I know it is a joke, but what would the chart look like if it was "who suffers if there is no bailout"?

A comment I saw today asked who was hurt more, a billionaire becoming a half-billionaire or the administrative assistant losing his/her job?

And thus I have no sympathy for the person who might be forced to sell off one of their yachts, or have to succumb to only owning 4 penthouses instead of 6. I also have no sympathy for those who might have to trade in their filet mignon for New York strip.

Cry me a river. :rolleyes:

I think you missed the point.

So - the new deal they are voting on now includes tax breaks and mental health provisions?

source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/30/news...rss_topstories

WTF is up with that? whether I agree with the add ons or not isn't really the point. Why can't they just pass the bill on it's own merits without trying to bundle it up with other stuff. This is why bridges to nowhere get built.

I didn't.

The billionaire who loses half his wealth can still live and has resources to not have to struggle to make ends meet (even if it means selling off stuff down the road). The administrative assistant who was laid off probably doesn't have any savings and is going to be SoL if she loses her job.

I don't get the rancor against the wealthy. So these people did well with their careers and investments, they aren't required to suddenly become charitable organizations.

People made bad choices with loans. Lenders made bad choices in lending. The economy has always gone up and down and it will return to normal in time. This may be a larger hiccup, but this too shall pass (unlike a bail out decision with congress).

For anyone wondering if they'll be affected by the economic situation, this might help:

Oh good lord.

The senate bailout bill now includes demands that health insurers provide mental health coverage.

Riders irrelevant to the bill at hand suck, and whomever puts them there sucks, and most likely should be shot.

It used to include some sort of mental health coverage. I can't say it's a bad idea to force that. But it is a bad idea to force it in this particular bill.

Irrelevant to the bill at hand? After two weeks of dealing with that b.s., I'd be trying to pass mental health legislation too.