Financial Responsibilities and Moral Obligations

THINK2

It seems as if you have bought into satan's deception hook, line and sinker.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jesus referenced or paraphrased this passage from Deuteronomy: For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’

In Judaism, this is interpreted to mean any kind of need, financial or otherwise. Certainly, foremost, in light of the value Judaism places on human life, the passage refers to material need. Howver, it also refers to justice. Those who belong in jail for the situation we are in should be sent there. Those who have taken our bailout money and given themselves eighteen million dollar bonuses should be required to return it to us.

Now, we, the public, own AIG, along with several banks. We should be receiving monthly financial progress reports and have input on matters of salaries and bonuses. The poor, we shall have with us always. Hopefully, that is not the case with the corrupt, but so long as they are here, they must be dealt with justly. What they have stolen can be used to help those currently in need.

THOMASBAUM wrote :
"We are NOT God, God is God, we are made in His Image and since God is Love when Love shines thru us then God's Image is shining thru us."

Yes, certainly God is God, but God is also in each of us...we are, each of us, a spark of the Divine. For most of us that spark is potential only. The great Teachers, the Masters of Wisdom, have fully developed and fully express that potential. That is why a Jesus, a Mohammad, a Krishna, a Buddha are so influential in the course of human affairs. God is both within and without.

T wrote: "We are not going to save the world, take an honest look at it."

We MUST save the world. There is no one else to do it. Even the great Teacher, who comes to show the way, will tell us that We must do the work. To save the world is not so hard. It only requires acceptance of the Principle of Sharing. We must realize that we are all ONE, and the God gives the resources of Earth for all men to share. If we don't learn to share, we will destroy ourselves and our planet....we are already hard at it.

T wrote: "One could almost say that God is going to save us in spite of ourselves."

God has sent a messenger to Teach us how to save ourselves. We have the choice whether to learn to share or to perish. God cannot save us from ourselves. There is no "free pass". There are no special favors, just the Law of Cause and Effect.

T wrote: "God is the Law and the Law is LOVE."

And how is that Law going to save us from ourselves, Thomas? God is also Justice.

T wrote: "For one thing, you haven't seen anything yet and for another thing, America is not the whole world. Look around, honestly, has human nature changed?"

America is not the whole world, certainly. But America is most corrupt, most wealthy, most dominant among nations and so will suffer more. Human nature, as consciousness, has evolved over time, and with the return of the Teacher awaited by all traditions (religious and non-religious), will evolve even more rapidly. His energy of Love is so potent that, as He says, "I galvanize all forms to change".

Peace, Thomas

THINK2

You wrote, "But Thomas, we are God! There is no one else to save the world but us, all of us. That is the Plan, and that is the Law."

We are NOT God, God is God, we are made in His Image and since God is Love when Love shines thru us then God's Image is shining thru us.

We are not going to save the world, take an honest look at it.

One could almost say that God is going to save us in spite of ourselves.

God is the Law and the Law is LOVE.

You then wrote, "Well then, we are in deep trouble, eh? Things are not yet bad enough in America. Will they get bad enough for humans to re-envision the future?"

For one thing, you haven't seen anything yet and for another thing, America is not the whole world. Look around, honestly, has human nature changed?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

BMORRIS244

You wrote, "Mr. Baum:
You said, "not even God can force someone to do something," which is fundamentally untrue from the point of anyone who believes in a sole God who is, by definition, all-powerful and benevolent."

What I actually wrote was, "We have free will and since it is free not even God can force someone to do something,". It wouldn't be free will unless it is free, would it?

Then you wrote, "The fact that God allows us to disobey him is a testament to His love, but I'm sure you know that."

If God wanted robots or puppets on a string, I suppose He would have created a worthless creation like some seem to want but He didn't.

Love is not an attribute of God, Love is God's Very Being.

Then you wrote, "This "everyone should make decisions for themselves" smacks of relativism. And sorry, but I can't stand relativists."

I did not say that "everyone should make decisions for themselves", I said everyone has to make their own decisions, God gave us free will, ALL OF US, did He or didn't He?

What is "relativism" and who are "relativists"?

Do those two words derive from "relative"?

Considering that God became One of Us that means that He became the Brother of ALL OF US, so we are all relatives, are we not?

Since God is Love then the Law is Love, the Law is God, Himself. Love comes from within, it cannot be imposed from the outside.

Behaviour, to a point, can be forced on a person but love cannot be.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

MMM1110

You wrote, "You fail to notice that I specifically stated that I was talking about the CHILDREN of the Great Depression. The children of the Great Depression were too young to know anything about the Roaring Twenties. The financial collapse occurred in 1929. They never experienced the Roaring Twenties."

Are we the children or the adults of the present meltdown?

How many people were complaining when the stock market got so artificially inflated?

How many people were complaining when the prices of houses went, to say the least, crazy?

There is so much talk putting the blame on some that were just trying to put a roof over their own and their family's heads. What about those that drove the prices sky-high just to put some more 0000's into their "portfolio"?

Is this the so called "American Dream"?

You then wrote, "You either fail to forget or do not know that the Roaring Twenties was not roaring for most Americans. Most of America was rural and poor during the 1920's."

Do you think that everybody profitted this time or just a few, there are many people even before the meltdown that were just getting by and some that were not even doing that.

A lot of these people that are justing getting by also happen to be some of the people that work the hardest and get paid the least. Human nature has not changed.

Also considering that rural and poor people could at least provide food for their families and others whereas now the percentage of people that are totally dependent on others for the basic necessities for survival changes the whole equation this time around, does it not?

You also wrote, "The large middle class that most Americans know came into existance only after WWII. There was only a very small middle class before that".

The "middle class" has been eroding for years.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CCNL

You wrote, "Of the billions of humans who have walked on this Earth, why is it that only Thomas, "the Moses of the NT", Baum knows god's plan. Strange or is it simply another one of Baum's hallucinations???"

If this is the case, then you will have to ask God.

I may not know all of the details but I do not have to know them. It is plainly written in the bible in many places about God's Plan.

Doesn't it say something to the effect: "I will reveal My Plans to the simple". The fact that it is simple is just baffling to those that are trying to figure everything out.

The fact that God is a Being of Pure Love as opposed to Love being an attribute of God is most important in thinking about God.

