I've taken a pretty lengthy and (hopefully) even-handed look at this thing, and I think Bernanke's warnings are credible. According to his models we'd be looking at 2% slowoff in GDP growth at current rates.

I also think the compromise as it escaped "committee" was a good one. Far more oversight than Paulson's original. Tax payer-owned equity in the companies. Limits to CEO pay for those who chose to participate. Better regulations. Not all the money at once.

There are plenty of philosophical reasons to oppose this-from "they got themselves into it they should get themselves out" to "I don't believe that's the role for government." There are also plenty of policial ones. Like pretending that a capital gains tax decrease on people with no capital gains (as if the threat of a tax was all keeping them from lending) is a solution. Glenn Greenwald seems to feel anything drafted without pulic input and support is bad. I don't blame him-or anyone else stung by years of war in Iraq-for thinking that.

Good or bad, the legitimate objectors and the political opportunists ended up forming the majority. Let's hope those voting their consciences know something we don't.

Altmire's in a grudge match with Melissa Hart for PA-4 and is undoubtably bowing to voter sentiment.

Boehner didn't do his job and is now blaming Pelosi. McCain blames Obama's "lack of leadership." GROW UP!

Immediately instate a 10% surtax on all incomes greater than $1 million/year for couples, $500,000/year for singles. Instate a 0.25% tax on all stock and currency trades.

Let the bastards that did this and/or benefited the most from the criminal stupidity be the ONLY ones to pay for it.

The Dems could and should pass this without a single GOP vote and it wouldn't piss off the electorate.

The Democratic leadership in Congress has gone along with Bush enough times that I really don't trust their judgment.

Perhaps some members of the House feel the same way?

...will be the suggestion this "dire emergency" requires postponement (read: CANCELLATION) of Thursday's Vice Presidential debate.

The only interesting part of this entirely predictable dodge? How the McCain camp will try to concoct a plausible reason that Gov. Palin has (or should have) any role in crafting a solution in Congress -- and therefore, that her time MUST be spent on anything other than the debate.

"Country first", of course. This is yet another job for Super Sarah, the Reformer from that distant planet called "Alaska".

A remarkable demonstration of a lack of leadership. How can Pelosi hang on as Speaker after this?

It will be impossible to not blame Democrats, and particularly their leaders, for this bill's failure. The Democrats have a majority, and instead of taking on the work that needed to be done, they played around waiting for Republican cover, got some, and then proceeded to lose their own members.

I have to say; all of Nancy Pelosi's jawboning over "golden parachutes" and executive incomes on Wall Street did nothing to help herself on this debacle. There is no serious economist who will cite "executive pay" as any sort of a factor in the current credit crisis. She just shot herself in the foot. Or maybe in the head. Hard to tell with her.

Nothing like a good game of chicken to get your blood running first thing in the morning.

Of Course, here's the problem, Normally, the President as party leader has the ability to threaten his people if they don't get in line.

The republicans have no such party leader. Bush is on the way our, and Republicans know that McCain is a lost cause. They have no advantage in helping out either man, and neither man has the ability to hurt the Republicans who voted against it.

Now is where Obama can take action. He can call up each no vote in the house and explain to them how their life will be if they embarass the next president like this when we put the bill up for a vote again tomorrow.

Obama as the party leader who his party expects to be party leader for the next four years has a considerable ammount of power over his own cuacus, and he should be able to whip the rest of the Dems in line on this...if that's what he wants.

I think the failure probably costs Obama nothing politically, the worse the economy is, it only hurts McCain, The question is, if the frozen credit markets are a real threat. If our economic engine and the worlds can really grind to a halt because of this. If that's the case, then Obama needs to stand up and lead. He is the President at this time for all practicle purposes, and he can save this bill if he needs to.

These sorts of 3 AM phone calls, are what make a leader great. I believe Obama is a great leader, and I know he'll do what he feels is best for the nation. But I would like him to make that statement in the next hour if at all possible.

100% tax on all wealth over $150,000. Absolute restrictions on all debt all households are permitted to carry. Limits on personal ownership outright. Ration gasoline and food.

If the Democrats didn't include the Republicans then the House might have passed the bill but the Senate wouldn't have. Then you and even more Republicans would blame the Democrats.

It sounds like that for you the only acceptable alternative would be to let the Republicans write the entire thing and then get enough Democrats to vote for it in both the House and the Senate. Seems even less likely to succeed.

Great leadership there, Obama.

Y'all go; stick it to da man!

I understand and empathize with the outrage the many people feel. Wall Street financial firms built this house of cards and should suffer the consequences. Bu the outcome of letting that happen appears to be much worse than a bailout.

As pointed out by people who understand economics much better than me, a credit freeze would cause tremendous damage beyond Wall Street. The fact is, due to the splitting up of mortgage loans into little pieces and sold as mortagage-backed securities and thereby spreading risk to many players, the defaults of these financial institutions would have widespread impacts. Letting Wall Street firms burn has the risk of setting off a financial forest fire throughout the entire economy.

Will the bailout plan work? I don't know. The problem is that the current economic experts like Paulson and to a lesser extent Bernanke loss a lot of credibility because they either espoused false optimism or failed to foresee the crisis. But having a flawed plan seems to be much better than nothing.

Sure Wall Street should pay. And the moral hazard of risky investing should be maintained. But don't let ideology and outrage replace the need to address the crisis.

What is the alternative? None of the off-hand solutions that I've heard would seem to address the credit crunch crisis.