Their proposals range from the modest, such as expanding limits on federal deposit insurance, to the far-reaching, such as having the government invest directly in financial companies. Like the plan that was voted down, their ideas would use taxpayer money to expand the government's role in financial markets.

These economists and financial executives concede their proposals have flaws, and some of the ideas are self-serving. But with the financial crisis worsening, they said Washington should act quickly with some plan to boost public confidence.

INSURE ALL DEPOSITS

Scott Shay, of Signature Bank of New York, said Congress suggests that the government announce that it would insure all deposits of any sort, including money market accounts, and up to any amount, for 180 days. During that time, the government would investigate large and small banks to determine which should be closed.

''Some banks are so wounded that they will ultimately need to be shot,'' said Shay. ''So shoot those banks during that 180 days. I really think that the crisis will not end until we go through a period where the system can be cleansed without panicking the public.''

The plan voted down Monday would have given the Treasury the authority to buy bad loans directly from banks as a way to inject new money into the financial system. It drew criticism from conservatives, who argued that it gave government too much power over banks, and from liberals, who said it did not help people facing foreclosure and was a mammoth subsidy to Wall Street.

Shay also suggested that the government directly assist the housing market, rather than just buying bad loans from banks that might not need new capital.

Others see helping homeowners as a quicker and more effective solution.

''The government should directly purchase housing assets, not real estate bonds,'' John Allison, CEO of BB&T, a large regional bank in North Carolina, wrote in a letter to members of Congress. ''This would include lots and houses under construction.''

But with credit markets tightening sharply every day, a promise to fix housing will not contain the mushrooming crisis, said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group in Washington.

''I don't think we have time for that. I don't think we can treat the cause. I think we have to treat the symptom.''

INVEST DIRECTLY

Instead of buying bad loans from banks, as Treasury proposed, Congress should consider investing directly in financial companies by buying new shares, Bernstein said.

He said Warren Buffett provided the template last week when he agreed to buy $5 billion in preferred shares from Goldman Sachs and received the rights to buy an additional $5 billion in common shares at a set price.

But Bernstein acknowledged this proposal would leave the government even more deeply intertwined with financial institutions than the Treasury's plan. And it would put the government in the position of picking winners and losers - any bank denied a government capital infusion would probably face an instant crisis of confidence.

LEND TO INVESTORS

Another proposal comes from investors who say the government should lend money to them and others to help them buy troubled assets, rather than making taxpayers assume the full risk.

''The idea here is that if the government provides this funding, then asset managers who really understand the assets the best would have the opportunity to bid more aggressively for them,'' said Matt Chasin, formerly of the mortgage desk at Bear Stearns and now the COO of Sorin Capital Management, a hedge fund in Stamford, Conn.

But the proposal may face skepticism from lawmakers who say the idea is self-serving, especially because it comes from investors with ties to banks that took huge mortgage losses.

CHANGE THE RULES

William Isaac, who directed the FDIC in the early 1980s and is chairman of the Secura Group, a finance consulting firm in Virginia, said there need to be changes in accounting rules that would relieve the pressure on banks to mark down assets that have fallen in value.

The rules could be changed so banks do not necessarily have to use market prices when they estimate the value of mortgages they own. That change would relieve the pressure on banks to raise capital, which they might have to do if they write down the value of mortgage-related assets.

But changing the accounting rules carries its own risks. It could lead to even more uncertainty about banks' balance sheets, and worsen the crisis of confidence.