with this bail out.

After reading more into this proposal, I find it striking that the media is not calling this bail out anything short of socialism.

The government will own the title to my home or business?

That's a scary thought.

If this deal goes down as originally proposed, it would enable other finacial companies an opportunity to line up right behind them and cry themselves.

Fortunately, Congress is standing up to it and both republicans AND democrats have seen through it.

To say that Bush is an idiot excuses his malfeasence. Idiots are not repsonsible for what they do. Bush is intelligent, and knew exactly what he was doing -- stealing lots and lots of money. A con man always wants you to think you are smarter than he is.

Remember how strongly Bush was urging the privatization of Social Security? He and his cronies have wanted Wall St. to get their grubby hands on that money for a long time.

This is just a back door grab. Socialism? I wouldn't call it that because it has no benefits for the taxpayers in it. It's just taking our money and giving it to some corporate fat cats.

We can't even expect them to limit execs going away packages to anything less than 7 million.

Decent fiscally conservative Republicans must be kicking themselves for ever voting in Bush.

offering nothing but critisism, but no solutions or a bad solution because it's a quick fix.

And that's exactly what Bush and the democratic leadership is offerring. CRAP!

And so now it is the democrats who are to blame for Bush. Talk about cognitive dissonence!

For a solution, see my earlier post, "Instead of the bailout..."

But I suppose party hatred is the ideal solution to every problem.

democrats and Obama that have been villifying him, are now begging him and each other for that matter to bail out these idiots.

Boy, that's what I call a selective memory.

When Bush is wrong, and the Democrats attack him, that's bad, because they're liberal and just want to raise taxes. And when Bush is right, and the Democrats support him, that's bad, because they're liberal and they just want to raise taxes. Meanwhile, we ignore the fact that the tax cuts went mostly to the richest 1% and to big oil, that Bush spent more money than any other person in the history of the human race, and ran up a bigger debt. That must be the fault of the Democrats, because everything that goes wrong is always the fault of the Democrats.

of how Harry and Nancy CUT spending in the last two years?

I would love to see that!

You assume two things, first that cutting federal spending is a good thing and second that cutting federal spending is possible. What the Democrats have done is match spending with revenue. The Republicans greatly increased spending, but did not match spending with revenue. But nobody has cut federal spending -- ever. Clinton balanced the budget, but he did it by increasing revenue, not by cutting spending. So, "cut spending" is one of these meaningless slogans that people chant. It influences voters, but it has never happened and never will happen, so it is so much hot air.

Then how do you balance your checkbook, my freind?

If you don't have the money in the bank, don't you and your wife sit down and say, "honey, we ain't making that trip to Mexico this year because we can't afford it. Because gasoline last year was 95 cents less than it was this year."

Get my drift??

Look, the cold, hard facts are that neither dems nor cons will ever be able to (or want to) cut back on spending. The checkbook analogy doesn't work because you can't just conjure up more money the way the government can by either raising taxes (always a crowd-pleaser), borrowing (thereby creating a larger debt; a HUGE Bush favorite) or by raising your own debt ceiling (party on K street!). It comes down to priorities: for cons, that's military spending et al and for dems it's social programs et al. The US govt doesn't balance it's checkbook. That's just how they roll.

Republicans have not been a party of fiscal conservatism since BEFORE Reagan. Yep, Reagan.

Reagan's plan is the same game Repubs have been running since that time: Preach small government while at the same time running massive deficits, increasing spending, and decreasing job creation. Neither of the two candidates for President will be cutting spending.

Gingrich started spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave about 2 minutes after his "revolution" began - and that was the most visible abject failure of Republican "economics."

The Laffer curve has never delivered.. the rising tide doesn't raise all boats. A more apt analogy is a group of skydivers holding hands while convincing themselves they're moving upward.

This bailout doesn't even kick the can down the road to the next administration -- it's more of the same, pure and simple. Washington doesn't need to pass a bailout for Wall Street unless and until powerful regulation is restored. All derivatives must be traded on an exchange, off-balance-sheet anything needs to be formally outlawed, and the ability to classify an asset as "Level 3" (mark-to-fantasy) must be eliminated. Home lending must return to nothing but 30-yr fixed, 36% DTI, 20% down. Most importantly, the liquidity swamp must be drained.. because you can't fix a crisis of liquidity with more liquidity.

Mainstream media has this entirely wrong - this is not a solution of any sort. This is simply handing more tax dollars to wall street, and should fail every time it goes before either branch of Congress.

Gingrich started spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave about 2 minutes after his "revolution" began - and that was the most visible abject failure of Republican "economics."

Does the "Contract with America" ring a bell?

It was Gingrich and the republican Congress that balanced those budgets with Clinton, numb-nuts!

It was also a Gingrich led House that forced Clinton into signing the Welfare Reform act to get lazy asses like you to get a job and stop mooching off the rest of us without a time limit.

You buddy, Obama, will be certain to fuck that up!

The point, evensteven, leaving off the foul language (why is it Republicans use much stronger language than Democrats, but want to fine tv networks half a million for using the same words they use?) the point (as I was saying) is that Republicans talk about small government and cutting spending, and people vote Republican because they believe in small government and cutting spending, but in fact, Republicans in power push for big government and increased spending. That's a matter of record. Of course, Republicans try to take credit for everything good that happens even under a Democratic president, and blame Democrats for everything bad that happens even under a Republican president. If Clinton's balanced budgets were due to congress, why didn't the Republican congress balance the budget under Bush?

in my post. Gingrich was gone while Bush was in office and Hastert was the one in charge. He's the point of your contention, not Gingrich.

Hastert, like Pelosi is now, fucking things up.