it seems that there's a bailout deal. while it certainly could fall apart between now and tomorrow (when the house expects to vote on it), it probably will pass.
i'm still completely unconvinced that this is a good idea, largely because there's been almost no effort to muster a convincing argument that it is. instead, we're faced with a barrage of bare assurances that unless we pass this plan immediately, the country will be faced with financial armageddon. i'm suspicious when none of the proponents seem willing to do anything to defend this bailout idea on its merits. the only actual arguments are what kind of $700 billion bailout we should do, not whether we should do it in the first place. the proponents are not explaining why we should not do something completely different (for example, the sweden in 1992 model).
the fact that no discussion questioning the premise of the $700 billion bailout taking place is a pretty good reason to oppose the measure. the burden of proof is is on them (and by "them" i mean paulson, or whoever else is arguing for the measure), not us. they have to convince us that what looks like a blatant giveaway to wall street is actually necessary, not the other way around. i certainly could be convinced to support a bailout like this, but someone first has to actually convince me.
