I'm pretty liberal on most things. I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, even though he was basically out of the race by the time of the California contest. He was the candidate that most closely represented my views (even though I acknowledge on some things he was a little woo-woo). I honestly believe he would have made a great POTUS. I especially applaud his openness to gay marriage. Most candidates, including Obama, probably favor it, but pragmatically (or fearfully) won't support it.But this "bailout" thing has got me feeling pretty Republican. If it fails, it will probably hurt my own already tenuous finances. But still, I do not support it. Why should the US taxpayer be on the hook for $700 billion to the benefit of just a few Wall Street firms? First of all, I do not believe it will really end the bloodletting. And second, why address this problem from the top down, rather than from the bottom up? I mean, the problem is shaky mortgages, right? So why not use that money to guarantee the average person's mortgage?
I mean, it doesn't seem fair if the government steps in to save some people if they default on their mortgages. But why is the bailout of a few corporations any fairer?
To quote Airplane, the Movie: "Shana, they bought their ticket, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!"

