See my post below to Arne. I don't believe the Fat Cats are making out as well as you think they are.

This whole issue has brought out a strain of vengeful anger in many people that I can't help suspecting is misdirected from some other area in their lives. They want to crucify someone and I don't they really care who it is. They lump it together in a phrase like "Wall Street" or "Fat Cats" without having much idea of who -- and I mean people, human beings -- they're talking about or what this situation has done to those people. I'm not starting a pity party, here. But a guy I know who was a mortgage broker -- and an honest man -- is now driving a taxi cab.

There was an article yesterday in our local newspaper, The Spencer Evening World, the smallest daily newspaper in operation in Indiana, with the Presidents of our two local, community banks, Owen County State Bank and Spencer Community Banks, about how this mess doesn't really affect them at all because of their good fiscal practices. Neither of these local Bankers thought the bailout is a good idea and one even says his major objection is "It rewards bad behavior" and provides no incentives for future good behavior. This is why we need more investment in "Main Street" and let the invisible hand of the free market land a smackdown on those who deserve it. The fundamentals of this economy are deeply flawed and the only answer is to let the giants fall and then pick up the pieces from there.

Reward the arsonist with huge sums of cash.

Buy the arsonist's matches and gasoline for huge sums of cash.

Blindly allow the Treasury Secretary to throw huge sums of cash at the arsonist.

Pay the arsonist to administer the program whereby you buy his matches and gasoline for huge sums of cash.

Enable the arsonist to borrow huge sums of cash using his matches and gasoline as collateral.

I could go on ...

"Thank God there is a mainstream media out there that actually does reporting and has people who understand thing [sic], because if the flow of information and news to the American people were left solely to bloggers, we'd be in a big mess"

This quote says it all. At present our situation is so rosy, so bereft of the consequences of unregulated thugs picking our pockets and our future so bright that indeed we must cringe to think what "a big mess" we would be in if anyone listened to bloggers. Perhaps we should burn incense to give thanks that the wisdom of Pulitzer Prize winners has saved us from such a pernicious predicament.

Listening to such a line of thought, if it can be called that, is like following a mine clearing squad who tells you, "just walk in my footsteps," while they are blown up one after the other.

It is really great to be protected from a "mess" by the power of the Pulitzer.

Right. First you put out the fire. That's what we're talking about now. Afterwards, you have a trial and put the arsonist in jail. But first you put out the fire. You said it, and I agree. Baldie, it doesn't only bail out the captain. First, it saves the passengers. Come on, laddie, pay attention. You're talking like an automaton.

I was hoping for the long answer.

Parachutes have little to do with it. What the taxpayers would be supporting is a speculative system, uncorrected, in which derivatives are pushed to the limit to rain huge salaries down on midlevel investment bank employees, and in which five investment banks were permitted to expand their debt-to-capital ratios way beyond what was otherwise allowed.

Misdirection.

incidentally, see

http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130/

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

I don't get it either.

So why support the bailout? It only bails out the captains of Wall Street.

I'll repeat my analogy: if an arsonist sets an apartment building on fire and is somehow trapped inside, do you let the place burn down, along with everyone inside, rather than put out the fire -- because doing so might save the arsonist's life? That's coo-coo. -- Jim

No, Jim, you put out the fire and then you put the arsonist in jail.

Do you see how saving the arsonist from the fire doesn't require treating him the same as everyone else in the building? Now, can you apply that lesson to Wall Street executives - and investors, large and small?

From today's online chat with Paul Kane (Oct 2) - my source? Feinstein's speech .... ON THE SENATE FLOOR last night.

Washington: Extraordinary to hear today on the radio the American people characterized as "divided." Feinstein's office alone received 91,000 calls from California, 85,000 of which opposed the bailout. Does not sound divided at all to me.

Paul Kane: A lot of offices have reported a change in their calls/emails/contacts since the House vote on Monday.

Feinstein, for what it's worth, told me last Wednesday night that she had received 50,000 contacts at that point on the bailout/work out/rescue package. And only two dozen were in favor.

I'll trust your numbers are accurate, because I checked in Tues night and they had 83,000 voter contacts, with 6,000 for. My guess is, while it's still running more in the no category, the number of people calling saying do SOMETHING had increased rapidly, even in Feinstein's office, where a week ago just 24 people had said pass something.

No Silver Bullets Here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103110_pf.html

"That's what many people are asking. Why should we be bailing out the fat-cats and bankers and financial institution CEOs that were so irresponsible?

So, does that mean you like the proposal where the gov't wipes out the shareholders? Hundreds of millions of shares of stock held by normal people, little investors, pension funds, mutual funds, widows and orphans...just so the Fat Cat with a stock option doesn't get any? I'll repeat my analogy: if an arsonist sets an apartment building on fire and is somehow trapped inside, do you let the place burn down, along with everyone inside, rather than put out the fire -- because doing so might save the arsonist's life? That's coo-coo.

So tell me a version that works that you're comfy with. I mean, come on -- do you at least admit that something's got to unfreeze the credit market? If not, you're hopeless but if you do, pray tell what is your real-time, real-world solution?

By the way, the Fat Cats aren't going to be doing as well as you might think. There are two categories (no pun intended): the hedge fund guys who got out with their filthy luchre; they're gone, nothing's gonna touch them except maybe creative lawsuits brought by their investors. The bankers and brokers who made the bad loans, the ratings agencies who gave them AAA ratings, the dopes who lent way too much money leveraging the hedge funds -- these people are going to lose jobs, they're going to sell those high-maintenance toys, yachts and Gulfstreams. They're going to be hounded with lawsuits 'til Hell freezes over (if you thought the swarm of lawyers around asbestos/tobacco was big, wait 'til they gear up to go to work on Wall Street!).