That's all I've got...

It is a fine thing that Congressmen have responded to the voices of their constituents rather than following the usual procedure of selling their votes to the highest bidding lobbyists.

Now, come on folks, write to your Congressman or woman and ask him/her to support a bill that incorporates the Robert Reich points as enumerated in The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/26/useconomy.usa

(or click on my signature).

· The government (that is, taxpayers) must receive an equity stake in every Wall Street financial firm proportional to the amount of bad debt it shoves on to the public. So when and if shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

· Executives of Wall Street firms must relinquish stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of the firm's profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply feathered nests?

· All Wall Street executives must immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street public affairs committees (registered fundraising bodies) be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favourable terms from taxpayers?

· Wall Street firms must agree to comply with new regulations related to disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in 90 days from a bipartisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

· Wall Street must agree to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should they lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?

It is far too easy for these assholes to forget whom they serve.

As evidenced by the Fed's secret conference call.

If only we could see these douchebags go to prison...well, one can always hope.

i always agree with you, but not this time. first, this needs to be explained better - its not a bailout, its a loan. much like the S&L scandal, we will get our money back and will possibly make money. i do not think it is fair that we all have to pay for the mistakes made by a few, however, not passing this bill cost all of us a trillion dollars yesterday instead of $700 billion. this does directly effect the little guy - i am sure any of them looking at their 401ks today are feeling a little sick. if anyone out there needs a loan - good luck getting one. it sucks yes that some on wall street will benefit, but all of us will be far worse off if something is not done. and both parties were sickening yesterday, no one stood on principle - all who voted against were worried about losing their jobs. and thats it. its the representatives job to explain this to the american people and no one is doing a very good job. we shouldn't allow financial armageddon just so we can teach a few a lesson. i don't like this either, but for the good of all of us, it needs to get done.

Did those who voted no actually CARE what their consituents wanted, or were they simply motivated by cynical re-election strategy? I know which I think it was, and I doubt it was the noble, 'caring about the people' sentiment that is being posited. I think it is pure fear of not getting votes, that's all.

is to keep up the pressure. I think it is certain that a similar bill will pass soon. The intensity of the pressure determines how much it will change from the current one, although the changaes will not be big. But more importantly, the "peoples's rebellion" must have an impact now in order to be felt in the future.

But, the push to go forward with the bailout has only just begun.

The financial channels are pushing this deal hard now, as "responsible", the word bailout has been replaced with word rescue, because only the framing of the argument matters.

Yesterday the talking heads were not discussing the actual bailout, they were discussing how poorly the idea was "sold" to the public. This probably did shake them up a bit.

You can bet if there wasn't an election in 5 weeks the corporate welfare bill would have passed with plenty of room to spare.

The immigration reform bill from a few months ago was supported by the President and chief legislators from both parties, but was resoundingly defeated. And it was defeated by legislators who heard an overwhelmingly negative response from their constituents. (Motivations of the constituents aside. . .)

Happy the legistlation was defeated. Sad the defeat was orchestrated by some of the most wretched representatives in the House.

Totally agree.

However, isn't it ironic (well, "ironic" isn't the right word, "tragic" is...) that an expenditure of 600-odd billion was just approved (in furtherance of the war in Iraq) without a peep from anyone?

Congratulations. They defeated great corporate interests. I'm sure that will keep them warm in the evening as short-term lines of credit completely dry up, investment stops as has already started, and they're laid off.

Too bad our Congress chose this point to listen to "the will of the people." In this case, the people may be justifiably outraged at bailing-out Wall Street tycoons and investment bankers for their fiscal irresponsibility.

But the sad fact is the United States is bankrupt -- the inexorable result of 30 years of economic fantasy land -- and in need of old-fashioned Keynesian "pump priming."

For a successful national economic recovery, the Democrats must institute a rational tax policy, national health care, a massive infrastructure repair program and national manufacturing and energy policies to reverse America's slide into Third World kleptocracy status.