Still, [Bush] acknowledged yesterday that the measure presents lawmakers with "a difficult vote" barely a month before the November elections. Polls show the bailout is hugely unpopular, and lawmakers have been inundated with calls and e-mails from angry constituents.
That is a line taken from today's page A1 article in the Washington Post, which like many articles this morning, asserts that the bailout is exceptionally unpopular and politcal dead weight to whomever might vote to pass it. But the reality is somewhat more complicated. While some polls show opposition to the bailout, others show indifference or lukewarm support. These result principally from differences in question wording, as the public does not know very much about the bailout (neither Presidential candidate did a good job of explaining it to them on Friday night) and is heavily swayed by the tone of the question.
For instance, Rasmussen asked yesterday:"Do you favor or oppose the economic rescue plan now being negotiated by Congress and the Bush Administration?"
Among Rasmussen's respondents, 50 percent said they opposed the plan and just 24 percent said they supported it. But, take a look at how the question is worded. The plan is described as a "rescue", a more neutral term than "bailout" but one that nevertheless has negative connotations. (Although, a more appropriate term is hard to think of. "Stabilization" probably goes too far in the other direction). But little supporting detail is provided to the respondent, other that two very unpopular instiutions (The Bush Administration and Congress) are mentioned.
At the other end of the spectrum is a poll put out by the Pew Research Center that frames the bailout thusly:"As you may know, the government is potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this is the right thing or the wrong thing for the government to be doing?"
When the question is framed in this way, 57 percent of people support the bailout, as compared to 30 percent who opposite it. But here, on the other hand, the proposal has arguably been spun in a favorable way to the respondent. The warm term "secure" is used, but there is no description of the amount of money involved, nor whom the money will be going to.
Browsing through the other polls on the bailout, you will see many different attempts to frame the question, all of which produce somewhat different responses. I have no opinion about which of these framings is most appropriate, but articles that describe the bailout as "hugely unpopular" are probably overstating the case. To say that the polls report uncertainty and skeptcism over the bailout would probably be closer to the mark.
*-*
At the same time, it is worth noting that the Rasmussen poll postdated the Pew poll by three days, and that public opinion on the bailout may be changing, probably for the worse. This is in large part, I would argue, because the proposal has been referred to colloquially as the "bailout" or very commonly the "Wall Street bailout" (the latter term brings up more than 7,000 hits in Google News). Where is Frank Luntz when you need him? If the proposal had instead been framed as, say, an "economic recovery" plan, it would probably be far less politically toxic.
There is a very weird sort of prisoner's dilemna here. Namely, anyone who tries to frame the plan -- although framing the plan properly would probably make it more popular -- risks taking ownership of the plan, a plan which even if framed properly, probably remains unpopular enough to constitute a political liability. So no parties have an incentive to "spin" the plan as a positive, and as such, it continues to become more unpopular as the default narrative ("Wall Street bailout") is left unchallenged. The bailout, whether it ultimately passes or not, will likely be studied by game theorists for years to come, as there are conflicting and somewhat self-contradictory incentives (everyone wants the package to pass but nobody wants to vote for it) between no fewer than a half-dozen different parties.

181 comments
Fascinating read..
The sooner those boys get to work, the better.
If this keeps up, we're going to have to call this country the United States of JP Morgan-Chase.
Amazing how the framing of a question so changes the immediate response.
So you essentially disagree with former Speaker Gingrich about the 2012 candidates having to have been against the bailout or not even there in Congress at all for any potential political viability?
This is the area where both candidates really dissapoint, particularly Obama.
McCain has fluctuated wildly on the issue ("the fundamental of the economy are strong" to "actually we're all screwed, I'm suspending my campaign. But not really").
There seems to be a consensus that Obama should just sit back and let the McCain-Palin ticket implode.
But surely at a critical and turbulent juncture in U.S. history, Obama needs to be doing more.
Here is a chance to show he is more F.D.R/Lincoln than he is Clinton/Blair.
All it will take is a 10 sencond soundbite combined with a substantive speech in the mould of his famous race speech.
Can someone please explain why the Obama campaign is not being more assertive, when they could be an inch away from securing this election?
Oh and any guesses as to what teh Republican's 'October Surprise' will be? A new Bin Laden tape? Footage of Palin killing a moose?
P.S. What day/time will the V.P. debate be?
No surprise here. It's all about framing. Folks on the right and the left are freaking out about this. Some of the behavior I've seen is expected on the right, but those on the left with their pitchforks is disturbing! I agree that there are problems with the bill, but most who are in opposition to it don't know enough about it to justify their opinion.
The 'not so' Great Debate
SNL: Palin and Couric
I can agree, part of the problem is people just don't understand the bailout. My siblings didn't understand it was 'investing 700 billion' with an unknown return as opposed to just 'spending' that amount.
Once I explained that much or all of that money would come back AND why the 'insurance' plan wouldn't work in many cases they are as 'for' it as people can be when they are forced to use money.
In other words, what we can learn from this is...
1.) Poorly phrased poll questions are meaningless.
2.) People are sheep and changing one word can change the outcome of a poll question.
P.S. What day/time will the V.P. debate be?
It's Thursday, I think 8PM east coast time.
I'm not an economist but most economists I respect like Paul Krugman say the bailout is needed. The last thing we should do is blame the people who are trying to fix the problem for the problem. That's what trolls are trying to do including blaming it on the poor. But years and years of deregulation and free money with no sacrifices are responsible for this problem. You do not need to be an economist to understand that you cannot keep on borrowing money you don't have and expect the system to not be strained or even collapse.
The most important thing is to stop the bleeding now to save the patients life. But we need to elect Obama to perform surgery on the economy and the rest of government so that America can get off of life support.
I like that it is and will continue to be referred to as a bailout.
That's essentially what it is. There's a chance to recoup the investment but no guarantee that it'll all come back. It certainly isn't an "investment" in the traditional sense, where the entire point is to make money. That's not what this is.
By calling it a bailout, I think it makes people more critical of the plan and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if you believe that the action is necessary.
I do believe the action is necessary, but the criticism will be important to help as many people as possible understand that this is merely the least bad of many bad options.
I feel very confident that the projection that Obama/Biden will win the Election is correct.
What I am uncertain of is the effect that the Bailout will have on the US (and the world economy).
What worries me is that Obama will achieve the Presidency under conditions of epic economic stress. This may turn out to be a phyrric victory....
The VP debate is 9, Thurs.
The real thing here is this is an election. It is not really about leadership, but simply the appearance of leadership. It is also about the person with the lead running out the clock. The fact that we have this vote now shows the insane way that Bush has managedthe country, it has to infuriate every person in Congress on both sides. A good politico would never leave them in this position. Was Bush trying to hide the ball until the end of his administration? I think so...
Now, we are here. BO has a big lead, he needs to sound presidential but do little, doing something will piss someone off and lose him a vote - he is running out the clock, remember?
McCain needs to try to get in front and use this probable last moment to swing the election back to him, by claiming credit where it is not due. McCain's other problem is the firstreal statement most peple will see from his camapign will come from Palin, and she is unlikely to get it right. Heck, her last interview caused both Bush and McCain to have to retract statements, and her Pakistan policy was Obama's, not McCain's. You know you are in trouble when Palin is your last best hope...
Aman: It seems to me that Obama is in a bit of a bind on this one. If he comes out in support of a plan, that almost forces the Republicans to oppose it. If Obama has a big victory this close to the election, it almost guarantees his victory, so the Republicans have a very big incentive to prevent him from getting a plan passed.
aussie-
The only real question iswho do want ot try and fix this? The moderate smart Obama, or the unstable old McCain?
The choice is easy, Obama is the much better man to address these issue here and abroad and fix this. That said, it might be ugly in any case, but an inspiring leader is what is needed at these times.
Expect the polls to come back a bit early this week, the next move hinges on how Palin does.
Here is a strategy question - is the same old attack line used before really a good move for McCain now? It hasn't stuck, why would it stick now? Also, Schmidt is STILLL stretching the truth to the point of lying on these points...
Fire Schmidt!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/27/AR2008092702906.html?hpid=topnews
"Schmidt said the campaign will press two arguments as forcefully as possible in the coming days. One is that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief and that, in a time of two wars, "his policies will make the world more dangerous and America less secure." Second, he said, McCain will argue that, in a time of economic crisis, Obama will raise taxes and spending and "will make our economy worse."
"
I think by all accounts, Obama is now firmly in the driving seat. McCain's attempt to claim credit for the bail out plan has already failed and his suspended campaign gambit failed dismally. Perhaps the most damaging development for McCain though, was the debate.
