$700? Oh, whew. I was worried they would approve a $700 billion plan, and seriously devalue the dollar.

Wait, it is $700 B? Nooooooo!

@zimzombie: Yeah, I can seriously get behind the $700 plan. In fact, if that's all they're getting, I'll even fund it myself. Makes me wonder if it was the golden parachutes that was making up the difference.

Ugh, I still don't understand why we can't integrate Kuchinich's plan into this, where we all get stock in the companies in exchange for our tax dollars, instead of the current "cash for trash" deal.

I tempted to write to congress and ask if they could bail me out of my student loans. I'd be able to help the economy a lot more if I didn't have to pay $400.00 a month.

Sorry purplesun, you aren't politically connected enough to get part of this money. Anticipate PAYING about $350 per year (about $30 per month) more in taxes for this bailout for the rest of your life. This can be easily be estimated as follows: $700 billion / 100 million working people = $7000 per working person. $7000 at 5% interest costs $350 per year to borrow. Of course, once the hyperinflation induced by this bailout starts, the 5% interest rate will go way up along with your yearly share!

What percentage of the taxpaying American public actually approves this? We need to fire every single one of our politicians. /sigh

Last I checked maybe 1% of Americans actually support bailing out the bankers. Democracy and representative politics at work.

@searonson: Fire our politicians out of what? I vote for a cannon to shoot them into the sea.

If this isn't an indication of how far removed politicians are from the general public, I don't know what is. What happened to those members of Congress who have received tons of opposing view points? This single issue could potentially shake up the coming election when it becomes known who voted for and against this ludicrous bailout.

Hmm... an edit function would be pretty sweet for these comments...

Just found this: [www.nytimes.com] look at Section 8:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

So what we're going to give Paulson utter control with out any accountability or chance of review?

Not cool man, not cool.

This current version of the plan sounds reasonable. It has acceptable oversight and enough guarantees that insure repayment of the supposed "loans."

The cutting golden parachutes is a nice bit of icing, but it needs to be more retroactive. This crisis has been at least 5-6 years in the making. The executive who caused it are long gone and paid, already.

Still, I would be surprised if this gets passed as it has been described. Most of the time in Congress, the just parts of legislation are snipped away at the last minute to get them passed. Just look at the PRO-IP act that passed this weekend. It gives all the power to the copyright holders and none to the "accused."

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

It's irresponsible and wasteful since no economist that I have seen knows how this will actually work. Would you give $350 BILLION dollars to someone with the promise of things getting better when the market will do a good job of clearing the forest to make room for new growth.

The irony of this is I remembering hearing when Paulson presented the plan initially he asked that congress create the oversight portion. Either they got lazy at 2am or they put a lot more trust in one person then anyone should. Regardless I reallllllllllyyyyyyy hope this works as I enjoy having a job and making money... if the economy tanks anymore I don't see that happening any longer

@aixwiz: Sounds good to me. I was having such a good day until I read that my country's been raped with a spork by the rich elite again.

It's no wonder why Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush. The Incumbent party wins again.

@pezhore: Check your calendar there, pezhore... the page you linked is an article from 20 Sept, the original evil Bushie proposal. "Give us all your money and don't even think about asking what we're doing with it." I'm not saying the deal the congress has hammered out is going to be perfect, but that zero-oversight clause is one of the things that caused congress to get off their fat lazy lobbyist-overfed asses and actually DO something to head off Paulson before he started writing himself checks.

@purplesun: I wonder if they'd bail me out of my rent payments? I promise to spend that $1000 frivolously to help the economy if they do!

I'll vote for that cannon. Seriously, how are we ever going to get a government that actually serves its people, not lobbyists and big business?

@lincolnparadox: "I'd like to propose a $30 million rider in support of the perverted arts".

We're all doomed! I wish they would just listen to the people once in a while. Do they really think they have so much foresight to know better than 90+% of Americans?

No, I don't think we're doomed by a $700 billion bailout plan...I think we're doomed by politicians who support it. If this goes through, we must elect those who did not support the plan.