God, Who Is outside of creation, also became part of creation when He became Jesus, Who before that was and still is the Second Person of the Trinity to put it in human words.

Even tho I have met the Trinity, I cannot explain the Trinity, God is a Trinity and yet Is One.

Don't worry, you will meet God and so will everybody else. God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

HOMASBAUM :
Thomas wrote:
We are not going to "save" the world, God has a Plan which He has had since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

But Thomas, we are God! There is no one else to save the world but us, all of us. That is the Plan, and that is the Law.

What you wrote is fine but if you read what other people have written, you should be able to see that it just won't be. Not only what other people have written but what people throughout the ages have done and continue to do.

Well then, we are in deep trouble, eh? Things are not yet bad enough in America. Will they get bad enough for humans to re-envision the future?

We have free will and since it is free not even God can force someone to do something, that is why, as I have stated above, that God came up with His Plan even before creation.

Yes, we have free will, but circumstances which are the results of our own actions, will educate us in the facts of life: that there are no "free passes", that there are consequences to every thought and action; that in this nuclear age of greed, fear is rampant, and trust is nowhere to be seen; that sharing the world's resources is the only way forward, since all else has been tried and failed. The Kingdom of God is within you: Luke 17:21.
When the star is seen, night and day, around the world, a great spiritual Teacher will give a first interview on a major, major US television show. Watch for that star, then watch your tv. He will speak of the oneness of humanity, the need for sharing, love and justice if we are to survive on this planet: www.share-international.org

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Moral obligations do not apply to just ‘tough times’. Again, as with past questions, if this question is going to be addressed from the standpoint of “sacred texts”, then moral obligations will be in accordance with what one views as a sacred text. Otherwise, each individual will determine his/her moral obligation by their own choosing. But nonetheless, will make their decision based upon some ‘standard’.

The question uses a phrase taken from the Bible as it is recorded in Genesis 4:9 that Cain, after killing his own brother was approached by God and asked, “Where is your brother Abel?” Cain replies, I don’t know…am I my brother’s keeper?”

The original question then has nothing to do with finances.

The nation of Israel had responsibility toward each other to help when one fell upon hard times (Deut. 15:1-11; 22:1-4; and chapter 25)

Yet their law also gave instructions toward those who were irresponsible (Exodus chapter 21 thru chapter 23:6.

Under the gospel, Christians are likewise to be benevolent based upon their relationships they sustain. As citizens, they have individual responsibility (Luke 10:25-37 and as members of the body of Christ, they have instructions in responsible living (Eph. 4:28-29; 1 Thess. 3:6-13). In the home, there are responsibilities (Eph. 6).

The gospel declares that the Christian has moral obligations, irregardless of economic conditions, toward their brethren in Christ, and to all others (Galatians 6:1-10).

Both Moses and Jesus declared that there will always be poor (Deut. 15:7-11; Matt. 26:11)
Distinction must be made as to the spiritually poor and the physically poor when applying these passages.

The gospel declares that Christians are to be wise stewards of that with which God has prospered us, and to be thankful for His blessings. This will, in part, be seen in the discharge of their responsibilities as it applies to the use of those possessions.

theological crisis.

people are serparated from their creator ,they preach god on sat and sun but the working days they practice their own humanbeings.

they have faith in god but they take human being as their savior and bailer out.

they made it all the way to the moon but still digging in the relics of ignorance and backwardness of darwinism .

what do you expect from the above ^vegetable market^?

1-theological crisis.
2-moral crisis.
3-monetary crisis.
4-delusional mentality crisis.

darwin died for your sin!!!

Should the more responsible people (financially) bail out the less responsible in today's economic crisis?

Perhaps light can be shed on the problem by discussing the relationship of Darwin's theory of evolution with respect to the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S.

Darwin's theory of course has a species subject to its environment, that it clearly does not master its environment as much as it is directed by environmental change--which is to say the fortunate of the species are those which can keep abreast of environmental change, which can "fit" into the new (to the species) environment. And this of course is called natural selection.

But when we speak of man with respect to Darwin's theory we have a species which with increasing intellect has moved from being a species subject to the environment to a species which can not only master its environment but alter it in particular ways. According to Darwin's theory there really is no particular direction a species is headed toward let alone that a species is special and has a stand out destiny, but when we speak of man we speak of a species that has moved toward being able to select what it wants to be rather than a species subject to environmental change as all other species.

Now what does this particular evolutionary position of man have to do with the Republican and Democratic parties in America--let alone the economic crisis we are in? Well, the answer is rather simple. The Republican party with its constant attempts to preserve as much of laissez faire as possible is a party which although not being able to take us backward to where man is like all other species, subject to the environment (natural selection),--and of course the Republican party does not want to take us that far back--attempts to reduce society to a close approximation of natural selection by having the members of the human species compete inordinately with one another. Man here is still the species which masters its environment rather than being subject to it, but society is reduced to an "every man for himself" battle. And this of course is what has been called social Darwinism. Furthermore, we can clearly see how a relentless social leaning toward such a position can precipitate an economic crisis. Here greed is apparently good. And last, but not least, here man surrenders possible rational directions in which the human race can grow and has human direction at the whim of whoever ends up on top of society through a power struggle.

Now where does the modern Democratic party stand with respect to Darwin's theory of evolution? Well, first of all, a Democratic reading of Darwin's theory postulates that social Darwinism is a misreading of Darwin, that Darwin never suggested this as being in line with natural selection or any personal desire of his for how society should be run. So far so good. It should not be difficult to find a person who will concur. But read what happens next. Democrats although supporting the concept of Darwin's natural selection and holding to the belief no species has a special destiny--that there is no obvious and totally successful evolutionary direction a species can take--try their best to totally undercut Darwin's theory and have man neither subject to natural selection nor clearly attempting to rationally determine a direction for himself. What Democrats do instead is follow in the direction of Marx and have every human considered equal to every other in every way. All possible differences between races and the two sexes let alone differences within a particular race are played down and every person becomes a viable direction the human race can take. Direction the human race can take is sacrificed to a spreading out horizontally of the human race and needless to say, this leads to not only a fragmentation of direction for the human race but reinforces the monotony of the human race being not at all special, as subject almost to the whims of natural selection like all other species. Furthermore we can see here there is no great gain in ground against social Darwinism. When under the Democrats socialistic urges--that there is no strong nor weak--society clearly threatens to collapse not only economically but even resurrects social Darwinism as the antidote to society attempting to arrest itself, as it were, from establishing a clear direction for itself.

