[bigralph]

I like how you think.

Originally Posted by PsyDoc

Potato...Patatah. "Loan" just sounds better than "Bailout" plain and simple. There is nothing stated in the definition of "bailout" that implies it's money that never has to be paid back. In my opinion, the term bailout is more applicable because the Big 3 cannot secure loan anywhere else...it's government to the rescue or bust.

The real issue is whether an infusion of capital will save them and whether another $25 billion is enough or if it's just the foot-in-the-door technique where they keep asking for "a little" multiple times rather than one big chunk at once where most people would likely balk. Look at AIG..."We need $85 billion (Sept. 16th)...yeah...that will set things right. No wait, that's just not enough...now we need another $37.8 billion (Oct. 8th)...yeah, that will do it for sure. Wait...we still need more money...how about $20.9 billion (Oct. 31) for now. Crap, sorry...if we could just get a little more...perhaps $40 billion (Nov. 11th...looks like)." If they had stated up front that they needed well over $150 billion, then they might not have gotten the money. But, once they got their foot-in-the-door and the government committed to "saving them," then it is easy to keep getting more money. Why? Because if AIG failed, the government would appear to have wasted all that money. The government is basically honoring sunk costs (Dawes, 2001); they are in too deep to back out now.

What if each year, as individuals, we had to allocate what percent of our taxes would go to which programs. For example, some people might allocate 40% military, 20% homeland security, 40% infrastructure, or whatever while others would chose to support different programs. This might make the statement "government by the people" a bit more salient.