I'm sure legislators have been getting a lot of angry calls in an election year...
I am tired of repubs on local blogs trying to blame this on democrats..on Jimmy Carter of all people, on Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and others...finding it easy to forget they controlled the White House and Congress for most of the last 8 years...it's typical repub lies and hypocracy...
The negotiators will sit down and come up with some alternative that is not as big or as dynamic and pass it barely and that will be that...

here's my take: If Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, etc felt this was critical to pass to stabilize the markets, they should have taken this to the American people and explained it to us in grown up terms. They did a crappy job selling this poison pill.

Instead, they went the supersecret route of "things'll be really bad...give us what we want, and don't ask any questions."

All this populist rhetoric defending the US taxpayers against the evil Wall Street robber barons may just turn around and bite us in the behind. Whether it's a bailout or not, we need the credit markets stabilized.

we need the credit markets stabilized.

Isn't that the Federal Reserve's job? Guess the Treasury needs to get to printing money or selling war bonds or something.

Or here's a crazy idea. Lift the limit on Savings Bond purchases.

I heard T-bills went for zero discount last week, and negative discount the week before. Sounds like people are looking for a safe place to put their money.

If Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, etc felt this was critical to pass to stabilize the markets, they should have taken this to the American people and explained it to us in grown up terms. They did a crappy job selling this poison pill.

You're giving way too much credit to the American people.

After years of being led by slogans and sound-bites, they are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend what exactly is at stake: their retirements, their home values, their credit lines.

Bush tried to get this passed now in order to help Republicans in November. Once the financial cards start falling, they will almost impossible to stop.

The Republicans have been holding on for dear life since 2006. Once again they have chosen politics over the country. I guess they believe that they can win votes in November by blaming "liberals" for this crisis, but this will wind up hurting the Republicans. The hard core will continue to believe, but that is all.

When people can't get car loans, student loans, and business loans, I wonder how many Republicans will continue to say "let the markets fix it?"

Oh, but haven't you guys heard? It's all Nancy Pelosi's fault. Her speech hurt the Rs feelings and made them change their votes.

Here's Barney talking about THAT.

--This is a legitimate crisis, apart from "scare tactics" or the election calendar.

--Paulson and Bernanke are running the show from the White House side--Bush has mailed it in, or doesn't even understand the problem.

--Congress is engaging in arguing over what water pressure to use in the hose while the house is burning down.

--I've seen very little leadership from any front in Washington. Paulson's actions may be heavy handed and politically unsavvy, but, according to my sources, the guy is scared to death of what could be coming down the pike if we don't do something drastic.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Yep, there's a crisis. Or at least there is definitely one now that the fear mongers have fanned the flames.

The proposed solution was virtually 100% opposed.

The question now is, what's plan B and who's going to bring it?

They changed their votes because they are trying, via some bizarre logic, to get a guy they hate elected.

I disagree. They're worried about their own skins. And all those calls they got in their offices. And they think it's 1998 and not 2008. Of course a lot of them may not have real opposition in November, so they're not worrying about the current crisis. Like Duncan, they're in no matter what.

As someone said when Howard Baker, Jr. was in office, "conservatives can't get you elected to anything, but they can beat you."

the guy is scared to death of what could be coming down the pike if we don't do something drastic.

I've believed since this began that it was preemptive. The sub-prime is a small part of it. The real issue will be the interest-only mortgages and other creative mortgage variations. That and how almost everybody and everything runs on credit in this country, we could very well be in a Depression like recession.

What I find most frustrating is both sides propelling the "taxpayer" to sainthood.

The "taxpayer" wants all the government services and national defense, but doesn't want to pay for any of it. Things can't continue to work that way.

One thing that may have happened is that the Bush administration has succeeded in abstracting the problem so much with fear tactics and smoke and mirrors that it created in effect a "derivative" public opinion similar to the derivatives that are part of the problem.

The only thing concrete was the $700 billion blank check, a figure they admit pulling out of thin air. They haven't explained in terms people, or Congress, can understand, what the plan does, specifically what they are going to buy with the money i.e. name names of the companies who would participate (presumably they are the ones on the no-short list?) and specifically what assets they would be asking taxpayers to take off their books, and specifically how this magic bullet fixes the problem going forward and prevents it from happening again.

It was a Hail Mary on first and ten.

They haven't explained in terms people, or Congress, can understand, what the plan does, specifically what they are going to buy with the money i.e. name names of the companies who would participate (presumably they are the ones on the no-short list?) and specifically what assets they would be asking taxpayers to take off their books, and specifically how this magic bullet fixes the problem going forward and prevents it from happening again.

They haven't explained, because they themselves don't really know.

The $700 billion was a guestimate, and their objective was to send a message.

Guidelines and rules can be made, but until things start happening, they really won't have an idea of what's needed. This is all new territory. Which is what makes it so controversial and so dangerous.

We're not talking about building a bridge or paving the street.

I thought that the Democrat leadership had embraced Bush's bailout plan and genuinely wanted it to pass. Some of the comments do not seem to reflect this.