In short, both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of our current economic crisis. Society is wrenched back and forth between a social Darwinistic impulse and the socialistic desire to have at least no one fail and possibly all succeed. Needless to say, both Republicans and Democrats misread Darwin. The one by having society reduced to a close approximation of man in the state of nature and the other by trying to arrest natural selection completely and have society the success of having every one with a place, no matter how weak intellectually, sick or criminal the person.

Now what is the correct reading of Darwin? Recognizing of course, first, natural selection. Second, recognizing that although man is not really more special than the animals, still man is the creature who not only has mastered his environment to a great extent--has been escaping natural selection--he has been getting into position to select what he himself wants to be. Logically man must refine his sense of being able to establish direction for himself. Odysseus truly learned at last. And needless to say, once man understands that, we probably will have no more economic crises at all.

Thank you, MMM1110! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Mr. Baum:
You said, "not even God can force someone to do something," which is fundamentally untrue from the point of anyone who believes in a sole God who is, by definition, all-powerful and benevolent. The fact that God allows us to disobey him is a testament to His love, but I'm sure you know that.

You also said, "We are all in this together, the whole human race, not just "Americans." We are all brothers and sisters."
This is exactly what I have been saying for the past few days. While my actions alone count for something, they do not count nearly as much as the combined efforts of everyone working together. The sum of the parts does not equal the whole. Of course individual decisions are involved. But no one person will solve this problem. Not me, not you, not Obama, not Limbaugh, McCain, Pelosi, or the rest. It's up to us. Those with "wordly power" have already proven their worth.

This "everyone should make decisions for themselves" smacks of relativism. And sorry, but I can't stand relativists.

Ben

You wrote, "The children of the Great Depression were much more frugal. They learned early in life that things can fall apart. What is happening right now is nothing in comparison to what the 1930's were like. Many people could take a page out of how the children of the Great Depression lived and live. They lived within their means, not over their means. It may sound out of date, but many people are finding that living way above one's means leads to bankruptcy"

Before the "Great Depression" there was the Roaring Twenties, was it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

You fail to notice that I specifically stated that I was talking about the CHILDREN of the Great Depression. The children of the Great Depression were too young to know anything about the Roaring Twenties. The financial collapse occurred in 1929. They never experienced the Roaring Twenties.

You either fail to forget or do not know that the Roaring Twenties was not roaring for most Americans. Most of America was rural and poor during the 1920's. The concentration of wealth during the 1920's was as great as what many complain about today. When the financial system collapsed in 1929, the First Gilded Age ended. The large middle class that most Americans know came into existance only after WWII. There was only a very small middle class before that. No cigar for you.

Of the billions of humans who have walked on this Earth, why is it that only Thomas, "the Moses of the NT", Baum knows god's plan. Strange or is it simply another one of Baum's hallucinations???

A more appropriate context for the circumstance

is are we our drug addicted brothers supplier

of his next fix?

THINK2

You wrote, "When we share, we recognize God in our brother. It is the opposite of competition. Sharing breeds trust. Competition breeds fear and greed. If everyone has enough to meet his/her needs, and sufficiency is taught as a standard, there will be justice and right relationships among all people. That is what will save the world."

We are not going to "save" the world, God has a Plan which He has had since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

What you wrote is fine but if you read what other people have written, you should be able to see that it just won't be. Not only what other people have written but what people throughout the ages have done and continue to do.

We have free will and since it is free not even God can force someone to do something, that is why, as I have stated above, that God came up with His Plan even before creation.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

MMM1110

You wrote, "The children of the Great Depression were much more frugal. They learned early in life that things can fall apart. What is happening right now is nothing in comparison to what the 1930's were like. Many people could take a page out of how the children of the Great Depression lived and live. They lived within their means, not over their means. It may sound out of date, but many people are finding that living way above one's means leads to bankruptcy"

Before the "Great Depression" there was the Roaring Twenties, was it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

BMORRIS244

You wrote, "However, it will not be the individual, acting alone, that will end this crisis, but collective effort."

This "crisis" may or may not end, so to speak, but what one does is their choice, good or bad, it is their choice.

You also wrote, "Yes, we are all (or, rather, SHOULD all be) responsible for our actions (since it was irresponsibility that got us into this mess and continues to make it worse for everyone)."

What I am saying is that we are all responsible for our actions, whether or not we acknowledge that responsibility is up to each individual person.

Then you wrote, "I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say. To me, it all seems very ambiguous for a forum in which we're supposed to give opinions (preferably concrete)..."

I am here to speak for God, I do not have solutions, what I am saying is that it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Those with worldly power can deal with the "crisis" as you put it the best that they can but it would be more accurate to say "crises" would it not?

No matter how bad it may get, we, individually, still have to make decisions day by day of what our actions will be.

We are all in this together, the whole human race, not just "Americans".

We are all brothers and sisters.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Yes. We must practice the principle of sharing, sharing Earth's resources so that all may have the basic necessities of life: nutritious food, safe shelter, adequate healthcare and all the education needed.

When we share, we recognize God in our brother. It is the opposite of competition. Sharing breeds trust. Competition breeds fear and greed. If everyone has enough to meet his/her needs, and sufficiency is taught as a standard, there will be justice and right relationships among all people. That is what will save the world.

People that are crying poverty today went heavily into debt. They had to have everything now rather than waiting. They literally spent tomorrow's money yesterday. I do not have any pity tears for them. They cannot handle money, which is an essential part of life. I am not responsible for them. Today's situation is about greedy people, not poor people. I do not feel like helping greedy people who wanted instant gratification for every single "need."

The children of the Great Depression were much more frugal. They learned early in life that things can fall apart. What is happening right now is nothing in comparison to what the 1930's were like. Many people could take a page out of how the children of the Great Depression lived and live. They lived within their means, not over their means. It may sound out of date, but many people are finding that living way above one's means leads to bankruptcy.

"Even tho we are theoretically the "government", people still have to decide what they are going to do, as it were, above and beyond the call of "duty", what I am trying to say is that it is not just collective action but also individual action."

