In article >,
George > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > George > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 47% of those who voted didn't vote for Obama. Clearly you expressed
> >> something completely different. I think the intense polarization that
> >> drives this is driven by the fat cats who own the politicians playing
> >> with us.
> >>
> >> A good current example is we are told it is a good thing that the "blue
> >> team" controls Congress because they are very smart and work for the
> >> "common man". Yet they voted to pull currently around a trillion dollars
> >> out of our pockets to throw it on the front steps of the useless
> >> financial industry which are nothing but a bunch of greedy parasitical
> >> thieves who have inserted themselves into every aspect of life.
> >
> > So, let's agree that throwing a trillion dollars of good money after bad
> > is a very painful experience. So, would the "red" team have done this?
> > Or would they have made it two trillion? Just speculation. And who is
> > responsible for the mess anyway? Some folks think that the "red" team
> > gutting the Federal regulations might have been a big factor. Was the
> > "blue" team blameless? Of course not. Enough of them voted for these
> > laws that they passed. The big one was signed by Bill Clinton, as
> > President. Everybody, both red and blue, though that deregulation and
> > the free market were good things.
> >
>
>
> Tell me more about this "free market" concept you mentioned in your last
> sentence. From where I sit it appears we have a Capitalist profit and
> Socialist loss system. If there were actually a "free market" the
> companies that were poorly managed or that imploded because of greed
> would simply disappear or their assets purchased by a stronger
> organization wouldn't they?

You are not alone in thinking that the "bail out" is the worst idea ever.
They are only doing it to try to save jobs from what I understand.
--
Peace! Om

"Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once." -- Anonymous