This is so incredibly sad:

[S]ome of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Wow. If it wants to see a bailout bill passed soon, the administration's going to have to come up with some hard answers to hard questions. Public support for it already seems to be waning. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday, 44% of those surveyed oppose the administration's plan, up from 37% Monday.

So, uhhhh, you just pulled a damn number out of thin air? Seriously? I guess it's not important that it be based on any fact, just the amount of taxpayer money you are spending is enough to prove you're serious about the "problem," which may or may not really exist. As John Stossel says, "Give me a break."

Speaking of John Stossel. He has a column about these bailouts and Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. It's a great read, but here is a quick excerpt:

Barack Obama says, "[Today's economic problems are] a stark reminder of the failures of ... an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary" ().

What? Does that mean that until last week the Bush administration embraced the free market? Nonsense. Governments at all levels have regulated and subsidized the housing and financial industries for years. Nothing changed under President Bush.

The government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created precisely to interfere with the housing and mortgage markets. In effect, Freddie and Fannie diverted money to people who wouldn't have qualified for mortgages in a real private market.

Had actual private companies performed these activities, they would have been subject to market checks. But they were not. The results were predictable.

Deregulation isn't the problem. Government is causing the mess and they idea that government can fix the problem is absolutely false.