The last week has sure been an education. All these people preaching the gospel of capitalism have gone running for government protection when there has appeared even a ghost of a chance that they might not be able to socialize their losses. The smart money, so to speak, may still be on an ultimate passage of this absurd bailout, but I'm cheering every day that it hasn't happened.

Meanwhile, I find myself agreeing with the Republican House members and Newt Gingrich that we have a capitalist system, and that people who took large risks must now suffer the losses instead of shoving them off on the taxpayers.

If the world keeps getting stranger, I will surely have to change my online moniker.

Remind me again: these *were* the people who loved to talk about government being the problem, not the solution, right?

Yes, there are risks in not passing some sort of bailout. But there are just as many risks in continuing to allow so-called capitalists to privatize profits and socialize losses.

For one: inflation and a very weak dollar. Increasing the size of the U.S. debt overnight by $700 billion will only exacerbate the higher inflation we've experienced over the past year. When the government prints more money, inflation results, and the dollar is weaker. That will make imports (oil, anyone?) much more expensive.

Moreover, does anyone believe that if we bail out the crooks and liars now we won't have to do it again? When? Six months? A year from now? 10 years? One thing is certain, and that is we'll have to do it again. What will the damage be then?

The most extreme possible outcome of not doing anything: depression. The most extreme possible outcome of bailing out Wall Street: runaway inflation coupled with low economic growth for years or even decades. Maybe some middle ground can be found, but not as long as Paulson and Bernanke are screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We need to be very careful about this. In the short term, that means doing nothing.

The whole debate about Iran was pulled directly from AIPAC talking points. How depressing. Why exactly is a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to Israel which, by the way, is also nuclear-armed? Contrary to U.S. propaganda, the Iranians aren't insane. Why would they attack a country that could retaliate in kind? Why can't this plain fact be mentioned in American discourse? For once, I'd like for politicians to debate facts instead of right-wing bullshit.

The debate about Russia was even more depressing. You'd never know that it was Georgia that attacked the Russian minority within its borders by listening to these two. Oh, and apparently it's unconscionable that Russia controls natural gas lines that originate and run through its own territory. What a revelation!

Obviously, we expect pap like this from McCain, but it just goes to show how much the Democratic Party establishment is owned - lock, stock, and barrel - by the military-industrial complex.

Does anyone know how feasible it is for the small U.S. investor to open up insured cash accounts denominated in either the euro or pound sterling?

I don't have millions to invest, but this latest round of "bilk the responsible citizen" class warfare has left me wanting to diversify what cash I have. I'm simply not comfortable with 100% of my reserve in U.S. dollars anymore. (I already have a substantial portion of my equity portfolio invested in foreign stocks.)

Our politicians have made it clear that they're going to support socialism for the rich at the expense of U.S. fiscal and monetary continence. I guess that's no surprise; after all, virtually all our politicians represent the wealthy, and that population already has plenty of offshore investments.

This will work out well for them. They can diversify their ill-gotten gains, while the rest of us suckers are stuck with a dollar that will decline over the long term, as taxpayers continually have to foot the bill for U.S. imperial ambitions and repeated bailouts of crooks.

It's profoundly disappointing that Mr. Leonard has thoroughly bought into the so-called necessity and urgency of the bailout, when there are any number of respectable dissenting voices saying, "Hold on." Other than Glenn Greenwald's always original and thought-provoking work, Salon's brand of progressivism seems to have degenerated into the Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid-Barack Obama version of limousine liberalism and servility to the Washington establishment.

I called mine to express my opposition, although one of them (the Republican) has already announced he's going to vote for it. As Greenwald and Johnston discussed, Congress thinks interest is flagging, and maybe it is. All the more time to call, in my opinion.

*By the way, it may not be enough anyway. You should all start being scared for the next scam to wring money from the poor and middle class to ensure the rich don't suffer. The gravy train didn't end here; why should we think the next ploy won't work?

In all seriousness, here's a modest proposal. If I were a Democratic congressman, I would insert a provision to raise income tax rates on the rich to 1950s levels. That's right - top marginal tax rate of 90%. That way we ensure that taxpayers get some money back whether or not this debt turns out to be worth anything. I'd love to see Paulson get an ulcer over that little poison pill.