Typical of Bahu to blame only Republicans when 90 Democrats voted no to the bill after Pelosi gave a very interesting speech telling those who are up for relection it's ok for them to vote no. It seems obvious that with a Democratic lead Congress, Pelosi and the Democrats are useless yet again.

What?  Where do you get your propaganda from?

As I said it in another post, the bailouts HAS to be done if we don't want to seriously wreak the economy. The libertarian philosophy attitude in that case will lead us into a potential serious depression, and nobody wants that. The people are right to criticise the rich of Wall Streets for putting themselves into that situation, but if the bailout isn't accepted, we might see a lot more of bankruptcies on the part of banks, insurance company and investment firms, which might spiral down to stopping the credit for almost everyone - thu stopping consumming.

You may wanna point to Bahu first since he was the one blaming Republicans. Of course I would not expect you to say the same to him. But just as you said, Democrats are majority and they had the chance to get this done but failed and their only excuse was to point to the Republicans, as usual. This is suppose to be bipartisan, an idea meant to help all Americans regardless of party affiliation, but Democrats continue politics as usual always blaming Republicans for everything they screw up and for what they can't accomplish. Kinda ironic considering many here are blaming Republicans because these mistakes happened when they were majority.

Besides, I was one of the people who was making this an all around problem. There is enough blame to go around but obviously some here wanna play the blame game except when the blame point to Obama.

Well, I hadn't answered his initial post because.. well, because I though his post was just partisanship babbling, and I though it'd be somewhat ignored. But someone came and blamed entirely on the Dems, and I wanted to say something about the whole blame game going on here.

And I have seen as much pointless blaming on the Dem side than the Republicans, so I don't think a party could actually adopt an holier-than-thou attitude regarding the whole problem of "Let's point fingers rather than save the economy". GODDAMNED ELECTION!!!

I am glad you posted that, because it takes this to the ultimate conclusion and shows the problems with the whole scenario.

If everyone is on the verge of bankruptcy, then what is going to happen/has happened?  Your money is worhtless.  That is what all these bailouts are doing.  Basically penalizing (they can raise taxes or not, the damage is paying the bailout) everyone for the sins of the few.  The bailout will cheapen your money.  You lose whether you pay more in taxes or not, and the hardest hit - the poor of course.  Dont believe me? Ask Weimar Germany. 

This bailout will not go that far, simply because it is not "all" but just one section of the economy.  So the results wil not be catastrophic, but will be bad.  It is bad, but the good thing that most people see is that the bad part will not be so easy to see.

No, that is the hyperbole.  The reality is that credit will tighten, we will go into a recession, and come out stronger.  You fail to realize that while thigns have gotten bad, the banks are for the most part still very sound.  And for them to make money, they have to lend money.  It will not disappear.

Actually it would go back to Adam Smith and is seen as a further advancment of the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes. 

But using the term 'Reaganomics' is so much more inflammatory in current times.

Actually, no.  Most do not. And most (for a great variety of reasons) are against the bailout.  The AP just ran a story on it that I read.  The economists ran the gamut on political persuasion, but all had one thing in common.  They thought the bail out bad.

I may be overly optimistic.  I prefer to think of myself as not running for cover as the chicken littles tell the sky is falling.  It may be more than an acorn, but it is not the heavens.

And many people still thinks Obama is a muslim, what's your point? Wether you believe in Keynes's theories, it is still the determinant factor in modern economies.

Mixing economics with politics in the prsent situation is the worst kind of  situation to be in. Chicago school holds that reducing money supply is a sure enough stategy to control stagflation.     The present crisis demands injection of money in amarket that      is short on liqudity and confidence.Bush and Paulson hvae set aside their onservative economic vies and have hit upon a solution and much as one dislikes Bush there is much to admire in his package. I think the solution may not be bold enough to stave off the drift into recession, but a bold first step. 

That is simplistic and false.  The problem today is NOT mixing Economics and politics.  It is essentail (and what is lacking especially with this bailout package).

The Chicago school (in a nut shell) believes in minimal intervention, and then through manipulation of the interest rates.  It is not meant to be a sledge hammer, but a surgeon's scalpel.

The problem is that for the last 20 years, Keynes has been running wild in government(and why not?  A politician loves to think he is doing something good - regardless of empirical evidence), and has brought us to this mess.  So we are going to fix it with more government meddling?  ONly in a pigs eye.

Yes there is.  There always are alternatives.  But they are political suicide (perhaps if Bush was looking for a right solution and not a legacy, he could have done it).  We saw what Keynes philosophy got us.  But since Moneterist philosophy is not conducive to the current political campaign, it will not happen.