Understanding the Financial Crisis - VII

It makes sense to me that if the 'bad' mortgages are the problem we should buy the bad mortgages directly. When a mortgagee is not able to pay the current loan, the loan will be redefined so the homeowner can continue purchasing their home.
It would only be available to mortgagees whose primary residence is the one that has the bad mortgage.

Now, I've heard people talk about that. But, why aren't they pursuing it?
I think it makes more sense to buy the bad ones and it probably won't cost as much. I would imagine most of the mortgages are on the small side, right? If a person having trouble paying their mortgage is trying to pay a million dollar mortgage, I do think those people should only get a partial bailout. Their mortgage is split and the government will take over a portion of it, but not all of it.

In this case, the investment banks will use the free market system to bail themselves out. The market will take care of them. They get a mulligan because they don't have to pursue the problems.

Here's the thing...I think its not exactly just the mortgages that are the problem. They seem to be most concerned about the investment bank that holds the mortgage backed security. And who was taking risks on that? Rich people. Did pension funds also buy mortgage backed securities? (which I assume would affect the regular folk of America)
And the problem with the mortgage backed securities is that they're big bundles. Little bad mortgages are combined with big safe mortgages.
And is the real problem commercial development loans rather than residential homes? I want to know that.
Am I bailing out commercial developers?

The Treasury Department wants to have unlimited power and don't have details because they're trying to get this done fast so the financial markets will be stabilized. But stabilized for what? The stock market goes down? They're down already.

I don't really understand why this requires such a fast turnaround time?

And why would the Bush Admin say they'll veto the bill if the congress adds things about congressional review or executive compensation caps?
It seems suspicious. Transparency and not rewarding the wrong doers seems like the easiest thing to agree on in this crisis.

And where is President Bush? I guess its not the worst thing that he's allowing the Treasury Secretary to take the lead, but he made such a big deal about being in Washington when the Hurricane hit even though he didn't need to be there except for show. Why would he not at least put the same show on for this crisis?