between bailing out people who made bad choices in over-extending what they could afford for a House and giving welfare to a needy mother [who may have made a bad choice about having a kid(s) ].<br><br>Don't get me wrong - I'm not against helping the true "needy". But conservaties hype the welfare mother stuff all the time, but now Bush offers bailouts for those who may lose their home. I understand it is voluntary (on the lending institution) which may make it totally useless. But I'm questioning the discrepancy in their philosophy (ie policy flip-flop). <br><br>And in the "house" case.. the lending institutions are as guilty as the home owners who made foolish decisions.<br>And in some cases the homeowners might have lost their jobs or had to take pay cuts... well again who promoted "Free trade" and NAFTA for the past 20 + years and shipped millions of our middle class jobs to India, Pakistan, and China ? the GOP ! <br>(don't give me "it was Clinton's fault". .. sure he foolishly signed the damm bill but it was Newt and the other GOP conservatives that had pushed this in Congress since Reagan!)<br><br>David (OFI)
David (OFI)