Debalic wrote:
Well, a greater percentage of pubbies - over 50 percent even - voted no than Dems.
Yes. But the bigger point is that the Dems have the majority in Congress. If they wanted to push whatever solution they wanted, they could.
The key point to realize is that the Dems want the "blank check" solution. It's why they practically jumped at it when the Bush administration offered, and why they were so pissed when McCain and camp insisted on making some changes. Now the Dems have realized just how unpopular the blank check solution (or anything too much like it) is and don't want it to look like they're the ones who want it (strange really given their response to it being blocked last week, but maybe no one will notice...).
Dems don't want to vote for a bailout unless they get sufficient Republicans so that it looks like it's truly bi-partisan. Which means that they'll have to actually make the solution fit bi-partisan goals instead of just being a free lunch for Dems. What you're seeing right now is the two sides negotiating on the specifics. Basically, the Republicans just won a round by showing that the Dems don't really have the will or ability to do this on their own. Now, they'll sit at a table and hopefully come up with a more reasonable deal that wont place as much burden directly on taxpayers, and wont include additional "gotchas" down the line, and which doesn't end up being the government buying the banks of our country (which is what Dems basically wanted).
The GOP is pushing for an "insurance" solution. Where the government does not buy or bail out banks up front, but rather insures their debt. It's a bit more elegant because it means we only spend as much money as is actually needed to correct the markets *and* the government doesn't end up owning a huge chunk of the banking industry. It also prevents some of the more obnoxious aspects of the original Dem plan (like using the government to buy out banks at a low price, then using the future profits for yet more spending on the same kinds of programs that got us into this mess in the first place).
The government is not supposed to be a for-profit enterprise. Let it budget what it does so that the taxpayers know what they're spending and what they're getting in return. IMO, it's the attempt to hide the costs of some government programs that caused this. Getting the government into the business of banking would just make that problem worse over time.