this was always a bad bill as far as the next president is concerned, especially Obama who would be further strapped to not enact policies and reforms he has promised for lack of money. Big Liar John has set himself up for a free ride for at least 4 years and probably 8 inasmuch as the only thing of consequence he's promised to do other than more, and endless  wars is balance the budget either in 2012 or 2016 depending on who's speaking and what minute it is.

Overall the bailout helps Big Liar John because it gets him out of his balance-the-budget-while-cutting-taxes nonsense, so he should be all-in.

That's what they're afraid of!

They're afraid we've called their bluff!

Let's calm down, have the election, then let the new Congress return and address the multitude of woes of the American society while the new President restores our diplomatic relations and brings the troops home.

Don't fall for the sky-is-falling rhetoric.

One, he isn't going to be left off the hook much longer.  He has floated above this for a couple of weeks by saying he'd just make things worse if he got involved, and that Congress would act soon.

Well Congress hasn't acted and things can't get much worse.  

Lastly,  this crisis will just get worse if left unattended.   If nothing is done now imagine the mess in Feb.  Plus, from a political calc there is no good solution here so he may as well have Bush claim the final ownership now, instead of him doing it in Feb. '09.

Barring a miracle whoever gets elected is probably looking at being a 1 termer.   The situation they will inherit makes the job Bill Clinton took over in '92 look down right rosey (and early into his term many inside his admin were thinking they were doomed to 1 term).

Hispanic caucus?  Black caucus?  The first instinct is for Obama to go after minorities... why?  Because he is a minority?

I hate calling the race card, but this is just silly season.  They don't need more Democratic votes.  They got 60% of those already.  The Republicans need to own up to their responsibility here.  It's their gravy train, even if it's gone off the rails; personal responsibility is what the conservative revolution was all about, right?

This is a good opportunity for a money-minded Democrat to put forward a better proposal that isn't tainted by Bush and Paulson's transparent power grab.  They can say, after it passes, that they wrote it based on Obama's four core principles, and everybody except Bush and McCain wins.

I think the Dems need to own this, especially Obama.  If the bipartisan plan sucks, and it sounds like no one actually likes it, coming up with a better plan is their job.  They have the house and the senate and are about to have the presidency, and in my view fixing this sort of problem is why we work to elect our guys.

From a political perspective, at least in this election cycle, people attribute the problem to Republicans/Bush, and Democrats taking a leadership role in the solution is not going to change that.  People trust Democrats on economics right now and I think there is a lot to be gained by them standing up and saying, "Here's how we want to fix it.  Republicans can hop on board if they want to be a part of the solution."  And, of course, that's what they're there for in the first place.

I think if the Democratic caucus could craft a smaller bailout bill, with better taxpayer equity provisions and real mortgage default relief, and pass it along party lines, it would be the best outcome.

Bush would be suicidal to veto it.  House Republicans would continue to oppose, to their long lasting discredit.

Is option two unconstitutional?  Money bills have to originate in the House.  How could they get around this?

If the dems want to pass a bill, let them make it a good bill for the consumer and pass it on on straight party lines.  Dare Bush to veto it.

Wouldn't you know it?  The market is heading sharply up, is heading to +300 fast.  Perhaps the market gets back more than half of what it lost yesterday in just one day?  Some who were predicting a major market collapse "within days" may just not be quite as right as they thought.    

Actually, I believe option 2 in this post (passage in the Senate first) is actually NOT an option. If I remember my con law correctly, all taxing/spending bills are required to originate in the House.  That means that constitutionally speaking, the House MUST act first on any bailout package.  I don't know where Stephanopoulos was getting his info, but that option is likely wrong.

Apparently, it's Newt Gingrich working behind the scenes thinking it's 1995 again!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30 /report-gingrich-stabbed-b_n_130487.html

That worked out so well for them 13 years ago, why not try again!!