@draketrumpet: See that's the worst part of it! By making sure it's a "bipartisan" deal like this one, they can guarantee their re-election! "Who else are you going to vote for, a third party?"

Those stealing, bailout-slinging sons of bitches.

This is horrible. What would be worse is the alternative.
While people cite the plan's unpopularity, I'd respond with, What percentage think Palin's competent to run the country? Sometimes polling the public isn't the best policy. Especially when, as judging from the comments above, it includes the sort of people above that bleat that the Treasury secretary will have unilateral, unreviewable jurisdiction, citing a week-old NYT story, the minority, but still present, support that using insurance instead was a solid alternative or that there's a chunk of Americans that think McCain saved the day on this one. In short, the public is an ass.

But no one's happy about this. It sucks that we had to spend $7,000,000,000. I'd have liked to see those Free Market Uber Alles people have to pay four times as much as sensible people favoring reasonable regulation. I'd like to see Phil Gramm in jail. I'd like to see Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute members tarred, feathered and run out of the country on a rail.

It's a shame that it cost so much to disprove a theory foisted upon us by fat cats that regulation and oversight is a four-letter word, and that the most fearful words ever uttered were, We're from the Government and we're here to help.
We could have learned from our European allies and instead came up with Freedom Fries while driving our economy off the cliff. Good job!

@West Coast Secessionist: Exactly, part of the delay in getting this passed is that they want to conjure up enough votes so that they can say that both parties held hands and jumped. Everyone knows this is prime election season, so they need to to feel that this won't be the subject of a negative campaign ad the the next day.

I guess controling the money printing presses helps out.It will give new meaning to the term 'hot off the presses' when everyone gets in line for theirs .

@Trai_Dep: Lest we forget who was on which side of this, according to The Time's coverage on this,

Among the last sticking points was an unexpected and bitter fight over how to pay for any losses that taxpayers may experience after distressed debt has been purchased and resold.
Democrats had pushed for a fee on securities transactions, essentially a tax on financial firms, saying it was fitting that they contribute to the cost.

The only way they could resolve this was to push deciding this provision over to the next election and have the next President decide. So, if you don't want Treasury Secretary Gramm to decide this one, I'd think the decision's pretty clear this year...

While I'm not too keen on the bailout package, those saying that only 1% of americans favor it need to check their numbers. Gallup has "Take no action" at 11%, and "Pass different plan from Bush Proposal" at 56%

People keep mentioning over-and-over how "this plan is better than the alternative." No one ever seems to explain what that alternative is? What's the worst that could happen if the federal government simply said "Sorry. Suck it up"?

Sure, the stock market will take a massive dive, and all that, but how is that going to affect us little people? I mean, this seems like a repeat of the S&L crisis of the 80's. We bailed everyone out then too and then that lesson was quickly forgotten as congress plowed ahead with regulation in the early 90's.

@ShortBus: * deregulation in the early 90's.

This whole thing just stinks. Not a single alternative plan has been proposed. The changes are not being explained to the people and there is no promise for better regulation or pursuing the crooks that did this for prosecution.

Every greedy CEO who made this happen and got filthy rich in the process should be currently in fear of losing every asset they have or the plan is a failure right out of the gate. The govt. will seize the asset of a coke dealer but not these crooks?

Where is a copy of the current proposal? I'd like to see who's getting the earmarks.

the problem is... it is not that simple. this bail-out really isn't bailing out the bankers. what it is doing, is ensuring that banks continue to loan money. if they stop loaning money, it doesn't only mean unemployment on wall street. it means that every small business in america will close. it means that consumers will no longer have access to things we take for granted like credit cards.

i am very upset that as a tax payer i have to fund this, but i just dont see any alternative.

@purplesun:

I second that...together me and my wife pay a little over $700 a month on our student loans. If we didn't have to pay those we'd be spending money on all sorts of things to help the economy.

