This was a very helpful link and helps to cut through the rhetoric of both sides of this debate.

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the original plan as envisaged by Paulson, but I do think the days of negotiations had resulted in something that may have been more acceptable.

But, now we have the conservative Republicans proposing a solution which arguably is more free-market based (although it really isn't since the Federal Government is still interfering) but does much less to protect the financial interests of the Government and therefore the taxpayer.

If we were truly willing to take the chance and let the markets correct themselves while governmental policy focused on the creation of real jobs, infrastructure investment and debt reduction, that would probably be the best long term solution.

However we know that no politician or governmental agency is going to let that happen. It is in our DNA to do something! So then we have the decision facing those on Capital Hill today. To me the Conservative Republicans are placing ideology ahead of what is actually in the best interest of the taxpayer. The past has shown that when the government is able to hold these troubled assets until they regain a portion of the original value, the Treasury has ended up breaking even or realizing a profit.

The alternative, is to insure these "toxic" portfolios - and then when they go into default, I assume the taxpayer will be responsible for covering the loss to the future investor. I guess in my humble opinion, as a taxpayer, I would prefer to actually have an equity interest in the company and own the underlying asset, than to merely be responsible for protecting the company in the event of default.

The other part of the Conservative Republicans agenda that no one is mentioning, is the proposed weakening of regulations and increased tax benefits to encourage the credit markets to begin loaning funds. Haven't we just heard McCain for a week rail about the excesses that have resulted from deregulation. Somehow this doesn't quite make sense.

But, the rhetoric coming from the Republican caucus has definite appeal. "The government should not be using taxpayer hard-earned dollars to pay off the bad debts of irresponsible actors on Wall Street." The problem is the facts just don't match the words.

Just my thoughts/ Joni

Joni and eliyah: I appreciated the input.