When evaluating a debate you have to get away from the mindset of being a politico. The undecided and independent swing voters who will decide this election simply do not follow campaign statements and Sunday political shows. For those people, the biggest takeaway from the debate will have been Obama's ability to stand toe to toe with a seasoned pro like McCain and fight to a draw. They will have seen Obama put in a presidential, calm and focused performance; something that they simply did not expect. That is why all the polls after the debate suggest that Obama won and his lead in the trackers has increased. Sure, McCain did well too but that was expected.
For the same reason, Bush fighting Gore to 3 draws in 2000 was a net plus for him, No one expected the imbecile from Texas to hold his own against an 8 year VP.
Time is now running out for McCain. Where are his game changers? The Palin Biden debate will be a tough night for McCain. Sure expectations are very low for Palin amongt politicos but amongst the low information voter brotherhood, they have not see Palin's interviews with Couric and Gibson and they will be stunned if she puts in another unintelligible halting performance. Biden will play it cool and let her hang herself.
After that there are two more debates which I expect will both be close. So I struggle to see where McCain is going to change the narrative. The negative stuff won't work anymore as the media and the public have now tuned out to that.
I cannot wait the state polls today. I expect to see Obama leading in all 5 Rasmussen polls in OH, FL, PA, CO and VA. Bring it on.
fred said...
aussie-
The only real question iswho do want ot try and fix this? The moderate smart Obama, or the unstable old McCain?
---------------------------
Fred, thanks...
Obvious answer. But I was looking to 2012 and the future historical perspective view - of Obama's legacy.
Still, challenging times may lead to the penultimate President.
True Aussiie, but two things we do not know about 2012.
1) Is this like the last bailout (the RTC) and is a blip by the next election, and Obama is viwed as leading us through this - or not?
2) Does BO win a landslide or a squeaker this year?
I need these datapoints!
Anyone who thinks much of the $700 billion would be recovered is crazy. Much of the MBS are toxic and literally worth nothing (just because real estate nearly never loses 100% of its value does *NOT* mean that MBS can't lose 100% of their value. Many tranches of MBS will go to 0% of value no matter what). And very likely it will be the toxic garbage that we'll get, not the rare MBS that actually is worth something. Cash for trash doesn't give you later cash.
And if you think Paulson's $700 billion estimate of how much it would cost to fix the problem is accurate than either you are psychic or are much more trusting than you should be.
Paulson has said things like "[I expect] to see a faster pace of economic growth before the end of the year" and "we are closer to the end of the market turmoil than the beginning" in May of this year. And about how he wouldn't need to use the financial "bazooka" which was authorized on F&F.
And the administration in general has talked about how the economy is fine and there are no problems, -no wait- the problems will be contained to subprime, -no wait- the problems will be contained to housing, -no wait- the banking system is fine, -no wait- bailout this week or financial mushroom cloud over NY. To say nothing of the Iraq war will cost only tens of billions of dollars, we'll be greeted as liberators, we know where the WMD are, you don't want the evidence to be mushroom clouds over NY.
And now you want to trust them that we have to act immediately, have to bailout wall street, and that $700 billion is the right amount. Why not $500 billion? Why not $1 trillion? There is more than $62 trillion in credit derivatives worldwide which are either directly tied to MBS or indirectly tied to CDS on companies with MBS and CDO.
The bailout is almost certainly a done deal politically, but it is equally certainly a mystery as to how well it will work or not, and I'm not optimistic.
The amount of opposition to any bailout is not based on polls, but on the voluntary emails and calls from constituents to their representatives, which were described in a number of news programs are running 100-to-1 against.
The perception is that the markets will crash regardless, and bailout will just leave us in addition with further debt but leaves Wall Street gamblers with some of our money.
A new alin at the debates, the Shcmidt attack dog version.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122265784614384667.html
"It's time to let Palin be Palin -- and let it all hang out," said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.
This is the next long ball. The bailout is not their strategy, Palin is.
I was intrigued about the "popularity" of the leading people involved in the proposed bailout bill so I did a face-off at my Word Face-Off blog: Paulson, Bernanle, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Boehner, McConnell, Baucus... even Bush, Obama and McCain. The resulting trend graphs are very interesting.
Aman asked what the October surprise might be.
My guess: the Repubs know where Bin Laden is and will get him in the first week in November. Think the Hussein discovery or the Iran hostage crisis for Reagan/Carter.
I hope I'm wrong.
PPP is due to release a Florida poll showing Obama with a decent lead.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
Sadly I have to agree with mbodell. There is no certainty that the bailout will work.
The support from some, perhaps most, economists is not proof. It is more proof that experts on a way of doing things want to keep there careers.
I am far from convinced that these companies do anything that should have been done. The world would have been better off without this complex trading in debt, and may yet be in future. After all who misses the skills of Enron?
A simple system where money is borowed on assets know to the bank involved is less open to fraud & incompitance.
So it boils down to this. There is a lot of bad debt to be cleared away before borrowing can restart in a more regulated maner. Who takes the hit?
My answer. Let the Companies fold, Their shareholders take the hit for investing in trash. What is left to be divied up by their creditors.
Everybodies pension fund takes a hit, also a lot of rich get a bit poorer. But the money is taken from where it is - investments, and not from where it is not - peoples future wages.
The surviving financial institutions get to take over. Borrowing will be shrunk in volume & complexity. There will be a lot of fincial tallent available for hire at a discount. They should be able to handle it.
Better all told if Congress managed this transfer to simpler economics rather than propped up what clearly doesn't work.
To have said that we have to bail out Main Street would have invited panic that we were all in trouble.
The opposition to the bailout is largely based on the erroneous notion that we can avoid bailing out Wall Street without hurting the rest of us.
I think Paulson, Bernanke, and Bush were terrified the truth was going to create a panic, which is why they were so late doing anything about it, and have been so sketchy in spelling out the consequences of failture.
We're disussing the bailout (or buyout)never asking ourselves the question: willl it work ?
After the acquisition of "junk financial positions" by gvt our ntl debt will have surpassed our ntl income. There will be an initial bullish rection by WS due to the fact that gvt is setting a guarantee on very heavy and junky exposures. We should be asking ourselves if there is value for the 700-1000 bl spent. At the moment there is absolutely no value being purchsed. I fear, shouldn't this work, that the insurers of these buyouts will have to be bought themselves, sooner or later. I don't think this measure is apt to heal anything beyond the short term. In the long term gvt must think about infrastructural spending (China is building 95 apts at once)and cutting what we Americans really refuse to discuss: Military Spending.
Much appreciated post (and, of course, data) on the supposed un/popularity of the TARP. As someone who initially opposed, but now reluctantly supports, this effort, I've been feeling like we are stuck in a typical media feedback loop on this. There is something useful in having the "popularity" of any particular piece of legislative action reported to a largely detail-ignorant audience, but the result is more likely to be opinion shaping than any "objective" reportage. So by declaring the TARP "increasingly unpopular," it is (unsurprisingly), just that.
On the other hand, framing around this is difficult. I opposed the Paulson Plan because I felt oversight was necessary. Others opposed for other reasons. The TARP includes many protections the Paulson Plan lacked, and shows clear compromise built from having heard all the objections being raised. I do still object to the Paulson Plan, but I think the draft TARP that I've read is workable and unfortunately necessary.
That doesn't mean I love that BushCo's idiot fiscal policy is going to cost us a hunormous amount of money! I'm not in love with the TARP. I don't wanna marry it and have a bunch of little TARP babies and start giving tax money to every little floundering financial upstart with a bad business model. It just means that I'm happy enough with the compromise that I'd rather have this plan than "Great Depression II" (Now with even more tainted milk!). Although, temptingly, I have always been a fan of the WPA model. Isn't it time for another Federal Theater Project? Isn't it?
My enthusiasm for an Obama victory has greatly lessened in the past few weeks, because I realize the tremendous challenge his administration will face. He could be another FDR, but that's a pretty high standard to reach.
If he wins, though, he is likely to serve two terms, regardless of how well he handles the oncoming crisis. Look at the previous one-termers throughout American history, and what you will see is that nearly all of them came from the incumbent party. The only exceptions (correct me if I'm wrong) were John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, and Jimmy Carter. The first two were popular-vote losers, and Carter was...well, Carter.
Despite the attempts by some to paint Obama as another Carter, on the evidence of the campaign Obama is a far more skilled politician than Carter, who in 1976 managed to shrink a double-digit lead due to a series of dumb mistakes.