We're not even "theoretically" the government, though. The nature of the republic and the federalist system which we use is to give other people the responsibility to speak with our voices. Therefore, it is an even greater travesty that these people, to whom we have entrusted our voices, our rights, and our money, show us so little regard.

I think the individual action is stressed too much, while the collective action is not stressed enough. I don't disagree that individual action is and will continue to be necessary. However, it will not be the individual, acting alone, that will end this crisis, but collective effort.

Yes, we are all (or, rather, SHOULD all be) responsible for our actions (since it was irresponsibility that got us into this mess and continues to make it worse for everyone).
I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say. To me, it all seems very ambiguous for a forum in which we're supposed to give opinions (preferably concrete)...

BMORRIS244

I wrote, ""I suppose this is something that each individual person has to decide on their own, just like everything else in life."

You replied, "I have to disagree"

Even tho we are theoretically the "government", people still have to decide what they are going to do, as it were, above and beyond the call of "duty", what I am trying to say is that it is not just collective action but also individual action.

I have no answers and I am not here to try and give answers, I am just here to tell the world that: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

The world is a mess, economically, enviromentally and in many other ways, one will do what one will do but what I am saying is that we are responsible for what we do.

We can share or hoard, reach out or shove away, as I have said we have free will, what we do with it is our choice.

I am just a messenger, as I have said: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Some liberals, "red necker" conservatives, Christians, Mormans and Muslims have beat their chests on this topic about how charitable (or not) they are. In reality, the USA taxpayer far exceeds their support of country and global needs. e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security to include SSI, Unemployment Benefits, Grants to States, Bailouts, Foreign Aid, Homeland Security, Global Security, Low Cost Student Loans, Medical Research Grants, No Child Left Behind Programs and Faith-based Intiatives.

www.bls.gov/emp/empmacro08.htm

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html

Should the more responsible people bail out the less responsible in today's economic crisis?

I really know nothing of economics despite all the books on such I have read. I analyze the problem from something of a sociological perspective.

For years now--since as far back as the civil rights movement in the U.S.--America has been in the grip of a psychological battle with itself.

The conservative element in American life has not only seen its religious foundation attacked by increasing secularism, the typical viewpoint of the modern liberal has led to the conclusion that the more conservative element is "culturally evil" causing a reactionary (Republican party) trend toward both religion and self-serving business practices.

All hinges on describing the view of the typical liberal: The typical liberal believes that not only the poor of other races and ethnic groups than the white (typically the black and the Hispanic) have been unfairly stigmatized as intellectually weaker, the poor of the white race have been stigmatized accordingly by the wealthy white.

Furthermore, although it is tempting to the modern liberal to follow its near sacred belief in Darwin's theory of evolution and say the wealthy white are biologically evil (and this is why whites oppress especially people of other races) the modern liberal does not follow this course lest biology be turned against himself for possibly up to several reasons.

What the modern liberal says instead is that the wealthy white--Republicans in general--have had a "detrimental cultural upbringing" (especially nasty is all that good old-fashioned religion--the patriarchal society in general) and if only the wealthy white--the dominant class in general--can be brought to liberalism then all people within society can be not only intellectually equal (as they really are according to the liberal) but financially equal as well.

So the true sacred religion of the modern liberal is redistributionist economic policies, derived typically from Marx. The typical liberal says the poor are poor for one reason only: They are being oppressed by the more dominant class, typically rich white people.

So the liberal thinks nothing harmful can possibly come from not only blaming the more wealthy elements only for the current economic crisis, nothing harmful can come by a massive socialistic process of propping up the poor.

When the possibility that not only the poor from other races and ethnic groups than the white (typically blacks and Hispanics) but the poor of the white are intellectually inferior is not entertained, we have a terrible psychological struggle between those committed to redistributing wealth from the "culturally evil" typically white people, and the "culturally evil" white people who despise being branded as such and hew all the more powerfully to religion and selfish business practices.

Society gets placed in an artificial atmosphere where universal wealth is entertained by primarily liberals and all too many people--particularly of the dominant class--try to assert themselves by abnormal proportions, by massive self-serving expenditures, by the most ridiculous attempts to create identity.

Eventually we have the perfect society: Republicans and Democrats blaming each other for economic failure and all grasping for wealth, committed to the most shameful displays of trying to achieve such.

All desire to be rich and bask in a world of flaunting egos, but the more likely eventuality is that all end up poor, egos aggrandized toward only blaming the other--universal anarchy.

When the above is considered, which political party really is responsible for leading us backward to a world of dog eat dog, social Darwinistic practices?

Which party is responsible for taking us beyond racism?

Answer to the first question: Both and neither.

Answer to the second question: The same.

I agree with Prime Minister Gordon Brown's address to Congress yesterday. His address complemented Obama's address in February. As my mother said, Brown gave the best sermon she has heard in many years. The religious right and hard-core we-do-not-have-to-cooperate conservatives need to listen to what Brown said. His pitch for the economic situation is clear. He explained the wealthy component very, very well. The wealthy ignore the injunctions in the Bible to their peril.

By the way, I understand that President Obama and the First Lady are going to Europe at the end of the month. I can only imagine the size of the American-flag-waving crows that will be present. The world may be in economic straits, but Obama does have a way to lift the dialogue and the moment.

"I suppose this is something that each individual person has to decide on their own, just like everything else in life."

I have to disagree. If everyone 'makes the decision for himself,' where do we stand? Apart. This is not something that we can just leave alone. The problem won't solve itself. It will take the cooperative, united efforts of many Americans to pull us out of this crisis. People thinking together, working for a common goal.

This particular of Meacham and Quinn's loaded questions bears striking similarity to the pre-election-time mantra that raising taxes is "patriotic," or otherwise "morally obligatory..."

Yes, as the old saying goes, what goes around comes around. It's morally good and good for business.

Don't expect the rich and the people who got us into this mess to help either. If you are really in trouble, ask a poor person. They will find a way.

I suppose this is something that each individual person has to decide on their own, just like everything else in life.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I suppose this is something that each individual person has to decide on their own, just like everything else in life.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

REVCAIN777

You wrote, " Help people who have had great misfortunte, but who have played by the rules,".

