Agree with that statement.



What is needed right now is someone to "lead" and not wait for Americans to wake up to what could happen with out action. Henry Paulson is sticking his balls out there and stating it point blank. Hes the best chance we have. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand needs to step down (as I've stated before) She is the one that could in her position rise above all this and make an historical move and unite parties to save this country. Even if she loses her seat, if she were to stand up and make the right choice she could at least die later in life knowing she did someone great for her country. (Few if any politicians see the big picture anymore)

So could Monica L.

I think Pelosi is doing what she can. It's not about putting her seat at risk; it's about getting enough votes. Paulson has the luxury of being an appointed official and being able to make proposals and decisions that are not dependent on others. Pelosi has neither of those. According to her statements and statements by House Finance Committee Chairman Barny Frank, if House Republicans don't join in then there will not be enough Democratic votes to pass the legislation. She can't force Democratic members to vote the way she wants (witness the recent vote on offshore oil drilling, where she had to cave), and some of them won't take the responsibility for unpopular legislation unless at least some members of the opposition do the same. She doesn't have all-powerful control over her members, and if it comes down to saving their own skins, House members will do what's in their own interests before doing what their party leader wants them to do. So some Republican members may have to join in to get Democratic votes regardless of what Pelosi does. And since she can't make the Republicans do it, that's why they're back at the bargaining table.

It's not easy corralling over 200 individuals over something that's probably somewhat to very unpopular in most of their districts. It's like herding cats, and I'm amazed sometimes that anything gets passed.

Not that I'm an expert in this field, but I have to say I don't understand how the Republican proposal for a Wall Street financed insurance fund restores liquidity to the credit markets, which is the immediate problem. Nor do I see how they can object to the cost of the bailout and then propose more capital gains tax cuts which will also be unpaid for (and very little of which would to to Main Street). One can read this exchange between Frank and Congressman Mike Pence and reach one's own conclusions. But to me, the Republican proposal sounds like it's trapped in the ideology that the solution to every problem is a tax cut.

Pelosi has been a reactionary leader. (Hard to the use word 'leader' after reactionary.) Its not that she needs to force 200 people to see her way, its that in this time in history that great leaders are born and rise to inspire hope and movement and make hard choices for the future. (She has done nether)

I guess my disappointment lies in looking back at other historical moments in history and some of the people that helped lead this country through those moments, and seeing the same old political crap and bickering now.

We need a leader that makes us all proud to be an American again.

1/2 the US already has one no? He’s the president.

Went to buy furniture today, passed Carrabas part of an Italian chain for the second time and confirmed it really is closed.

We'd been looking at Oscar Huber's flagship store near AC. The staff had been informed last week that OH had filed chapter 11. Our salesman was in tears. The manager was still in shock - you could tell. A real crash will affect everyone.

Still, I'm not completely convinced the sky is falling - um yet. But, if it is I'll wager the bailout does not work for more than 12 months tops.

Seems to me the US has been living far beyond its means in many many ways for quite a while. I don't think there's a silver bullet that’s going to fix that - unless the rest of the world wants to bail us out it's going to be tough at some point.

I think not good news any way you look at this.

Guess I think we do need to make some hard choices – but a bailout might not be one of them.

Hey - let privatise Social Secuity! It's easy and it won't require any regulation or anything.

Bailout from, the peole who brought us a STONG ECONOMY by way of less regulation yesterday

What do you mean by "work"?

I don't think anyone pretends that we're not in for tough economic times. But just because the economy slows down and it's tougher to get a job won't mean that the bailout didn't "work." The choice is between bad and worse. Some people think it's between having a bad economy and essentially no economy.

If the credit markets seize up, then we'll know that the bailout didn't work. We'll never know how much worse things would be without the bailout, but people who know something about the issue seem very, very scared about the consequences of government inaction and just letting "the market" sort it out.

I can't think of a period in history where the Speaker of the House led the nation out of a crisis. I can barely think of an instance where the Speaker focused the public on any particular important issue. Maybe a few times a few Senators have risen to the occasion. But the place most people look to for leadership is the president, not the legislature. And our system just seems ill-designed to fill a leadership gap when the president is unwilling or incapable of rallying the public.

I'd bet a substantial portion of the public can't even name the Speaker of the House, much less have any understanding of the current risk to the national economy. Nor is there any time to educate people on the crisis even if they were interested (which, I'd guess, many are not).

The priority was to get a deal done. It appears to be done (again). Given that the Speaker's position does not appear to be one that lends itself to national "leadership" capacity and the urgency of just getting a solution, it seems to me that she's done what was needed in a difficult time, as have many of her colleagues of both parties. I think it's hard to do or expect much more than that, especially when power is so divided not only between the executive and legislative branches but within the legislature.

Sure, I would have liked more lofty rhetoric and an appeal to our sense of the common good. (And though there were some partisan attacks, there was also a lot of talk about bipartisanship.) But given the difficulty of the situation, I'm impressed that a deal has gotten done and done quickly (assuming it doesn't fall apart again).

Do the SS IOU's in the treasury come before these Wall Street IOU's? Which politician will explain this to America? Now way can each politician give tax cuts and elaborate govt. programs with the debt as it is now. "Momma may have and Poppa may have, but God bless the child that's got his own." You better have your own back, govt. is waaay over extended at this point.

Read the bill while watching the Eagles Lose, no oversight until 60 days after the first transaction? What oversight is this? Looks like Paulson is decision king still. Very disappointing. MMMMMmmmmm.