Aman -
I think Obama's been intentional in his failure to hit hard and "put this away."
He's largely an unknown to the low information voters just tuning in, and doesn't want to appear as aggressive as McCain did at the debate.
Also, I think this is a strategy for governing. He really does want less divisiveness in the country, and will be well served if he hasn't antagonized whole swaths of the electorate while campaigning. So I'm pretty sure he's going to be more laid back than we'd like.
Cora -
I think even Paulson has said he can't guarantee it will work - but he and others have said clearly that we can't afford not to try to see if it will work.
leamlara,
I surely agree on that.
leamlara,
short term measures are necessary.
Depending on what we buy, and at what price, reports are the government could break even on this two years out.
The real concern now is deflation, and dollar devaluation.
Kylopod-
So you would prefer John McCAin and Sarah Palin to try to turn this ship? Not a chance, Obma is the right guy at the right time, we are lucky to have him.
Romney is out as the talking head and attack dog this morning. Palin is in AZ (or on her way). Smart move by McCain.
is it unpatriotic to discuss military spending ?
Good Morning :D
any new fake polls coming out today ??
Obama needs to get out negative ads on McCain and the Keating Five and the RTC. McCAin was in bed with the guys who brought us the last collapse in the 1990's (Lincoln Financial).
Get a negative ad up - yesterday!
cora said...
is it unpatriotic to discuss military spending ?
yes
we conservatives believe in higher military spending
if you don't spend more money on the army the Red Army will be marching in your garden
Real Joe,
can we at least discuss "better military spending" ?
here is what happend to the Roman EmpireMilitary
Spending
Maintaining an army to defend the border of the Empire from barbarian attacks was a constant drain on the government. Military spending left few resources for other vital activities, such as providing public housing and maintaining quality roads and aqueducts. Frustrated Romans lost their desire to defend the Empire. The empire had to begin hiring soldiers recruited from the unemployed city mobs or worse from foreign counties. Such an army was not only unreliable, but very expensive. The emperors were forced to raise taxes frequently which in turn led again to increased inflation.
The battleground tracker has been released this morning, you've guessed right, M is leading O by the usual 2 points.
This poll should not be taken seriously......
I'd like to the point there's one key difference between the Rasmussen and Pew Research Center poll.
One asks if you agree with the specific bailout plan, the other is asking whether the government propping up the financial system in general is a good or bad thing. I wouldn't be surprised if there is greater support for a bail-out plan in general than the specific $700b bail-out plan as negotiated by Congress and the Bush Administration.
The last of these (RTC) had 130 billion at its disposal, it spent 50-70 billion of that, nd when it finished only $7.7 billion was defaulted to the FDIC. The big number is not the final cost!
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/managing/history1-04.pdf
Start reading around page 135.
"Such flexibility with assets and liabilities helped the RTC accomplish its mission
one year ahead of schedule, with the RTC closing on December 31, 1995. From 1989 to
1995, the RTC resolved 747 failed thrifts (706 through conservatorship, 39 through
ARP, and 2 that were neither placed into conservatorship nor resolved through ARP).
Of the original $402.6 billion in failed thrift assets, only $7.7 billion, or 2.5 percent,
were transferred to the FDIC upon the RTC’s closure."
Real Joe is joking, don't take him seriously.
any idea what polls will be released today ?
time ??
What is the model used by the battleground tracker? They have to be either just calling red states or have a likely voter model that is very anti-Obama.
niedda said...
The battleground tracker has been released this morning, you've guessed right, M is leading O by the usual 2 points.
This poll should not be taken seriously......
Real Joe Daily Tracker will be relased later today
now thats a real poll
Does anyone know if/how the Bradley Effect is taken into consideration when these calculations are made re: Obama's lead?
Thanks
Worried in Manhattan
Bradley effect will make sure McCains wins by a Landslide !!!
McCain Landslide !!!
Drosohila melanogaster-
Don't worry, your a fruit fly and will die before anyone takes office anyway.
As to the Bradley Effect, Nate has many posts on it. The Bradley Effectonly ocurs when people tell pollsters they will vote for the black guy, and then donot in the booth. This is unlikely to occur. Relax.
The correct answer is that a bailout is necessary but the bailout, i.e. the Paulson plan, is garbage.
35 days to do....
say it with me liberals
President McCain !!!
How can this campaign win? McCain:
"I'll leave that up to others to make that judgment. This was an issue that was transcendent. I suspended my campaign and came back to Washington because I thought that it was vital to do so. Sen. Obama said he was available to discuss the issue by phone. I didn't want to phone it in. I'm proud that we were able to get this done, and I'll give the credit to everybody else."
-- Sen. John McCain, in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, on why he needed to be back in Washington, D.C. to work on the bank rescue package.
"He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone. He's calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can."
-- McCain aide Mark Salter, quoted by CBS News, explaining why his boss could work on the rescue package over the weekend from his campaign office and wasn't needed on Capitol Hill.
ogmb-
The plan passed was not the Paulson plan, get with the program.
Daily Kos R2K tracker O 51 M 42
way to go mates!!!!!!
Jim Cramer is on NBC and MSNBC saying he thinks the government will make money on this, and he WANTS TO INVEST IN THE ASSETS THEY BUY!
Cramer thinks this is a good investment.
JP Morgan just bought alot of these assets n the market, last week even while all this was going on because they got a good price.
If we get these assets at the right price, this plan can break even or MAKE us money.
"Here is a chance to show he is more F.D.R/Lincoln than he is Clinton/Blair."
Obama's neither. In the very partisan political climate in modern-day United States, it's impossible to run like F.D.R/Lincoln and win. You have to be at least a little bit dishonest, a little bit Chicago-style. At the same time I'm confident that Obama will do a better job than Clinton/Blair - once he's elected. Like Clinton, Obama plans long-term. But unlike Clinton, his presidential hopes are fueled by more than just ambition.
Some Morning Music
!
fred
Its worse than that, Saturday he had a photo op of him working the phones to save the universe from his campaign headquarters. The Pharisees that are his staff loudly announced his bipartisan effort to take credit er..responsibility for the effort.
When pressed they released a list of his work product: nine calls, all goopers. Not even political hermaphrodite Jomentum.
Chris Cox looks like the fall guy for this, he walked away from his job and let the street do whatever they wanted.
He is a Bush appointee...
So you would prefer John McCAin and Sarah Palin to try to turn this ship?
When did I suggest any such thing? Palin is frankly scary. And I've had enough of seeing Republicans win in squeakers then get tarnished once they're in office. The cycle must break, even if Obama's presidency turns out to be a dud.
Howdy fellas,
Longtime listener, first-time caller. I hate to be a grammar-bully, since your analysis always stands out for its precision, coherence and validity — that is to say you always provide readers (lay people like me) with enough context and basic information, in the form of robust details about your underlying assumptions and methodology, to make relatively informed decisions about the accuracy and soundness of your conclusions. Your writing, moreover, is crisp and straightforward.
I've got a nit to pick, however — a pet-peeve mechanical error to which you are both serially prone. And, taking advantage of the interactivity of the medium, I must briefly take to task the infuriating use of "whom" — particularly derivatives such as "whomever" — in the nominative case. It's a simple instance of "overcorrection," akin to saying "between Jim and I" when "between Jim and me" would do because you're used to being admonished by some cluck-clucking teacher for saying, "Jim and me went to the store."
In other words, "whom" cannot *ever* be used as the subject of a sentence or clause, as in, "... asserts that the bailout is exceptionally unpopular and political dead weight to whomever might vote to pass it," above. The subject of the "might vote to pass it" is "whoever"; ergo, no "m."
I hate to be an effete, liberal nattering nabob of negativity, but it's such a pet peeve of mine and always a wince-inducing blemish in whatever otherwise spot-on, truly enlightening analysis you've put forth. (This site is the source of whatever countervailing unconventional wisdom I'm usually tossing in vain against the CNN-heads I encounter.) It's like when Obama bailed on FISA — you want to excuse it because you've already got your mind made up on the guy, but it's more productive to call him out. Neither is there any excuse for "whomever might ..."
Naturally, I'll have made some silly error on the above type. That's just to keep me honest. I ... uh ... meant to do it.
Keep up the good work.
(And not a single reference to "For Whom the Bell Tolls," McCain's favorite book (and one of mine)! I'll leave the snarky connections of the literary-grammatical complex for someone wiser, with a bit more time on his hands.)
