In the interest of fairness let's say that anyone who takes a government bailout to pay for their failed mortage has his salary limited to $35,000 or 1/4th what he makes now whichever is lower. The average CEO make 2 million and is limited to half a million becuase his company takes bailouts.

What's this ………. I hear the crickets chirping in the halls of the "intellectualy correct" members of Stewarts studio audience.

See sometimes Commen Sense supercedes propaganda.

Yep MODDEM you are brilliant! (at political obfuscation that is) Face it Obama owns this mess. He supported the policy that caused it in the Senate. He took 121,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and made his money helping Resco put people in mortgages that they could not pay. He got involved in telling Bush what to do before he was even out of office and in seven weeks brought the DOW down from 10000 to 6000. His actions as President are the only explanation

This is the problem. The first bailout was inevitable no matter what we did becuase the problem was the government's fault. We (the government and God how I wish I were not involved) backed the mortgages of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We told investors in these subsiidaries (a lot of them foreigners) that the investment was "safe" becuase Uncle Sugar backed it.

The problem is that instead of doing the simple thing W actually said which was buy the mortgages that fail and have the government hold them until they can be sold we got the "political" answer from congress. Around page 20 the first instructional point of that bill it states the "Secretary of the Treasury shall have whatever authority he deems necessary to solve this crises. We know have no idea WHAT that money was spent on. When Congress finally got their guy in the answer was to just keep repeating the first blunder.

If you don't like this you need an ammedment to the Constitution to REMOVE this power from Congress. There is no other answer.

I was under the impression that "stupid" was one of those words, like "moron" and "imbecile," that used to be used to mark levels of mental retardation. It might be, I'm not sure. Anyway, I know for a fact that "stupid" long predates modern clinical diagnoses of retardation. I think it dates back to the 16th century. Without checking, I can be fairly certain "moron" and "idiot" are equally old. The point is, they were all chosen to describe various levels of mental infirmity because they were all synonyms in the first place (for we like to have many words with which to call people stupid).

I'd like for someone to point to a dictionary that defines the words as such. I've certainly not encountered that distinction in my day to day life.