There is real arugment over whether it would it be worse to let Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to go to Hell or to bail out / take them over. Both alternatives are terrible - as so often there is no good alternative.

My gut says "let them go to Hell" - but I could be wrong.

The thing is there is an ARGUMENT and in this country we get only one side.

It is not all the "Independent" sneering that President Bush has "ripped up years of lassez faire policies" (this must have been a Bush in a alternative universe).

It is the whole media - including the Daily Telegraph.

There was more dissent in one hour of the Cavuto show (including from Neil Cavuto) than there was from all the British media combined.

Or the media of the entire world as far as I know.

Nowhere bar Fox News was there any dissent.

People who hate each other as much as M. Malkin and Bob Barr were united in their opposition to this bailout.

Sure the anti case could be wrong - but it deserves to be heard.

And the establishment does not like any dissent being heard.

Sorry J.P.

I have just understood that your post might be about the national debt in general - not just about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

I must confess I have this latest bail out/ take over "on the brain" at the moment.

I even dreamed about hunting down the two leaders of these accused entities and force feeding them the fifteen million Dollars "parting gifts" they got.

It amuses me a lot when I hear America described as having laissez-faire policies. Detractors of America don't just do this either. I've seen a few pro-American Brits/Europeans fondly say that America represents freewheeling capitalism compared to sclerotic european socialism. America hasn't really had anything resembling laissez-faire since at least before World War One, perhaps even before the Civil War. Nowadays America is more like socialism for the rich and minority groups than laissez-faire.

Taking over the Mae's was worth a shot at this point. It is hard to imagine they can be managed worse.

At least the slush funds used to lobby and/or buy Congress and regulators are cut off.

The shareholders took their chances when they bought the most risky of equities, stocks.

If banks and foreign investors didn't hold Mae's securities then I would let the Mae's fail. But, as it is, failure would just transfer the problems to the FDIC and other agencies.

And overseas the results can't be predicted, certainly a temporary paralysis of world finances would be a danger.

So, our government let companies borrow immense sums with the understanding that the Treasury backed the loans. The companies hired lobbyists, former officeholders. and former regulators to keep regulators neutralized. And everyone inside got richer every year.

And you know what? The Treasury did back those securities. The insiders were right. Only the outside stockholders got hurt. Well, stockholders and the taxpayers who had nothing to do with the matter.

I hope they redeem those securities fast by offering to exchanging them for Treasury Bonds. Close the Mae's. We would face a higher national debt but a stable financial market.