When the Federal government first brought up the idea of a $700 billion bailout, I had a question: Where did they come up with $700 billion?  It seems as if the bailout was changing hourly, and no one seemed to ask, or knew, where this exorbitant figure came from.  It seemed as if tax payers were asked to write a big check so that the government could spend it as they wanted.

      Initially, the money was going to be used to buy "toxic" securities that banks couldn't sell.  Then, some genius had the idea of buying stocks in banks, with little control over what banks would do once they received these infusions of cash.  Next, we've seen proposals to rewrite mortgage terms for individuals facing foreclosure.  We were told that there was a huge need to get this bailout approved so we could help the credit markets, but here we are 3 weeks later, and they still don't know what to do with the money.

     Whether you agree or disagree with the bailout, you must admit that there isn't a plan, and the reluctance to add stipulations to the money is especially troublilng.  Neel Kashkari, the head of the program, said there are few strings attached to the money in order to encourage banks to use the help.  I may be mistaken, but isn't this lack of over sight one of the problems that caused this situation?  If the bailout does not end up resulting in widespread corruption, I will be shocked.  Money was borrowed without a plan, then given to business with few strings attached.  That's a recipe for disaster.


http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081025/meltdown_evolving_bailout.html