Speculation only takes us so far.Results influence the market long term. How can you expect results from the bailout when funds weren't available to banks until this Monday? The article suggested that the bailout isn't doing us any good but how can he say that when it hadn't even taken effect yet? Much of the negative speculation comes from people who don't know the facts.When corp. America suffers, we ALL suffer. Nobody wants to have to bailout big companies but the fear is that if we don't we'll suffer more later if we take a hit now. We've never experienced anything like this in history, so there's no easy fix. True, there's concern this week that banks might use bailout funds to consolidate, rather than make loans but up until this week, the banks had no money to lend.In fact,credit HAS started flowing this week. They were hoarding the little they had to stay solvent None of us complained when times were good in 2004.Fact is, most of us drank from the trough in some way

But isn't that just the point, that the bailout's effect has been negative, in terms of speculation? What does it say about government intervention when the market reacts by taking a $3 trillion nosedive? I'm glad you believe the bailout is good, perhaps if more people had your faith the markets would't be doing so poorly. However, I think that's entirely the point, that the reaction to such heavy-handed government intervention was incontrovertably negative.

This article is chronicling the stock market after the bailout package was signed by Bush. It is neither weak or strong; it is what it is. Is there a cause and effect? Those of us who have seen our investments decrease were hoping that the bailout would help the market recover. Market recovery was one of its goals wasn't it? If recovery of the economy and stock market was not the goal, then was the bailout only for the benefit of the banks and those who engaged in risky investments? Then why use taxpayer funds for this? Those who gamble should be allowed to win or lose. Supposedly, one of the main purposes of the bailout was to unfreeze credit. If so, why were not the banks who took advantage of the funds compelled to grant credit. Instead, they are now hoarding the cash that they obtained without any need to loan out that money. Since the bailout has not produced any positive results domestically and worldwide, it would seem to be necessary to ask why not?

This article is weak. Does the writer know that the funds from the bailout have not been available to banks until this week? So the only effect the bailout could have had until this week is speculation. In fact, for a variety of reasons, the credit freeze has begun to thaw over the past couple of weeks, as banks become more comfortable lending to one another. I'm upset about what's happened but believe the bailout is a good thing. It affects everyone, unless you're a nomad living in a cave. The bailout was to avert a complete collapse of the financial system. It was never meant to prevent a recession, which EVERYONE believes we will experience. A crisis of this proportion has NEVER occured in the history of the world. We're all learning as we go to some respect but this article is as one-sided and uneducated as the people who called their congress people to complain.

The market and economy have been in the crapper since the Dimocrats took control of the congress and senate. The market is falling and $$ is disappearing (the smart ones are placing the $ in tax free and off shore accounts) in anticipation of Dear Leader Obama and his minions Nancy and Harry taking control of the White House and taxing all income earning Americans into bankruptcy. NObama08

For a breakdown of DRUDGE stories by most recent story, most popular stories, and relevant tags, visit http://www.blipnews.com