Reader #1 here - I have to agree with your mom that the excessive use of profanity detracted from the point being made. More time could have been spent attempting to measure some relative scale of impact per dollar spent on Bear Stearns and other similar government bail outs (including the cascade effect of letting them just go belly up), vs social investment programs like welfare, unemployment, and even the old WPA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal for an interesting read--damn, you can get this shit on line now, not just in the classroom or library!); the later to include the full economic impact of those employed by said government programs as well as those employed by as a result of financial support given to people in need by the government)

The write up (one might even say 'rant') focusses too broadly on the small number of fat cats who profited from the high-risk/high-reward business environment and will walk away with far more than a welfare check in their pocket. Clearly that is grossly unjust, but it is by no means the whole story, either.

soccerdad - That brings up an interesting thing for me. Did someone in the government (who?) do an assessment as to the ramifications of bailing out Bear Stearns? And if so, could we read it? :-) I think for me, tho, the biggest point of the post is "where profits are privatized and losses are socialized". And then her rant follows on that. And I think she does have a valid point, even though the swear words do detract (I agree on that....hahaha...which is ironic, no?).