So much for John McCain riding into town to "save the day!"

Yeah, I know people weren't happy about it, but...what happens now?

Anyone know?

on salon, at least, seems to be that we've got to pass this, and we've got to pass it now. The Republicans have been voting as a block for the last 8 years. If they can't make about 40% of their members vote for something, it must truly, truly stink. I've got to say -- I'm pretty comfortable with working on the bill a few more days, until they can actually get 50% of the House to agree it's a good idea.

I suppose the next step is to re-work the bailout, but with the European bank failures is it too late?

like cooler heads prevailed. Unless these nay voters are all hearing their office phones ring 100-1 against the bill, there must be something fishy in those hard-to-find 100 pages.

Krugman et al seemed to think there was no reason to rush this. I am thinking he was right, and maybe we'll get a better bill out of this miserable failure of Democratic House leadership.

Down 500 is nothing. The market is still above 10K and likely to stay there for a while. The 'panic' that everybody is screaming about is just not there. The big boys are still keeping their money in the market.

That should tell people something.

I acknowledge there is a problem. I just refuse to believe that it requires actoin RIGHT NOW!!!!! or WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!

I'm sorry Mr. Leonard, I refuse to drink the kool-aid. This is classic THE SKY IS FALLING rhetoric designed to keep people from thinking.

This is a bad bill that does NOTHING to address to the underlying problems of the derivatives market, the failures of ratings agencies and even the red-herring of 'executive compensation' is basically silly that doesn't really decrease executive pay.

I agree there are many problems with the bill, but unfortunately the changes that will be made to persuade the republicans to vote for it will make it even worse. They sense blood in the water, and will force capital gains tax cuts, estate tax cuts, etc., whatever the hell they want (no matter how irrelevant it is to the problems at hand) because some bill has to pass. The bill is bad, but it's going to get worse. Even though it would be bad for the global economy, I would almost like to see the democratic leadership give up on it, because when the shit hits the fan the republicans in congress should get the blame.

Euros? Do you think Canadian Dollars will fare better than US Dollars? Where can I get a lot of Swiss Francs this afternoon?

Good thing it is failing. They need to renegotiate it and toughen it up A LOT. The financial services industry needs to understand that we the American people now OWN Wall Street.

Philadelphia Steve,

"So much for John McCain riding into town to "save the day!""

I believe it was Nancy Pelosi who suspended the vote to try to get more Democrats onboard.

Anyway, I personally think this was the best thing I could hope for. I think if we have to suffer, we all should suffer together rather than the taxpayers suffer to bail out those banks who didn't use proper lending practises.

Wall street cashes out, cleans out their appartments and moves in with their money in their Caymen Island "getaways".

Yay.

Bah. I'm gonna have to vote for my representative, he voted against. Sonnuva...

The Repugnants made the mess and now want to make the mess worse.

None of these polititions wants to go home and tell their constituents that a) we're letting the market crash, or b)we're bailing out Wallstreet at taxpayer expense. So now what I'm hoping will happen is that they all go back into negotiations and come back with a bill that includes some real regulation of the markets, gives the taxpayers an equity stake equal to or greater than the money we're lending in anybody that takes help and provides for an upper income tax increase to pay the bill.

If they do anything else I think everyone needs to go back and reread Glen Greenwald entry about that US Army Brigaide training in the US with "non-leathal weapons". And ask themselves what they might be needed for. Those of us who have read A Peoples History of the US already know.

Thanks for all your excellent work over the last few days/weeks. I deeply appreciate the view of reason and sanity that you are providing into this mess. I depend on your clear explanations to get some clue of what's going on.

Keep it up!

Why is it that a $700 billion investment to save the world fincancial system creates such fear, but a $9.7 trillion debt warrants only a shrug?

I would be happy if I thought this meant there would be no bailout, or that the bill's true problems were going to be fixed now. But neither of those is true. All the current problems will remain, plus a host of new give-aways to the far right in congress in order to get their votes. The entire republican economic wish-list of the past few decades will be thrown in to sweeten the pot. Hell, even throw in ANWAR drilling.

GOLDS BABY GOLD! All that paper is going to be worthless. Might make good toilet paper but that's about it. Real solid gold bars is the only sure bet.

@help4mac

The deregulation that allowed this to happen occurred in 1999. Guess who signed it into law, CLINTON!

Democrats are more supportive of Bush than Republicans are.

[From The Guardian]

Tell your legislator to support the Robert Reich proposals for this bill.

· 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?

Wall Streeters may not like these conditions. That's too bad. They wanted the money; they should be made to accept them.