I think everyone agrees that whenever you have a government program, some number of people are going to receive the benefits even though they're not truly deserving.  Liberals generally figure we should do what we can to eliminate waste and fraud, and past that point, you can't allow the inevitability of a few bad apples to screw up a worthwhile program.

Whereas for conservatives, the fact that there will be undeserving recipients is proof positive that we shouldn't have the program at all.  Period, the end.  The idea that some people will wrongfully take advantage is just infuriating to them.

All you would have to do is add some sort of payback provision into it.  The govt should put a lien on any mortgage that they help bailout.  They certainly should be able to assign a monetary value to the assistance they are giving to the home buyer.  Just put a lien in that amount on the mortgage.  If the home buyer sells the property (or transfers the property into someone else's name) for a profit in the future, the tax payers get their money back from that profit.

I want the poor to be helped as well.

But I do wish there was also some help for those of us in the middle class during this crisis - those of us who live in modest homes, live paycheck to paycheck, aren't on the brink of foreclosure but have seen their equity plummet, their 401Ks disappear, their college funds gone, everything they have worked for go away. We are basically starting over.

 1) I am enormously concerned and angry about wealthy bankers and Wall Street executives and managers using taxpayer money to reward themselves and their criminally unworthy brethren. This is rewarding greed, corruption, and incompetence and it is infuriating.

 2) I am concerned about housing speculators and people that used inflated home equity to live beyond their means getting tax payer money.

 3) I am concerned about non-wealthy people who acquired mortgages under false pretenses and could not pay a fixed rate mortgage at today's value.

Interest rates cannot be cut any further so that kills that option.

In the 1980's we created deficit spending through defense which accounted for 30% of the budget and 4.2% of GNP.  Not including resource allocations of approximately 6% in the Interior budget.  Republicans saw no issue with rapid increases in defense which armed Bin Laden and the Contras.

In the 1990's we had the technology revolution which increased employment and subsequently vacancy rates which drove wages higher creating greater consumption and a healthier economy.  There was some stimulus spending but we did not have such a severe contraction in GDP and unemployment.

So which industry is going to fuel the economy?  There are no industries projecting growth let alone dynamic growth over the next 3-5 years. There is some promise in green tech but eight years of science denial crippled innovation and left us well behind the curve.

Deficit spending was the rage in the 80's because it was spent on defense and what has that netted us?  Ideology was right-center then and it served the nation well economically.  

Ideology is left-center currently and one can make the argument that health reform has the potential for serious job creation but I think that remains to be seen.

As predicted last September, spending is freezing, unemployment is skyrocketing and credit is locked.  The "stress test" for banks as I see it requires banks to maintain a certain level of liquidity or reserves which will lead to less lending as banks protect capital and ride out the storm.

With a lack of lending, dangerous levels of UE and consumption distress there is no choice other than a second stimulus.  This quarter and the next are going to be disastrous not only for the US but globally.  It is not fear that has our citizens dramatically reducing consumption, it is the loss of jobs, available credit and underwater mortgages.  We spent on the value of our assets which have declined in value significantly creating an untenable situation without job creation.  Americans are notorious for overspending and taking a second job to  bail themselves out.  Unfortunately in this economy, the second job (usually part time) has become the primary income which is not enough to support current financial obligations.

In the current situation those pleading for government largesse are often the most powerful players in our economy and society. Politics is a game, crisis or not, that is always most consistently played for their benefit. So the question in this situation is whether policy that benefits them will do so excessively -- and in doing so fail to sufficiently benefit the rest of us (the victims of their greed and irresponsibility)?