When a poor man fails, according to the Republicans, it is because he is lazy and good-for-nothing. Never mind that he works for twelve hours a day in the hot sun harvesting the food we eat, he's still lazy and good for nothing, because he fell for the lies a rich man told him.

But when a rich man fails, why then we must rush to the rescue. First the Republicans claim that we don't need to regulate businesses because "they will regulate themselves". Then, when they don't, we must save them from themselves.

If the government really needs to save Fannie and Freddie, then why not save them by guarenteeing the home mortgages of individuals. That would not only save Fannie's fanny, but would also save some of the millions of "lazy, good-for-nothing" working people who are loosing their homes because Fannie and Freddie did not regulate their own business.

(1) Poor people are all lazy.

(2) Lazy people are all poor.

(3) Rich people are all hard-working.

(4) Hard-working people are all rich.

The Republican worldview is much 'simpler' than the Democratic one.

You apparently dont have the simplest idea of what's going on with these big banks and who is benefiting from so-called "welfare". You seem to be under the impression that the Government will bail out these institutions and that there will be no negative ramifications to investors, managements and Republicans. For your information, corporations have so far written off, or "lost", over $400 billion in debt investment in these mortgage related instruments. Importantly, we arent even half-way through the potential write-downs. The investment losses will go much, much higher. But this only scratches the surface. Credit card debts and car debts are beginning to fall apart also. Commercial properties are beginning to roll over, as well. What is more, dont forget about the value of the stock and other investment instruments related to the companies involved. Shares of Citibank, for example, have fallen to $16 per share from $53 per share. These means Citibank shareholders have lost 70% of their investment value. Importantly, you ignorant fool, Securities Regulations dont allow senior management teams (like Citibanks management) to simply dump their stock. So you see, those "Corporate Fat Cats", or Republicans or whatever you want to call them, have gotten absolutely killed....lost lots and lots of money....potentially ruined. Now you will certainly be tempted to refer to Bear Stearns as the ultimate example of Republicans bailing out big corporations....Corporate Welfare. What you certainly dont understand or, at least, fail to appreciate is the interdependence between the global economic system and large, centrally influential financial institutions like Bear and the potentially enormous global economic ramifications of letting Bear Stearns go illiquid. Regarding your suggestion that Government need not save Fannie/Freddie in lieu of individual home owners and borrowers, I'd suggest that, again, you dont know what you are talking about. If you did, you would understand that supporting Fannie and Freddie is the mechanisms through which the Government will help your "lazy, good for nothing working people" stay in their homes. What is more, Fannie/Freddie enable about 40% of mortgage origination. Without them, you might not have been able to buy that double-wide. If they fail, how will we fill that mortgage origination void? If it becomes that much harder to get a mortgage, how will that affect the housing market and home values? Likely, it will make things much worse. Things are not as simple as your simple mind appears to perceive. You ought to be careful what you pray for, or at least, educate yourself before you voice an opinion. By the way, Im voting Democrat.

"For your information, corporations have so far written off, or "lost", over $400 billion in debt investment in these mortgage related instruments."

Well, that's why they call it "risk capital" - and that risk is the reason that there are capital gains tax rates which are much lower than the rates charged for ordinary income. Trading in equities is betting, every bit as much as if it was done at a casino - except, of course, that it is taxed at a lower rate. There is no reason to feel sorry for the investors when they make the mistake of buying something for more than it is worth (the equities), or for the underlying corporations for buying something for more than it is worth (the mortgage-backed instruments). Call them "bad luck", or "bad choices", whichever you prefer - they made their choices themselves. One should not, of course, leave the highest paid employees of the corporations - the CEOs. COOs, CFOs, and such - unblemished. They are the most responsible for making mistakes at the corporate level and whatever they have lost of the gifted equities they temporarily enjoyed is their recompense. So, we need not feel sorry for them either.

What we need to worry about is an interconnected economy which lets the fortunes, good or bad, of a few entities weigh so heavily on the perceived worth of all the others. There is something palpably unfair about the perceived value of some far off (in space and purpose) corporation falling in synchronization with one which truly has a problem. It is such mechanisms as short covering and margin covering that are responsible for this coupling, and there can be no argument that they are somehow essential to an economy. Doing away with margin loans and short sales would, in itself, create the kind of stable economy that the majority longs for.

"...you would understand that supporting Fannie and Freddie is the mechanisms through which the Government will help your 'lazy, good for nothing working people' stay in their homes."

No, that is not the case. Those existing mortages are not subject to cancellation or alteration unless that is an option specifically stated in the mortgage. Even variable rate loans are subject to some stated set of rules, and the rules are intrinsic to the contracts and would not be changed by the government "bailing out" Fannie and Freddy. Mortgages which run out and must be replaced are in a different category, but those who have taken them are gamblers, the same way as stockholders are gamblers - they have taken some chance in hopes that it will benefit them somehow - and they should also not be overly pitied. They will be out looking for new loans, but, as many "free market" adherents are fond of saying, if there is a need for some facility to be provided, somebody will come along and fill it - so no free-market supporter should ever worry about the demise of particular institutions.

If they're too big to fail, they should be nationalized.

1. Poor people are poor because rich people cheated them.

2. No poor person is lazy or has made the rational economic decision that welfare pays better than an entry level job, but hasn't made the connection that entry level jobs can lead to a better job, which can lea to a better job...

3. All rich people lay around all day and do not create value for the rest of us (this includes you, Bill Gates, Andy Groves, and those two dudes from Google whose names escape me right now.)

4. No "rich person" ever worked hard (doctors, lawyers, small business owners or inventors don't count as people). No, all wealth is due to trust funds.

Let's try to boost this conversation above the level of name calling. I understand that we have to bail out Fannie and Freddie, in hopes of staving off Great Depression II. In my original post, I suggested doing that by guaranteeing individual homeowner debt instead of guaranteeing corporate debt.

My point about Republicans was that they contradict themselves, at first talking about laissez-faire capitalism, and then demanding government bailouts. You can't have it both ways.

As for the people on welfare, I doubt that many of them qualified for even high interest home loans. The millions of people loosing their homes are the working poor -- and the working middle class.

It is true that in a falling stock market investors loose money. Again, why should I feel sorry for investors who loose their money but not for people who loose their homes? In any case, the corporate executives, appointed by the Republicans to their jobs, paid themselves multimillion dollar bonuses at the same time their corporations were loosing money. Please explain again to me how this is laissez-faire capitalism.

Start with class warfare rhetoric, then try to don the garb of the rational intellect. I am not impressed.

What is the difference between insuring the individual homeowners collectively, or the organization individually? From an operational standpoint, nothing except you would need a HUGE bureaucracy to administer things on an individual level. If 100 M in mortgages "non perform", shall we track down those 100,000 home owners, write individual checks to them, or shall we (the tax payers) just write one check. Or loan Fannie/Freddie no interest capital and see if they cannot make some of the loans "perform."

And part (only part) of the problem is that people who would not have been even considered for traditional home loans were loaned money, couldn't pay and defaulted on their loans. Yes, most of them were probably working poor--those on welfare are probably in HUD subsidized housing, not trying to enjoy the "American Dream." This, too, is far from laissez faire capitalism, where the welfare recipients would be living in Hoovervilles, and probably most of the working poor, too. We haven't seen that since Great Depression, #1.