The BIGGEST problem that I see that after a whole week of repeated scary talk in public, reported thousands of times by media and press, by the President, Treasury Secy, Fed Chairman, Senate and House Leaders, and EVEN Warren Buffet will result in:
1. Individuals and Small/Mid Size businesses pulling back on spending and hiring!
2. Lower equity capital levels at the banks has already resulted in a huge drawdown in credit and liquidity, which will slow down money velocity and lead to further economic contraction
3. 1 and 2 above will result in a self fulfilling prophecy that will at a minimum result in a deeper and longer recession than we already have.
Sad, sad, sad for us all................
Rasmussen has a new poll out today about the bailout:
Opposition to Bailout Plan Falls Dramatically
33% in favor, 32% opposed
Today will probably be another strong day for Obama in the trackers (R2K is O+9 today) but I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers fall back to around O+4 or so by the VP Debate on Thursday.
It would also not surprise me to see the MSM start to lean back towards McCain since many people (myself included) feel this race may be starting to slip away from McCain, and the MSM wouldn't want their ratings to slip, would they?
:)
The Rasmussen Poll seems to, at least, include some bases on which to form on an opinion -- rather than, do you support the plan or not. My skepticism about polling this subject is based on the fact that the interviewees don't have any real information on "the plan" on which to judge it; i.e. it's called a "bailout" or "step to financial recovery" which, as Nate has so clearly pointed out, can cause completely opposite responses from the same person. Now we have a poll that seems to get to some of the substance of the issue -- hopefully others will follow.
I want to see the new Rasmussen tracking.
Regarding Schmidt's two major lines of attack -- Obama is dangerous because he will lose 2 ward and because he will raise taxes -- those are already worn out.
Obama is getting across the idea that he will raise the taxes on the rich, and most people want to end the Iraq War.
Further, McCain's erratic decision making, his backing by major lobbyists, his support for Bush's social security plan -- these are all uphill battles he's going to have to address.
A campaign isn't a one-way battle.
That rasmussen poll seems to indicate once people GET that this bailout is really an investment they are much more supportive of the idea. I also wish Obama would come out a little more strongly in favor of it.
New Battleground tracking:
McCain 48 Obama 46
At least they're, um, consistent. I think I trust the Real Joe tracker more than these guys at this point.
"Herunar said...
Obama's neither. In the very partisan political climate in modern-day United States, it's impossible to run like F.D.R/Lincoln and win."
Haha, do you really think the US is more partisan today than during the Lincoln Administration?
What I dislike in our current climate is the only method that is ever tried to sell an idea to the masses is the scare tactic. Everything is an emotional appeal.
I wish the someone would try to put the argument across with facts and figures, perhpas like a documentary.
My summary of this:
* Only 24 percent of Americans support a "rescue" plan for Wall Street while 57 percent support a plan to "secure" Wall Street. Both bailouts will cost 700 Billion.
This election season is a fascinatingly absurd one on so many levels... and it is true that people in general remain totally ignorant about economic issues like this (and why shouldn't they? Takes way too much effort to try and understand and most economicsts don't understand it either)
Some thoughts:
1. If the >$300MM in MBSs sold back to Treasury is true, the gov't may not make its money back as big firms will sell their least valuable "assets" back in order to avoid the compensation rules.
2. If there is a Bradley Effect, it will be amongst Democrats. See this morning's NYT article on Lig Labor's concerns with their membership. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/us/politics/29labor.html
3. What has surprised me from Day One is why the media is complicit in making people believe this bailout/resuce/stabilization process needs Republican support at all. The Dems have majorities in both houses and one of the most profligate Presidents since LBJ who is onboard with the BRS.
I agree that we need a bailout package.
However, having working experience in the sub-prime mortgage industry back in the 90s, I do not support this bailout plan. It has several structural problems which make it less likely to succeed IMO.
Despite my lack of support for this particular plan, it is better than sitting on our hands, doing nothing.
---I wish the someone would try to put the argument across with facts and figures, perhpas like a documentary.---
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever works.
GWU is deliberately weighting their polls to reflect a D+3% population. And they seem to be sticking to it. This absurd and embarrassing on its face. Every other poll shows Obama pulling away, and GWU shows McCain's level of support at 48?! They may soon become irrelevant if they don't modify their methodology....
Neidda - Either that or they will be the defintive polling firm for the next election cycle as they never bought into all new voter paradigms.
---1. If the >$300MM in MBSs sold back to Treasury is true, the gov't may not make its money back as big firms will sell their least valuable "assets" back in order to avoid the compensation rules.---
Unlikely, for many reasons.
---2. If there is a Bradley Effect, it will be amongst Democrats. See this morning's NYT article on Lig Labor's concerns with their membership. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/us/politics/29labor.html---
1. Labor's not going for McCain. 2. People yelling racial epithets at Obama workers aren't lying to pollsters about voting for him.
---3. What has surprised me from Day One is why the media is complicit in making people believe this bailout/resuce/stabilization process needs Republican support at all. The Dems have majorities in both houses and one of the most profligate Presidents since LBJ who is onboard with the BRS.---
It requires GOP support. Neither party is going to unilaterally pass an extremely unpopular bill and be forced to defend against "Bob Republican voted AGAINST the big government stealing of your tax dollars" etc. Letting the market burn down is better politically than passing it without cover, because then YOU can run on "Bob Republican refused to vote for what would have prevented this!"
Guys I am postin for the first time here!
Has anybody watched Eric Cantor and Barney Frank on TV (on CNN). My God! where were these REPUB CONS for the last 14 years when the marauding of American financial system was going on Wall street. THEY suddenly want to take care of the common man! Could not believe that he was saying Carter was responsible for bad loans. I loved the way Barney tried to put him to rest.
These CONS are trying to save the AMERICAN when they were resposible for DEREGULATION. The INDEPENDENT LOU DOBBS on CNN is a rascist bigot who loves these CONS. He needs to be EXPOSED for what he really is!
---Has anybody watched Eric Cantor and Barney Frank on TV (on CNN). My God! where were these REPUB CONS for the last 14 years when the marauding of American financial system was going on Wall street. THEY suddenly want to take care of the common man! Could not believe that he was saying Carter was responsible for bad loans. I loved the way Barney tried to put him to rest.
These CONS are trying to save the AMERICAN when they were resposible for DEREGULATION. The INDEPENDENT LOU DOBBS on CNN is a rascist bigot who loves these CONS. He needs to be EXPOSED for what he really is!---
I know your heart's in the right place, but honestly: try the decaff. There are many brands today that are just as tasty as the real thing.
rvga128 said...
Guys I am postin for the first time here!
welcome to 538 :D
poker samurai -
Unlikely because there is so much worthl...hard to value paper on fimrs' books that trying to avoid the $300MM threshhold is too hard to do?
Oh interesting ... I've been trying to figure out what makes GW/Battleground tick and am looking at the data at tarrance.com (the pollsters). I'm no statistician, but I did note a few things.
Prob others have more intelligent things to add.
1. RCP doesn't list all the historic battleground polls, ie the 9/21-25 poll, with O & M tied at 43 (/www.tarrance.com/files/GWU-BG-Poll-9.21-9.25.pdf) is not listed, only the earlier ones with M ahead
2. The timeline of GW/B's polling, (accessed from the link at RCP: doesn't reflect the above 43 tie at all!
3. GW/B's clients are republicans (which is ok, just that they are weighted that way) I'm sure Nate's said before whether he doesn't use battleground, or whether he weights it - but it'd be either.
4. I don't know how to evaluate their weighted tables - but here they are http://www.tarrance.com/files/9.25-Public-tables.pdf
If you start at the home page, you'll have a hard time finding the polls ... I googled "gw/battleground tarrance september 2008" and got there.
Poker-
Interesting on how all those trades that were real and not manipulative on InTrade left right after Nate called them out... ;)
All-
We need the fix to get markets moving, the cost is unknown, the risk is largely unknown, but last time this happened the actual final cost was about 5% of the gov layout (see my post above). We will not lose all 700 biliob, and maybe even come out ahead.
Dkos/R2000 tracker:
Obama pulled a +11 on Sunday. His best single day of polling.
prairiecomm-
Thanks for doing the research, maybe Nate or pollster.com will call them out on their methodology.
ah - the low dem weighting, and old methods - that'd do it
but even so, I'm surprised re my #1 and #2 above ...
I mean, would they get a result that was tied, and redo it because it didn't get the result they wanted or something?
Doesn't seem likely ...
---Interesting on how all those trades that were real and not manipulative on InTrade left right after Nate called them out... ;)---
Not particularly. I think you'll find that I posted that it would be a terrible idea to attempt to take advantage of the trading pattern as it was likely to end at any time. Which it did. It would have been interesting if anything other than it being largely arbitraged out happened.
