I disagree that the bailout is necessary. I think the bailout will do little to restore the faith of financial institutions in one another, and that is the crux of the matter.

All this talk about pork is making me hungry!

Fixed it for ya.

At least we're still calling it a bailout and not some Orwellian nonsense like "affirmative public financing" or something. "Bailout" has a nice, negative ring to it. And makes it sound like we shouldn't really be doing it...which we shouldn't.

If this thing passes it will be a sad day for liberty and a victory for socialists worldwide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

This "bailout" was necessary, not for political reasons, but because it is much more than a bailout.

I am very much against bailouts, but this (except all the pork) was absolutely necessary.

What I hear is that this is the last shot for the republicans to have any say in this matter. The democrats in the house and senate could damn near pass a bill by themselves, especially with Bush screaming that it has to be done. Republicans, again from what I'm hearing, are afraid to push the issue much more. They are scared that the dems will push them out and go forward with something much, much worse. At that point the dems would take the credit for the instant benefits of the bill passing...belittle the republicans for not wanting to help the country...use this as yet another stone to throw at McCain basically assuring an obama victory...and once the bill came back to haunt us (which it surely will), they wouldn't give a crap because their guy would be in the White House.

We're just f*cked.

Well, a lot of highly trained economists disagree with you. And so do I.

This is only necessary from a political standpoint.

If you believe in free markets, this bailout is unnecessary.

Laissez-faire!
Laissez-faire!
Laissez-faire!
Laissez-faire!

If you understand how the credit markets work, this bailout is necessary.