But now ask yourself this: Would you rather invest in a big-name company that could see its value plummet, or in a collection of assets that have reached rock bottom, but were once quite valuable?

Clear and simple, there'd be little downside and much potential in waiting for the windfall of these assets to return to value.

And now my idea: Why should these billions of dollars of allegedly bad loans, tied to greatly diminished assets held by financial institutions, be purchased by our tax money rather than by a public eager to someday reap potential financial rewards?

In most past recessions, the bounceback on assets -- often long-delayed -- can be in the double-digit percentiles. Would you not buy a "share of stock" in the "corporation" holding these assets? Maybe 100 shares? Perhaps many more if there was liquidity to spare?

I sure would, and in part because, just like during World War II with war bonds, I would be investing in helping to fund a fight that is critical to our nation's survival.

Equally important, I realize that I'm going to fund it anyway, if only through tax payments that I will never see again.

I think I'd rather pitch in for Uncle Sam by having the opportunity to see the "corporation" holding these assets gain substantial value in future years.

This proposal probably has a million holes in it. Readers, feel free to help me find them.

But let's at least get a dialogue going. Throwing rocks at a president with a 70 percent approval rating won't get America's entrepreneurial engines running again. Let's leave the venom to those who make their living milking it from their own fangs.