Nothing occurs in DC that Special Interest Groups (SIGs), Political Action Committees (ACs) and industry lobbyists don't influence if not downright manage. That's the way of things, pure and simple. Congressfolk do not maintain cadres of subject matter experts, and so they tend to rely upon the "assistance" that SIGs, PACs and lobbyists provide in interpreting complex data. Ironically, the interpretations also tend to be slanted towards a position/solution which just happens to match the goals of the SIG, PAC or lobbyist preparing it.

While there may be no such thing as a fully-funded problem, throwing money onto a fire only results in a bigger glow from the flames, and nothing but ash and smoke afterwards. In my past businesses and my current endeavor, money wasn't committed without a demonstration of need which included at minimum: 1) a cost/benefit analysis, 2) specific targets and goals, 3) a profit potential including a cost curve, and 4) an independent review (sanity check) to insure we weren't snowing ourselves or missed something important. So far, ABSOLUTELY NONE of these things have come forward - just "gimmee gimmee gimmee." And Congress and the President gave - big time.

If many banks can't lend money because they don't have it to lend, that's probably a good thing. If certain bankers can't run their businesses under the existing laws, the choices are simple for them: 1) change careers, 2) get smarter, or 3) seek changes in the laws. The FDIC already "owns" a lot of banks because banks fail - just like other businesses. So far I haven't seen any bank executives liquidate any of their personal holdings (all made during the boom-town times, including some remarkable bonuses) to bolster their businesses.

Personally, I'd just as soon see these banks which gambled - yes, gambled - their assets without adequate protection close their doors. FDIC has sufficient authority to fix this situation, and that only makes the survivors stronger - just like other industries.

Yes, those with decent credit ratings can still get loans. Banks sell money today for more money tomorrow - that's what they do. If banks sell money today for little potential of getting more money tomorrow - that's their fault. Dumping $350-900Billion more cash into the "system" does not make the bankers any smarter in running their businesses, but provides them with the resources to cover their stupid decisions - and no protection to the country that they won't make the same dumb mistakes again.

Will any of the money buy smarter future decisions or just cover the losses of a SIG so that its members can breathe a sigh of relief? So far, we've been given no proof that this isn't just a hurry-hurry shell game to protect a select few at the expense of the many.

No money without a plan! I thought Banking 101 taught not to loan a dime without a comprehensive business plan. Where's this one? Shoudn't "We, the People" see one before opening the vault?