The two circumstances sort of symbolize the U.S.'s decade of descent, although opinions certainly will vary on what led to them. At minimum, they don't represent the most flattering moment in the nation's history.

Money manager Bernard Madoff, if proven guilty, will have substantially hurt, if not ruined, the financial lives of hundreds of investors -- from charitable organizations to Zsa Zsa Gabor -- in a $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

Meanwhile, on the heels of President Barack Obama's $500,000 compensation cap for executives and employees who receive federal government bailout assistance, criticisms have been voiced in and around Wall Street and in think tanks, with some executives complaining that the compensation is not high enough and/or that the federal government has no right to limit how much someone can be paid.

Let us know what you think.

It looks like tomorrow could very well become yet another "hang on to your hat Friday" or another edition of "As The U.S. Economy Turns."

Still, hopefully it won't become another 'down goes the Dow' day with an extended visit from our old friend, you guessed it, Dow 8,000. But analysts and economists haven't ruled the latter out.

The reason? The January 2009 jobs report, to be released by the U.S. Labor Department at 8:30 a.m. EST.

Following nearly a week in which a Fortune 500 company announced a major downsizing daily, and on the heels of December 2008's loss of 524,000 jobs, most professionals in economics and public policy circles are preparing for another sobering jobs report.

With the Obama administration's $500,000 executive pay cap for bailed out companies imposed, the more important and more determining question concerns how the American people respond.

Ironically, the public's reaction may hinge on how Wall Street and the broader financial community reacts.

Historically, Americans have opposed pay caps and generally looked unfavorably on government -- particularly federal government -- efforts to interfere with market-based valuations of talent / labor. In a nutshell, the public favors a minimum wage but believes "the sky's the limit" regarding compensation; if a board of directors, business partner or negotiated contract says you're worth $10 million a year in salary and bonus, then you deserve $10 million year.

Bad times can bring out the best and the worst of us. There is a character with a huge heart and apparently stacks of cash for needy folks willing to wait in line for it in Time Square.

He has been cast as "Bailout Bill" and he has created a stir because he is giving away money directly to those in need, figuring that the folks on the bottom rung of the ladder need just as much help as those at the top, that the government has been bailing out.

According to reports, In order to get the money people have to go to the 'Bailout Booth' in the heart of Manhattan's Times Square; to a small cubicle, where, depending on your story you can get a cash stipend to help out with a present financial dilemma.

The Senate is expected today to vote on the revised, second $350 billion TARP allotment, while the House Speaker also indicated she expects the U.S. Congress to approve the measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, indicated to ABCNews that Congress would approve President-elect Barack Obama's request for another $350 billion in bailout / rescue funds because this time it will be spent by "a president who will enforce the law." The House vote is expected to be close, however.

To block Obama's request, both the House and Senate must vote to withhold the money, assuming each chamber has the two-thirds vote to override a potential Obama veto.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans won assurances from Obama administration officials that the administration would use the money for financial institutions, not for aid to auto manufacturers and other industries, Bloomberg News reported. Republicans have criticized the Bush administration's decision to lend $13.4 billion to assist the recovery of General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Chrysler.

Is tracking TARP money feasible?

Both Senate and House lawmakers have called on greater accountability and transparency to 'verify and track' where the money is going, but economist David H. Wang said that isn't feasible.

If you think change -- and big change -- in Washington won't start until the gentleman from Illinois is inaugurated on January 20, think again.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. and chairman of the House Financial Services committee, late Friday announced the new, proposed restrictions for the release of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, and some are stunners.

Under Frank's bill:

• The pay of executives employed by TARP would be capped in a standardized manner, regardless of what type of aid they received under the program. It would also make the pay limit provision retroactive to existing program participants.

"If they don't like it, they can give the money back," Frank said, referring to the retroactive limits on pay, Reuters reported Friday.

• The U.S. Treasury would have to dedicate at least $40 billion to reduce home foreclosures, with a plan developed by March 15.

Could 10 or 12 economically conservative Republican Senators prevent a Big Three auto rescue and the cessation of domestic auto manufacturing operations?

Indeed they could. Many of the conservative Republicans come from states where General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F) and Chrysler do not have a large manufacturing presence. Hence, there's likely to be little home-front pressure.

That fact, combined with the filibuster era - - whereby lawmakers routinely abuse the Senate's unlimited debate power to oppose any legislation that does not have 60 votes - - the total need to invoke 'cloture' or cut-off debate - - means a dedicated cadre of Senators has the political and procedure power to defeat any legislative item below the 'sweet 60.' Hence, in that sense a dedicated, numerical minority can undermine the will of the majority, the will of the people.

