The poor and working class may have money in the markets, but they don’t lose thousands in a day’s trading because they don’t have that big of a balance to begin with…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/01bailout.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

On the morning after the sell-off on Wall Street, Congressional offices reported a shift in angry calls from constituents, with some now demanding that lawmakers take some corrective action — a distinct change from the outpouring of public opposition that contributed to the defeat of the plan.

“I started hearing from a lot of people who lost money on their investments thanks to the big drop on Wall Street yesterday,” said Representative Steven C. LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, who voted against the plan.

But there are more middle class than rich, as we all know…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3XLLng0bFbY&refer=home

2) I agree that the public doesn’t understand it because it was not well explained. As I said in a different thread, if Clinton or Reagan were President, they would have found a simple way to explain a complicated situation.

3) Reread what I wrote: I said that we will reap what the Republicans have sowed only if the credit freeze continues (e.g., post nine: a “potentially catastrophic situation”). I don’t think it does: I think that a second bill will pass. That doesn’t excuse those who voted against the bill, Democrat or Republican. If I am wrong and Congress leaves town without doing anything, then I will lose money. Right or wrong, that’s how I’m betting.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan…

You misunderstood my point, though – I’m not asking why YOU think the Republicans got the bill wrong, but what were the motivating factors behind them getting it wrong (again, in your view). Clearly, the public opposition is the dominant one.

And if the public doesn’t understand the crisis, that’s their fault? Part of leadership is explaining…and that’s why, in retrospect, Bush’s primetime address has to be seen as an abysmal failure, and Obama and McCain both get pretty close to a goose egg for their extremely facile and unimpressive performances on this issue during Friday’s debate…

“Beginning in 2004, (the GSE’s) portfolios of subprime and Alt-A loans and securities began to grow. Subprime and Alt-A originations in the U.S. rose from less than 8% of all mortgages in 2003 to over 20% in 2006. During this period the quality of subprime loans also declined, going from fixed rate, long-term amortizing loans to loans with low down payments and low (but adjustable) initial rates, indicating that originators were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find product for buyers like the GSEs.”