Who said anything about trickle down economics? I was simply taking a view against blaming everything on classes of people, in this case the top 5%.  There are good folks and bad folks at all levels if you insist on having a "class" structure.  Punishing "classes" of people is a very dangerous game.

You're right that's why they are usually minorities.  The anti-gay laws still need a long way to go.  In any case, as I recall regarding our current political climate, I think the only thing that has been put forward is a rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy hardly an example of "punishing".

And since we are discussing the bailout why are so many taxpayer dollars being handed over to businesses without some sort of action to provide mortgage workouts for homeowners?  Also, where is the call for improvements in regulations and enforcement that will prohibit banks from writing financial extortion provisions in loans.

We should all remember that what the banks have enjoyed is law enfocement and regulations strongly favoring lenders in collections.  The premise being banks will only be willing to lend if repayment is fairly certain.  In exchange for such legal favor, the banks should be prohibited from structuring loans where monthly mortgage payments can leap from $2300 per month to $5800 per month due to calculations of the underlying mortgage struture.  Flat monthly payments for the life of the mortgage should be mandatory.  Also, home equity loans based on inflated home values should be prohibited.  These sort of problems in mortgage lending practices must be addressed.

I also find that the characterization by Greenspan and others that the economic downturn is a 100 year economic tsunami that just happens as a result of the "business cylce" is part of the problem when it is in fact the direct result of bad legislation (the Commodities Modernization act) and bad business practices.

 I agree with you but I was responding to his post (#26) which called for withholding services from the rich as a "class" punishment  for being in the top 5% elite.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.  Equal protection under the law has a long way to go and you're right withholding services from anyone as a targeted class is divisive.

It was meant to be divisive.  There are "classes"  whether you want there to be or not.  Do you think when someone like McCain who can't even remember how many houses he owns has one iota of what it's like to go to a grocery store and have to keep putting things back so you can stay under your $75.00 a week food budget.  All I was saying is I wish they knew what it is like for the majority of Americans and actually had some empathy.  And Ken, I'm not directing any anger at you, just venting frustration.

There's a clean one honey.Honey and I checking the menu. Incognito of course.

Oh boy, I hope we get some of her leftovers! 

It would be funny if people didn't actually have to live this way.

This was meant *sarcasticly* and as a *humor*. If you google the terms (oxymoron) you get lists of them and these appear on many.

Constant attacks on Gov't. workers, etc.? I think you have me confused with someone else. On the political side, my objections have been about individuals.

Well said, Ken.

Also well put.

Not sure if you fully understand my meaning of equal protection under the law.  But any economic system which is treated as superior to constitutional guarantees is the problem.  That is Insurance Companies have rules the laws do not prohibit which enable them to deny coverage for prior conditions and raise rates for the self employed, etc all directed at ensuring the profitability of a corporation as superior to a persons health. 

Why do you think there is a large class of uninsured who do not have access to health care, the legal system permits it.  Is that equal protection under the law?  Why is it businesses exist which depend upon the disenfranchised for such extortive practices as payday loans and auto title loans made at ripoff rates?  The legal system allows it.  Throughout our system so called free markets are used to justify the creation of a large and growing group of improvished.

Furthermore excise fees, property taxes and other forms of governement revenue measures take a huge bite out of what little purchasing power the poor have.  A fifty dollar water bill is a nit to some people to others it a financial strain.

The US doesn't really have free markets.  It has a significant number of legalized monopolies and manipulation of the legal system by those forcing their way up while they force others down.

You are right, sadly.

Correct to a large degree, BDBF. Wonder what Cable would cost if 2 or 3 companies were competing for your business! If the pols really wanted to help the economically disadvantaged, eliminating Sales Tax for them would do a heck of a lot more than tax cuts!

I never took it that you were.   All the best to you!

Just found this in some emails I hadn't opened until today.

I proposed this myself, that if the economic bailout were to instead give 'the people' the propensity to pay (off their mortgages, credit card debts and for goods and services) it would create economic growth through increased sales, higher employment and thus increased tax revenue to help better balance the Federal Budget and stimulate the GDP.

But no... that's liberal socialism and not the American way, so yet again the greedy high rollers benefit and the needy still get screwed by a fundamentally flawed principle. OK, it may have been seen by the 'founding fathers' as being right not to include socialist ideals in the US Constitution, but they were different times (opportunity for all was much greater) and they could not have foressen the current financial/political climate, which offers great opportunities to the haves while effectively denying them to the have nots. Yup, things have to change!

Ummmm,..... the bailout money is coming from your own pocket. That plan is more of a failout.

No, not really!  Going into the coffers of the banks to do with as they wish IS coming OUT of your pocket... to get some of your own money back to make ends meet/ keep a roof over your head is stimilating the economy, which in turn helps the banks... if they're good enough to rethink and get themselves out of the shit. 

Put another way!  Who would you rather see have the money, the billionaires/multi-millionaire who created this mess, or for yourself to receive a small part of it to keep your head above water/enjoy a slightly better quality of life???  While some may say that they don't need it, and you may be one of those who is more financially secure, I don't know, but there are millions in the US who DO need that helping hand.

Here's one for ya... the Rudd Government here in Oz recently announced that aged and disability pensioners will receive a one off bonus payment of about $1000 - $1200 to assist those most disadvantaged/at the lowest end of the socio-economic scale.  Now while that might seem wrong to some in the US, those people/we are getting back some of our own tax money, and most business/community leaders are applauding the move (and remember, these are tax payers too) as being good for spending and the economy in general.

Things were already bad enough here, what with the high cost of food and petrol (not to mention clothing)... and even when oil prices went down significantly, the price of fuel remained unnecesarily high, and thus food/life's essentials.  So when the US financial crisis hit our shores to decimate the budgets of fixed income pensioners, there was about 5 1/2 - 6 million of them who thanked God that we have a socialist system here in Australia... otherwise many would have NO access to food, medicine or transport... and many of them would also be homeless.

While this concept may seem foreign/alien to many in the US, it's a system that works well in many countries around the World, not just here in Australia.    Is it perfect here?  Certainly not, far from it... and some people still fall through the cracks, but still, we'd rather put our faith in a mistake prone government than corporate entities seeking only to profit at our expense.  And do we like/trust our politicians?  Nope!  But the majority here would place trust in a politician before they trusted a corporate entity that would take their last dollar through jacking up prices to increase profit.  Sure, we need big business, but we don't need it to keep screwing us in the name of greed.

Er....no-one 'did the math'

85 billion divided by 200 million is not 425,000 anythings.

It's 425.

If you can pay off your house mortgage with 425 minus tax then you ain't in any 'crisis' at all.....

Darn those pesky decimal points!!!

There you go Paul.  Trying to confuse things with FACTS!