---Unlikely because there is so much worthl...hard to value paper on fimrs' books that trying to avoid the $300MM threshhold is too hard to do?---
That's one reason, another is that actual sanctions on salaries/bonuses is likely to be virtually non-existent in most cases given the structure of the bill.
Rasmussen: O-50, M-45
O- Flat
M- +1
Thursday was supposedly a good tracking poll day for Obama - seeing him stay at 50 as that day rolls off is pretty cool.
Battleground/Tracking Poll is NOW going to say McCain/Palin 78%, Obama/Biden 16%!!!!!!!!!
FOX News after having paid for these plans to buy out these principals and give them a show of their own on primetime, the previously agreed upon reward!
Some of the bailout money will also go to bailout the Battleground poll founders and managers. Paulson and Bernanke have promised Bush on this too!
Anyone got the WEEKLY Rasmussen numbers on Party ID? I have asked this a couple times, so maybe they do not release it, but Repubs were dropeed by 0.1% in their sample on Sunday (but that is a 6 week rolling average with 21,000 data points)
The problem with the Battleground tracker is that they keep polling the same 100 people over and over, and those people haven't changed their minds. Maybe they should try a new polling sample?
Also, this poll is Excellent News for John McCain!
mbodell, the basic structure of most of these assets is a trust with say 3000 mortgages in it, and then numerous bonds sold against that trust. If the US buys the whole thing, it is true the bonds will be worth zero but the US is now ALSO the owner of those foreclosed homes. So it is one step removed from the RTC situation but in the end, the foreclosed homes are owned by the US. There aren't any bonds out there without associated mortgages underneath, thats the collateral these bonds were sold against.
Fact is these things are selling for .20 on the dollar now. If Paulson buys the whole pie for close to that we will make money.
Real Joe is more believeable than Battleground. Tarrance is quickly making them selves into a joke.
bay area-
The key most of the homes ARE NOT ALREADY FORECLOSED and these trusts contain mostly good mortgages. The loss will be much smaller than the buy.
What they will do is correctly repackage the mortgages, with the good mortgages in one pile, and the bad in another pile. If they buy at the right price, they can make money at this.
JP Morgan just bought a bunch of these, and is doing the above (I think). JP Morgan is likely the smarteest bank on Wall Street.
---Fact is these things are selling for .20 on the dollar now. If Paulson buys the whole pie for close to that we will make money.---
That's not going to happen. The money is a liquidity backstop to allow for *price discovery* of the instruments in question. That isn't happening now because the risk of paying too much is too high. With the Treasury money there to essentially guarantee liquidity for the auctions of them, it's likely private equity will end up with most of the good deals. Where we may end up making money is via equity positions/warrants in the sellers of what we buy at what will almost be guaranteed to be above fair value.
"Real Joe is more believeable than Battleground. Tarrance is quickly making them selves into a joke."
I'm not one to simply dismiss a poll as an outlier just because of its results, but when every national tracker is within a few points and then one is off by 7-8 points from all of the rest, there's something wacky going on.
The Q test (yes, I remember my intro statistics) says we can throw the Battleground point out with 99% confidence.
What is the deal with that battleground poll, it`s look completely foolish when every other poll has Obama up 5-9 points.
They must be polling an equal number of dems and repubs. Anyone know their party breakdown?
Seeing that in the RCP average is just irritating.
Also it never changes which seems
absurd, are the polling the same people over and over?
Anyway it`s looking like an Obama landslide to me, unless Palin can somehow salvage her debate which seems hard to believe.
Ras polls today:
"New state polls will be released at 6:00 p.m. Eastern for Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Demographic crosstabs for all state polling are available for Premium Members. Learn More. "
This is not over yet, we could have an event that moves the polls - it gets less likely as low info and undecideds make up their mind...but it can still happen. Lets not get lazy!
It is kinda funny that Schmidt is being forced to prep Palin for her debate. He broke it, he has to fix it, I guess.
Ras:
Obama 50, McCain 45
"New state polls will be released at 6:00 p.m. Eastern for Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia."
Huge polling day then for Ras.
50% is high for Obama.
schief9999 said...
New Battleground tracking:
McCain 48 Obama 46
At least they're, um, consistent. I think I trust the Real Joe tracker more than these guys at this point.
LMAO!!!
Unbelievable.
Nate, get on the blower and reason with RCP to punt these pranksters off the polling avarages. If they're not gonna include Research 2000 for partisan reasons, they sure a shit shouldn't include Battleground.
Even the conservatrolls said this joke of a pollster would show either a tie or a lead for Obama today.
Rasmussen party weightings for this week are 39% D, 33.4% R, and 27.6% I. This is a miniscule change from last week; the R number is down .1%, the I number is up by the same amount, and the D number is unchanged.
Speaking of Research 2000...
OBAMA 51%
McCain 42%
On the Battleground poll, keep in mind that they use a five-day rolling sample, whereas the other trackers use a three-day rolling sample. Also, Battleground does not poll on the weekends, so their typical results include polling taken over a a week-long window.
This methodology should make Battleground less responsive to short-term shifts than the other trackers. Even so, it's weird that it shows none of the movement that has been so obvious in the other trackers.
Any Ras premium members want to see if those state polls are up yet, or if they go up at noon?
The Ras states today are the important states, at least some of the important states.
The prejudice of low expectations will work for Sarah Palin on Thursday.
Joe Biden will not attack her, he will mention as many world leaders as he can and pronounce the names correctly, he will try to toss in as much Irish charm as he can, and he will still not win the debate.
Even if she has multiple gaffes, mispronounciations, or policy "WTF's?", Palin wins.
Why? The prejudice of low expectations. All she has to do is not puke on herself and she wins. They have hidden her for a reason: she is neither competent nor qualified. The three interviews to this point were bad.
George Bush benefited from the same prejudice in 2000, but they let him run wild and it appealed to the base big time. Palin, though, will not have the benefit of a sighing Al Gore to give that special feeling of patronization so uncomfortable with the electorate.
No matter what, 40% of the opinioned respondents to a poll for Thursday night will call her the winner. The bar is so low right now, anything less than 60% respondents for Biden is a win for Palin.
Keep watching.
It does not matter if Palin wins the debate, or loses. The issue is whether she can be a game changer through folksy charm. Here's hoping Gwen Ifill is up to the challenge of controlling the debate, and getting the questions answered.
Can she be so good as to change the playing field? I doubt it, people are seeing through her now, but I saw through her from day one...so what do I know.
Did anyone notice the internals of that Battleground poll?
D1. What is your age, please?
18-34..17%
35-44..12%
45-64..40%
65+....30%
UNSURE/REFUSED (DNR)..1%
Now that's realistic! Are they taking the poll at 5am or something?
Chief strategist to Obama, David Axelrod, commented: 'Public polling companies and the media have underestimated the scale of new Democratic voters registration in these states.'
He added: 'We're much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all.'
Monday 29 September 2008
wondering what Obama's internals look like.....
Folks, you're not gonna believe this...
Palin to do ANOTHER Couric interview.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQ1MDEzYmM1MWQ2NTg4MTYwN2Q1NTVkMDE0MjU2Njk=
Are you fuckin' kiddin' me?!?! What do they think this is, a DO-OVER???
Yeah, it really is in the framing ...
Some last-minute activism on the bailout: No blank check for Wall Street's Send a message to Congress campaign. Here's how you can help:
If you're on Facebook:
1. Sign up as a fan and watch your "updates" for what's next
2. reply to the No blank check for Wall Street thread on Nancy Pelosi's profile (we'll switch to the Senate after the house vote)
3. share this link with your Facebook friends, and ask them to reply -- and to forward it to THEIR friends
If you're not on Facebook:
1. sign up for our annoucement email list and check your email for what's next!
2. email this information to your friends, and ask them to help
3. phone or email your legislators and tell them how you feel
Thanks -- and please help get the word out!
jon
With the Couric interview, she's given voters something to really worry about. A good performance on Thursday leads to the Jekyll/Hyde questions -- "Do we know which Palin will show up?" at her first official event as VP.
jon-
I support the Wall Street plan - as do most people who have any clue. Please take your activism elsewhere.
Palin is going to be rolled to do "safe" interviews. Hannity, Rush, Coulter etc. ON THE RADIO.
That is fine, she will only hit her base with that approach.
Forget the Joe doesn't need to go after her. Is Putin going to be nice to her when discussing the missile shield in Poland? Is Achmedinejad gong to be nice to her when he refuses to stop refining plutonium?
