Chisoxfn

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) They're stopping foreclosures because they were rushing through them and evicting people who didn't have mortgages with them. No one was taking time to actually review the documents and verify that. If that's how their going to operate, blindly signing tens of thousands of foreclosure documents as one GMAC manager/exec put it, then they need to be stopped. I think it has more to do with the fact that they are starting to realize banks aren't acting in the best interest of the investors and money is being left on the table. Banks should be putting in there homework and making the best decision possible regarding whether to sell or "settle" with a homeowner and currently not enough is being done and banks should be doing that. However, I don't think for one minute this f***ed up situation is going to get fixed.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 12:21 PM) Well, let's divide that up. There is a difference between softening the extremes, and just postponing the inevitable. Putting false stops on foreclosures is the latter - its not helping anyone, those people aren't going to suddenly find big money, so all you are doing is making things worse. The banks have f***ed a lot of things up, but the speed of foreclosures was actually being handled pretty well. Messing with it is stupid. Stimulus type actions, on the other hand, aren't really forestalling anything. They are softening the dip, but also blunting the rate of recovery a bit. So its changing the curve, but can still have an overall positive effect, all the way out to the next run up. My problem has never been with the idea of the stimulus in general - and its plain to see that it has indeed helped avoid a depression. Problem is, they spent the money in the wrong places, so the long term (and I mean past the recession entirely) hasn't been helped. Or not, I can tell you all kinds of scenarios 2nd hand from my dad (who works the foreclosures constantly) about ridiculous deals given out by the banks because the bank party in charge of the transaction (often times a 3rd party REO company like REO America) will get frustarated with the stagnation of something falling out of escrow that the property will end up selling for ridiculously low amounts. For example, last week a home just sold for 425K which has recent neighborhood comps no lower than 600K and had been in escrow multiple times for between 575 and 650 (over the past 6 months). This home originally sold for 1.3M. The reason the home sold was the property manager got frustrated and ended up taking the first offer because he needed to get it out of his portfolio and sold. Now lets say the bank worked with the person living in the home, yes, the person who paid 1.3M. Say the bank just negotiates with the borrower and does some legitimate principal reduction, rate reduction, etc. Even all the way to a reduction to almost market value. Throw in some incentives that ensure the bank can get additional funds over a 5 year time (i.e., increase the borrowing balance) if the prices recover X amount of dollars, etc and all of a sudden a scenario exists where the people win (i.e., the homeowners) and the banks win (thus the investors win). I realize people have a lot of issues with certain people being forgiven for there poor investments but the reality is it is the proper business scenario and had things been done right initially the real estate market would not have suffered as much as it did, would have recovered quicker, and our economy as a whole would have been better off. And if you think, I'm mistaken, lets just point out that foreclosures are typically sold at a discount, are typically destroyed (i.e., the borrower will take upgrades that they can out of the house and thus the lender either has to invest money so that the home is at least complete or up to code or sell it at a significant discount), and the banks are stuck with these worthless assets for the next 2 years. Factor in that these investments are worth X amount on the books and in many instances have already been written off, so if the bank did things as I mentioned above, they'd have much better longterm rate of return. The true problem with the current housing situations is that the plans didn't fix anything. The deals people get from the banks are pretty much worthless. There is minimal principal reductions going on and ultimately, lowering the rate on a home so the payments are more affordable is fine, but it doesn't solve the situation that the borrower is putting money into something that is worth 30-50% less than his loan value. So while the payments might be affordable, from a pure principal standpoint there is so many more reasons for a homeowner to instead live in the home for 2 years scott free (while the foreclosure process happens), take the credit hit, and than rent for a few years, and than after his credit recovers he can buy a new place at the new values. Way too many people I know who have gone through the foreclosure process aren't poor or even out of work. They did take on a bit more than they could cheer, but realistically, they got into situations where the best business decision was to walk away. And they weren't