The federal government has finally succeeded in passing the $700 billion dollar rescue bailout as the new format passed over the former rejection coming from the House in the bill’s initial review. With the stock market news clamoring to see different a better investing environment, the bailout plan ought to go to good hands. There is actually so much more to hope for; after all, there is plenty of good to be done with a bailout fund. These banks, being the major beneficiaries of the fund, have so much to prove that they are worth the taxpayer’s investment.

When we consider what happened, the stock market news then creates a clear picture of these financial industries being rescued that have turned out to be selfish, unyielding companies that can’t return the favor to the taxpayers who actually saved them from bankruptcy. They must have already forgotten that the $700 billion bailout fund also came from the pockets of the middle class taxpayers who only want little assistance in refinancing their house loans. What the government can do is to regulate lending and borrowing scheme to a more reasonable payment process that will mutually consider the bank and the borrower’s current financial situations. It could come to a point where banks could be very stubborn by ignoring the “law” as it will cause them to lose significant profit but the major goal of the bailout should first put the welfare of the majority on top of anything.

The stock market news regarding the mortgage defaults create a huge tension with the homeowners. This is due to the fact that the bailout bill has not specified clear provisions on the process and extent of saving properties from foreclosures. Whatever these lenders had in mind—that is certainly not to get them back into debt again. They believe that it’s almost suicidal for these companies to re-offer mortgages at the expense of losing significant percentage of the principal amount borrowed. This was, however, partly what the bailout suggests. Funds were given to these banks to give them room to get bad assets off of their books, and to help small-scale investors who have been directly hit by the economy’s credit crisis. The outcome turns out to be the opposite: banks were given financial aid to solve their ailing problems but are not enthusiastic in helping out common citizens to obtain better terms on mortgages.

Ironically, while the Americans want aid, these banks have tightened the requirements for eligible borrowers, further making it difficult for these borrowers to regain control over their nearly foreclosed properties. While the Federal Housing Administration assures help for almost half a million troubled homeowners, the banks and other lenders still worry about the bailout’s succeeding house programs that will require the banks to cut the borrowers’ loans to about 90% of the principal amount. Whether the banks would yield to the government’s bailout rules or not, they have to keep in mind that the only way to resolve the country’s credit crisis is to watch each others’ back—this equally pertains to the lenders and the borrowers.