Are those who called their Senators and Representatives pre-Roosevelt conservatives who believe that the markets should endure whatever happens because government has no role? Are they populist leftists who believe that this bill is designed to preserve the wealth of the exploitive rich?

People with these views exist, certainly, and are vocal, but they aren't numerous.

Are they people who, like me, wonder if this sudden plan will work, and would prefer a better explanation of how it works and why it's likely to be effective? And why it's more likely to be effective than alternatives to be described and evaluated. A $700 billion rush to look busy might be wasted money.

The best reason to vote for this plan is that it exists and has support from the country's political leadership. But that's not sufficient to be reassuring.

Something is going to pass. It's necessary to calm the markets and protect against damage to companies not involved and to people who need credit for worthy, responsible purposes. But the next legislation should at least seem reasonable and considered to those not in high office.

The public rejected the bailout because it rewards irresponsible fat-cat wall street bankers for their extreme greed and irresponsibility. It's as simple as that. The government lets the little guy get stomped, lets their mortgage go into foreclosure, but when the extremely rich get in over their heads, the government wants the little guys to chip in at $10K/family to preserve their wealth.

Some pundits (with fat stock portfolios) are running around with their hair on fire screaming that without this bailout the sky will surely fall, but the public isn't convinced, I'm not convinced, and apparently more than half of the House isn't convinced.

The public has called utter bullshit on this one, and the representatives who voted for this measure may find themselves highly unelectable come November.

Last night Ben Stein called for the same $700 billion to be loaned to all the homeowners who cannot make their mortgage payments, instead of the irresponsible bastards at the top of the food chain. See if any of it trickles up!

Personally, I would put a provision in the bailout that mandates life/death sentences to the bankers who got us into this mess in the first place.

Rewarding those who shouldn't be rewarded. Or, Why should I pay for someone else's mistakes?

It's ironic that the "irresponsible fat-cat wall street bankers" will suffer no worse than the loss of their golden parachutes. They can keep the $10's or $100's of millions obtained when the were behaving irresponsibly. The failure of a company is felt more harshly by those who only did their jobs and who have not accumulated resources.

And how would you answer(?) someone who says, I bought less house than I wanted because I could afford the payments. Now you bail out someone stupid or unrealistic, while I have to keep making huge payments on a house whose resale price leaves me under water.

It's almost impossible to damage financially or to help financially only the people intended. As much satisfaction as there might be. The only good news is that, as Ken Lay found out, being optimistic about your company at the wrong time is a jailable offense. Maybe some of the fat cats can be sent to jail for trying to preserve the jobs of their hardworking employees (as well as their own).

There are a few people who believe as a matter of philosophy that the rich run the world, and every action is seen through that prism. There are many other people who see that as a reasonable possibility only sometimes. And that's part of what's happening here, I agree.