walking away and becoming homeless, they were walking away and renting a nice place after saving up griploads of cash while there place was foreclosed. The above isn't everyone, but it covers a decent number of people and ultimately it is ridiculous the banks haven't done more from a business perspective to solve things. Just look at it this way, if someone owes you 1M and you no longer can get that from them, but you can find a way to get 700K from them or 550 from someone else, wouldn't it make the most sense (even though the person didn't come through) to get the 700K. I do realize that if banks started doing this more and more people would than all of a sudden stop making payments and join in on this, but quite frankly, that is how we should have bailed out America. It benefits the banks (as they get more on written-off or drastically devalued investments) and the people in this country benefit. Does everyone, no, but did everyone benefit by the huge bailouts we gave to GM and the banks, nope.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Wow, I didn't realize what a good deal I've got. As a singe gal, I pay $35 a month for health care and an additional $17 a month for emergency dental (I have extreme phobias about my teeth). Families on my plan push you up to $90 a month. I love working for the state! I pay $70 a month for myself. To add my wife (we are currently on desperate plans as it was a little cheaper since her employer has a nice program too), it would be $150 per month and for my wife and kids (as many kids as I wanted), it would cost $220 per month. The insurance plan I have is supposed to be a pretty darn good one (when I did my comparisons the coverage was fantastic) and is considered a "Cadillac" plan. I will do everything in my power to always make sure I have insurance. The bill that you pay if you have no coverage are absolutely ridiculous. One little injury could set you back a huge amount. Or just a bad virus, etc.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 11:13 PM) They rolled FSU and beat Texas in a game they controlled for the most part until late. What has anyone else done this year? Oregon---has played no one outside of Stanford and I still question where Stanford ranks against top 25 teams. TCU---best win is against Oregon St who is 3-3 Boise---lol Auburn---The Arkansas game was closer then the score indicates. Looked bad vs Miss St and UK. Also should have lost vs Clemson and could have lost vs South Carolina. Stanford is one of the best teams in the country with arguably the most talented QB in the country. They are a very good team and that was a huge win for Oregon. The big problem with Oregon is they have not had a complete game yet. They've made mistakes but offensively they are incredibly gifted as is Stanford. Pac 10 has quite a few legitimate teams (Stanford, Oregon, and Arizona are all legitimate top 20 teams and I tend to think all three are legit top 15 teams, despite Arizona's one loss to OSU (solid but not that great, imo). Big 12 is so weak that I can't say OU is #1 right now, but part of that is because I don't think Texas is that good, albeit they (Texas) had a nice win against Nebraska. I don't buy into FSU being that great yet, more that I think Miami was over-rated. Big 10 is where it is at this year, imo. The conference is stacked (OSU, MSU, Wisconsin, Iowa are all top 15 caliber teams as of this point in time and than you have Northwester (top 25 team), Michigan, and Penn State which are quality teams). Minnesota is the only true POS team in the conference right now with Illinois being the 2nd worse team in the conference, imo, although Indiana might drop to that point as there defense is terrible and the offense isn't good enough to score consistently against quality defensive teams. And than Purdue is a mediocre team that might have an upset this year but will make a bowl. I'd probably still say OSU is the best, followed closely by Iowa (if we had more depth at RB I'd feel much more confident), but that could all change in a week. I need to see MSU keep winning against good opponents but so far they had that huge win against Wiscy. And Wiscy has a shot to overshoot everyone in my minds with a win this week @ Iowa (you beat Iowa and Ohio State and you are a top 7 team in the country as far as I'm concerned). Boise State would have at least 3 losses playing in the big 10 this year and it is why I hope they continue to get screwed out of the national championship. It isn't fair but as long as only two teams get to play than I want the 2 teams that have had to go through a gauntlet and still have a good record to be playing, not the team that gets to beat up on a bunch of s*** teams and than plays 1 good teams and 1 mediocre team the rest of the year (in there so called big games). As college football continues to have more quality teams and parody (which is the case), it becomes increasingly more important to have a true playoff system (even if it is 8 teams) because I think there are 8 teams who might be the best in the country right now and they should get a shot to play, even if they did lose 1 game in a series of quality games to a good opponent (that doens't make them not the best, just makes them human).