Now the real auto rescue debate begins

What's more likely is that the economic conservative Senators will use the filibuster weapon as a means to extract additional concessions from Big Three stakeholders - - primarily the United Auto Workers. And their goal is obvious enough: a UAW defeat will drive labor costs lower and represent another victory for those who believe the lower wages fall for the typical person and worker, the better. In this argument, wages are merely another cost in the production machine, and the less money allocated for this expense category - - as with any expense category - - the better.

Conversely, the UAW will argue that any attempt to weaken them - - or bypass them - - will hurt/eliminate the only organized power that the typical person and worker has at the bargaining table and in the American economic system. They'll also argue that a living and decent wage for all working Americans is the foundation for a strong, stable U.S. economy, with sustainable GDP growth.

Each side is likely to offer exaggerated business and economic statistics in favor of their arguments, in a Washington process known as 'rhetoric for dollars' that frequently accompanies appropriations bills and government loans. The economic conservatives are likely to argue that UAW total compensation costs are 'wildly above' those for auto workers in Japan and Germany. The UAW will likely argue that it's already made 'major concessions' in previous contracts, without noting that work rules haven't changed that much.

Last Friday, the big economic news was the shocking loss of 533,000 jobs which spurred President Bush to accept this weekend a bailout plan for the automobile industry likely to be announced in the week ahead. So did stocks crash on Friday as a result of the bad jobs news? No -- the Dow rose 259 points. And despite the daily failure of the stock market to fit the simple storyline that stocks go down with bad news and up with good, this media mental model persists.

In the week ahead, there is likely to be more bad news. Here are three such items:

• Spiking unemployment filings. On Thursday, first time unemployment filings are likely to top 500,000 for the fourth straight week.
• Slumping retail sales. On Friday, retail sales are likely to decline for the fifth month in a row -- the longest such streak since the numbers were first collected.
• Non-forecasting companies. A few companies are expected to report their results and claim that they lack visibility -- code for the future looks dark and they don't want to speculate publicly about just how dark.

So what will the market do this week? I have absolutely no idea. But it would not surprise me if it rose and fell wildly for no apparent reason.

With passage of the rescue bill, and the U.S. Treasury's upcoming actions to stabilize credit markets through a variety of tools/mechanisms, one area that is likely to experience negative consequences is the dollar.

Simply, more dollars borrowed (or more dollars printed) almost always means each dollar is worth less. Economist Richard Felson said a gradual, orderly decline in the dollar "would be expected, and is almost considered the default response, given increased U.S. government borrowing." The dollar closed Friday down about one-half cent to $1.3775 and $1.7713 versus the euro and the British pound, respectively.

Central banks monitoring dollar's level

However, leaders of the world's major industrialized economies will not, in Felson's interpretation, accept a sudden and/or inordinate decline in the dollar. "Along with increased stress on the financial system, 'brutal' currency movements, as [European Central Bank President Jean-Claude] Trichet has said, throws everything out of whack by making it hard for companies to project costs of foreign operations," Felson said. "For these reason and others I believe the major central banks will intervene to support the dollar, should the U.S. Treasury's extra borrowing or the U.S. Federal Reserve's extra lending for the bailout lead to too large or too quick of a decline in the dollar."

Much has been written about the add-ons or 'pork' in the rescue package passed by the U.S. Congress and signed President Bush.

The add-ons, which increased the bill's projected cost by $130-$165 billion, depending on the analysis, have been viewed as another example of "special interest lobbying," "sneaky ways to get pet projects passed," "ripping off the taxpayer" and/or as simply un-American.

Well, the truth is, add-ons in the United States have taken place in every Congress since the nation was founded. Further, no one really knows who made the first legislative "deal," but to say that senators in ancient Rome or officials in Greece, did not trade votes for projects or patronage would be a stretch.

"Democracy is the worst system ...

Of course, it's much more ethical -- some would call it virtuous -- to propose a bill, then get a large majority to render a decision on the program/policy/law solely on its merits, driven by whether the bill is in the nation's interest.

And likewise, add-ons/pork can increase federal spending by substantial amounts, which makes it harder for the federal government -- or any government, for that matter -- to live within its means.

Ted Allrich is the founder of The Online Investor and author of the book: Comfort Zone Investing: Build Wealth and Sleep Well at Night. In this weekly column, he'll offer advice to investors who are just getting started.

