That is 100% true, and while we don't want a nationalization of the financial industry, there should be common sense regulation to make sure that people qualify for the loans they are applying for, and that the financial institutions don't doctor their books to make it look like they have more assets on hand than they really have. Its pretty obvious that relying on the markets alone is a bumpy road that benefits the survival of the fittest.

Jim said: “The Republicans called all the regulation we should have had on these institutions socialism.”

Yes, the labels that have been thrown about as wedges and polarizers over the years have set up a great deal of sensitivity on this term.

But there were some proposals that came up during the bailout discussions that would, in fact, qualify for the label. For example: the suggestion that $$ coming in from these assets should go toward a low-income housing trust fund. I see no other way to classify that, I'm afraid.

Resructuring mortgages would help many people stay in their homes. Some people make all the right decisions and due to a sudden job loss or health issue they find themselves unable to pay their bills. Whereas other people may just make bad judgements…. (like the Wall St. barons who expect us to save them from their bad judgement).

A bankruptcy judge can look at the total situation with an individual and determine what payments can be made.

They can be allowed to fail, and if need be then “we” can intervene and clean up the mess. As it is, we'll probably be “asked” now to make additional “investments” to help “rescue” other instititutions not encompassed within the scope of this bailout.

* * *

So far, the best Congressional remark about the bailout as it exists is this:

“I am voting 'no' on the bill the House will vote on later today because it will subsidize Wall Street on the backs of hard-working taxpayers and small businesses on Main Street. To put it plainly, this legislation will not work. It will put an unbelievable amount of taxpayer money at risk, and penalize those who used common sense during a time when others elected to ignore reason by making decisions that led them to live beyond their means. It is unfair and irresponsible to ask conscientious taxpayers to now shoulder the burden and debt of those with poor foresight. Moreover, the federal government has no business injecting itself into the free market system, and essentially, taking it over. This completely defeats the purpose of such a system, and will have a chilling effect on future businesses that may think twice about entering the market if they have to compete with the American government. This is contrary to the spirit of American entrepreneurialism that is the foundation of our nation, and would turn our American Dream into an American Nightmare.”

“a great deal of what the Dems seem to be pushing for sounds like the early stages of terminal socialism”

And Bush's plan to own every home and bank in America is what? Capitalism?

Puhhhlease…. We're all socialists now.

McCain is obviously the lesser of two evils, by far. Intelligent people recognize this and if they're honest, admit that preferring Obama is how one values the desire for change more than the avoidance of risk of that early terminal socialism. (Or that they prefer even _that_ to the status quo!)

This is a bailout of Wall Street, of course; it always was going to be that. Stockster, to have bailed out homeowners, almost all of whom are in their predicament because it's their own fault, is simply loser-vote-buying of the worst kind. Two wrongs (bailing them out as well as Wall Street executives) do not make a right here; they just make a bad scheme much worse (including a much greater moral hazard as well as awful loser-vote-buying by government). Equity in treatment of people is one thing, but that does not argue for equitably wrongful bailouts for more (all) people rather than fewer.

It's like using haywire to rig the drive-train to get the rig back home so it can undergo major repairs there. Both sides fear that voters will swarm en masse to perhaps an independant candidate if any radical change is enacted presently? Radical change will come for the better (Obama) or worse (McCain) but we will have to wait for that until January.

To tryswappingit: The fundamental flaw in how you seem to be seeing this is that the bubble is still letting out air. Saying it's “popped”, in the past tense, is not correct.

The GOP insisted that the Dems water down the executive compensation caps and their proposal to help homeowners… making this really about money to Wall St. more so than to Main St.

It will be interesting to see just how many financial institutions WILL take advantage of the money available to them…

It's time to admit that the system is too big to save and move on to a more productive use of money like marking everything to market and then recapitalizing or new bank creation.

Are we through yet? No. In addition to more mainstream financial institutions being at risk, don't forget the hedge funds.

Will it be enough? Be aware nothing is _obliged_. Will it instantly change the economy and public sentiment? No, and nothing can do this, and this should never be desired, much less demanded.

Will the economy change? I doubt it. If the feds flood the economy with money, we will get blasted by inflation. I suspect in lieu of this a deflationary episode is possible, particularly if fuel prices increase, but not requiring this. I can easily see households not stupidly spending any tax reduction or any rebate or stimulus payment, but saving such money instead, and reducing expenses — that is, consumption, spending — if the economy remains bad for a while. Deflation from falling demand is a possibility. Not guaranteed, not expected, but a possibility, if times really do get tough for more people, or tougher for people, and they start setting priorities and engaging in discipline on their expenditures.