>>>>>The best campaigning he could possibly do would be to get the economy out of the toilet. It seems a little frivolous for him to be going on entertainment shows at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. I have a feeling that some of these public appearances could come back to bite him come next election time, especially if there is no marked improvement of the economy.
>>>
>>>FWIW, the DOW is up almost 300 points... so far today ... *shrug*.
>>
>>This is the step that has been needed for six months, getting those toxic assets off the books. I am not surprised that the market responded enthusiastically.
>
>What's good for the market is not necessarily good for the economy. Tracy's correct, the concept behind this plan is to move the junk from the books of private companies to the public at tremendous cost.
>
>Of course, what's another trillion? Mind you that the conservatively estimated total of toxicity is $2 trillion. This only works if the public is buying and for that to happen they'll demand a hell of a return for the risk which will further inflate the cost. Good for the bad banks who get their mistakes off the books. Good for public financial corporations whose stock rises as they reduce their holdings. Bad for taxpayers who are now on the hook for the mistakes. We have laws dealing with bankruptcy and receivership. We're using them on the small banks, why not the big ones? Semi-rhetorical...the answer lies with bought politicians.

I am not wild about bailing out the bad bets of these big financial institutions, either. But the whole financial system is shaky because nobody knows what some of this stuff is worth. I think the best of bad choices is to hold our noses and bail them out. And not forget who they were ;-(