[Superman]

I wonder if we are assuming that the cost to the taxpayer of a bailout would be greater than the cost to that same taxpayer of a recession. Let's pretend for a moment that a million foreclosures brought the nation's financial markets down a peg or two, and that a million new homes on the market caused a real estate glut and price "correction." Let's further pretend that a subsidy would protect both those markets, and that the subsidy would be less expensive than repairing those markets once they have tanked.

Now what is your answer? Are you willing to spend more of your money just so that bad decision-makers can be taught a more painful and more effective lesson?