>>Without the government actions, which indeed will have to be paid by the citizens, things are even worse, american dream or not.
>
>Because of previous government actions, which are now being paid by the citizens, things are much worse. With the new government actions, which will be paid by the citizens, things will be even worse...delayed, but worse.

Please explain... Here in europe, much has done to prevent banks falling. Because of the stock market and it negative sentiment some normally healthy banks were in trouble because clients ran away out of fear the bank would fall over. The government took action to assure those banks still could operate. The injection in european banks is many times bigger than the us did.

The alternative would be that normal citizens would lose their savings and small to large companies would go broke because their bank went down. This would leave Joe Doe with the bill which would be much worse than the govermental actions in safegarding those banks. How would you feel to see you company, which you worked upon your whole life, go down because of this? If you believe this is the responsibility of the individual, don't you think the government should not guarantee 100.000 dollar when a bank goes down?

I know that most americans are against spending tax dollars on anything except their own matters. The sentiment up here is that that this extreme version american of american capitalism is dead because of the greed of the very few. Time will learn.

>>Where do you put your money? On the stock market, that goes down, or on a bank that might fall within weeks, if nothing gets done.

>In stocks, real estate and everything else that's been oversold in this frenzied panic. These are the times when fortunes are made through investment.

Maybe, but there is absolutely no guarantee you will make a profit on it in the short term.

>Don't take my word for it, just ask the Oracle.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin