fa real.

It's like you're talking directly to certain readers of this site…. I won't say any names, but I know you know who I am talking about. :-)

It's routine for the feds to seize banks who fail, but they've only been smaller banks up to now. Once they return to solvency, the feds give them back. FDIC, anyone? What's the difference now?

@bam-a-lam: Thank you!

People want to be protected without having to protect anyone else. I'm not saying the irresponsible d-bags who created so many problems need to be protected, but everyone who was affected by their decisions have to be. It's not an ideal world and there isn't going to be an ideal outcome, so what's best for the greatest number of people has to be done now. This country isn't going to continue down a path of socialist destruction…there are cycles and we will eventually come out of this portion of the cycle and things will start shifting the other way again.

@spottsy: We have an abundance of Chicken Littles here who seem oddly unaware of what's actually been the norm for a long, long, time. I THINK it has something to do with a desire to vilify Obama and try to make us think we're all going to be living in grass huts and toiling in rice paddies without pay. Just a hunch..

@bam-a-lam: Aaaamen.

I did some more reading though, and I guess I understand the argument against bailing out these "non-bank" companies like AIG and other insurance entities. (read more here: http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/2...../index.htm) The FDIC doesn't exist for non-bank companies, and people think the bailing out of these non-bank financial institutions is taking government power too far. What I don't understand, is why people aren't accepting something like the FDIC needs to be created so that the government (as the article says) is better equipped to deal with situations we are finding ourselves in now. I think that's what we are in the process of doing, and everyone is acting like it's some terrible plot for complete government control. Obama isn't trying to render us destitute (although I do love rice), he's trying to get things together.

You know what, if so many of you are so desiring of communism, maybe you'll get your wish. There are billions of young people who would give anything to have what you have, the freedom to work and profit from your hard work, but if you prefer the class envy where "its not fair", then maybe you'll find out for yourselves how harsh life can really be. If this is the change America truly desires, then I am really happy so many of you WANT this, it will be easier for you. It won't be so easy for me to lose everything I have worked for. I read a post from a militay guy who said the young Iraq's call America, "the land of dreams" if you don't want it I'm sure there are those who will be very happy to take it.

@spottsy: Yes, it's only been done with banks up to this point. But I applaud government's efforts to extend the power to exercise the same take over power they've always had with banks. Like banks, the feds wouldn't want to actually own the damn institutions forever - just until they get their shit together. A small bank going under hardly poses the risk to our national economy that we're seeing with AIG, Citi, Bear, Lehman, et al. Obviously they are incapable of regulating themselves, and so many people have lost everything as a result of their unmitigated greed, and taxpayers are now footing the bill for the assholes, then drastic measures are necessary. If the government has to bail them out, then they are in no position to sit on their asses and act like they're above the rest. Get solvent and the taxpayers will get off their backs. I don't see the problem, myself.

@Rhonda: Don't fall for that line of shit. We aren't going in the direction of Communism or even Socialism. During the Depression and the Floods of 1927-29, there was zero government assistance in place to help people. Those disasters are what caused the gov't to recognize the need for programs to step in and help citizens who were victims of both natural disasters and failing banks. We didn't become Communists over that and we won't become Communists over this. Some of these financial institutions really do need to just go under - let the free market do its thing.

Bam, I understand all of that. I just don't feel we are dealing with people of honor these days. Any of them! and it is up to us the citizens to keep our eye on the ball. People have become to dependant on the government and that is dangerous to our "collective" freedom. Banks and firms failing I got no problem with, its being taken over by the government I got a problem with. They don't teach history in the government schools for a reason and they don't want God either (nothing should be bigger or more powerful than the government) and those who haven't studied history are doomed to repeat it.

@Rhonda: The only thing I might challenge in your post is the idea that "people" have become too dependent on the government. People do have a right to expect the government to watchdog financial institutions that have the power to lay our economy to waste. If schools can be taken over due to failure to produce, and small banks due to failure to carry out fiduciary duty, then why not the titans of the economic system? I was concerned about the idea of financial institutions being seized by the government, since that goes against what we see as the free market, but after reading up a bit I changed my mind. The reason is that any such seizure would not be a permanent one. I'm also all for letting them fail like they should and let the good ones rise to the top.

besides social workers, who do the poor employ?