Stringham's A Winner... Again

Is it just my browser, or does everyone see the boxed text above as stretching into the right-adjacent column of "Most Recent Entries" so that it becomes unreadable?

That can't be right. $148,035 is a house. Does that mean younger Americans basically buy the equivalent of a second home in order to finance this bailout?

I know the federal budget is growing dramatically, but a house for one bailout? Can anyone clarify?

RL,
Fixed. thanks

I shared this with my seventeen-year-old son and he's livid. He's also laughing because he thinks this is so ridiculous. "And this is just one thing governments do," he said.

I find it a great relief that we should rescue my retirement prospects by transferring it from your 17-year old's entire working life. He will hardly notice the $280 a month, because we have already obligated $2800 a month from his pocket.

I'm glad that our Constitution allows this, because without some very satisfactory Commerce Clause scholarship, this would not be possible.

My next project is to terminate some medically-expensive 80 year olds, and seize their assets with a death tax. My reading of the Constitution is that this too is legalistic.

But of course, today's 22 year old will not bear the burden of this bailout, at least not right away, as our government continues to fund our current consumption with borrowing. This game of musical chairs will end at some point, and most people are betting, either explicitly or implicitly, it won't be them left without a chair when the music stops.

If the existing citizenry had been told they would need to begin making $280 monthly payments today, essentially for the rest of their lives, in order to fund these bailouts + stimulus packages, or else no bailout or stimulus, I have no doubt in my mind there would have been no bailouts or stimulus whatsoever.