (I'd say reckless) consumers instead of learning to live w/in our means. I think we'd dig deep and find some incredibly creative ways to re-use, repair & recycle (which is very green and I like being green) instead of having to buy new STUFF.

If our economy has been turning primarily on consumer debt, then for the sake of national security (we are indebted to furr-i-ners) shouldn't we try something different, like pay as we go?

Am I too far out there for comprehension?

...be kind

Taxpayers are giving $700 billion to the banks so that they can lend it back to us at a premium.

It doesn't take an economic expert to recognize a scam.

THE ECONOMY IS A SERIES OF TUBES!

"Activists now know all there is about the dollar and oil prices and mortgages. I wonder why they never chimed in before…I started asking people for their stock tips since they are all experts now. We will all get rich quick. Right?"

John, why are you knocking activists? I know this is your website and you have your own personal agenda, but a lot of us are working hard to make this a better country, and we aren't all stupid, as you seem to suggest. It's been a long week, and I usually love this website, but this comment is depressing. It's not only "activists" who are against this bail out.

Have you noticed that every person suddenly knows everything there is to know about how the economy works? Wow, it’s all so simple. Activists now know all there is about the dollar and oil prices and mortgages. I wonder why they never chimed in before…I started asking people for their stock tips since they are all experts now. We will all get rich quick. Right?

You may want to be careful with that kind of talk, young man.

*taps out pipe*

You'll make the stock market fluctuate. Wildly.

nomoreclintonorbush @ 111:

El Cid @ 29:

I may not be crazy about the Federal Reserve system, but I'm glad that Bush Jr. didn't have his hands directly on a Central Bank for the last 8 years. You think we're f***ed now? At least the Fed is fairly independent.

As in unelected? As in unanswerable to anyone? That should give you warm fuzzies like a drug cartel, or OPEC.

I don't know. Propose something different. I'm no expert on Central Banks, but as far as I can tell, the governments are far, far, far more important than the Banks themselves.

I don't know of any Central Banks which are elected. A lot of judges are "unelected" and while they're somewhat answerable, not much -- and often there's nothing gained by electing them.

This much is clear: those blaming the Federal Reserve system itself and not, say, particular decisions or leadership, for our current difficulties, or especially for our longstanding problems, are stupidly conspiracy-oriented.

There's no reason to pick obsessive conspiracy theory explanations when a much, much simpler and more logical answer stares you in the face but we as Americans aren't willing to touch it with a 10 foot pole, because we'd rather pretend that there's some simple institution that if only we dismantled it, then ponies and leprechauns and angels would pour out and make us all happy.

U.S. politics are and have long been dominated by an economic upper class, and the vast majority only occasionally uses its ability to swing the agenda in their direction.

The notion that most of our problems tie back to the fact that we have a quasi-private Federal Reserve is one of the stupidest, most obsessive, immature, cowardly right wing fantasies of our political existence. Many people would love to think it was so simple.

Can someon fix the title please!!!!???

I may not be an 'Economist' ... but I know when I'm getting ripped off. Paulson Bush and Bernake are peeing on my shoe and telling me it's rain. God, the American people are dumb beyond belief. "Give me $7 Billlion in cash right away or I'll ... er.. a.. Look.. it's yellow cake from Nigeria! Mushroom cloud over Iraq... you're either with us or against us.. Credit Lock Up... no time to think...We know where the WMD's are... a.. er... the war will pay for itself.. they'll throw roses at our soldiers."

You know how much money 700 billion is? If every US citizen was to get a share of that they recieve a quarter of a million dollars.

I say give everyone that money, subtract their dept. and let the people have their shopping spree to get the economy going again. This is tax payer money anyway, right? If this bailout of Wallstreet is mostly about consumer confidence, I can't think of a better way to make folks comfortable with spending money again.

Let the fat cats of Wall Street deal with the tough realities of their free, unregulated market.