BAILOUT vs. NO BAILOUT: IS IT OBVIOUS?

You severely understate the consequences of inaction. As you describe, the people and companies most responsible will suffer in a vacuum, with maybe some credit problems going with it, a relatively mild problem. What would happen though, is a catastrophic domino effect that would lead to a global depression, pulling down Europe, Russia and China in our wake. These defaulted mortgages will bring down the secondary mortgage market, and along with it, banks who have now worthless assets, people investing in CDs, etc. Credit will dry up and businesses will close, jobs will be lost and the stock market will plummet. Our capacity to buy goods and services will drop, bringing down commodities prices which would cripple Russia and eliminate the market for Chinese goods.

I'm not a big government guy, and certainly not a Socialist, and our habits as a nation will need to change as a result, but economic shock therapy would be disastrous at this point, and the suffering will be felt most by the ordinary people who paid their mortgages on time. I don't think the Paulson Plan is the right plan, but with McCain in there, we will get a much needed bailout. Any action now beats no action.

But if the entire globe is teetering on the brink of devastation should US markets not get their bailout; then perhaps it is time for the U.N. to announce sweeping charitable and good spirited "forgiveness of debt" to the poor U.S. -Oh,not out of love for us of course - but out of self-preservation on their part. If its their butt on the line too, then lets have Obama craft a "US Poverty Act" for the U.N., where the whole world gets taxed to rescue the dying US. Dying too strong a term? Not by some arguments FOR the bailout.