>>There are economic pundits in the US media who are considerably more knowledgeable about the American system than the Austrian gang.

Ans: The Austrian School of economics, says Fractional Reserve banking is illegal in strict sense.

If you have read "Money, Bank credit and Economic Cycles" book from mises.org you would realize how Fractional banking is the cause.

Secondly, you claim Rothbard as a proponent of deregulation was responsible for this crisis.

Its laughable: Rothbard hated regulation: True. But he meant it in fullest sense: not some socialist, Govt-will-back-depositors act.

His definition of a bank was FULL Reserve banking at the pain of instant insolvency should a bank fail to pay its depositors.

The Govt should NOT be guaranteeing depositors their money(only then the depositors would choose between IndyMac and HSBC), and this instant insolvency would force banks to be more careful.

Plus the Govt. should not dictate to banks to whom or who they should lend/not lend.

In short, Rothbard stated the Govt. should get the hell out of banking and allow the industry to regulate itself with absolutely NO help to anyone (rich bankers or poor depositors), plus add the pain of instant dissolution of the corporation.

You may argue this is what led to Great Depression: non-interference by Hoover...But read the history carefully.

Constant Govt interference and pumping the markets led a recession to a depression by skewing scarce resources to unnecessary usages.

Read about the history of the Gold by Peter Bernstein. It tells a lot.

It talks about the necessity of a currency based on something valuable: like Gold or Silver.

>>And Hoover was steadfast in his position that there should Ans: Hooover was right and wrong: The market was correcting itself during the 1929 crash. The pump priming advocated by Keynesians was what caused it to a full rout.

JP Morgan, by pionnering CDS in 1990s caused banks to avoid keeping HUGE reserves as capital to cover their lending. This led to the crisis you see today when under-capitalized banks are failing because they thought "portfolio insurance" and CDS would save them.

>>The bailout addresses golden parachutes and bonuses

Ans: Its not a necessary tradeoff. A necessary tradeoff is when the common man on the street finds the Govt. standing as a guarantor of his home loan to the blood-sucking banker. That is a tradeoff. Not golden parachutes to the blood-sucking banker who forecloses the loan on the poor man on street, while selling the foreclosed loan to the Govt for FULL value and then retiring with a yacht and a Golden Girl.

The bailout does that exactly.

>>If you have a stock portfolio or a 401(k) plan

Ans: This fear mongering worked once, twice. This would not work a third time, when am losing my shirt, my underwear and my home, while the rich banker down the street sports new threads and a Rolls because my tax money went to him by bailout.

>>What's needed is a commitment to bolster investor

Ans: What is needed for the Govt is to shut its trap and let the FDIC foreclose banks.

Investor confidence is something the investors get from market: it is like education- it cannot be force-fed to everyone. Any Govt attempt at imparting confidence is a sure sign to investors that the economy is going down the tubes and they will want to get out as quickly as possible.

The market WILL work out a way: like water. This is a flight to quality.

>> The bailout is the investors who are now fleeing the market

Ans: This defeated plan is a bailout in that it attempts to purchase equity / securities from investors who are fleeing a market using tax payers money at FACE value and not market value.

And who owns the most securities?? Not my 401(k) plan: its HUGE bankers who bought them in first place. This is a perfect way for them to unload their unsaleable securities to Govt at face value and flee to safety.

A rescue plan is when FDIC puts up money to rescue depositors from a failed bank. A bailout is when Treasury uses our money to buy up securities which banks themselves consider unworthy of trading it amongst themselves.

I mean, come on, banks are the MOST conservative and fiscally responsible institution of all. They lend you money by taking the most valuable thing you have: Gold or Gold Bonds, or Govt. bonds, or worse blue-chip corporate bonds. If they think a security is unsaleable and are unwilling to even trade in it, why should we (taxpayer) money be spent to buy it from them?

Would the bank be willing to lend me $100,000 for my house valued at face value $300,000 but worth today for about $1500 ?

Would you be willing?

So tell me why should my money be used to do the same thing? Is it because it is not the rich bank's money?

>>When a ship goes down, the first priority is a rescue

Ans: When a ship goes down, the first priority is to get people on lifeboats. Period. Not the captain and his crew: But people. In this case, the bankers and the Govt are the crew and captain: They want to get to the lifeboats first, and let us drown.

In conclusion, i have demolished every single one of your neocon arguments for a bailout.

Comprende?

Ouch! That oughta hurt. Really hurt.

Since palin is still smiling, guess she does have a cold stone for a heart, a wet sponge for brain and the body of a greek godess.

Fortunately, for us, exteriors matter a lot: and after seeing the butt-ugly face of McCain, she is a refreshing lipstick gal.

And am sure rednecks thinks so too: so expect her to get as much votes as possible...