Basically, the plan is to buy mortgage-backed securities at low low prices. Then, as the economy improves, fix up the properties and sell them at a profit for the taxpayer. They also want to charge insurance on some mortgages, that the banks would pay to us to guarantee the mortgages. (The better the insurance, the more they pay.)

They've got a few levels of transparency and oversight built in, but the ultimate decision on which mortgages to purchase and which to insure would be left to the Treasury Department to decide, based on what has the greatest chance of producing a decent return for the taxpayer investment.

I wouldn't worry about Paulson -- his tenure is up in around six weeks, and I doubt he'll be back if Obama wins the election. If McCain wins, I dunno.

What they WANT to do is something similar to what Sweden did when they had a mortgage run-up and then a financial meltdown similar to ours. What Sweden did was nationalize some ailing institutions (banks) and mortgages. They acted quickly, so they basically stomped on the fire before it got too big. Their taxpayers made about 6 dollars in profit from each dollar they invested, and now Sweden's economy is fully recovered and roaring along.

The problem with that plan is that speed is of the essence. We don't see the fire burning, but it's been growing for about two weeks. Beyond a certain point, there is no stopping it, and then it'll cost multiple trillions in taxpayer bux to recover. By waiting, we're trading a $700 billion bailout now for a multi-trillion dollar loss in a year. Mostly, it'll be the poor and middle class who eat that cost, whether it's the $700b now or the trillions later. Take your pick. I'd personally rather pay upfront than delay and pay five times as much in a year.