I can't believe everyone is taking this comment seriously. I happen to also think that a collapse will cost the U.S. far more than $700 billion, but they try to

I can't believe everyone is taking this comment seriously. I happen to also think that a collapse will cost the U.S. far more than $700 billion, but they try to imply this bailout is the only way to prevent that collapse. Also: "The only way your characterization of the bailout as a net transfer of wealth is tenable is if you're against government intervention in financial crises altogether..." The only way you can think this is if you think that, providing me with a straw man to rail against! And of course the argument against the straw man is essentially worthless name calling in and of it's self, "...which is silly." Ah, a quality, well reasoned argument there! Then pretty much lather, rinse, repeat for the next sentence... maybe he's just a troll? I guess I rose to the bait, but I'm shocked such a comment is taken at face value by everyone else.... Looks like two DH0s, a couple of straw man attempts, and although I don't know enough to say much about the first sentence, it does seem like a claim made with out any proof\reasoning. And never mind the fact that even if you support a bailout this one was setup with language to specifically prevent oversight of any kind and would hence almost certainly be extremely corrupt, which rather does characterize that bailout as an attempted net transfer of wealth to me.