@Paul
You’re right about all those things, but buying bad investments isn’t going to solve any fundamental problems. Housing pricing are (still) way out of wack with actual value and so all housing related investments are going to suck until that is fixed. Government should be promoting sectors of the economy that have potential for actual growth instead of buying into a ponzi scheme.
If you need to go into debt to pay for college, a car or PS3, maybe you shouldn’t be buying those things. I know its anti-American of me not to have 3 times my salary in debt, but that’s the way that real wealth growth works.

@Paul
So that’s $50,000 divided by 4 years. Let’s say you get a half scholarship (you should be able to do that much, right?). That’s $520 a month. Flip some burgers.
My point is that even if lending does tighten up, its not going to bring the sky raining down on us. People may have to delay buying a new car or downsize their McMansion, but those who work and save will still get by.

@paul
What I meant by “flip some burgers” is that people who work will still be able to afford college, even if its just flipping burgers. Your example of fighting fires supports that.
If businesses can jobs 20% of their jobs and still remain in business, then they should. Those people should be working at jobs where there is demand (and, yes, there are sectors of the economy that are high in demand and growing). That’s how a free-market works. Its not perfect, but its better than all the alternatives.
The government buying worthless investments, is not how a free-market works. The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

If you are going to argue that the free market is infallible, then you can’t ad, “Well, but…” to it.

The hell, I can. There are certain requirements for a free market to work and some industries don’t meet those requirements. Roads, for example, since having multiple road between the same location is inefficient. I would argue that healthcare is similar, since there is no buyer choice to break a leg or have a heart attack.
There are some aspects of our economy that are a free market and some that aren’t. The exact same statement is true in the other 7 of the top 10 economies. The argument is whether mortgages securities are essential enough to the economy to be socialized. So far, you haven’t made any compelling argument as to why they should be. They’re crap investments and the people who bought them shouldn’t get a free pass on bad decision making. Paulson is an idiot or a liar when he says that the taxpayers will make their money back when the market recovers, because the housing market isn’t going to recover. It was already overpriced and nothing is going to change that.
80% of Americans agree with me. Most of Congress agrees with me. A leading Harvard economist agrees with me (your ad hominem attack aside). And frankly, I think you are a little biased by your own situation of earning money through the housing market.
The war cost argument is irrelevant. Just because we’ve wasted a ton of money one thing doesn’t make it alright to waste a ton of money on another.

@Paul
I was quoting numbers from a CNN poll Friday, that’s off the site now. But even your own poll shows that more people are against this bail-out, than in favor it.
“For the record, houses never go for as little as 70% of value.”
Do you have any reason to believe that? Because they’ve already dropped nearly that in some markets and show no sign of stopping.
money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/real_estate/housing_price_fall_deepens/index.htm?postversion=2008042914
Also see the housing price rollercoaster link that I posted in the other thread. Obviously, if housing prices have got up by over 200% since 1995, they can drop by 50%.
My point linking the article was that he’s making substantially the same points that I am, but better written and cited. Trying to tie him to Creationism or Bush was a weak ad hominem.
OK, call my bluff: I have one bachelor’s in mathematics, one in chemistry and master’s in chemistry, currently working on PhD. When I was on a slightly different career path, I passed the first two exams for Society of Actuaries, so I know a little bit about finance as well. Time to show your hand, what makes you such an expert?
“Look, the free market either heals all wounds or it doesn’t.”
No. Wrong. There are no absolutes. There is a time and place for free-market economics and a time and place for socialization.
“Are you fucking retarded?
That’s true for every economy,”
Of course, that was my rhetorical point. I have no problem with regulation, I have a problem with bail-outs for institutions who have already demonstrated irresponsible investment practices. Take every argument the Republicans use against social welfare and it applies even greater as an argument against this bail-out.
I’m really trying to have a civil discussion here, but you resorting to name calling, you really start to lose any intellectual high ground.

Since you’re bowing out, I’ll just stick with standard Lincoln-Douglas debate proceed and refute your final points without presenting any new points of my own.

“you implied that simply being from Harvard gave him weight”
I stated nothing but the facts. What you read into it, is your problem.

“and I stated how it wouldn’t cost the tax payers much more than farming subsidies.”
Which was based on you’re 70% estimate, which was demonstrated to be questionable.

“and every other country tied to the banking crises (read: everyone) has already done so to a relative successful outcome.”
That remains to be seen. European and Asian stocks aren’t doing so hot.

“AND your citing the very reason to oppose it (Republicans against government regulation) is the VERY REASON WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.”
I was drawing an analogy to how Republicans oppose social programs, not regulation. Way to miss the point.

“they have permalinks for EVERYTHING”
Really? Do they have peramalinks to previous front page polls? Because, honestly, I just couldn’t find it. Lets call the poll issue a draw since the LA Times demonstrates that people’s opinion in polls is strongly determined by how the poll is worded. Most people want the government to do “something” (so do I, in terms of better regulation), but most people don’t want a cart-blanche hand-out.

“who has just admitted to me that they’ve never actually lived in the real world outside of college”
There you go with your ad hominem again. I’ve worked in the semi-conductor industry, the mining industry and dozens of part-time jobs to pay for living expenses.

“atheism -vs- religion some other time? (I’m an atheist) I’m looking forward to it.”
Sure. But I’m an atheist, too.

“My partner says Sweden face a similar crises in 1992, had a similar plan, and was able to make back at minimum 50% (number in debate for some reason) of the tax payer funds back.”
That’s interesting, but irrelevant, without knowing the details of the bail-out. How large was it terms of %GDP? What restrictions and regulations reform went along with it?

“Mostly I just came here to pick a fight, as you can see from my first post. I knew someone would take the view of “bailout = BAD!” and that I could rage against a representative for all the idiots that are opposed to the bailout.”
Ah, the I Was Just Trolling defense. Sad how you think someone is an idiot, just because they disagree with you. Honestly, I don’t think you stupid for supporting a bail-out, but I respectfully disagree.