I’ll give you credit for finding a fair could of taxpayers (138 million in 2007), but I don’t think it’s fair to inflate the cost by 150% if for no other reason than this will likely have more continuous scrutiny than any spending bill in our history.

So if we accept your concept of 50% of taxpayers instead of applying it to all then we are talking more lake $10k instead of $15k.

Which is a HELL of a lot of money. So my point is “Why spin it when the non-spun version is so bad?” Spinning it just questions your credibility and as an aside that’s the problem I have with almost all the conservative pundits in general; I don’t trust em one iota because they are always spinning.

FWIW: if it’s not obvious I share your sentiment about the bailout. A $700B incursion into the free market sucks ass no matter how you slice it.

BTW, why is it people are getting so upset about $700B when so many of the same people have exuded so much testosterone and proudly beat their chests to spend almost $600B in Iraq, and now are blocking all efforts to stem the bleeding (pun intended)? Is it really smart for us to “spare no expense” when it comes to wars of our own volition? Why is almost nobody else seems to be asking this question?