We need to stop referring to the Democratic plan (or deal) as the BAILOUT.  There are three proposals--they must be distinguished.

Step one is to acknowledge the reality of the credit crisis that can in fact create a world-wide depression.  

Step two is to explain The CAUSE of this crisis-- the complete idiocy of ideologic Republic market philosophy which has now demonstrated its utter failure.

Step three is to clarify the differences between:

Plan 1 = WHITE HOUSE BAILOUT OF WALL STREET
    The Paulson plan that takes $700 billion and puts it in the pockets of Wall Street with no oversight or regulation.  Calms the markets but does nothing to address the cause of the problem--the abject failure of Reaganomics "no government intervention in markets"

Plan 2 = DEMOCRATIC FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
    This plan promotes prudent government buyouts of selected enterprises.  It is phased, so that only the amount of taxpayer money necessary to stabilize the market is injected at any given time.  In return for their money, taxpayers get ownership in these enterprises.  And taxpayers get regulations of the market to insure that this crisis can't happen again.  The markets get reassurance.

Plan 3 = House Republican Reaganomics
    The House Plan is against both Plan 1 (too much government involvement) and Plan 2 (too much government regulation).  The House plan does NOTHING to calm the markets (can't solve the crisis) and returns us to the philosophy of absolute non-regulation which created the crisis. 

STOP calling the Democratic plan a deal with the White House or a BAILOUT.  While both may be true, such language fails to clarify the actual differences, advantages, and disadvantages of the plans.