This entire Biden needs to be nice thing is sexist in its self and anyone arguing this is being sexist. He needs to go up there and be himself and she needs to learn how to deal with it. If he acts too nice they'll say he was being sexist.
This entire Palin choice has been a complete joke and her being held to a double standard is a completely sexist attitude, from the initial reaction of the public, to the impenetrable reporter shield and finally to the tone the debate should take.
It's seriously annoying.
"Can she be so good as to change the playing field? I doubt it, people are seeing through her now, but I saw through her from day one...so what do I know."
I saw through her from the first day, too. Don't get me wrong. But you are smarter than your average bear. Believe it or not, there are people in this country who vote as if it were not on issues, but 'American Idol'.
Good looking means more to these people than whether or not they can afford a tank of gas, let alone health care, let alone their home, let alone tuition for even a community college.
I call it the 28% Effect. No matter what, there was always 28% who stuck with Bill Clinton at his darkest hour and 28% who still stick with George W. Bush no matter how wrong he will be time after time. There is comfort in stubborn thinking to some.
Bay Area Resident said...
mbodell, the basic structure of most of these assets is a trust with say 3000 mortgages in it, and then numerous bonds sold against that trust. If the US buys the whole thing, it is true the bonds will be worth zero but the US is now ALSO the owner of those foreclosed homes. So it is one step removed from the RTC situation but in the end, the foreclosed homes are owned by the US. There aren't any bonds out there without associated mortgages underneath, thats the collateral these bonds were sold against.
Fact is these things are selling for .20 on the dollar now. If Paulson buys the whole pie for close to that we will make money.
I was trying to figure that out. Many folks including Jim Cramer says we'll probably make money. I have a degree in Finance from a good institution. I used to sell mortgage-backed securities and own some. I understand numbers well. It's confusing even for me. Mortgage backed securities that don't include sub-prime are trading for about 30-35% below where they were a year ago. They yield up 7 or 8%, but the bad loans going bad are killing their net asset value. The governement wants to buy the worst of these. If one rotten apple damages the bunch, what does 10 do? In other words if you have 3000 loans in a pool and 5% are bad, the security is worth what did you say 20 cents on the dollar? The homes are foreclosed on and sold and the recipient of the money paid for the house by the new owner is the bondholder? It's certainly confusing. I can't imagine what the average American gets from the explanation. It'd be like two confused engineers trying to explain to me why they're confused. I'd be hopeless. Anyone really get this?
One problem I see is that the bailout + the Iraq debt will so hamstring Obama that little to nothing gets done in his 4 years EXCEPT managing the debt.
That leaves the door wide open for the Repugs to retool and come back swinging in 4 years.
I don't see how the VP debate could possibly be a game changer FOR McCain. If Palin bombs, she'll knock him further down, but even if she does OK, the format chosen will limit how well she can do. McCain thought this was going to be a personality election and then the economy collapsed. Now he's stuck with a VP that is attractive but not an expert on national issues.
Once again W stampedes Congress into appropriating borrowed money with scare talk. This time he's done it with an FDR impression that just might give history a nail to hang a decent legacy on, overlooking his complete failure as a president.
Clearly, both Obama and McCain want to have this action taken before one of them is sworn in and so both support the "revised" Bush proposal that is vehemently opposed by his own party and supported by the opposition. And now for something completely different...
The 20 cents on the dollar thing is a big part of the problem. They're really worth less than that or these folks could find a buyer and get them off their books. The "bailout" is exactly what it sounds like. The government will probably pay 30-50 centson the dollar for the very worst assets that the institutions can't even sell for 20 cents on the dollar. The institutions know far more about the specific assets on their books then their buyers, the govt, will. The governement wants to take on the worst assets to help the companies so they'll willingly get hosed. Unless, the govt bails out the homeowners, which is a whole different mess, a lot of these loans will go under, and the securities backing them will be worthless. The idea that the govt cansell the homes and collect the money is an interesting piece to the puzzle that I can't do hypothetical math on. I'm just trying to figure if the likelihood is that our $700BB will end up being worth $100BB or $1TT and in 2 years or 20 years. By the way Eric Cantor is unimpressive.
Aman wrote:
Oh and any guesses as to what teh Republican's 'October Surprise' will be?
"Due to the recently-contrived military confrontation and impending economic collapse, national elections have been suspended until such time as the polls warrant. In these difficult times, elections are an unnecessary distraction from our relentless efforts to resolve the crises our country faces. God bless America."
- President Bush, 10/21/08
Guys,
He hasn't yet won the election.
You guys are talking like it's the Fifth!
Hey libs!
Did you hear Chris Matthwews and Chuck Todd this morning?
Even the liberals on your own networks say Michigan and Pennsylvania are now TOSS UPS! That's right, libs--even the liberal Maureen Dowd said Obama had a chance to put it away and FAILED! Those white old working class voters in the rustbelt swing states just won't vote for BHO, as Chris Matthews says. What now, libs?
"Once again W stampedes Congress into appropriating borrowed money with scare talk."
Yeah, it's scare talk. It's not like banks are collapsing all over the world or anything.
When Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd become the authorities in deciding elections, let me know.
They're liberals, and even they admit that The One has a bit of a problem in the Northeast.
Yes he does, that's why he has never trailed in a single poll in any of those States all year.
Whose shoes would you rather be in?
The job of the MSM is to make all of us believe it's anybody's ballgame until November 4th. Better ratings = success for them. Perception of closer race = Better ratings. Since we can't tell which way this is going to go (Obama widens lead or McCain closes and possibly takes it back), go with picking toss-up states that would win the election for McCain. Michigan, but especially Pennsylvania are the targets for him on offense for obvious reasons. 17 and 21 electoral votes respectively and a chunk of white folks that might not vote for the Black guy. It doesn't necessarily mean they're toss-ups. As of today, you'd have to say they're lean Obama. On Intrade Michigan 79% Obama, Pennsylvania 74% Obama. If those are tossups, you might want to let the betting public know. I will admit that 26% or so chance that McCain wins Pennsylvania is McCain's best hope.
Reading this morning's NYT article on the issues Big Labor is having getting its rank-and-file to seriously consider BHO could be the canary in the coal mine that has Matthews and Todd worried.
Anyone who thinks HRC's wins were fuelded by Women Hear Us Roar are ideologically blinded. There is discomfort with BHO and his race on the Democratic side.
I have been surprised to see no commentary on BHO's glare during the debate with McCain following McCain's second mention of BHO's nearly one million per day in the Senate remark on earmarks.
Both my wife and I noted it immediately. We hadn't seen BHO lose his temper so spontaneously before.
---Those white old working class voters in the rustbelt swing states just won't vote for BHO, as Chris Matthews says. What now, libs?---
The Rendel machine delivers PA, Labor delivers MI. McCain has zero chance of winning either. Stop hallucinating. Obama's not going to win SC or FL, McCain's not going to win MI or PA. The structural advantages to either party are too great.
Sadly, it seems that not many people (even on this blog) understand the TARP issue clearly.
A) Various financial institutions “created” a nexus of mutual responsibilities valued at more than twice that of the entire stock market in a completely unregulated manner. This parallel economy was designed to cover losses from defaults but then the trading of these “assets” became a revenue source in and of itself. The bottom line is that (only) more than a trillion dollars worth of value has evaporated from the actual economy via real estate depreciation but financial institutions are facing losses of much much more than that.
B) The combination of unprecedented default rates on basically every type of debt and the amount of leveraged trading in default swaps (which is now frozen) makes valuing potential TARP “assets” impossible. However, per the CBO, it is very likely that the government’s action to purchase some of these securities will unearth the fact that they are worth far less than is believed (if we are lucky and they aren’t completely worthless).
C) Much, if not most, of our Financial Services sector is insolvent when realistic accounting methods are used. This is what Paulson told Congress that made them cry like babies. There is very little that can be done to change this fact. The entire sector simply needs to be recapitalized from scratch and the government is the only entity willing to risk attempting such an exercise.
D) No one is sure how much money it will take to make all of this better, but it is certainly more than can be added to our national debt. If foreigners continue to lose ROI based on dollar devaluation (which invariably follows from increased public debt of this magnitude) then there will be literally no way to pay for any potential remedy.
The important thing to realize, right out of the gate, is that the government is not making an “investment” in these securities, but is in fact investing in the institutions it will be purchasing them from.
As for the politics of all this:
A) The IRS estimates that about 350 billion dollars in taxes goes unpaid every year. This is only the illegal side of tax evasion.
