A side thought: If the government can get these toxic mortgage bundles at 50% of long-term value, then this is a fire sale, and it could be hugely profitable for the government. The cost/profitability question is completely dependent on what price the government is willing to pay. So far they've been leaning toward paying a guess at long-term fair value, instead of taking advantage of the market vulnerability of the holders. This is pure Republican give-the-money-to-the-rich-because-they-deserve-it-and-will-do-more-with-it-than-Washington bullshit, and just about no one is taking note of it. Instead of "bailing out the fat cats on Wall Street", we could be looting their companies. That the executives will still carry away millions is true (and unavoidable). But that is distracting people from the fact that we could be carrying away billions -- billions we deserve more than they do, billions we could spend on healthcare, or to pay for the entire Iraq war. That use of fat cats as a distraction away from the cash-making machines they operate is the real tragedy, IMO. I'm all for imposing a "tax" on companies that were recently making multi-billion-dollar profits every quarter. So I'm against the bailout as it is written, because the assurances that were added about balancing the books in the long term are toothless, with the goal being "try to make this revenue-neutral in 10 years" rather than "go shopping and pay the lowest rates you can for everything that is on sale." The difference is subtle -- only about $700 billion.