Is Congress serious? Another editor note

So Congress looks the other way and ignores the markets' continual warnings that things weren't being done right, that some sort of regulation was needed to stop bad but legal business practices and now that Secretary Paulson comes in and essentially says "you idiots didn't do your job now give me $700 Billion to fix this mess" Congress says "wait, let us do our job and make sure this works and we get it right"......

Color me not amused.

You know if either of our beloved candidates had actually cared about this problem and wanted to fix it they could've done a lot more --in other words worked and worked until they passed a bill that fixed the known issues in the market place, at least some of them. Instead both candidates want a pat on the back and our vote because "hey, look at me, I introduced legislation that would've helped stop this but didn't do everything I could to work across party lines and get the bill actually passed....you know, didn't do enough to actually accomplish anything...."
It isn't like either candidate introduced legislation, worked to get it passed through both houses in Congress, and then has it vetoed by the president. Isn't this really why the United States just generally doesn't elect a Senator? There really isn't much either of these candidates are talking about they couldn't introduce as a bill in the Senate. Look at the energy bills about to be voted on, on the House floor. They didn't take President Bush to write or be introduced. Obviously the political power would be greater as president but a good idea is a good idea and not every bill or law signed by a president is written or introduced by the president.
For those talking as though this government bailout would be socialism I'd beg such people to do there homework and learn the history of this country better. Government rescue dates all the way back to Alexander Hamilton and the 1790's when Mr. Hamilton fought to have all state debts assumed by the federal government. (Such a shame more presidents and Secretary of Treasury's haven't considered Alexander Hamilton the model for national spending and finance...but I digress.) The savings and loan debacle of the 1980's wasn't fixed through socialism nor did the "cure" create socialism despite being semi-similar to today's mess.

From this article on realclearmarkets.com where the writer, Larry Kudlow, after making a strong case for Congress to stop adding to the bill, a similar point is made:

Actually, it’s a marvel that we permit government to infrequently come to the rescue of our credit system. It doesn’t happen everyday. But it has been necessary going all the way back to Alexander Hamilton’s original rescue of our failing debt system in the 1790s.

Understanding this history, conservatives should not panic or walk away from the Paulson assistance plan. It would be great to avoid either a deep credit-driven recession or a global banking meltdown -- or both. Paulson has always viewed his rescue plan as an economic-growth tool. I think he’s right.