Wow, Michigan State should shoot up the polls given the number of teams above them that lost.

Hells ya. Forcier re-awoke and he tore up Iowa last year too, but Iowa did there thing. Another tough game coming up next for the Hawkeyes. Get to take on the Badgers at Kinnick. Best chance for Michigan in the game was Robinson going out and Forcier coming in because Iowa had spent 2 weeks planning there game for Robinsons attack versus Forcier, who is a bit different of a QB (mobile yes, but much more of a passing threat than Robinson is right now).

The good news is I can jail-break it and use it on my sprint phone, but I'm hoping sprint will get it too.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 6, 2010 -> 12:35 PM) This is an insanely uninformed post. Sure, the Pats are deep. Sure, Brandon Tate is solid. He's no f***ing Randy Moss. Pre-Moss, the Patriots' defense was good enough that they were fine with the amount of points they put up. Moss changes a gameplan and how other teams defend. He draws consistent double-teams, allowing the "little engine that could" Welker to run free all the time. The Patriots have absolutely no running attack, and their offense is going to take a HUGE hit with Moss now gone. Their defense is nowhere near good enough to consider them legitimate contenders without Moss. They basically extended a middle-finger to their fans with this move, but no one is saying it yet. When they get bounced in the first round because they can't score, they'll realize that this third round pick was not worth trading the one guy other than Brady on your offense who can be considered a true difference maker. This move was insanely dumb. PS - And PUH LEEZE with the "no receptions on Monday night crap"! The Special Teams scored so many points that passing was moot. Personally I don't think they are a super bowl team either way, but I think they decided they weren't going to put up with Moss not showing up so instead they got rid of him. They aren't a better team without him, but quite frankly, they aren't a good enough team right now either. There defense should improve as they have added a lot of young talent, but this is a team that is probably another year away (with a solid offseason and good player development) from being a true superbowl contender again. Right now I think Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and the Jets are all much better teams in the AFC. In the NFC, I love the Packers, but Moss should really help Minny and Favre.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 6, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) Gavin is under the Sox's control through the end of 2013 if they pick up a team option. Edwin Jackson could be on the block...but his value is not "boosted" even by a good end of the season. He's a guy who has been dumped by 3 teams in the space of 2 years, who is 1 year away from Free Agency and a Boras guy. He can't be expected to help a team long-term, he's already not cheap, and his pitching record the last 2 years is at best described as inconsistent. Put it this way...why do you want to be the team picking up a guy that 4 teams dumped in 2 years? They might try to trade Jackson, but they're not getting anything of serious use for him. It's a salary dump. Is dumped really the proper terminology? Wasn't he traded essentially for Max Scherzer? Scherzer being the power pitcher (whose arm might explode) that was one of the best pitchers coming out the year he was drafted in the 1st round? I do agree that the Tigers did pick him up for very little via the Rays though.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 6, 2010 -> 06:53 AM) Eh, I get it. "We're smarter than everyone else." Well, your offense is going to take a s*** now, but enjoy 2012. They crushed Miami with Moss making 0 receptions. Sure, the DB's still had to focus on Moss despite 0 catches, but I think New England's offense will do just fine. They have some nice TE's to go with Welker as well as some up and coming young wide-outs.

Moss might be on his way to Minnesota.

Wow, surprising. I like this new approach.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 09:16 PM) Will anyone hold Michigan to less than 30 points this year? Will Michigan hold anyone else on their schedule to less than 30? This team is not for the faint of heart. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Hawkeyes will in 2 weeks. But I could be wrong.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) Frankly, when your Oline is playing that poorly there isn't much you can do. It isn't like they can run block worth a damn either. I strongly believe Angelo should be fired for putting that group of offensive lineman together. What a f***ing joke. I really agree with you. I've long been a huge proponent of drafting the lines. Angelo has done that with the dline, but ignored the line that protects your franchise player. It really is dispicable. I hope the Bears have some FA money to throw around because we already know we'll use at least 1 top pick on a lineman and probably 2. I'd be perfectly content if our 1st and 2nd round picks went oline and we signed a FA olineman. My only hope is that Tice can somehow develop Omilaye, Williams (Both of them), Asiatta, and Webb. They are all young and I'll see if they can somehow turn into something. Most of them are incredibly raw though. Oh and hopefully they won't kill Cutler, but I have a scary feeling Cutler's career will end this year (and it could just be the constant pressure that forces Cutler to go the way a once promising David Carr did).

I swear, I'm blown away that after all those hits that he was taking the Bears didn't do something different? I hope Jay is ok. Has he spoke yet? Post game conference, anything? Bears doctors had to be mind-blowingly stupid. This means Jay played after a concussion and was sacked ~4 to 5 more times, including that shot to his head. Holy cripes.

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 10:26 AM) Jason, you're making some of the same points I am about the coaching staff's utter failure last night, but you went off on me for saying the Bears were being outcoached? I truly feel like the Giants did a much better job adjusting during the 2nd half last night, including a perfectly timed screen pass on 3rd and long. I just don't give the Giants much any credit for last night. They looked pretty s***ty. Bears just completely shot themselves. Plus I thought Marinelli had a nice game plan and our defense looked superb. Martz was absolutely horrific though.

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) And to that point, did they not see him basically falling over himself in the 2nd quarter? I thought it was due to the field conditions with it starting to rain, but maybe not. Personally after about the 4th sack, he looked like a dead duck out there. He took some pretty heavy licks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) If the medical staff weren't keeping an eye on Cutler early after the first 3-4 hits they took, and let him go back out there with a concussion, they ought to be fired. My guess is Cutler stayed away from everyone. They didn't know he suffered the concussion until halftime (since he didn't even come out on the play he took the hit from Ross). I still don't understand why the Bears even tried to throw the ball to end the 1st half. At that point, I was thrilled to death it was a 3-0 game and wanted to get to halftime as fast as possible to allow the coaches to make adjustments and for Jay to take some breaths.

What an ugly situation.

Has new V started yet?

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 10:00 AM) Are there actually reports that he was hurt prior to the Ross hit? It would actually make more sense, as he seemed to be lacking coordination during the 2nd quarter. As for the slow developing deep routes, I couldn't agree more with you. That was part of the coaching flaws I mentioned though. We were playing right into their hands. Martz got a lot of credit for the Cowboys game and he gets the exact opposite to me for this game. He absolutely killed the oline and more importantly our QB. I wonder what sort of long-term effects this kind of game will have on our QB.

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 10:00 AM) Are there actually reports that he was hurt prior to the Ross hit? It would actually make more sense, as he seemed to be lacking coordination during the 2nd quarter. As for the slow developing deep routes, I couldn't agree more with you. That was part of the coaching flaws I mentioned though. We were playing right into their hands. Lovie was quoted as saying they don't know when for sure it happened and that he's trying to get all the facts.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) Jas, yeah, the O-Line deserves a lot of the blame, but its ALSO true that Cutler was not sticking to the game plan. He was trying to do too much, held onto the ball too long. The Martz-designed offense gives up blitz slots in exchange for a friendlier zone downfield - which means that the QB needs to get the ball off faster or go to the underneath dump. Cutler didn't do well at that at all, so he does deserve some part of the blame here. I think I saw one time where a check-down was open. The guy was playing with a concussion, most likey, for a good chunk of the 1st half. And if you watch where his WR's were on those sacks, youd' see that they were busy running slow-developing deep routes. SO contrary to the one play where Cutler could have taken the hit and thrown it to Bennett (at that piont, it would have been about his 15th hit or so), he really didn't have these options that people are talking about. Not to mention, I'd like to see them make those decisions when the QB is sacked on 45% of his drop-backs and hit on like 75% of them.

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) So you're saying Cutler deserves absolutely no blame for a poor effort last night? DUH. Should I blame a pitcher if he pitches in a game where his team makes 12 errors? f*** no. Clearly you've never played sports or something because you seem to think that sports exist in this vaccuum. Collosal pressure, hard hits, sacks, etc, are going to make it highly less likely that a QB can do anything worth a damn even in situations where he might be able to succeed. He had time to throw on like 10% of his drop-backs. That is f***ing ridiculous and probably has never happened in the history of football. If 9 out of 10 days a week you got hit by a car, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to walk to work normally.

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 4, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) And the Giants made some good adjustments during the 2nd half, as they started to take advantage of the aggressive Bears front 7. They also stopped calling plays that were going horizontal, and went to more of a vertical offense. The only chance the Bears had last night on offense was the quick pass offense they applied vs the Cowboys. No, the Bears defense got tired from a bazillion 3 and outs and thus, was bound to have some slip-ups. If there is anything to take away from that game it is the fact that our defense is looking like it might be a top 5 defense in this league again. However, the Giants are a pretty inept offense so, who knows what to take from it. And that our oline truly will kill Jay Cutler.