Crunch

[bas_I_am]

I am not for a bailout that puts the onus on the taxpayers. I am anything but that. My argument is something has to be done. Any action taken must protect the common man and not reward credit insurers, mortgage bankers etc.

But this is not about bailing them out, its about preventing their maleficence from destroying everyone (which it will). At the same time, addressing the US executive branch regulatory malfeasance.

Any argument that says "money is bad! Let 'em all burn" is infantile. Now is the opportunity to fix things. Its the carrot-stick approach - "Ok, here's the money, but in order to get it, we are going to have some significant rule changes!" Then we investigate and prosecute the perpetrators.

If we do nothing, the greedy rich will remain rich, though they may feel a slight pinch. When things begin to rebound, which inevitably it will, it will be only the guys who screwed it up that will have the resources to benefit from it. Meanwhile, everything will be drained from the poor.

If you listen to Rep. Kaptur, she doesn't say do nothing, she is saying what we do has to be done in a manner that protects the people. At the same time she says we have to do something.

The only other alternative is to create a world war.