NY Times on Fed Bailout aka Debt has a due date - Today to October 2009 to March 2010 - reporters could and should talk to each other

The NY Times reports today
In Study, 2 Economists Say Intervention Helped Avert a 2nd Depression
by Sewell Chan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28bailout.html?_r=2

Last Fall October 16, 2009
Bailout Helps Fuel a New Era of Wall Street Wealth
by Graham Bowley
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/economy/17wall.html

This past Spring March 2, 2010
In New York, Wall Street Bailout Softens the Blow of a Recession
by Patrick McGeehan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/nyregion/03recession.html?th&emc=th

If not for the handout, excuse me aid, to members of a certain Federal Reserve Bank district EAST of the Hudson - as the last two above articles describe - there SHOULD have been the shrinkage if not demise of several less-than-socially-useful-SPECULATIVE-paper-trading gambits with US Taxpayers' money.

Jobs were saved, Depression was averted.
When the total real costs per job saved is calculated we may see that the PROPER policy question to have addressed should have been and remains:

"Is it better to save the economy (expressed in jobs, votes) OR to save the system - of CAPITALISM, unfettered capitalism as some (including many of the same recipients of that handout) NOW promote?" When most adherents would agree it's about "creative destruction", a free market economy of independence, ideas, innovations, such that those "animal spirits" can flourish, enjoy insouciance http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insouciance not fret over arbitrary actors' narrow preferences.

We wrote earlier that Arnold S should fight the Feds like a real man - link here
http://fiduciaryforensics.blogspot.com/2010/01/arnold-should-fight-feds-like-real-man.html

And for Mr Zandi's and Blinder's study published today - it appears not to cast scrutiny as basis for ANY comparison to the underpinnings of the so called "robust" US economy 2004 to 2007 BEFORE the so called financial crisis interventions.

Namely that US economic growth was spiked by the artificial, steroidal, TRANSIENT, yet lingering DEBT-HAS-A-DUE-DATE impact of the HOUSING asset bubble; simply watched by Greenspan and later Bernanke and Paulson, Geithner; if not enabled by inaction, inattention, and a BFD by each of them.

BFD by Greenspan, Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson
BFD - when a person in a position of fiduciary responsibility has skills and does NOT or fails to use them.

One of several tid bits Zandi/Blinder point out that the aftermath of the early 90's recession was about a negative 6% was shaved off economic growth. So my observation is WHAT DID MR GREENSPAN, BERNANKE, GEITHNER AND PAULSON OBSERVE FROM THAT EVENT? Appears little to nothing - except this - the early 90's problemo was like the sniffles; the current financial situation is arguably cancer and it's not shrinking; there ain't no miracle drugs.

They should be prosecuted - for the HOUSING bubble; not applauded for rescuing that which they watched AND created!

Ending the BFD on the US Taxpayer's dime one easy to read blog at a time.