"If you favored the bailout bill, you might tend to think of votes like this as cowardly. Where is the leadership on this crucial issue?"

Or, if you are a sucker, and you're believing there's a crisis at all, you would also ask this question.

The Democrats are certainly saying there's a crisis, but they're not acting like there's a crisis.

For example: If there is a credit crunch preventing businesses from raising capital, why is the government not temporarily suspending the taxation of corporations? If taxes on corporations were temporarily suspended, this would immediately inject capital into the marketplace without putting taxpayers at risk.

Another example: The University of Arkansas is studying the mating habits crawfish. I'm sure that this is compelling research that will one day, benefit all of mankind. Could it wait 12 months while we, instead, spend that money to provide the broader economy an assist?

What's not happening is your clue to whether there is a real crisis.

When there is a real fire ... the street is closed off, hoses are laid, barricades erected, people put their lives on the line, flames dance, crowds gather to watch.

When there is a fake fire, all you hear are the sirens.

I, for one, am very happy they didn't pass this one... I'm annoyed at all the press and politicians saying that constituents don't understand the potential crisis... I understand it, I just think this bill was a big fat, well, poorly drafted piece of legislation. It didn't address the concerns that American's have been voicing, period. It was a stinker and we knew it.

I don't think American's don't appreciate the gravity of the situation, and I don't think American's are against doing _something_. What we're against are $700B blank checks...

I am no economic expert, but I like the fire analogy above. It seems to me that the people screaming fire are the ones that stand to lose directly from these failures. Coincidentally, they are also the ones with the loudest voices. While I understand the greater ramifications for the average citizen, I have a hard time believing that government involvement of this magnitude is necessary or even healthy at all. Jeffrey Miron at Harvard wrote an article at cnn.com- I don't know if it's appropriate to post a link to it here, but I think he is on the right side of this.

I like the fire analogy, too. It's simple and anyone can understand it. Maybe someone should have a stunt plane write it in the sky over Washington.
The bailout is a crock of crap...anyone with half a brain and a little common sense knows that if the bailout passed, it would be just other link in the chain to futher "bailouts", handouts, whatever you want to call them. The fact of the matter is that if I ran my company into the ground I have no one to blame but myself and no one is there to bail me out. The automakers should be no different. Yes, they employ a lot of people but, in the long run, ALL of America would be better off if the automakers had to bail themselves out, learn from their mistakes and, oh yeah, hey maybe not pay their top executives so much friggin' money (I don't care who you are, no man's time is worth that kind of money). Lastly, Microsoft and related industries also employ a lot of people, yet those companies (for the most part) are run in the black, managed well and are NOT needing goverment bailouts...hey automakers...take notes from Bill Gates!