And more of a selective lack of outrage. An attitude (shared by many on the left, BTW) that "the Fed had to do exactly what they just did!!!" Critics (especially those of us who spent the last few months warning of a mortgage derivatives meltdown -- remember this?) should shut up about what corporate welfare means to the future as the Fed seeks to get even more powerful from their own morally hazardous failure. Try to imagine what some folks here would have said/vented if the Clinton era Fed had done a similar government expanding bailout....

(Maybe I'm hypersensitive to this issue, because I've personally seen massively misdirected law enforcement resources which are at this moment still costing US taxpayers & me-personally a lot, and which an antilibertarian-biased news media refuses to cover honestly!)
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

Who is it exactly that opposes drilling in ANWR and off the Gulf coast? Who is it pushing blended fuels on America, pushing up the price. I can't link at work, but when I get home, I will be glad to provide proof.

Sorry, but I have to jump in here.  There was no "surplus" to spend.  Too many individuals have fallen for this fallacy perpetrated by the Clinton Administration.  The "surplus" of Clinton was determined by projecting ten years into the future using the same growth rate as that experienced under the dot-com boom, before the bubble popped.  In retrospect, any reasonable person can see the problem with the calculation.  There was never an existing surplus; however, Clinton's media buddies reported it that way--just another example of how Democrats get the benefit of the doubt to the msm.  In fact, the "surplus" (that never existed) was all but gone even before Bush took office.  9/11 sealed the deal.  Rest assured, if President Bush would have used the same rationale in projecting a surplus ten years into the future, the media would have called him on it.  They would not allow this from a Republican president.  Also, we've had record tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury AFTER Bush's tax cuts, so the cuts alone do not explain it.  I agree, Bush has overspent, because he is more liberal than most people understand.  You sound like someone who has received all of your information from left wing websites, which are a bit adrift of reality.

Most everybody in our government supported Saddam's ouster, ven calling for it during the 1990's.  Bush was placed in a very difficult position after 9/11 regarding Saddam Hussein and his antics.  This is something the media simply does not address.  All of these Dems who called for action against Hussein prior to 9/11; what would their response have been in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that day?  Would they have continued to ignore Iraq as a threat, or would those attacks have been enough for them to make the move, like Bush did?