big bailouts are bad

I'm all for letting a few banks go under and some real estate speculators go bust. It will remind people there is a DOWNSIDE to risk in investing - that's why you get the higher returns, folks. If you don't want the chance of losing a wad, invest in something less risky, like t-bills or a blue chip stock.

David Ignatius unfortunately is probably right - bailouts will be followed with other bailouts because Congress has a hard time drawing a line between these "deserving" people and the next bunch of people.

Of course, those of us who didn't speculate on mortgage-backed securities, or those of us who didn't buy property we couldn't afford based on liar loans or interest-only loans counting on selling the place in five years for a "guaranteed" (snark) profit will NOT get a bailout. Through our taxes, we will be subsidizing Wall Street and that annoying asshole neighbor of yours who bought three houses in five years and now can't afford his new too-big house, nor the Cadillac SUV in his driveway. Aren't WE deserving? Apparently not.

As Ignatius says, these bailouts will make the next financial crisis worse. In fact, it will make the next financial crisis MORE LIKELY since the same types of short-sighted morons who got us into this fine mess will not have the sting of deep personal financial loss to remind them why it's not always smart to leverage your ass from here to Nepal.

And George Will is right too. For many people like a guy in Kansas City he cited, this means instead of retiring at age 59 he may have to work till he's 62 and his Social Security kicks in instead of moving to Arizona. Oh boo-friggin'-hoo. Dude, you'll probably live till you're 75. You'll have plenty of time to play golf on the (environmentally disastrous) Phoenix links.