Barricade situation in Monrovia*

Not really surprising considering the mess that the country is in thanks to our current Administration.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton but the USA was Flush with Cash back then.

Flush with dot.bomb internet cash.

I think it's a matter of opinion. I was "flush with cash" under Ronald Reagan. I lost my job when my company went bankrupt under Clinton. This mess is the direct result of greed and a lack of personal responsibility. This has been a long time coming and face it, we've all seen it coming.

ET is absolutely correct. I can't even add to it.

Since this story is not about any of you, our recent Presidents or their effect on your jobs or your salaries.... The poor woman is loosing her home and may have no where else to go. My heart goes out to her. There but for the grace of God.....

The 53 year old woman from Monrovia will not be receiving a government bail-out like the millionaires on Wall Street, we don't want millionaires to lose their mansions.

The government will likely turn a profit from the supposed bailout. They are hoping to purchase assets, not just give money away. When investors are able to provide liquidity, they are typically able to buy assets whose value has been impaired by a liquidity constraint, not by the fundamentals of the asset. An investor that is not liquidy-constrained can take advantage of the situation. Hopefully, the government will realize a significant profit over the next 5-7 years and return money to its shareholders (tax payers).

Let's not start a class warfare. Those Wall Street companies have paid billions of dollars in corporate taxes to the government, as have the Wall Street employees.

Clinton pushed for sub-prime borrowers to own homes and a Republican congress backed it. Democrats have long supported the notion that the Federal Goverment should stick to its "implicit guranty" for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. This has been a bi-partisan cotastrophe. The Democrats have been in Congress the past two years. Maybe if they would not have spent so much time focused on Major League Baseball and steroids then they may have decided to ask banks to stop lending money to sub-prime borrowers. OR MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BORROW MORE MONEY THAN THEY CAN PAY BACK!

Lehman Brothers was 30% owned by its employees. They lost a collective $10 billion of their net worth, most of them are completely wiped out. This was not a bailout.

Any government action is meant to stem the ripple effect that frozen credit markets would have on the rest of us away from Wall Street.

I keep reading the term “too big to let fail" I have a new term I would to introduce “too big to let exist". If the financial institutions were not allowed to control so many assets, the failure of one or two banks would not cause the panic we have today. If Wal-Mart continues to grow and someday it's no longer profitable will the government have to bail out Wal-Mart?

Wal Mart's size is what allows it to beat-up on suppliers and keep their costs low. Wal Mart smartly saturates certain regions at a time that allows it to spread the general and administrative costs over a larger number of stores and truly benefit from economies of scale. An interesting read is the "Wal Mart Effect". The author credits Wal Mart for reducing national inflation over the past several years.

Wal Mart also benefits from hiring people who receive government health benefits (seniors and low income people), and therefore does not need to pay health benefits to these employees who do not work "full-time," not always by choice. Effectively, Wal Mart already receives government subsidies.

Wal Mart has VERY small profit margins, but that's because they don't create any value. They are simply a retail store.

At least Wal Mart passes savings on to the customers through low prices. Every tax payer who shops at Wal Mart benefits in that respect.