What Coleman is saying is that the government will be able to turn a profit. I suppose that’s technically possible, but it’s much more likely that I’ll win the Nobel Peace Prize.

I thought the whole justification for the bailout was that it would be catstrophic to do nothing. That is plausible, if arguable. I cannot believe that it will be a money-maker, though. If it’s such a wise and profitable investment, why has the private sector not swooped in?

I’ve heard Amway reps make a more convincing pitch.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-bailout23-2008sep23,0,4842932.story?page=2

“If the bailout works, the bill ultimately paid by taxpayers would be considerably lower than the initial outlay of as much as $700 billion to buy mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, Frank and independent economists said. That’s because the government would be paying fire-sale prices and could eventually sell many of the securities, perhaps at a profit depending on how the housing market fares in the years ahead.”

His snippet on NPR was a bit more enthusiastic though neither is as far over the top as Coleman’s. But my guess is that given Franks position Coleman isn’t so terribly far off what will be the Democrats reasoning line moving forward. That the bailout is good and the feds are smart enough to make money on a deal where Wall Street failed.