If they did end up nationalizing the banks, Jefferson would have his final revenge against Hamilton and Adams, so at least there's that.

~Russ

Ha!

It's all just part of the circle of life, man.

Sven, where do you find this stuff? I mean, damn.

~Russ

That one came from a misanthropic anarcho syndicalist who calls himself IOZ.

let's dispense with the bailout and the middlemen. Let's make the Fed the nation's lender.

But that would be government intervention in the free market, and we can't have that, because that's lib-burr-ull-izz-umm and that's bad. Rush told me so.

So far, I haven't actually seen a single statement from anybody that says this thing will work. I see all sorts of statements about what will happen if they don't give Paulson 700 billion and absolute power. Paulson, btw, is the guy who caused a great deal of this mess while he was CEO of Goldman Sachs.

I want to see someone I trust more than I trust Paulson, which is a low bar for sure, tell us exactly how the two scenarios would play out.

We are co-signing the loan for these creeps if this goes through.

Sven,

You are a f*cking genius man! (In my best Drill Sergeant to Gump voice)
If we're gonna do socialism, let's do it right.
And I'm all about socialism, just like Jesus.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

An actual economist climbs on board my magical pony plan:

I look at the situation as follows. Banks are bridges between savers and investors. Some of these bridges have collapsed. But altogether too much attention is being placed on fixing the collapsed bridges. Instead we should be thinking about how to route more savings across the bridges that have not collapsed. Government lending may be one way of doing this but why lend to prop up the broken bridges? Instead, why not lend directly to the investors who are in need of funds?

TV pundit: "The financial capital of the world is no longer New York. It's the Republic of Washington D.C."