I would like to ask you a question, do you think Christianity is about "rules"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

No and No. On many occasions I have helped a friend, a neighbor, a colleague in need. In the current fiasco, I have not been "asked" to bail out anyone. My money is being taken without me having a single thing to say about it. I am raising my children on my own (x is a deadbeat and pays no child support.) I work two jobs, have taken in renters, tightened our belts and will continue to do what is necessary to provide a home and a life for my children. I am not "filthy rich" as one poster stated of those who don't want to help. I barely scrape by. Anyone who tries to call me immoral because I disapprove of the bailout is a jerk. I am so tired of people taking ZERO responsibility for anything in their lives. The democrats blame the republicans, the republicans blame the democrats, the people losing their homes blame the banks, the poor blame the wealthy. Where on earth has the concept of personal responsibility gone? Every person who bought into a slick scheme to qualify for a mortgage they couldn't afford bears responsibility for that decision. Whether or not the bank contributed is irrelevant. You are not blameless. People need to stop expecting a hand out and take responsibility for getting their own lives back on track. When they do, people like me are much more likely to lend the occasional hand to help them out. At least we know they are working to do the right thing as opposed to just asking someone else to clean up their mess. We're all adults here - start acting like it!

Yet another "OnFaith" topic that has nothing to do with faith, but everything to do with liberal dogma.

"do those of us who handled our finances responsibly have a moral obligation to bail out those of us who didn't?"

First, 'a moral obligation' implies a universal morality. If one is religious I suppose that's an easy one to answer. For those of us not burdened with tenets of mythology it is not so clear cut.
History and personal experience tells me that it works for individuals in a society to provide assistance to its more unfortunate in times of need. Many of the anecdotal postings here also show that. So for me, I give in form of charity, taxes and time to assist the unfortunate, not because of some form of cosmic obligation, or fear of burning in hell if I don't. It's much simpler than that, Helping others in time of need helps both that person and the community.
So as far as being 'morally obligated'? No. That is not the same as asking "Is it a good thing to do?"

Q: In tough times, do those of us who handled our finances responsibly have a moral obligation to bail out those of us who didn't?
A: NO
Q: Are we our brother's keeper economically?
A: NO

Even I, as a liberal Protestant Christian, am a bit taken back by the notion I am somehow obligated to support a blanket bailout. Help people who have had great misfortunte, but who have played by the rules, YES! Spend billions of borrowed money so people can return to their points of consumerism which got them in their bad situation to begin with? NO WAY. Really, does the Christ of justice demand bailout for those upper class suburbanites who hyper extended themselves? I doubt it.

The responses amaze me. It seems that the longer the response the more likely the answer is NO. Well, I say YES. YES. YES.

The essence of morality is free choice - the possibility of NOT doing the right thing.
Helping your neighbor is also a free choice.
It's an opportunity to test yourself on the issue of what sort of person you want to be.
It's also an individual-case matter.
People who are manipulating legal loopholes in order to get ahead of their neighbor warrant our sympathy less than people who are doing their level best with the resources they have, and yet still land in deep trouble.

On the surface, this question would require a "yes of course we want to help" reply, or risk feeling guilty and a bad person.

This is a trick question. HELP means many things, giving eggs to a neighbor is help, but using Americans tax dollars to bail out industries and individuals is not HELP, it is robbery.

Infantile people who take on debt they cannot pay or large companies who are insolvent due to malpractice do not deserve bailouts.

They do not deserve the taxpayers money. God helps those who help themselves.

Communism says that we should "equalize" everybody in a perfect Heaven-like society. This is a FAILED SYSTEM.
Charity begins at home. Charity is a human impulse and we can follow it as INDIVIDUALS. It is not the government's role to be the Mother and Father of all the People. ULtimately this takes all power away from the People.
There are PLENTY of intelligent alternatives to helping by enabling bad behaviour by giving handouts. Lets explore those alternatives.

And no, you're not a bad person if you stick up for discipline, personal responsibility, and freedom from government. The government has no right to take your tax money and bail others out with it, either domestically or internationally.

It has a right to protect our God given rights to pursue our own lives the way we see fit. It may ENCOURAGE us, to behave better, but that actually is the role of RELIGION, not Government.

Renters have been subsidizing all homeowners for decades, via the mortgage interest deduction to the federal income tax. As a renter, I see no difference between subsidizing one homeowner or another. It troubles me that some homeowners who have taken for granted that they are subsidized by renters are so unwilling to subsidize other homeowners.

I believe in Hillel's statement of enlightened self-interest:"If I am not for myself, who will be; if I am only for myself, what am I?"

Helping one's neighbor is fine, if it doesn't bankrupt one's self. And should one keep bankrolling someone who never learns from his mistakes? Isn't that actually enabling someone's bad behavior and poor judgment?

Furthermore, in some bailouts, there's an element of infantilism, or treating adults as if they are not responsible for decisions they made even though they would otherwise be insulted to be told that they need someone else to make decisions for them, that they're too ignorant or incapable of good judgment. If someone bought too much house or used it as an ATM, well, that's poor judgment. If someone is the victim of out-and-out fraud or simple bad luck, such as losing a job, those are something else entirely.

My mother was a teenager during the Depression and she told me many times how her Mother would buy milk, eggs, etc. for neighbors whenever she could. My grandfather had a job working on the railroad so my mother's family wasn't hit as hard as some people. I think it says something that that is one big thing she took away from that time in her life - helping your neighbors.

No. But it makes economic sense to provide people a bridge to better times. The Great Depression produced a generation that believed in living within your means and saving for a rainy day. We need to get back to that approach. As a people we think that what we want is what we need. Let's step back from consumerism and get back to living within our means.

What about someone who WAS acting responsibly, then lost their job? Should we punish them because their employers were irresponsible?

And yes, someone buying a house in Pittsburgh IS affected by the housing glut in Miami. Why? Because lenders are, for the most part, national. They've taken so many losses in high-growth areas such as Miami that they have stricter loan controls for EVERYONE in every area, not just in Miami. The recession/depression (re-pression?) is not just in one or two states, it's EVERYWHERE. Do you know what else is scaled to property values? Your property taxes. If property values decline, that means that the government that depends on them will have to raise taxes or cut services to make up for that. That means cuts in police departments, fire departments, road crews, snow removal, etc.

