Braindump and when your bs philosophy comes crashing in on you (Republicans and the $700B bailout)

Ok, so much shit to talk about concerning this bailout. I'll delve into the details about some of these points but there is a lot of just random things I would like to note.

McCain hasn't voted in the Senate since April 8th. Not for the FISA vote, not for the medicare vote (that Ted Kennedy left the hospital to vote for). And people in McCain's campaign have the audacity to criticize his 'present' votes in the Illinois legislature? Even after liberal groups with a stake in the votes have already defended Obama's present votes. And even though McCain is suspending his campaign (not really) to return to talk about the bailout he's still not sure if he'll show up for that vote.

Henry Paulson's initial proposal was one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Give me $700B dollars and make sure the courts or government has no authority to question or prosecute me because of the way I use it. (I encourage you to read this bull esp. Section 8 because it's very short and then you will be ahead of John McCain. I guess he's banking on the fact that American's don't like voting for readers).

Ok now here's the interesting bit and what stake everyone has in it:
Bush and Paulson: Stupid/evil fucks who were laughing (along with other Republicans) when they were deregulating and allowing their crony buddies to engage in predatory lending practices. There buddies lost money so they need to give them money with no stipulations (they don't care about the debt because they're on their way out.

House/Senate Republicans: Many are up for re-election so they still have to be republicans and cry anytime we want to regulate anything but they are torn because big business are the people who fund them so they want a bill that helps big business but has nothing to do with regulation or taxes. So they want to use this opportunity to suspend capital gains taxes for individuals and corporations (something they could have never dreamed of in normal circumstances because it's such an elitist idea that favors the rich and does nothing for the poor)

Blue Dog democrats: They're wringing their hands over the national debt and don't understand any other aspect of this debate (record numbers of people losing their homes and being crushed by debt, credit freeze or anything like that). They'll have no good options because the republican plan will decrease government revenues while democratic plans will spend money (if history repeats they will probably cave to republicans because theirs has a smaller short term effect).

Typical democrats: Do not question the fact that a massive bailout is needed. Suggest regulations and stipulations on the money such as

1. Government purchases sketchy securities and sees benefits on any that pan out (ie taxpayers pay for it they should see some benefits/get as much back as they can)
2. Cap on executive pay
3. Give courts the right to restructure bad mortgage

That being said, democrats will probably fold on enough important issues to make most of their gains meaningless (in the interest of "bipartisanship")

Progressives and people who care about the people: They are a little split on the issue and I can see why they believe the following things

1. Some think that there is no crisis and this is just a last ditch effort of the Bush administration to grease the palms of his corporate buddies (the 'YOU HAVE TO DO THIS NOW OR WE'LL ALL DIE' rhetoric was already used for the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act and we now realized we we're lied to
2. Some make very compelling cases that the sum should be MUCH smaller (and there should be all the regulations that other democrats suggest)
3. Bernie Sanders has proposed a great idea that charges the rich for this bailout (because they're the ones who got us into it) and addresses systemic causes that lead to the situation in the first place

I think all of these can be rectified. There is a situation that could develop into a crisis but it is not crucial that a solution happens in the next 20 seconds, the sum should be smaller, and we need to sufficiently fix these problems systemically and fix the problems for the future.

I still don't get why McCain and Obama were invited to Washington (neither are economic whizzes and it only serves to politicize the issue and slow down progress). I will say that McCain is probably in the toughest political spot because he's already claimed (parroting Paulson) that something needs to get done now and the proposal getting pushed through is a democratic taxpayer model with regulation so it can't seem to be partisan and vote against it.

What do I think will happen?
Mediocre deal (hailed by limp wristed democrats) that spends $700B with some regulations but not enough

What is the best thing that might be able to realistically happen?
$200B - $350B initial bailout with pledge to revisit it later and all democratic stipulations including judicial right to renegotiate