[Deb]

I don't get the "fraud" part. Why was it not a legitimate move to save the economy? Allowing banks to fail and destroy millions of people's lives would have been a catastrophe. Allowing some banks to appear "healthy" while others required aide would have caused massive bank-runs.

Of course people like you would have blamed Bush no matter what he did.

[editor-surveyor]

I don't get the "fraud" part. Why was it not a legitimate move to save the economy?

Because government handouts cannot save the economy. Government spending of any kind is deleterious to the economy, and the kind that has been done in the past eight months is a fusion bomb.

The gangrenous leg is a good analogy; the sooner the failures get completed, the less damage will be done.

[ml/nj]

I don't get the "fraud" part. Why was it not a legitimate move to save the economy?

It was fraud because the repayment shows there never was a need to "save the economy" (and I guess you wouldn't understand that even if there were a need, it still would be unconstitutional, i.e. illegal, for the Federal government to attempt meet that need).

As for your repeated attempt to divert this to a discussion about President Bush, give it up. This isn't about President Bush.

ML/NJ

[fortheDeclaration]

Allowing banks to fail and destroy millions of people's lives would have been a catastrophe.

The people then who needed to be bailout were those who put their money into the banks, not the banks!

Banks have no money, they lend other people's money!

The Bush bailout was a disgrace and against all free market principles!