Could Republicans Have Something Right Here?

I have to admit, in recent years I have become polarized toward the left when it comes to my political beliefs. It's amazing what an inept, ideological president can do to ones political philosophy, but I digress. I once associated more with the Republicans' politics, but my beliefs have since been reformed to the point that I can barely conceive of a Republican doing anything right (and Democrats only get things partially right, but that's the choice I have to make), but I think the Republicans are on to something here with this financial recovery package being debated. 

As previously noted, I question the severity of this economic crisis. But, I must defer to those leading this country because they have much more access to economic knowledge and how our system works than I do. So that being said, there seems to be no question of if we should pass some sort of bailout, but rather what should be included in any bill that gets past to prop up our failing financial system. The debate is complex, it is melded with presidential year politics, partisanship (which in a party system will happen, I don't use it in the pejorative sense here), and class affinities/aversions. So that being said, ostensibly the Republicans don't want Americans to foot the bill completely here. I agree. That should not happen, unless of course Americans seek to reap some sort of return from their tax dollars going to fix an ailing financial system.  Now, I don't fully understand their plan, or to what extent there is support for such a plan, but from what I understand they want other businesses to buy up these bad mortgages, and those businesses will then purchase insurance for them. Sounds good in some respects, but I also worry about more monopoly, and more consolidation, because I believe those two trends are, in part, responsible for our current crisis. I"m just left wondering, could the Republicans be on to something?

I'm beginning a thoughtful, prudent bill must be develop, quickly of course, but not too rashly at the same time. It must make not allow profit to come to financial institutions receiving tax payer dollars, unless of course we see some return equally. That would be a compromise of sorts, since both parties would pay to cure the economy. I certainly concede that regular Americans benefit from a healthy economy, so we need a strong economy, but I just don't want to see in increase in the maldistribution of wealth in America. And I want answers to the question; If the government can propose spending 700billion to pay for an economic bailout passage, than why is it so odious, and antithetical from the perspective of lawmakers, to pass bills paying for education, health care, and unemployment benefits? Some believe that social welfare fosters dependency on government. Well, then I must ask, what does bailing out the financial sector do?  Ideas are powerful, and not asking such important questions do not challenge a double standard of ideals that the American people are spoon fed. I'm glad that the House didn't pass the current bill, but something does need to be done. This is a watershed moment for American politics and society, one which could irrevocably change America forever. An exciting time for political pundits, a precarious time for Americans.