This buyout is a terrific wallop to the nuts, but something had to happen, and since Republicans can't possibly sign off on helping the borrowers, it had to be done according to the principles of "trickle down" economics. In a nut shell, those principles say that the only way to help the economy is to make the rich richer, so some droplettes of that wealth trickle down and help the majority of people.

So, was the solution to do nothing? Do you really think the economy would have held together? It probably won't hold together now, with the only difference being that the government is even poorer.

BTW, Fannie and Freddie had their profiteers, but Paulson is also an architect in the current disaster. As head of Goldman Sachs, he lobbied and succeeded on getting the "net capital rule" relaxed, which allowed banks to increase their leverage rations from 12-1 to as high as 40-1. The rules were relaxed in 2004 and two years later, Paulson became Treasury Secretary.

I'm glad they didn't take his original plan at rescuing his buddies in investment banking. There's no telling what would be happening now.

Again, there's some serious lack of intelligence to letting greed regulate greed.  



-- Modified on 10/7/2008 5:09:49 PM

a better number would be 3 trillion. The greed of the running dog capitalist know no boundaries. The swine are now cannibalizing the global markets for every cent of value. This won't end until class warfare erupts.

and there is no god