I loathe the bailout plan on principle, but I can understand the necessity of such a plan to mitigate a financial disaster. However, I would be happy to send a pink slip to every bugger in Washington after this is all over, not for the bailout, but for the blinkered way in which financial policy and regulation was managed right up until the shit hit the fan. Perhaps sacking a large portion of our Congress might send a message to the next breed of lobbyist-fed hacks that the American tax payer is not content to carry water for their enablers and pay the price for their mistakes? I would imagine some of the irresponsible borrowers/lenders/I-bankers/etc. who caused this mess and who are now homeless/jobless/etc. have been chastened by this fiasco, having learned some life lessons that our Congress could benefit from as well.

A sandwich platter from Corsi? We're lucky the sandwiches weren't from PotBelly, or the platter would have cost more than the bailout.

...and the people who feel the effect of the economic screwup get nothing, while those who bought, traded, and plied bad debt knowingly get all the money

and if they didnt know it was bad debt they're not worth their salt.

I get nauseated every time I see "limits will keep pay from being excessive." Are we really so infantile as to be satisfied by an open-ended promise like that? It's math, give me a number-not "X". When they give us a number, then we can talk about that number. When they give us "X" we know it's something that will be decided later, out of the public eye, away from the media, and nothing will change. I hope, my fellow Americans, that you are all still not buying this crap.

*headdesk*

God forbid they listen to the only man who has been right for the past decade concerning monetary policy. Oh the power of stupidity in large numbers...

I think this whole bailout thing is just another battle in the larger-scale Class Warfare we're apparently involved in... sigh...yeah, I gots theories, conspiracy type theories... [happilybitter.wordpress.com]

You know something is wrong with the "bailout" when Nancy Pelosi doesn't want government oversight and the Republicans do. Seriously, have you read Pelosi's financial holdings? She just saved herself. Don't bother to try to call her office- they only 'talk' to members in her district, others are rudely told to leave a message on the 'machine'. The best government money can buy. Thanks, Nancy.

I've written numerous emails to congress objecting to the bail out - but now I'm conflicted. Bush has made so many bad decisions and lied so often it's only a natural reaction for me to be skeptical of anything that he says or does.

I hate the idea of paying extra because some rich jerks gamed the system. But if I lose my job because the economy truly tanks - which will make it all the harder to find a new one too - then I can easily become bankrupted too.

The truth is, and explains why the Dem's were faster to line up behind the bail out than the Republicans, is that the chain reaction to the current bank failures is far more serious than most people can fathom; and those of us living closer to the edge, which is the vast majority of most of us, stand to lose the most. The rich have options we just don't.

Our family income puts us in the median household income ($37,956 - $66,354) bracket of the approximately 138 million U.S. taxpayers. If we were to split the bill amongst ourselves evenly, it would work out to roughly $5100.00 each. A figure I'd be willing to pay to possibly avert a depression economy - for those of you who's parents and or grandparents didn't share their experiences of those dark years, you may want to start studying up on it - and its stark realities.

But given my tax bracket, that's not what it would really cost me, and probably you, anyway. I'm not in a panic, but I'm also not willing to take the chance on the prevailing "wisdom of the masses" that we shouldn't do the bail out. The nations top economists aren't being very helpful now about it - they're all over the map on what to do, and simply urge "be careful". An example: [freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com]

It would truly be ironic, if after 8 years of feeding us BS and screwing up, Bush actually got it right on something truly pivotal to the American people - but we didn't go along.

This latest bailout plan is so full of loopholes that the only thing for certain is we will be paying and paying...

To quote a current presidential candidate, "...you can put lipstick on a pig, but you still have a pig..."

@purplesun: shit, $400? my wife's are in excess of $1700 per month.

hearing many people's response to this bailout plan has been refreshing, but also underscores the lack of economics education taught in schools.

fact of the matter is that there isn't any decent way to get out of this, but i'll take a bad breakup (the bailout) over a messy divorce (massive financial bank failure) any day. allowing the large banks, which essentially is the US monetary system, to 'fail' isn't an option, period. no one wants to really admit it, but we as a people allowed the banking and finance industry to grow to the size it is, buy purchasing everything under the sun on credit. furthermore, allowing these banks to fail will guarantee that NO ONE will receive credit anymore. not for homes, not for cars, not for TVs, nothing. neither will business owners be able to make payroll, lease equipment, or grow their businesses.

the rich are already rich, and this won't hurt them. cutting off the 'golden parachutes', which aren't nearly as big an issues as they are perceived to be, will go a long way to making the average citizen feel a bit better about it, but not much else.

my only real hope for this whole thing is that the entire system is overhauled and rebuilt from the ground up. if it takes the tax dollars that I have no real authority over to do it, so be it.

I call "BS!"

I will not pay taxes for someone else's business failure OR pay for their ridiculous "compensation" packages.

Hello America? Anyone in there? Remember when we weren't hopelessly socialist?

So if myself or one of my colleagues gets sued by patients or our practice collapses, who do we go whine to? Maybe someone will give us a multimillion dollar retirement package too.

What a crock of socialist bullshit.

@blazenbu: I call BS on this whole thing. So this whole thing is Pelosi's fault?

Can you please provide evidence that Pelosi is opposed to oversight? A link to a legitimate news site would be fine.

Republicans want oversight? So, why did the first draft of the bill offered by the Bush administration say exactly the opposite? FYI- Bush is a republican (as much as you try to deny it now).

Please provide a link that says Republicans (and ONLY republicans) wanted oversight.

Until you provide this information, you're basically engagin in Rovian politics of saying your opponent is guilty of thigs you're doing.

Add to that:
ALL Congressional offices shunt non-constituents to a low-priority queue. It's why they have "representative" in "House of Representatives".
And, on a more human note, could you imagine the sigh of relief when Pelosi's staffer was able to place this OMG - You Dems Hate oversight!" call to the f̶r̶u̶i̶t̶c̶a̶k̶e̶ non-constituent pile. After a hearty, rueful laugh.

We lose no matter what plan they institute:

If we get taxed more for the bailout, we spend less. We spend less, the economy tanks more.

If we don't get taxed more for the bailout, the government prints more money, inflation jumps.

If we bailout these companies, there is still no guarantee they will loan money to themselves. Risk is now a factor in loaning money WHICH IS HOW THE MARKET SHOULD BEHAVE.

Frankly, we have been running on fumes for the last 5 years. We need a recession to bring things back to market value.

The economy expanded for years on credit, not on wage increases. We spent money we didn't have. They loaned money to everyone, it was cheap. They ignored the risk. The Fed Reserve had ZERO influence with rate changes.

The government can't keep lending up artificially with this bailout. We need a correction. Affordability of houses is coming (it just needs to crash more) and high lending standards (both consumer and investment banking) are here to stay. It's going to happen. Brace for it.

RIP investment banking, hello fed reserve, and FDIC bank lending. Bye bye housing prices.

@hankrearden: I find it richly giggleicious that a doctor, of all people (recipient of lush educational subsidies, low-interest loans & debt holidays while pursuing your education followed by expansive business write-offs paired with blatant, consumer-hostile market manipulation in the medical field after it), owing so much to "socialist" favors turns all Miltie Freedman once he's gotten his...

My biggest objection is actually to the "government may halt foreclosures of home loans purchased under the plan.".

It seems like a completely meritless transfer of wealth. If you happen to be lucky enough to live in a house whose mortgage is in one of the securities that the government buys, then you get free rent. If your house isn't in that batch - or if you, you know, actually pay your bills - you get nothing.

Part of the way that the bailout has been sold is that they are simply buying securities at market rate, and that they might even make a profit. Well, the way to make a profit, or at least break even, is to kick deadbeats out of their houses and resell them as quickly as possible, not to give them free rent as a reward for buying more house than they could afford, and quite possibly lying on their mortgage apps.

I really wonder if people would support this plan if it were introduced two months from now, after the market has dropped 4,000 points, hundreds of banks have failed due to unreasonable runs, the FDIC is unable to reimburse peoples' deposit and savings accounts because they simply have no more funds, and the credit market is essentially dead. I'm usually very conservative, but I don't really have a problem with this plan. If warren buffett thinks it's vital, then it's vital, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, he has a lot to lose if Goldman Sachs fails, but I have a lot more to lose if my savings is wiped out.