The Bailout Plan is NOT Bush's Plan. It's Almost Entirely Different Than The 3 Page Sketch

[KittyWampus]

Paulson threw out.

[seabeyond]

1. i didn't understand, and i understand nOW. i think why dems still call it bush plan

is they want this on bush shoulder, as bush mess, yet the fixed the plan best they could with the stinky chore of passing a stinking plan to bail out greed, cause they have to.

did i get it right? lol. since last night been reading and listening ot a lot. i didn't want to know this shit

[KittyWampus]

5. yes, and this is breaking apart the Republican party.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. I support the bail-out so I can say this. You are mistaken.

All the revisions are trivial face-saving window dressing compared to the scope of the conceptual plan.

Anyone who opposed the broad concept of the Paulson plan has no reason to change their mind.

Someone says say, "We should send a man to the moon." People agree or disagree.

These revisions are all within the conceptual framework. They are the equivalent of, having decided to send a man to the moon, debating whether we should use older Atlas rockets welded together or build a new class of Apollo rockets.

Mere details.

[sandnsea]

3. The revisions are significant

Oversight is huge, he wanted none. Eliminating CEO packages is big. Giving the govt a stake in the bailout is very big. I don't know why you'd say otherwise.

[redqueen]

4. Same here... those are huge, especially the equity stake!

:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

6. Funny, Paul Krugman disagrees about the "trivial face-saving". Equity is important

there is a lot of value wrapped up along with some junk.