Let the casinos take over the banks.

You know your money is bad when the bank won't take it.

I remarked once before that the entire bailout action was plain, red, communism. The same losers who squeal about socialism voted for it, which mystified me, because that would make them hypocrites.

Socialism, communism...there's a difference. I don't know what that difference is, but I'm sure it's there. The two words get used interchangeably. From what little I've read, socialism seems to be the most realistic of the two, and is basically what we've got now. If you don't think we're in at least a partially socialist state, I'll point you towards commercial zoning, consumer goods safety regulations, and welfare.

I don't see why we can't make enough rules to keep greedy pigs from running the country into the ground, but not so many that Uncle Sam is our boss.

Actually, I do know why. Politicians will say and do whatever it takes to get themselves elected. They will create arguments where there don't need to be any, and will distort facts and tell outright lies to keep themselves in office. They spew crap about taxpayers and socialism, and don't actually do anything.

Anyway, back to the nationalization of banks. Isn't it the idiot government printing the money to begin with? From what I gather, government losers print money and send it to banks for loaning (Putting people into debt to make a profit for themselves) and then bank losers lend that money to stupid people.

Is there something inherently wrong with cutting out one layer of stupidity, or at least sandwiching the two together so the distance between morons isn't so great?

"For Fidelity, taking the money would mean the government would have owned about 25 percent of the company's outstanding stock."

Whatever the hell that means. Outstanding stock? Maybe I'm just ignorant, but as a voter, shouldn't the mechanisms that run this country at least be in terms I only need about a semester in college to comprehend?

"'These are the guys who brought you Hurricane Katrina. These are the guys who were supposed to be watching Fannie and Freddie,' Ross said. 'I've not seen anything like this, where they really are talking about nationalizing banks.'"

I agree with him. He's from a bank that didn't have a lot to do with the credit crisis, so for him to call the government out on being criminally stupid is valid.

I guess my theory is this: For the government to control the banks, we'd be combining two groups of corrupt, incompetent, losers. Two negatives make a positive, right? Perhaps by letting these two negatives come together, they'll magically become positive. Two stupids make a smart.

More likely, they'll find new and interesting ways to ruin everything.