Before I say anything, if I come across as argumentative I'm actually just playing a bit of the devil's advocate. Economy stuff can seem so incredibly complicated to me that I really don't know how I ultimately feel about the bail out.
I presume you are referring specifically to the scare tactics, but on the flip side people are reporting the economy may currently be, or will be, in the worst condition since the Great Depression (I'm still not sure if that's really accurate or, like you said, a scare tactic slogan).
Frankly I don't buy it. In all my years I've never seen an address like that about the economy or what basically sums up to be scare tactics like if you don't do this then this will definitely happen
You make it sound so incredibly easy/trivial.
Maybe they should treat the illness, not the symptoms. Turn the economy around, reign in the oil companies and the price of oil, and these problems with people defaulting on loans will mostly go away on its own.
Does that statement change when discussing this in the context of outsourcing? e.g. in a scenario where the rich are plenty rich but still sending jobs overseas because it's ultimately cheaper (at the time).
conversely, the best way to hurt the poor is to take from the rich for the same reason stated above.
Umm he wasn't defending it...
Defending it with false assumptions just contributes to the problem. As stated, one of the problems these investments present is that they specifically enable investments that do not increase production.
I find it difficult myself to argue so strongly for the Capitalistic ideal because laissez-faire capitalism doesn't seem to exist anywhere in any country (and never really has). The American form seems to teeter-totter between the democrat and republican shades of regulation and control, of which the differences between the two approaches, when compared to the capitalistic ideal, appears to be moot.
Also, do you guys think the economic turmoil tends to improve Obama's or McCain's odds?