The outrage on the part of Congress– not to mention the constituents – is understandable, given the size of the bill taxpayers are being asked to foot, Seth Weinstein, principal of Stamford, CT-based Hannah Real Estate Investors, tells GlobeSt.com.

Furthermore, the proposed plan doesn't address the fundamental problem of accountability or of a financial system that has gotten seriously out of whack, he says. "Today, financial engineers that package and repackage derivative products stand to earn 10 times as much as the original developers or manufacturers of these products," he says, citing what he says is just one example.

Unfortunately – or not, depending on one's view – it appears that the sizable detractors to the plan proposed by Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson last week may ultimately get their wish, either by blocking it outright or by weighing it with unpalatable requirements. Some of the suggested additions to the plan are counter-intuitive, David Webb, senior managing director – principal, with Cassidy & Pinkard Colliers in Washington DC, tells GlobeSt.com. Capping CEOs pay of companies participating in the plan is an example. "There is no point of having a program that discourages lenders from participating." Other proposals, though, do make sense – such as requiring the firms to share their profits when the economy and their fortunes do rebound. "If the government overpays for these assets that are now under water, it makes sense there should be some kind of compensation."