I sympathized with your position; but the broader picture warrants some bailout to avoid widespread panic however bitter the aftertaste.

I suspect Doc is glad now that no private investments were earmarked for social security.

The problem is that the bailout causes more problems than it solves. Because the Fed bailed out Bear Stearns the value of our dollar suffered. This in turn has caused prices to rise across the board. There will be ramifications to congress bailing out the two FMs it's just that enough time hasn't passed yet. The bottom line here is that due to the bailouts you better be ready for some major inflationary problems to start across the country. Oh and did I mention that part of the reason the price of oil is as high as it is today is due to the devalueing of the dollar? Sure the price of oil has come down recently but it is still a lot higher than it should be.

Au Contraire - I will gladly pay for MY mistakes - or my wise investments.

Now I understand your distaste for FDR: by stopping the run on banks, he would have taken the masochistic fun out of it for you. ( 

I haven't done enough research on what caused the run on the banks back then so I can't speak about FDR stopping the run on the banks. What I can say about the current economic crisis is that it's not about masochisism, it's about personal responsibility. Why should someone who purposely went out of their way to not get in over their heads in debt have to suffer for the mistakes of those who did get in over their heads? Why should I have to deal with higher taxes or the inflationary problems caused by the bailouts when I didn't contribute to the problem in the first place. Let the cards fall where they may and those responsible for the problem should have to pay.

I dont dislike FDR - I never knew the man. I just dont like a lot of the things he did (which we are paying for now). Again, I dont mind have federally insured deposits - you pay for them (they are not free, the interest is lower to pay for them). I just want the option of being able to get a high return OR a safe investment. The way it is going, I will no longer have the choice. I dont now with my retirement (is there any question the return on SS is lousy?).

In an ideal world self-reliance and self-responsibility would be prevalent. The problem is that mistakes by definition are human and prevail; the process of politics is to make every effort to rectify our muddling through. And just as indeed nothing is free like lower interest to protect savings, we have to pay for mistakes of others whether in bone head investments or continually rebuilding in a flood zone.

The problem with the bail out is it is trying to swap short term pain for long term pain. Yes, a bail out may help to prop up poor firms and save them from bankruptcy, but what about in the future? Other firms (and the ones you've now bailed out) will think that if things go really bad they can always count on the government to get them out of trouble. So the downsides of risky investments are reduced, and you lead to too much risk taking, and acceptance of projects that wouldn't be a good idea if the company would have to bare the full costs if things went wrong.

As to the issue of the bail out effectively being financed by other countries (due to the US debt), it's still the US government funding it, since the debt they hold will need to be repaid. One of the reasons governments can borrow money so cheaply (and so much of it) is because if they had to they could resort to (more and more) taxation in order to repay the debts. So it's a bit like if you take out a mortgage/loan for a house - technically you could argue the bank is buying the house, but practically you are, since you'll then have to pay off all of that debt plus interest.

There is some truth to this, but unfortunately we have taken this to a ridiculous extreme in trying to erradicate all risk (communism). The simple fact of life (as you say we are human after all) is that you cannot eliminate all risk. And to even try is fool hardy and counter productive. There is a big difference in rebuilding a devasted town due to a natural disaster - and bailing out some twit that decided to borrow more money than they could possibly repay - all because of eliminating risk.

It would help if the snake oilers poured their sleaze in their tanks and became resolved to go straight by offering responsible and legitimate financial services.