This bailout deal is treated like something that has to be done, and something that will be done. Only the details are a valid point of contention. I'll say this: If you vote for any form of a bill that gives 700 billion dollars to a single person to dispose of at his whim without any form of review, then you lose my vote. Forever. Haven't we learned by now that the Bush Administration grasps at as much power as possible, then abuses it in ways that we couldn't even imagine? There's also the fact that the plan isn't a 700 billion dollar donation, it's the creation of a 700 billion dollar slush fund that gets refilled when it makes a bad investment, and the function of the fund is to lose money.
The Congress has shown its true colours during this entire affair. They've been "working" on a solution to the housing crisis for months now, and they haven't even produced an idea for a bill. The way I see it, homeowners' inability to pay for their loans with impossibly high rates are the driving force of this downturn. Well, they can solve both problems today, if they wanted to. If you really want to lose 700 billion dollars or more, why don't you consolidate the loans of people who can't afford their current payment structure, and write a bill that creates a maximum interest/payment scheme for mortgages in general? The housing problem would be greatly ameliorated, the junk loans that are dragging down the economy would see renewed value, and not all the money would be lost, just most of it.
This approach is actually pretty similar to the Bush Administration plan, (at least the way they've described it. If they were going to execute the plan honestly, they wouldn't have written all the clauses that indicate they don't have to,) except the money goes through the people, not through the businesses. Also, mine makes it so that the Government doesn't have to become the biggest holder of mortgages in the world, thereby creating an absurd conflict of interests in the foreseeable future.