More Questions...

Wouldn't it be prudent, since no one really knows whether or not a bailout will have the desired effect, to try some minor adjustments first and see if those things work?

For example, the SEC's adjustment of the "mark to market" rule. This change is huge, since banks would not have to virtually discredit on paper their assets. While talking with a gentleman from Sovereign Bank today, he said that the mark to market rule cost them $1 billion last year. This bank is not a national bank, so can you imagine cumulative cost to the banking industry?

With this change, let's see if the holdings of these banks will improve investor confidence and get the money flowing again.

How about we suspend the capital gains tax? This would encourage incredible investment in all markets.

These are simple proposals to try to get the markets moving again...and if, after 2-3 months, things continue to tighten, then we look at a bailout possibility.

I was disappointed in Roy Blunt's interview on NPR today when he allowed the interviewer to frame the questions in the manner that Republicans are to blame and it's his job as whip to get the votes. He was very strong on the necessity of this bill and said that opinion is shifting because people are seeing the change in their retirement portfolios. I would be interested to see if that is the case. I know that my rep (a Dem) voted against it.

There is a theory that Pelosi did not whip her party for votes with the intention of blaming Republicans for the fiasco...something they've been attempting to do all along. Add to that her diatribe on the floor and one could make a case for that.