As for a recession; unfortunately I just quit my job two months ago to work on a solo project. I only have a finite supply of funds to see me thru till I need to start looking for a job again.....

Given widespread voter opposition to the bail out, this would be a plus for McCain.

The only good thing about it is: the entire strategy is based on not repeating the mistakes the made Japanese when their banks went belly up due to a similar run up in real estate and subsequent bad lending. The Japanese tried to patch up each bank individually over something like 10 years. That didn't work so they had to simply get rid of the bad debt.

My understanding is that's basically what we're doing here.

My question is: How much does this effect the underlying markets? Have the past 20 years of market growth been wrong? Will the markets correct to much a lower level? Or will it just be centered on the financial sector, with little spill over to other areas?

I do agree that it was a horrible idea. As I have already said several times

but seriously, its amazing how the pro bill, and pro McCain people instantly switch sides so easily.

Other areas? Like Information Technology? How bout Housing? Or any business that needs money?

Seriously, Intel and some other company had been planning this large spin off company for a couple years and when it came time to get a loan? The anticipated capital available from the banks dropped tremendously. So instead of the initial planned launch, they had to make due with half of the capital, and had to plan around it.

Banks have seriously tightened up on all loans and credit. Which means its already effected all parts of the economy.

One thing I find funny is McCain's plan, TWO new regulatory bodies to oversee the goings on? So that makes three new government agencies for this one issue. I though Republicans were all about the hands off and low regulatory style governance... With the Bush administration, and this new plan (if it passes) the size of the gov't has increased significantly since the Clinton era.

Funny, I don't watch CNN. The regular news is too depressing, and the all day news networks are hacks

Two independent sources saying the same thing.. I just wonder what that could mean

Pelosi showed herself for what she is: a stupid, vitriolic, bipartisan, biatch.

So if a bill is never passed, and the world descends into chaos: unemployment, starvation, homelessness, what will the voters think then?

"Wow, guess we should've supported that bill. Hey, get yo hand outa my gruel!!!"

The way I heard it on the radio this morning, among those Members of the House that are not up for reelection, the voting was approximately 50:50. Of the 35-ish that are up for reelection, only something like 5 or 8 voted in favour.

Strictly speaking though, aren't a whole bunch of Republicans elected on a "we'll consistently vote for less government intervention in markets, less oversight, more commercial freedom to fail" ticket? So, technically, aren't they just obeying their mandates if they vote against?

EDIT: corrected facts, now having the internet to get things right:

Of the 38 congressmen who are running very close reelection races, 8 voted for the bill. Among the 395 with safe seats there was a pretty-much 50:50 split.

Am I right to think that vice presidential debates don't usually have that great an effect on the polls?

I read somewhere on the internet today that she said a couple more really embarassing things to Katie Couric, which will be broadcast on Wednesday and Thursday. Does that sound at all likely?

poooorrr Sarah

Nobama and McQuack both are poor choices. Good thing your vote doesn't do much anyway.

That's a great attitude. When you are faced with two things you wouldn't like to deal with but will have to deal with one of them anyway, why not at least cast your vote for the most favorable one?

Here's a nice McCain cartoon I found on politicalhumor.about.com -
McCain's Economic Brain :
{"name":"mac-econ-brain-tmdho080918.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/c\/7ca89a9e97f840683b321b144e9776ad.jpg","w":500,"h":383,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/c\/7ca89a9e97f840683b321b144e9776ad"}

I don't think people who are too lazy or disaffected to vote are very likely to overthrow the government any time soon. Or perhaps they're more likely to do so. Eh, who knows.

No, that's not an appropriate comparison. He's a citizen of our country and as such should take part in choosing the direction in which it goes.

If a person is a member of a guild then shouldn't they be interested in shaping the activities of it?

I think it would be rare that there would be no distinctions in qualities between two different candidates to enable a choice of the most favorable one. How is not voting not lazy/disaffected/apathetic?