I hope that was put in place. I just want them to do the minimum for now until after the elections. Then maybe, just maybe, we'll get a better sense of what is going on.

Just remember though folks, however much this particular bill screws us, we've been getting raked over the coals for a long damn time.

Iraq: 1,000,000,000,000 dollars.

Bailout 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. (remember they've already bailed out other companies here)

Deficit: Skyrocketing

Economy: In recession

Heal Care: What's that?

Military: Overstretched

American Reputation: In shambles.

Value of the Dollar: LOL.

We are at the tail end of the worst administration in the history of the United States.

if you, as ceo, took actions (or conversely, failed to take actions) resulting in the bankruptcy of your company, why the hell should you be compensated for that? any idiot can do that, even me, or the president.

of course, by the same token, the heads of the various federal and state regulatory agencies, charged with oversight of these same firms, who failed to do their jobs, should be booted to the curb, now, right this very second!

that would also require booting the man who gave the go ahead to, essentially, de-regulate the industry, by letting everyone know they shouldn't waste good time and money actually enforcing the rules.

any guesses on who that might be?

But does it really help homeowners facing foreclosure now?

no, not one bit. does it provide a job for the unemployed, about to lose their home because they can't make the payments? nope. and frankly, there shouldn't be.

is there any language mandating that troubled loans be restructured, with longer terms and lower interest rates, and abatement of penalties? nope, not that i saw.

to be harshly blunt, this is a fiscal stew of the industry's own making, complicit with the agencies charged with regulating them.

the non-performing loans aren't non-performing because the interest rate is too high, it's so because the debtor has no income. this bill does nothing to change that.

most of those loans were made bypassing the normal checks & balances, put in place since the 30's to keep this sort of thing from happening. the bill doesn't, and can't, address those loans.

the only ones to benefit from this legislation are the investors and the banks, not the taxpay or the unfortunate homeowner.

during the last great banking scandal, the S & L and commercial bank collapse of the 80's (remember "the keating 5"?), many of these same chicken littles were running around swearing that the sky was, indeed, falling. they averred that, absent huge federal loans, the entire economy would collapse in just a big, ol heap.

strangely, it didn't. the RTC was established, to sort out and parcel out the assets of the worst offenders (my mortgage was among them, though it tooks several phone calls to find that out), and life went on.

as i recall, dr. krugman was a huge supporter of that plan, for the very reasons i am vigorously opposed to the current proposed one. why he feels this is the best that can be done is a mystery to me.

the government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief, giving taxpayers a chance to share in financial companies' future profits.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the deal still had to be "committed to paper,"a process that will continue throughout the night, with an eye toward a formal announcement Sunday.

Okay, I understand that they want to hold off on the "official release" until all of the details are properly spelled out.  But why can't they release/post an official statement about what the proposal contains?  

The various media reports aren't just making up all of the details here (I hope), so there must be an "official statement" or "talking point list" that's going out to the press.  Doesn't the public deserve to get a complete copy of that statement?  So they can read it for themselves, like, right away?  Something that's a bit more complete and direct than a busy reporter's selective money quotes and general paraphrases?

I think so, anyway.

The money should help troubled lenders make new loans and keep credit lines open.

why it's believed that new loans and open credit lines will be a natural result of the bailout.

This "bailout" is nothing of the sort and just like every other "last emergency measure to end this crisis" which has been taken over the course of the last year, it will not work.

The "deal" calls for taxpayers to be on the hook not just for mortgages but for "mortgage related assets". (Hmmm....weapons of mass destruction related programs sounds sort of familiar, yes?) What is a "mortgage related asset"? Well...that's a good question, isn't it?

As has been pointed out time and again, the only way this plan can "help" at all is through recapitalizing the banks. And the ONLY way this plan can recapitalize the banks is to OVERPAY for mortgages and "mortgage related assets" far beyond what these "assets" are worth on the open market.

We have just been screwed. And Dems went along with it. Again.

What next? Well, we'll get a month (or three or six) of "relief" before the very fundamental nature of the problem takes over and the crisis comes back bigger and stronger than before. And now that the precedent has been set for taxpayers to frickin bail out Wall Street...well...they'll be back.