People need to think about the big picture here. We are all connected. Even those of you who claim to be "rugged individualists". You may have done it all by yourself, but you still drive on roads, use the Internet, depend on the police and fire service to keep you safe, and the snow plows to get your street plowed and salted. IT's the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.

In order to stabilize the financial markets, some of these nitwits will probably have to be bailed out. If these irresponsible people do get bailouts, they should have to make restitution to society. I think REAL community service work from 9AM to 7PM on all weekend, all holidays and all vacaction time should be spent doing community service work. In addition, material possessions should be removed from the homes by the government. These goods to not belong to those getting bailed out. The goods actually would belong to the responsible taxpayers. Sell the stuff at auction at a reduced price to those who want it and can pay or trash it. Those who get bailed out and live in their homes can sleep on the floor. People who were responsible are seeing their savings evaporate. They are losing their jobs. Why should renters see any of their tax dollars diverted to help homeowners? Why should people who lived through the Great Depression and never took such financial risks see their tax dollars diverted to these nitwits? People who lived on credit for everything did it to themselves. They can look in the mirror and see who got them into debt. Nobody was forced to buy anything on credit. Who but an idiot buys homes with no downpayment, teaser interest rates, etc. Who flips homes every year or two on the crazy idea that home prices will only go up? These people really should be pitching a tent in America's streets.

Yes.

Obvious to Christians and to Jews we are obligated to share with our neighbors in need.
From a practical perspective it was easier to follow this Commandment during the previous 1920's and 30's Depression when we (USA) were farm based. How in today's insular bits and bytes culture do we share? In this 21st century Depression both the well educated and those less educated are jobless. Many who have lived compassionate and frugal lives are now unable to feed themselves. Why not take back what has been stolen from our land and share these ill gotten funds with those in need? Have Geroge W. and friends commited acts of treason?

What I find irksome on the whole, I can totally sympathize with on a small scale. I do have friends who have been negatively impacted by the economic downturn. I don't know if it's because they spent too much in good faith or they were greedy or were slickered by a lender. I do know that they are fearful for what might happen to them or their families or their employment opportunities. If there is something I can do to help, I will do it. I guess when I figure I'm willing to put out for my friends and neighbors, it makes the whole economic bailout a little easier to swallow!

No Way. I cannot support those who acted irresponsibly, whether they knew what they were doing or not with respect to obtaining an unaffordable mortgage or too much credit. In mortgage matters as well as other financial transactions, a healthy dose of caution and skepticism was suddenly and oddly lacking in millions of people, which is interesting and distressing all at the same time. Interesting because suddenly millions of people were prompted to use false credit to purchase things that 1)they knew they could not afford, and 2) they really, truly didn't need to survive (who needs a $600 cashmere sweater??...listen to NPR today to get the scoop in this story). Distressing because suddenly millions of people were convinced they were "entitled" to the uncessary possessions of the upper middle class (those who make more than $200K per year, and borderline wealthy (those whose assessts are consistently higher than $1-2 million). I'm not sure who said this but if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

This is a totally loaded question along the lines of "when did you stop beating your dog." Let me guess - Is the poser of the question a flaming liberal?

For those of you who answered "yes" to this question. Please help me, I lost money gambling or was it in the stock market? I can't remember? Anyway I lost money please bail me out. If you really feel this way then go find a neighbor in trouble and write them a check. Rodney Dangerfield said it best "I stopped loaning my brother money, it gave him amnesia."

This is not a moral question, its a loaded one. Some should be offered lower rates if they qualify. However, trying to stop foreclosure is only going to lengthen the entire crisis. People need to unload and reset as soon as possible. Find an apartment to rent just like the rest of us who never got suckered into buying a home they could not afford. Many of these home owners treated their homes like checking accounts and took out equity two and three times. What happened to that money? Do you think it was spent wisely? Give me break.

When negros and other unqualified people take out loans that they never can repay, it is fraud. They deserve jail, not a bailout.

Not only is it morally responsible to "help thy neighbor" it is the one human behavior that offers all of us a chance to prove our civility. Some of us did all the proper things financially and still had our savings and modest wealth stolen from us by irresponsible people supported by the last administration. They are the theives and we, as the old saying goes, "was robbed." And those who claim to be religious only to turn their backs on such victimized relatives or former friends are nothing more than evil hypocrites.

Not only is it morally responsible to "help thy neighbor" it is the one human behavior that offers all of us a chance to prove our civility. Some of us did all the proper things financially and still had our savings and modest wealth stolen from us by irresponsible people supported by the last administration. They are the theives and we, as the old saying goes, "was robbed." And those who claim to be religious only to turn their backs on such victimized relatives or former friends are nothing more than evil hypocrites.

It depends upon how far you want to drive the argument. We have a duty to help our fellow countrymen, but not the world, if that means our own citizens doing without adequate food, housing, medical care, or jobs. And, we have an obligation to help our fellow countrymen, if they aren't "gold digging". So, I would advocate helping even a foolish neighbor who bought a mortgage they could barely afford and, now, having lost their job cannot make those payments. But, I wouldn't feel any need to help the "Octo-mom". Likewise, I wouldn't help illegals at all and think any sort of foreign aide is vile when so many of our own citizens are without jobs or health insurance. I think it is immoral, even crosses the border of treason, for a company to outsource a job or factory or continue to support any outsourced job or guest worker of any sort.

Looking at the table above, you can see that more than 1.5 million houses were build every year from 2001 until 2006 (in 2007, total annual home construction was almost exactly 1.5 million). These numbers imply that there were roughly 2 million “extra” houses built between 2001 and 2006; to return to equilibrium, home building must remain under 1.5 million per year for several years. The adjustment does not occur all at once (home building going to zero) because the extra houses are not distributed equally in all states and cities. A family looking for a new house in Pittsburgh is not affected by the hundreds (or thousands) of extra homes in Miami or San Diego."

http://understandingthemarket.com/?p=18

2 million homes X ~$200,000/home= $400 billion worth of builder loans that could not be repaid???

And now we the US taxpayers own 2 million empty homes??? and at least five banks who made these bad loans???

Okay, there were a lot of people who over-bought, or were flipping, or bought without down payments. They're the 2009 equivalents of "welfare queens driving Cadillacs". They're the ones that are making it tough to take anyone in this situation seriously. The truth is that the majority of the people who are facing foreclosure were NOT abusing the system. They were doing everything that they should have done, until they were laid off, faced a catastrophic illness, or their retirement money that they were living off of went into the crapper. Are they "losers"? No. They're victims of the spiraling economy. These people deserve our help.

