"Bail-Out" or "Investment"?

I guess it all depends on how you want to brand it.

One thing that I've been doing lately is watching a bunch of CNBC.

Ever since the 14th, I've made about an hour or so of CNBC required watching - Jim Cramer in particular.

Wall Street mess aside, my interest has been piqued by Cramer while flipping channels. I think of him as the Jim Rome (who I also like - drives my wife nuts) of the financial world.

I appreciate his passion. His knowledge. His foaming and slurring, turning Bank of America into "Bang uh'Merca."

He made a sage observation a few days or so after the Bernanke-Paulson plan was unveiled. He noted that most of America was railing against it - and one big reason was how Ben and Henry were positioning it (as a "bail out") and that they were not using simple language.

Cramer has taken umbrage with the term "bail-out" and has instead referred to the plan as "Invest In America" because he feels if it doesn't pass, we'll be a lot worse off for a longer time. I agree.

I also agree that Bernanke hasn't done his cause any favors. Dig this luscious quote from Tuesday:

"To mitigate concerns that this action would exacerbate moral hazard and encourage inappropriate risk-taking in the future, the Federal Reserve ensured that the terms of the credit extended to A.I.G. imposed significant costs and constraints on the firm’s owners, managers, and creditors."

Ugh.

I like how Cramer thinks Bernanke and Paulson should speak in the plain English that the average joe speaks and re-brand the plan.

This clip, though a bit long, does show at the beginning how Cramer is positioning this, though somewhat egotistically, want to take credit for it.

Well... he does have a point.