B) There is little risk to congressional Democrats in pointing out that the TARP needs to be paid for (given our many years of balanced-budget indoctrination)
C) The economic circumstances for the majority of the population will be less than stellar for the foreseeable future, and so it’s likely that an already unpopular “bail-out” will remain so indefinitely.
D) Given A, B and C, it’s hard to see a more acceptable time to raise revenue (taxes). The public is already angry and so there is likely to be much less opposition to some sort of tax increase, on either incomes or per stock trade, than at any time in recent history.
E) If the Democrats don’t raise revenue now (which they are not inclined to do), then there will certainly be an impetus to do so in the near future to pay for needed programs.
F) Unfortunately, they will have missed their opportunity, and will end up blamed for both the failure of the “bail-out” (because the recession will continue and no one will care that a hypothetical depression was avoided) and the new taxes they will have to introduce.
G) Many losses in 2010 for the Democrats.
It should be easier now to go populist than at any time in the last 30 years. The Democrats could take ownership of the “plan” and the accompanying “punishment” of Wall Street, while simultaneously avoiding ownership of a (large) tax increase.
Sadly, Democrats are habitual failures when it comes to the subject of this post, which is the framing of political discourse. :(
Also, many of them don’t have the “capacity” to increase the burden on their rich buddies, but that’s a whole different failure.
""They're liberals, and even they admit that The One has a bit of a problem in the Northeast.""
And I am glad that is what they are saying. First, they have to keep the race interesting to keep people tuned in so ratings will stay up. What would anyone expect them to say 'race over, tune us out, go back to watching your regular soaps?'
But more important than their own ratings/income, it's better to keep those who want Obama to win on pins and needles and enthused so they dont think it's over and relax.
So to all the pundits who say its close and want to keep us worrying - and working hard to bring home a win for Obama - good on you.
---I have been surprised to see no commentary on BHO's glare during the debate with McCain following McCain's second mention of BHO's nearly one million per day in the Senate remark on earmarks.---
Not enough racist commentators, I guess. Maybe Dobbs will get to it this week.
poker samurai -
I agree with you. No commentator will touch it because of the angry black man sterotype. I wonder, though, whether that fear of saying it will prevent it from being passed around anyways.
I say that because I spoke with my sister-in-law this weekend, and she is not convinced he isn't Muslim. That was very surprising, and tied closely to the NYT article, because what if the political correctness that prevents the media from talking about race & non-Christian religion hurts BHO because no one will dispel misconceptions.
And by refusing to address those, the public concludes they are true; otherwise, they would have been dispelled.
imho,
There will always be a % of people who beleive he is a Muslim, regardless of how much dispelling goes on.
THE ECONOMY NEEDS HELP, BUT THIS BILL IS WRONG! IT REWARDS THE WRONG PEOPLE AND IT WILL FAIL ANYWAY! (There is historical precedent!)
Below is my latest letter on the bailout, which I faxed to dozens of senators and congressmen. (Fax numbers are at the bottom). PLEASE DO THE SAME! USE MY LETTER IF YOU LIKE!
This bill rewards irresponsible wealthy investors. It uses a model of "rescue" that failed in Japan and Mexico. Hundreds of economists have publicly objected. The vaunted "changes" are cosmetic and everyone knows it: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/congressional-charade-changes-in.html
CONGRESS IS STILL USING THE BASIC MODEL OF SECRETARY PAULSON, EX WALL-STREET INVESTMENT BANKER, WHOSE PRIMARY CONCERN IS PROTECTING WALL STREET AND ITS INVESTORS. THE MODEL IS FLAWED, IT REWARDS THE IRRESPONSIBLE AND IT WILL FAIL, WE'LL GET A CRASH ANYWAY.
PLEASE READ MY LETTER, READ THESE:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/09/final-push-to-kill-bailout-monstrosity.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/nouriel-roubini-really-really-hates.html
AND CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN!
I used Metrofax.com, if you are reading this you can probably afford $20 -- all the fax numbers are below -- but you can phone them or email them, just SEND THEM SOMETHING! DEMAND A DIFFERENT BAILOUT, ONE THAT DOESN'T JUST SEND FREE MONEY TO INVESTORS AND FAIL THE RESCUE THE ECONOMY!
Kevin
---
Dear :
I urge you to vote against this poorly-designed bailout! The banking system needs help, but this bill is not it!
1. The plan doesn't discriminate between who ought to be saved or not, and in fact rewards those who created dud assets
2. It runs counter to the best models of how to deal with this sort of problem
3. It does not punish current shareholders or management
Please have public hearings with an independent economist! Hundreds of American economists have publicly objected to this bill's method of rescue, which will fail!
“purchasing toxic/illiquid assets of the financial system is not the most effective and efficient way....in most cases in which it was used [it] made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).”
“Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification.”
“ Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get...is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size [is] totally vague and fuzzy.”
“with $700 billion of taxpayer money the pockets of reckless bankers and investors have been made fatter under [a] fake argument that bailing out Wall Street was necessary to rescue Main Street... the restoration of...financial health of distressed financial firms could [be] achieved with a cheaper and better use of public money”
“And even after the government will waste [billions] buying toxic assets many banks that have not yet provisioned for such losses/writedowns will be even more undercapitalized than before. So this plan does not even achieve the basic objective of recapitalizing undercapitalized banks....
“Thus, the Treasury plan is a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer. And the plan does nothing to resolve the severe stress in money markets and interbank markets that are now close to a systemic meltdown.
"It is pathetic that Congress did not consult any of the many professional economists that have presented...more fair and efficient and less costly ways to resolve this crisis....it is a scandal that even Congressional Democrats have fallen for this Treasury scam that does little to resolve the debt burden of millions of distressed home owners.”
Please, please, scrap the Wall-Street-biased Treasury model, listen to independent economists, and start over with a bill that fixes this in a way that benefits taxpayers instead of rich bankers and investors!
Kevin B. Martin, M.D. -- (508) 459-0032 – Worcester, MA – kbmartin2@gmail.com
---
Sen. Richard Shelby (R) 202-224-3416
Sen. Harry Reid (D) 202-224-7327
Sen. Jim DeMint (R) 202-228-5143
Sen. John Ensign (R) 202-228-2193
Sen. Jim Bunning (R) 202-228-1373
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) 202-224-6020
Sen John McCain (R) 202-228-2862
Sen. Barack Obama 202-228-4260
Sen. John D. Rockefeller 202-224-7665
Sen. Dianne Feinstein 202-228-3954
Sen. Ron Wyden 202-228-2717
Sen. Evan Bayh 202-228-1377
Sen. Barbara Mikulski 202-224-8858
Sen. Bill Nelson 202-228-2183
Sen. John Kerry 202-224-8525
Sen. Daniel Inouye 202-224-6747
Sen. Hillary Clinton 202-228-0282
Rep. Barney Frank 202-225-0182
Rep. Nancy Pelosi 202-225-4188
I have been surprised to see no commentary on BHO's glare during the debate with McCain following McCain's second mention of BHO's nearly one million per day in the Senate remark on earmarks.---
I thought Obama stayed remarkably pleasant throughout the whole debate actually, despite McCain attacking him massively. McCain came far closer to losing his temper actually (actually, he did lose his temper at one point, just not at Obama but himself - "Ahmeni...AHMENIDJAD!") (or however it's spelt). Shows how on edge he was thought.
35% of Americans have no idea what is going on with the bailout. 32% are reflexively against it on principle alone. 33% are for the bailout.
This deal, as is, is much better than what Paulsen took up to the Hill. It went from a lump sum, no strings attached, power to one non-elected person deal to one with reform, regulation, and a careful distribution of the cash in an effort to make sure the details are not missed.
We have to deconstruct all of the portfolios and regionalize the 85% of good paper and monitor the 15% of bad paper, repair it, then regionalize that paper. Then, we have to end the secondary mortgage market, all hollow instruments for gambling on Wall Street, and put more investing emphasis on small banks to regionalize and localize the mortgage experience.
In the end, small banks have to be the savior for the sins of the secondary mortgage market. This is where we need to emphasize credit availability and make targeted capital gains tax laws so there is incentive to invest there, not the big banks.
---AND CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN!---
They're voting in an hour, they're not going to have time to read your lunatic ravings. Try perhaps buying a giant "laser" and etching your message on the moon.
---Then, we have to end the secondary mortgage market, all hollow instruments for gambling on Wall Street---
There is as much chance of this happening as there is of the Proletariat rising up and slaying all elected officials with dill pickles.
Less, actually.
