We needed the bailout because????

We needed the bailout because, why? what? huh?

So they pass this multi-billion dollar bailout bill with all the extras and the market jumps!

Wow.

Except it's going in the wrong direction.

Down.

Why isn't Wall Street happy with this thing?

Could it be we didn't need it?

Could it be Paulsen and others were wrong?

Could it be... they want more, more, more?

I'm still hung up on why they had to put all the extra stuff in it just to make it pass. The price tag on these guys and gals conscious wasn't very high when you look at what it took to make them swing from one side to the other.

I'm pleased our Republican House members all voted against the bill, regardless of whether they did it for the right reasons or simply to stay in office. I'd prefer they did it on principle, but I'll take the vote either way.

Here's another scenario for wanting the bailout: The Democrats want it as another step toward Socialism. I heard today that the changes made in the bill make that less likely. Hope that's true. I'm not sitting down to read through 650 plus pages of twisty-talk to try and find out. Most of us will live to see the results and how it plays out.

All afternoon I've been listening as political types explained their vote for and against the bill. I've never heard so much pandering in one day in my life.

I've been listening off and on as the financial wogs explained why the bill wasn't doing much for the stock market. They don't really know based on what I'm hearing, but they sure do sound like they might. The tone seems to be that this really wasn't a fix, it was just to staunch the flood. Times are going to continue to be tough, nothing may improve.

Hey, did you guys know that Japan called and said we really needed to do something over here to make sure the bill was passed? I think it was Pelosi who threw that tidbit out in the midst of her talk today. She did a fair job and managed not to continue her desire to work on a non-partisan basis and all get along (cough, cough) by saying half of those she wanted to hold hands with were unpatriotic.

You'll be pleased to know she just tossed in a few light obligatory slam-Bushes and actually managed to say she appreciated the work of a couple of Republicans. Well, she didn't use the word Republican, but still, she uttered their names. She didn't say exactly what they did, and she did manage to give credit to every addition or good thing (in her mind) to a Democrat, but that's about as close as I've ever seen her get to making nice with Republicans.

Yes, and the ground didn't split open and swallow her, nor did lightening strike. But don't you worry, Ms. Nancy will be back in true form now that the vote is complete.

What's the future hold? Pain and misery if the talking heads know their stuff even partially.

I've heard there's a run on canned goods in the grocery stores. I haven't seen it and there seems to be plenty of food on the shelves so I think maybe someone is having a bit of fun with the truth. Guess I'll find out next time I go shopping.

On the McCain front, it seems that passing this bill might be a good thing according to some as it gets the issue of the economy off the table. It will only be a good thing if life improves over the next few weeks and the bill has a noticeable impact. If the effects of the bill are negligible or life doesn't improve for many, then his yes vote can end up hurting his chances.

Sad times in the good old USA

I know things go in cycles, and maybe this is just a cycle, but whether it's a cycle or just a downward spiral, it's not a great future to be staring at these days.

I have no idea whether we need a bailout or not, despite what I keep hearing on the news. I'm not privy to the information that our so-called leaders have at their disposal. I'm not sure they are able to look at the full picture given the intricacies of the world's financial markets these days.

Some things concern me.

Nancy Pelosi said she wanted to support President Bush's plan and help him get it passed. When has Nancy Pelosi EVER wanted to help George Bush? When have the Democrats ever agreed on anything that came out of the Bush White House? Somehow I just can't see her swallowing that one without an ulterior motive, and I guarantee whatever the motive, it's one I wouldn't like.

If this plan is such a great plan, why did the Democrats need the cover of Republican votes to get it through? They had the potential votes without the Republicans. When the have to have the other guys on board, they want to make sure everyone has equal blame. Except when they can't get 94 of their Democratic buddies to sign on.

If Nancy Pelosi can't get 94 Democrats to go along with the plan, including some Party leaders, how can she and Barney Franks blame it on the Republicans? All she needed was to be able to whip a few more of her guys and gals into the chosen line and we'd have a bailout already.

Why did Barney and friends feel it necessary to muddy the waters by including money for groups like ACORN?

They keep saying it's the end of the world as we know it if this plan doesn't go through immediately. Thus far every deadline they've set for major calamity has passed. I understand that maybe there's still hope for the bill passage so maybe the markets are holding off until it passes or until there's absolutely no hope of passage.

If Nancy Pelosi is so sure we need bipartisan votes to make this go through, why's she calling Republicans unpatriotic and lashing out at them? Ya think that's the way to make the other side want to work with you? Or do you think she just can't help herself?

Why did some of her fellow Californians vote against the bill? You'd think she would be able to get her neighbors to go along wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall and see what it is that has been going on behind closed doors? They've taken a 3 page plan and turned it into a 160 page document. I guess that takes a lot of wrangling when you have so many fingers in the pie.

Congressman Lynn Westmoreland ended his press release response with a comment about alternate plans not being considered. Why not?

From what I've heard, they're not really capping the golden parachute for CEO's and others in failed institutions, even though that's the way they're phrasing it when discussing the bailout. If I understood correctly, the government will impose a higher tax on the company if they pay a huge severance to a badly performing CEO while the company is going under (or something like that). Basically they're going to penalize the company so much they hope they won't make contract concessions guaranteeing a big payout.

Doesn't make sense if that's what they've truly put into the bailout plan. If the company is going down the tubes, what are they going to care if they're taxed higher? They're gone, finished and have no money to pay taxes.

I'd like some clarification on that one, even though I'm not sure I want the government interfering with setting salaries in the partially-private sector. I don't want these people who don't do well to be rewarded with money that should go to the employees and / or stockholders, but I don't want the goverment getting involved and setting pay caps either.

Don't you think that the conspiracy theory types are having a ball with this one? Can't say that I blame them! If you believe in that big bad business group that is written about in so many books (sorry, can't think of the title of the group) then this dovetails perfectly. I'm talking about the group of movers and shakers that some think control the world behind the scenes.

I don't know if the bailout will help, hurt or just postpone the inevitable. I don't like it. I don't want our government having control of this one. I haven't seen anything get smaller or work well once the government got into the mix. There will be many bureaucracies that pop up as a result of this! The bailout isn't going to be $700 billion, it's going to be much more when you add in the man hours we'll fund to monitor the oversight.

I've heard that they'll push this through before the end of the week.