Jim Cramer's investment advice aside, what if BSC had gone under?  BSC has 187,000 employees.  If they had gone under, except for a core group to sell off the assets, all would be looking for a job.  Oh, yeah, about a third of the employees (those that were said to be invested in own company) saw their investment in BSC plummet 97%. 

If BSC is being bought by JPM for about $10B, why is the fed loaning, at the discount rate of 2.5%, $30B?  Before you answer the last question know that JPM had sales of $117B and earnings of $15B in 2007.  Was it because BSC had leveraged their CDOs up to 30 times their underlying asset value pre meltdown?  Was it because, as seemingly powerful as the above statistic indicate, JPM, because of their own financial difficulties, couldn't have come up with $30B? 

If the above facts and figures don't impress you, how about the Fed infusing the capital markets with nearly $1T - that's T for trillion dollars so far.  A trillion dollars is about 1/3 of the Federal budget or about 1/13 of the GDP of the United States. 

Still don't think that we were in trouble? 

Instead, most working Americans will be getting $600 dollars from the government, be able to refinance at much lower mortgage rates saving hundreds of dollars a month - thousands a year (or just be able to hang onto their home), keep their jobs, etc., etc.