Driving to Vegas Saturday I heard my first Spanish-language presidential campaign ad. Though I heard the name Barack Obama early on I knew it was a McCain ad right away because: (1) there was unsettling Twilight Zone style "music" behind the words; and (2) I heard the words "aborto" and "liberales." At the end, McCain approved the message in English.
It will be interesting to see if Obama stabilizes/solidifies his lead this week or if the polls revert to something like O+2 or +3 again (leaving the GOP with Bradley effect hopes).
Most people don't or refuse to understand what this bill means. The ones slamming DC phones and faxes DO understand.
That money will NOT come back.
The bill also amends the Fed Reserve Act of 2006 to change the effective date of one critical section from Oct 1 2011 to Oct 1 2008. This rule allows banks to maintain ZERO reserves with no other capital holding requirement. If you don't know what this means, look up "fractional reserve banking".
It's the road to a national banking failure. I mean worse than the one we have now. Basically it means your bank can take 100% of your deposits and lend it to someone else. Current reserve requirement is 14%. In other words, I can start a bank on Oct 1 with NO ASSETS and lawfully take your money and loan it to whoever I want. Oh you want it back? Tough.
The bailout is a terrible idea. It will dramatically slow the recovery of the US economy. It should also create significant downward pressure on your dollar.
And yet, I can think of reasons why both candidates support it. Opposing the bailout would likely cost their parties significant soft money - so despite the unpopular nature of the bailout, both candidates support it.
It's a terrible idea. It's a terrible idea like the New Deal was a terrible idea (the New Deal extended the depression by years).
President Bush's announcement this morning did attempt to re-frame the bailout plan as a rescue. This is probably smart--although it remains to be seen if the public will buy into the folks in the finance industry being painted as helpless damsels in distress.
And the game theory here is interesting, although I see it as more of a "Swimming with Sharks" game since the consequences of action of re-framing are more individual. The cooperation aspect of the situation may lend toward the notion Prisoner's Dilemma--if everyone calls it the same thing, everyone will be better off, which is what is happening now. But if it were a true PD, there wouldn't be cooperation, everyone would be trying to re-frame to get a -1, +1 advantage. Someone could get a real one-up if they would step up here, but it's not happening. But none of the MCs know what will happen if they attempt to take ownership of the issue--this is where the Swimming with Sharks idea comes in. So instead, they sit on the beach and do nothing to try to spin it, which doesn't hurt.
Lunatic ravings? It's okay, Poker Samurai, you'll go down with the rest of us.
Morning Call Poll PA: Obama +7
I have to say you're wrong on this one. I haven't talked to anyone Republican or Democrat who is not opposed to this bail out, even while still recognizing that not doing so is going to be harmful to the economy. My personal opinion is that we are being blackmailed by Wall Street for this, and that Secretary Paulson is complicit in this blackmail. But that's just my radical leftist opinion. ;)
Schmidt said the campaign will press two arguments as forcefully as possible in the coming days. One is that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief and that, in a time of two wars, "his policies will make the world more dangerous and America less secure." Second, he said, McCain will argue that, in a time of economic crisis, Obama will raise taxes and spending and "will make our economy worse."
I agree with another commenter that Obama is finally getting his message across that 95% of people would get a tax cut under his plan.
Regarding the first line of attack, here's why I think Obama has superior judgment on foreign policy and national security, and why he won the debate on Friday.
WELL WE GUESS WHAT THE NEXT GIMMICK/STUNT OF THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN MIGHT BE:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080929.IBBITSON29/TPStory/Comment
For the Republicans, all may not be lost. The arch-conservative Washington Times reported yesterday that "inside John McCain's campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby."
The Times quoted one "McCain insider" as saying: "It would be fantastic ... You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week."
Yikes!!!
Nate S. wrote:
"Among Rasmussen's respondents, 50 percent said they opposed the plan and just 24 percent said they supported it. But, take a look at how the question is worded. The plan is described as a "rescue", a more neutral term than "bailout" but one that nevertheless has negative connotations. (Although, a more appropriate term is hard to think of. "Stabilization" probably goes too far in the other direction). But little supporting detail is provided to the respondent, other that two very unpopular instiutions (The Bush Administration and Congress) are mentioned."
It's unlikely that a politically neutral term exists which can be applied to this legislation. One could even argue that if Americans knew what the bailout was likely to achieve and its probable cost that they would be very incensed by this crummy bill. Why believe that allegedly neutral terms are adequate to describe the bill and the crisis? That too is a prejudgment that will distort the results of any poll.
Fact is these things are selling for .20 on the dollar now. If Paulson buys the whole pie for close to that we will make money.
Exactly. All these structures are based around real assets. The only money that even potentially could be lost is the 'made up' money of the over value of the price they were sold at.
They can:
repackage these mortgages taking truly secure ones and grouping them into truly secure packages that can be sold back to banks.
we can evaluate the rest individually and take actions to either:
help insure the current holder is not going to default with a refinance or home value adjustment.
resell the current home at a market price,
or even trade them as futures letting others willing to take the risk that they will increase in value.
These are primarily real assets that have a real value when broken back down out of the risky packages. We just have to invest the money to get them to be able to do this process.
AND one of the primary reasons we have to do this is to buy back the toxic assets in foreign hands. We can fuss with them but if we expect our trading partners to do so it will severely hamper any and all future relations. We have to become trust worthy again and the only real way to do this is to just say 'my bad' give them their money back and fix this problem in house.
Eric, my suggestion is that anybody who is interested in this read the NYT article that does a pretty good job explaining this. They analyze the bear stearns ALT-A trust II. So you have this trust and then all the bonds sold on top of it that the govt will buy. The thing to remember is the trust owns the mortgages, which means the houses belong to whoever owns the trust when it forecloses if it does.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/25value.html?bl&ex=1222574400&en=cd491cbff8aac3b9&ei=5087%0A
I also HIGHLY recommend the NYT timeline and specifically the commentary by Vijas Bajaj which is an interactive piece, the 5th tick from the end of this timeline. He talks about the bailout itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/27/business/economy/20080927_WEEKS_TIMELINE.html
celtic,
~~I haven't talked to anyone Republican or Democrat who is not opposed to this bail out, even while still recognizing that not doing so is going to be harmful to the economy.~~
Well if they are so opposed to it they should vote against it, which of course they won't, because most of their opposition is just grandstanding- deep inside they know the govt will make money but they want to parlay this crisis into a populist message which is very dangerous at this point in time. What a bunch of BS this is. Ask any CFO at any major firm in the US that holds over 1 billion in assets in "short term/Safe investments" and they are all scared to death that they are going to lose it all.
Stock market os a roller coaster today dwon over 700 pts at one point now around 550 down. The Bill maight not pass the House and then things are really going to tank.
OTF, hopefully the market is already factoring in the probability that the bill would fail, and it won't get too much worse when it actually does fail.
BTW, what do folks around here think of the Intrade EV count? Because it's blowing up now; they have it 338-200 Obama, probably because of today's market news.
no, the dow will fall to 7000 or so if the bill doesn't pass. Many corporate balance sheets are damaged severely. I am shocked that they couldn't even muster a pass on this. Wow.
The bill failed. Market is still holding down around 530
Realistically, the DOW and other indices can only fall 5% in a day. There are safeguards that were not in the system decades ago when black monday hit. But the markets will continue to hemorrage. In my opinion Obama and the dems that are polling well for congress should start focusing on where the country is economically right now. McCain won't win in this kind of economic carnage and Obama will need to hit the road running in Jan. We will have had some bad months and a bad Christmas season already by that time.
Lou Dobbs is calling it a "victory for the American people and a rejection of the attempted extortion by corporate and political elites."
It shocks me that 75% of the people in his "Quick Vote" are happy this happened today.
Great point about the framing issue... this is one of the more poorly planned policy issues in some time. Social Security was another issue that was poorly framed, but I'm amazed that no one in the U.S. government has even tried to sell this policy to the American people. (Insert comment on Bush White House here).
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
牙醫,植牙,矯正,紋身,刺青,創業,批發,皮膚科,痘痘,中醫,飛梭雷射,毛孔粗大,醫學美容,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,網路行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,關鍵字行銷、seo,關鍵字廣告,部落格行銷,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,網路爆紅,牛舌餅,婚紗,台中婚紗,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,中古車,二手車,中古車,二手車,高雄婚紗,搬家,搬家公司,服飾批發,團體服,街舞。
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要打工兼差、打工,兼差,八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,便服店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當日領上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有鋼琴酒吧又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、想要兼職、有缺錢的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的賺錢,酒店和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment