It think that they (Wall St.) want it in days to beat the Sept. 30th end of quarter reporting. If the legislation isn't passed, a lot of quarterly statements are going to look very, very bad.
Pass legislation prior to Oct 1st & two things happen 1) everyone delays their quarterly announcements while they are calculating the numbers to 'accurately' reflect legislation. 2) What would have been a disastrous quarter can now be painted rosier as a result of the legislation (Lipstick-on-Pig theorem).
Chinese regulators have told domestic banks to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.
This is very bad news, our credit from China just got cut off. They are our biggest place to find friendly money (AKA:
bank to borrow from).
Advanced by Chuck Todd at MSNBC: McCain is the de-facto leader of the Republican Party. He needed to signal to His party that they had ZERO chance of getting anything (like elected) if his buddies killed this bailout.
The R's were not getting on board, and unless this bailout is structured to make both parties blameless or equally culpable, nothing will happen. McCain had to get his guys in line. What better way to wake them up than threaten to quit the campaign?
Make no Mistake, this bailout will MUST happen. Either as a complete package or a stopgap measure with the heavy lifting left to the next administration. The alternative at this point is worldwide economic collapse.
Moving forward, this whole debacle shows the fallacy of Reaganomics, and the need to re-structure the economic system to re-distribute the wealth from its current concentration in the top of the economic pyramid toward the bottom. Supply Side Economics must die now.
We are witnessing the first step. Paulson's bailout plan is predicated by Our Money being tossed at the Banks (supply side). It is being countered by Dems and conservatives in Congress who want to look at the Consumer's Side (consumer side - note: need better name for this) and address the root of the problem. Unfair terms for mortgages and credit cards, executive compensation, ownership stake for advancing the money, and prior lack of infrastructure investment for advancement.
We sit at a unique opportunity to re-structure the economic world for the better. Create a new economic model or recast an older one based on support of the grassroots and infrastructure. Sustained growth at a reasonable rate, with good government regulation avoiding the creation of conditions that create economic bubbles (Hi-tech or housing).
We can help create it by being vocal to our elected representatives now and after the election.
You're at the cliff, do you take a step back or just keep pressing your advantage while walking over it?
The alternative we are facing here is complete, total economic meltdown. The kind of stuff our grandparents lived through, another Great Depression.
The real tightrope here is for them to pass legislation that alleviates the problem in the near term, but not solve the symptoms of the problem. It should keep the general populace jittery about the economy and clamoring for a solution by the election. That will be the job of the next Congress, whomever is in charge of the administration. That's when the symptoms of the problem must be attacked viciously.
It's not opposed to the Lakoff model. By attacking the strength Kerry became your traitorous liar rather than a war hero. The frame was changed by Rove. That opened it up to re-framing Kerry as weak on Security (remember the wolves in the forest commercial). Wouldn't have worked nearly as well against a war hero.
Example; Attack McCain's strength, he got shot down in flames, he lost the battle. Then re-frame as: McCain's a looser, a poor decision maker. Ignore the POW hero stuff. You've changed the frame.
The campaign won't can't touch it, 527's might, if we had some...
The real problem that I ran into was that the Campaign has not 'framed' any talking points to show a way to make him decide.
I gotta use information that the campaign has used (and he is/may be aware of) to sway him. New information on my part will be discounted, as a member of the opposing team I have no credibility until I can point to a third party item (campaign ad or statement) to make him afraid of his candidate.