Not in my "coffers". (Expects my pockets to remain empty regaurdless of how it turns out)
Heh. I had meant the government's coffers.

(simply not true, we ended up trying to socialize and got nowhere and then WW2 came and changed the picture)
The first government response was to raise interest rates, taxes, and do little else. Roosevelt and the social programs didn't start up in earnest until a couple of years later (the depression was in full swing by 1930 and Roosevelt wasn't elected until 1932). After they did start up, there was a marked recovery (large drops in unemployment along with large increases in GDP). Things weren't great, but they were a hell of a lot better. It's interesting to point to WW2 as the turning point, because as far as the economy was concerned, that was a massive government spending program along with widespread economic intervention by the government.

That said, I don't think that the bailout was the best approach. Personally, I think we should have done what Europe did and guarantee inter-bank loans rather than this recapitalization nonsense which props up poorly managed banks and only indirectly addresses the credit issue. That way we could have kept the money flowing and let the poorly run ones capsize.

Yeah right? Silly me not to place blind faith in him...smh
'Twas sarcasm

To keep from straying too far off course, I'm going to create a new thread for the nature of money, depressions, and deficit spending.