Seriously, what is the difference between Bush and Obama on this? Both are backing policies that are robbing us blind to the benefit of the same group of the rich and powerful.

Bush (& Paulson) were picking winners and losers and just helping banks. Obama is just getting started and he’s trying to help from the consumption side. There is also a plan coming along which should deal with the fundamental problem of bad mortgages. Bush never touched that because he didn’t want to really fix the problem until a Dem was presiding.

Why is no one talking about moral hazard any more?

When the nation’s (and really the world’s) economy is at stake the greater moral hazard is to stand by and, like Nero, watch it burn.

why the HELL do we need to keep bank of america in business?

let them FALL, let ALL the mega banks FALL

Right now that’s not going to work. But BUT after reregulation and once we’re out of this mess there should be plans to do some trust busting a la Teddy Roosevelt. “Too big to fail” is definitely “too big to exist.”

the government should let those banks fall and make them sell off their assets at bargain basement

Sell them to whom? Nobody wants to buy them. That’s why there’s no market in them and no current pricing.

That’s why it’s crucial how govt decides what price it will pay for them.
Who will it hurt most, the taxpayer or the banks?

BTW, there are actual houses behind those mortgages, so there is some value, just not as much as at the height of the bubble.

Why do we need to save irresponsible banks?

The very largest banks may be despicable, but without them the economy would probably collapse within a few days. Even helping them as govt has isn’t solving the problem, it’s just a pushing ‘a car out of gasoline’ to keep things going until you can get gasoline in it. The stimulus bill is a bit of gasoline too.

Who has an alternative (not necessarily better) plan and what is it?

I say confiscate the troubled assets (mortgages, mortgage-backed assets perhaps) using imminent domain and sort out the good from the bad, returning the good to banks, fixing the bad and reselling that into the market to give some percentage, perhaps 50% back to the original banks and keeping the rest to help pay for the whole mess.

I guess Summers & Co don’t want to be seen as too forceful since it’s only the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

they still get to keep all the profits anyway

At least on the original TARP monies invested in warrants (&such) there will be some return if the banks ever get profitable.

I wonder how they plan to price the worst of the ‘troubled assets’. That’s always been the sticking point. Heck, it’s the one which is the fundamental problem.

Let’s just eat our own and have done with it.

You want the gizzard or the tail feathers?

Just call me “Candy”