Relief on failure of bailout package

I know that people claim the failure of the bailout package resulted in sharp losses in stocks, made it difficult to get loans for busineeses and indiviuals, reduced 401(K) portfolio of so many people ....might lead to some more institutions failing, recession, depression,...... the sky feel off, moved human race closer to extension and so on.......

There will be another package which the US Congress will pass in few days similar to the one failed, maybe even worse in some respects but even then it feels good for now that it failed atleast once. Why?

First and foremost even in the US, even now there is influence of the voters, constituents, of the person on the main street. The bill failed because many in congress got emails, letters, calls from constituents that they were angry at the package at bailing out wall street. And more than 2/3rd of representatives who are up for relection in close races voted against the bill. They were listening because they wanted votes. The media has potrayed this as negative but I find this a GREAT positive. Representatives who voted against were liberals, conservatives but that doesnt matter what matters is voter sentiments had a role to play in this. 

Secondly, strong wall streest lobbyists lost out against the voice of voters atleast for now. In media there are articles filled with how banking association lobbyists lobbied hard to get the provisions they wanted. For example: all provisions of exceutive compensation, equity stakes in banks, taxing the financial industry for any losses after five years are highly diluted in the bill to the point that they are as good as not there. So its good that bill didnt pass in its form. 

The urgency, the excessive executive authority to treasury, the non-transparency of the bill (what prices will govt pay) made it a bad bill. The urgency shown by treasury, media, president was huge. I understand that there are severe repurcussions for not acting but there were no serious alternatives considered. Why not follow the Swiss model in which Swiss govt. bought stakes in banks and shared in the upside, or the good bank model - instead of buying bad assests buy the good ones. The man leading all this is a former Goldman Sachs CEO who would be given unprecedented powers. AIG was saved by a loan to $85 billion and current CEO of Goldman Sachs was present in the meetings because it would have caused Goldman huge losses had AIG collapsed. This raises questions like did Paulson bailout AIG because of Goldman connection and not Lehman which didnt have that much impact on Goldman. Who would he hire to manage the $700 billion, people he knows in the industry which created the problem. 

Lastly the claims that $1 trillion in market valuation was lost in the stock markets yesterday such a big number. Does that really matter?. See today more than $750 billion of that $1 trillion has being regained. Market valuation changes are not losses to be taken seriously, these are market fluctuations which come and go. Retirment or 401(K) accounts are not lost, markets regain value. 

Lastly business media claimed yesterday that by falling the market was giving an indication to politicans that they matter and should be taken seriously. I would advise against these fluctuations being of significant import. $700 billion is a huge amount and if govt is spending it on bailing out then it should be thought through carefully. Who is bailed out? What are the costs? How it is done? What are the alternatives? Does everybody deserve a bailout?