Take a look at the Q&A by David Stout in the  New York Times meant to explain the Wall Street Bailout plan. Here’s an excerpt.

Q. So is it fair to say that Americans who
are neither rich nor reckless are being asked to rescue people who are?
What is in this package for responsible homeowners of modest means who
might be forced out of their homes, perhaps for reasons beyond their
control?

A. Yes, you could argue that
people who cannot tell soybean futures from puts, calls and options are
being asked to clean up the costly mess left by Wall Street. To make
the bailout palatable to the public, it is being described as far
better than inaction, which administration officials and members of
Congress say could imperil the retirement savings and other investments
of Americans who are anything but rich.

Q. How is it that the administration and
Congress, which have not tried to find huge amounts of money to, say,
improve the nation’s health insurance system or repair bridges and
tunnels, can now be ready to come up with $700 billion to rescue the
financial system? And is it realistic to think that the parties can
reach agreement and get legislation passed in a hurry?

A.
The first question will surely come up again, involving as it does not
just issues of spending policy but also more profound questions about
national aspirations. As for rescuing the financial system, elected
officials in both parties became convinced that, while a couple of
venerable investment banks could fade into oblivion or be absorbed by
mergers, the entire financial system could not be allowed to collapse.