The bill to buy assets from banks and other institutions, just passed by the House and the Senate, is not a bailout for them. Now we can look forward to some liquidity flowing into the markets. And here are the benefits of the bill:

First, it doesn't simply throw money at a huge problem, and it certainly doesn't buy pools of mortgages or securities at values that are above market, at least it's not supposed to. What it does do is give the Treasury the authority, limited at first, to buy certain types of securities with stipulations attached. The first one is that the assets are purchased by negotiation and at prices determined by the buyer, not the seller. If the government uses the best minds from the mortgage markets, especially in the fixed income and mortgage-backed securities fields, there will be professional valuations done on each purchase.

Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf inquires, do Americans understand their financial and economic system?

Anger at Wall Street's - - and regulators' - - lapses is justified, but at the end of the day to oppose the rescue package is at once self-defeating, contradictory, self-punitive, and borders on nihilism, Wolf states. Take your pick regarding which is the most damaging.

Congressional representatives, particularly conservative Republicans, but also others, opposed the flawed rescue plan as a bailout for the rich, and as a statement against 'socialism.' Socialism? Yes, the plan is flawed, Wolf states, but the ruin that will result from rejecting the plan will destroy the legitimacy not of socialism, but of the market economy. Exactly what are the packages' opponents fighting?

The Congressmen/women also say that they are 'taking a stand for Main Street and against Wall Street.' A contradiction, Wolf writes. Wolf: Wall Street and Main Street are streets that meet. That is what streets do.

Then there is the future. What is the opponents' alternative? The loudest voice here appears to be 'let the market sort things out by itself,' under the assumption that the damage, costs, and negative consequences really won't be that bad. Wolf: This is not prudent, if the early 20th century's experiences are a guide.

AT&T Chairman / CEO Randall Stephenson said Tuesday that his company was unable to sell any commercial paper last week for terms longer than overnight.

"Your ability to plan for investment is obviously affected. You kind of don't know what your cost of capital six months from now is going to be," Stephenson told The AP. "We'll just be very guarded, cautious in terms of where we invest, very guarded and cautious in terms of hiring and capital spending. We'll see where this situation goes."

Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Wednesday AT&T's (NYSE: T) challenges selling commercial paper underscore the nature of the financial crisis and the need for lawmakers / policy makers in Washington to act, "with all deliberate speed."

"When a cash-rich giant like AT&T, the corporate equivalent of an 850 Tri-merged FICO score, has trouble selling commercial paper longer than overnight, a bell should go off in your head," Wang said, adding that he does not own shares of any telecom company.

With the U.S. Senate expected to debate and vote on a revised bailout/rescue bill in the next day or so (famous last words), two revisions the world's greatest deliberative body should incorporate are bank recapitalization options and funding to refinance mortgages, economists say.

BloggingStocks' Peter Cohan has written extensively on the need to recapitalize banks, and economist Richard Felson concurs. However, Felson argued that the revised rescue bill should give banks and other institutions the option of either offering their distressed/bad debts to the U.S. Treasury in its reverse auction or accepting a mutually agreeable investment by the U.S. Treasury into the institution.

Creating options for stressed banks

"This will give banks more options, and in my view more incentives to participate in the rescue plan. If the plan just contains asset purchase provisions some banks may balk at the prospect of selling some assets at a fire-sale price of 10 cents or 15 cents on the dollar, and that may prevent some distressed assets from being removed from the system, delaying the financial system's recovery," Felson said. "Offering to buy a stake in the bank offers another recapitalization option."

The dollar was mixed early Wednesday as talk that a revised bailout bill is heading toward the U.S. Senate for a vote met with concerns that the U.S. economy will enter a recession regardless.

The dollar rose about one-half cent to $1.4036 versus the euro and three-quarters of a cent to $1.7730 versus the British pound, but fell about three-tenths yen to 106.10 versus Japan's yen.

Raising dollars vs. economic fundamentals

Currency Trader Andrew Resnick said the currency market is in a tug-of-war between raising dollars and U.S. economic fundamentals. "If the U.S. economic fundamentals were the gauge, the dollar would be falling because the U.S. is in poor shape," Resnick said. "But banks are hoarding cash and there's a global trend toward raising dollars, which is bullish for the dollar."

"It may seem strange to want more dollars from the country with the biggest financial and economic problems, but the dollar is still the world's reserve currency and in times of fear there is a flight to safety, which in the currency market is the dollar," Resnick said. He added that he was presently flat or had no open currency trading positions.