Besides, it also helps other homeowners in the long run. If there is a foreclosure in the neighborhood, the property values for the entire neighborhood go down. Homes sit vacant, which attract crime. So, it pays in the long run to keep people in their homes.

I don't like the term "Bailout", but I do think we need to be charitable to people regardless of why they are in need. That isn't to say we shouldn't evaluate their situation and give aid with discression.

I am on the deacon board at church and one of our jobs is to give from a Deacon Fun to those who need it. Currently the fund is healthly but also limited. We need to figure on who to give help to, knowing that we need to wise stewards.

I think we should try to help those who made mistakes, but not take away the consequences. Stupid behaviour has consequences and needs to, that way people don't do it again. But we should always be ready with compassion so that people land on their feet and can bounce back. For instance, someone that has bought a house they could never afford is probably going to lose it, there isn't much any of us can do. But we can help them to get into a cheaper house or an apartment while they try to afford a house. We can take aways other expenses that may have built up to lighten the load. This will help the person to learn the lesson but also see the mercy of God.

Of course, we should always make sure that the wrongdoer has repented of their wrongdoings. Without this any gift is a waste of time and money. This is also why I believe doing this on a local level is the only effective way. Governments aren't ever good judges of this.

I also believe we must put first those who are truly innocent victoms. Obviously there are many people who have been hurt in this climate, while doing everything possible to be right. They should take priority over others who caused their own problems. We should have a place for both but we are also limited in resources.

"In tough times, do those of us who handled our finances responsibly have a moral obligation to bail out those of us who didn't?"

That appears to now be a moot point... Whether or not any of us have a 'moral' obligation is trumped by the fact that congress has determined that we all have a 'legal' obligation...

"In tough times, do those of us who handled our finances responsibly have a moral obligation to bail out those of us who didn't?"

The very premise is nothing but right wing double talk. Gibberish. Nonsense.

The people who were responsible, for your edification, were the banks and the politicians who deregulated them. These were predominantly but not exclusively Republicans, starting with Reagan, continuing through Bush and Clinton (the best Republican president ever) and culminating with Bush II.

There was a time, Ms Quinn and Mr Meacham, a time I'm certain you're old enough to remember, when people were actually turned down for mortgages. Imagine that! A bank telling a prospective borrower "no!" And that occurred quite often. That's how these people you so readily dismiss as irresponsible found out they couldn't afford a mortgage.

But you see, you're filthy rich, so you're above all that. You see this as an encroachment on the wealth you accumulated, and refuse to recognize how your wealth was made off the backs of people put out of work to inflate your portfolio. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and you're going apoplectic on us.

So, yes, my superstitious self-righteous friends, those of you who "handled your finances responsibly," code-speak for "making hay while the sun shines" will now be called upon to bear the pain along with the rest of us who didn't have the resources to profit from this profligate criminality. How you could possibly imagine that you're above it illustrates how arrogant you truly are.

And that you would uncritically promulgate this ridiculous meme of divisiveness in the vain hope we won't increase your taxes out of sympathy for your plight exposes your true nature as a right wing political operative hiding behind religiosity.

"In tough times, do those of us who handled our finances responsibly have a moral obligation to bail out those of us who didn't?"

The very premise is nothing but right wing double talk. Gibberish. Nonsense.

The people who were responsible, for your edification, were the banks and the politicians who deregulated them. These were predominantly but not exclusively Republicans, starting with Reagan, continuing through Bush and Clinton (the best Republican president ever) and culminating with Bush II.

There was a time, Ms Quinn and Mr Meacham, a time I'm certain you're old enough to remember, when people were actually turned down for mortgages. Imagine that! A bank telling a prospective borrower "no!" And that occurred quite often. That's how these people you so readily dismiss as irresponsible found out they couldn't afford a mortgage.

But you see, you're filthy rich, so you're above all that. You see this as an encroachment on the wealth you accumulated, and refuse to recognize how your wealth was made off the backs of people put out of work to inflate your portfolio. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and you're going apoplectic on us.

So, yes, my superstitious self-righteous friends, those of you who "handled your finances responsibly," code-speak for "making hay while the sun shines" will now be called upon to bear the pain along with the rest of us who didn't have the resources to profit from this profligate criminality. How you could possibly imagine that you're above it illustrates how arrogant you truly are.

And that you would uncritically promulgate this ridiculous meme of divisiveness in the vain hope we won't increase your taxes out of sympathy for your plight exposes your true nature as a right wing political operative hiding behind religiosity.

In tough times do those of us who handled our finances responsibly have a moral obligation to help out those who did not demonstrate responsibility? First I should say I was born into a nice home and had a decent upbringing--call me born into the middle class. Now that something of my environment is known of I would like to say both Republicans and Democrats seem responsible for our present calamity.

Of course we all hear of the greedy Wall Street types and the unregulated economy--the free market. But just as complicit--and born of the socialistic trend--are all those who expected to not only get a house for really nothing but expected its value to rise and rise.

It seems on the one hand we have greedy privileged people and on the other irresponible poor people--and in the middle we have the middle class buffeted without Warren. (Warren Buffet--get it? Bad joke, sorry). So we are in a dilemma. We can neither feel good about bailing out the wealthy--all those banks, Wall street, etc.--nor all the less fortunate who expected homes for really nothing and now find themselves on the skids.

What can we do for the economy? It seems somehow we must regulate the upper registers of society and be somewhat astringent with the lower registers so we do not have rampant greed and entitlement high and low. But how do we do that? How much middle do we have between high and low to bring the high and low into line?

If there is no middle to speak of then society is something of only high and low melting into each other and vice-versa--and then of course no honest criticism of our economic fiasco can be made. Somehow I think we have to return to basics, curb greed high and low and concentrate on the middle to somehow inculcate high and low responsibility.

But once again how do we do that if we do not have much middle to speak of? And is it not true that roughly high and low can be equated with Republican and Democratic respectively? What do we do with people breaking along sheer lines, now essentially criticizing the Republicans more because so much happened on Bush's watch, but eventually arriving at the Democrats sad contribution to the problem? I mean the rampant socialistic tendency which puts money into sectors of society where no economic advance seems able to be made.

