I understand Paulson's point, which he made over and over again, that the only reason he and Bernanke had crafted the plan is because the taxpayer and the real economy are in dire danger, so that bailing out Wall Street, in effect, is bailing out the entire economy.

I'm unclear about how saving the worst perpetrators of this disaster is bailing out the the 'entire economy'? How will Wall Street as a whole be lost? There are plenty of companies on WS that produce something of real value that will retain their worth, despite a stock market crash. The idea that we need pyramid schemes to limp along in order to keep up 'our' economy doesn't make much sense.

$700 billion could probably fund enough initial investment in alternative industries such as, producing clean energy on a mass scale, to replace most jobs that would be lost if all the pyramid schemes on the chopping block were allowed to fail. Plus prop up the economy, I dunno, based on something quantifiable and real. People that are losing their homes? Maybe they just get to keep em. Call it the new Homestead Act, paid for--and then some--by homeowners in the last 15 years of an over-inflated housing market.

Not holding my breath for any of that to happen, though. That would take a democratic government actually taking action to benefit the majority of their citizens.

I understand the passion, but it seems to be based on the theory that markets could collapse and scores of Wall Street financial institutions could go bankrupt, and the rest of us would proceed merrily along, unscathed. But that's just not how our economy works. If high finance implodes, markets collapse, and credit dries up, it's not just people like Warren Buffett who will see massive declines in their net worth. We will all suffer. Unemployment will surge. Anyone who has any savings that are linked to stocks will be hammered. Retirement funds will be pummeled.

I don't think most people here need an economy lesson, and I'm worried that your crystal ball may have been manufactured by an offshore investment of AIG. You should read the transcript of Glen Greenwald's interview with economist Richard Sheehan before you make such broad pronouncements:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/09/23/sheehan/index1.html

Sheehan outlines how most (traditional) banks actually aren't in any real danger at all, that the likelihood of a collapse of the financial sector is maybe at 2%-5%. Credit, from most traditional banks, will not just 'dry up'--it may be harder to obtain, but that's probably a good thing. Jobs lost could be replaced with smart investment of that same $700 billion dollars into industries that actually produce something of worth, and stimulate our economy. Investments and retirement funds can largely be saved if they are moved into industries/commodities/whatever that have real value instead of pretend.

BTW--this crisis is a Pearl Harbor for Warren Buffett? Could be. For the vast majority, this would be an opportunity for vast economic justice and change--but it's much harder to talk about that when everyone falls for the fearmongering and billonaire handwringing.

This actually made me laugh out loud. The TED spread measures fear of credit risk--EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE MONGERING RIGHT NOW.

Who isn't fully aware that the credit markets are due for a contraction? You can't take zero (or negative values) and multiply them by $700 billion and have the baseline be any more than zero. Some jackass on Wall Street can sell it to a rube for a million bucks, and sooner or later, it will return to the baseline. Same as it ever was.

There is no escape from made-up value & pyramid schemes besides yet another pyramid scheme or a contraction of value. We are DOING NOTHING BUT prolonging and worsening the pain with this bailout--the next bailout will need to be much bigger--or perhaps completely unreachable because the gov't may have lost any credit they have by then.

Why not use the $700 billion, since it's already on the table, for good (investing in clean energy, creating jobs, relieving homeowners, stimulating things of real value) instead of pissing it away?

Sigh.

This should have read: "Some jackass on Wall Street can sell zero to a rube for a million bucks, and sooner or later, it will return to zero."

Um, we don't need to take that chance: use that $700 billion to shore up Main Street and let Wall Street fall where it may.

This bailout will not save Wall Street anyway--it's prolonging the pain until it gets to the point where there's nothing left to bail WS out with.

Shoring up Main Street economics, on the other hand, WOULD likely prevent a Great Depression because it would serve to increase things that actually have value vs. hocus-pocus financial "instruments" that have no value.

I can haz bailout? = I can has Iraq War?

IMO, House repubs are grandstanding to try to make it appear as though there is republican opposition to this hot mess of a bailout that will likely not work, that will probably make things worse in the long run...

kind of like the Iraq War.

WHY are you cheerleading this bailout, Andrew?

(Eyes roll back in my head until my brain explodes.)