A difficult problem--and I should admit that I really do not know anything about what has been going on. Economics is complex enough, but now with all these assertions and counter assertions couched in the most technical and incomprehensible language...I just pretty much have written what I did because of an inability to keep my mouth shut.

But when all hell is breaking loose more than one of us has an open mouth.

As a Catholic Christian, I believe we should all try our best to help out the needy and destitute on this God-given Earth of ours. Everything that anyone possesses has really been given to them by God on trust, and really belongs to God, not them. Given on trust for what end? "To give food to those who are hungry, drink to those who are thirsty, clothing to those who are naked ..." [Matthew ch.25] Therefore, Christians (of which I count myself one) are asked, by their Lord and Master, to share any excess food, drink, clothing, shelter, etc, that they have, to those who lack sufficient of these things.

Applied to the current requests for bailouts by wealthy but imprudent corporations - the deserve our help to the extent they are destitute, and only to the extent necessary to cure their destitution. They do NOT deserve help to restore to them their former power and glory. Whether that wealth and power was ill-gotten or not is immaterial. ("Judge not, lest ye be judged" - who am I to set myself up as the judge of the morality of their wealth?)

As for poorer homeowners who risk homelessness through foreclosure - they are the ones most worthy of help, as they are the ones closest to destitution and poverty. Again, their culpability in falling behind in their mortgage repayments is immaterial. I am asked by my Lord and Teacher, Jesus Christ, to refrain from passing such judgements on my neighbour.

This is a difficult question to answer. But I suspect that the average person would say that the more wealthy and greedy people should receive no help but that the poorer people--even if they were irresponsible in, say, getting a house--should be shown sympathy and bailed out.

But does the above make sense? An argument can be made that no matter how greedy the more wealthy people have been, still they are the ones most likely to have brains and punishing them punishes us all. I mean all the Wall Street types. Furthermore rewarding the poorer people at the expense of the more wealthy--no matter how good the poor have been and no matter how greedy the more wealthy have been--is a waste because the poorer people are least likely to have the entrepreneurial, etc. skills to build up the economy.

I know that sounds cruel, but realistically speaking does it make sense to reward the poor--no matter how good they are--at the expense of the wealthy no matter how greedy the wealthy have been? Sure I suppose taking money from the greedy wealthy might have a salutary effect on the wealthy, might make them think a bit before getting off the moral track, but how does it help society if the money goes into the more poor people, the ones who rather than being able to build society up are something of a black hole from which nothing comes out?

Of course idealistically the more wealthy people would have been people who hewed to the moral track from the beginning and therefore should not be punished by having to help the poor, but this just creates a deeper argument against the poor. The poor can get out of this argument only by truly being a positive, worthwhile force in society. If nothing comes from the poor we can hardly expect the poor to be helped whether the wealthy have been greedy or not.

But the best course of action may be one no one it seems has thought of although it is transparently obvious. Wealth should be transfered from the wealthy to those society has scrutinized carefully for their chances of being of above average use to society. In other words money should be pumped into the people that demonstrate the most promise--and of course the better society gets at that, the better society gets at the true and certain lines by which society develops, the poor will automatically have their lives improved,--because after all, who better to improve the lives of the poor than a gifted person making an advance in medicine or in engineering or--?

To be absolutely clear, no money should be spent on the poor. That leads to nothing but the money's waste. It is a waste even if we are satisfying moral principles and taking money from the less savory wealthy characters. If we want money to make a difference it must get into the hands of the people that can make a difference with it.--And these people are the more gifted members of society--people being located better and better every passing day.

That is the only true path to not only getting an economy aloft, but keeping it aloft and decreasing money in the hands of the unsavory--and of course helping the poor because nothing helps the poor more than a general and solid line of advance of society.

We seem to have summarily and conveniently forgotten the problems such bailouts and stimuluses (stimuli?) caused FDR back in the REAL depression.
It was the Senate's fault Freddie and Fannie were allowed to collapse; I know personally at least one worker for Fannie who knew exactly what and when was happening, and acted accordingly. It's not like some Senators themselves didn't see it coming, either. The Senate as a whole still refuses to take responsibility. The same that happened with the airline industry will happen with the Big 3 (pretty much the only airline not to receive stimulus money, Southwest, is still the only one that is surviving on its own).
I don't think we should throw more money down the toilet with any TARP-like or "stimulus" packages. Admittedly, it was their own fault that these people have lost their homes. So, the idea that we, the fiscally responsible, have a moral OBLIGATION to bail out those who were not, is ridiculous. As is the idea that we are OBLIGING our great-grandchildren to pay of the behemoth of a "stimulus" bill that our New Hope just passed...
However, my family is fiscally responsible, and we are about to lose our business and almost lost our house. Something should be done: interest rates would be a great start.
Given, I do agree that New Orleans ranks in the top 3 in dumbest places to build a city (along with Venice and Las Vegas), but we can't just force everyone to move out of all the hurricane zones...

Thanks to big, corporate builders and low interest rates provided by the federal government to keep employment up, too many shopping centers, office buildings, corporate centers, homes, condos and apartments were built. It was obvious to all but no one stopped it. We are now faced with a glut of said structures. Oversupply leads to price reductions and reduced value of current said structures resulting in owners being saddled with homes they overmortgaged and now cannot afford or sell.

The Federal (i.e. we the taxpayers) government should no longer support builders and buyers with low interest loans but should now support the elimination of older portions of said buildings i.e. put people to work tearing down structures not building new ones. This includes tearing down New Orleans and surrounding parishes which will continue to cost taxpayers billions in humanitarian/reconstruction costs with every visit from Katrina- type hurricanes. Living below sea level is simply too risky for taxpayers to continue to support. Ditto for the rest of the hurricane regions of the USA.

As the keeper of my sisters and brothers, this I support. Add to this my support for creating green jobs i.e. more hydroelectric dams, more nuclear power plants, more wind/solar/wave farms especially off the coasts to include off the coast of Massachusetts where Senator Kennedy and his ilk have previously prevented because it would affect their ocean view from their many coastal properties.

No. People who went into debt to buy what they knew they could not afford should suffer the consquences of their actions. Bailing them out is just rewarding bad behavior. I have no sympathy for any of them.