kapkomet

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 10:58 PM) I agree. Science just bends ethics to further it's own agenda. They'll forbid certain practices while hypcritically praising something that has nearly identical consequences. Science doesn't really care about making people's lives better, they just want to take away and abuse as much of our societal moral code as they can in order to gain power. I'm so sick of science. SCIENTISTS bend to their own agenda, but SCIENCE doesn't. Yes, we get your point.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 10:42 PM) I disagree, they didn't play it like that, if they did they'd always vote 0. Bush wanted to the power to act in Iraq, the democrats supported it for the sake of national security. Bush then jumped the gun without evidence. Once they were in Iraq and wanted the budget to be emergency funds, the democrats went along with it. The difference between the two, is the democrats maybe wrongfully play, we are already going to play it, so how are we going to get our fill. For the republicans, it's either we are going to do something or we are going to do nothing. Are the republicans right now saying "okay, here's how we stimulate the economy, we are going to remove mark to market, we are going to remove capital gains taxes to encourage investing, we are going to give tax cuts for small businesses and find acceptable projects."Their mindset isn't, we are already going to do something (clearly) lets make sure we get some things in there we think will help the direction of the country. They took up..."we are going to do nothing"... "WE ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT SPENDING" Whereas, you can make the argument, that I think the democrats are more realistic. Frankly, under the leadership of Bush and the terrible precedence of executive power of the last 50 years, and the fact that the war powers act is useless, Bush could've gone to war in Iraq regardless. At some point, if that is happening, you don't say we aren't going to fund the troops, good luck boys! You work in the new reality to try and give what's needed to succeed even if you conscientiously object. This was true for years until they finally got some backbone to say no more blank check until you show us some commitment or plan in Iraq. But the Republicans now are playing, if they are going to do something, we'll propose doing nothing. Then if something works, f***. If something doesn't work, then surely people will think NOTHING WOULD HAVE. This isn't a system of competing ideas. This is a system of one set of ideas, a void of where ideas should be, and an anchor that is republican politicians. They aren't proposing anything reasonable. Until they do, they'll be useless. Really? That's one opinion. And even when they do propose something, it's "useless". You're even using the same language the honorable Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid do. Those Republicans are "useless". Their ideas are "useless". Hell, they are so useless that I don't want them in the room for debate! Well, it's one thing to have ideas, and it's another to not have a s***faced clue how to present them, which I contend is the Republican's issue and has been for 8+ years now. Re: your italicized points, yes, I do think they are presenting some of those ideas, but unless they REALLY work, they won't see the light of day unless the Messiah can get some credit. The reason Obama has been really quiet on all of this is because no one knows if this will work. He's betting a lot on something that's not proven, that's for sure. So, there are polar camps, just like always, which is frustrating. Why is it that Limbaugh jumped out to front page news? Be a Dem strategist here. Why is that? Hint: this is all tied together.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 10:27 PM) But kap, until 2006, they were in the minority and the only real success they had in opposition was with privatization of social security, which they shut down (I think more to Bush's strategy to go public so quickly). Otherwise, Bush got everything. Then, in 2006, yes they are in power in the house. But in the Senate, they only have 51 with Lieberman in the caucus...and guess what Lieberman was not - Anti-War. And frankly, there's no argument you can make that they didn't inherit everything. TARP and GM bailouts did not cause the financial crisis, they were reactionary policies to it. And it was drawn up by Paulson and the people Bush picked, and if one thing Bush was not good at, we all know it was at picking personnel. But bmags, they wanted the President to fail. You can put words in any order you want to, but that is the bottom line. It is no different now from the other side of the spectrum. It's time to quit picking nits about how things are said. IF Barack Obama wants socialistic policies, you're damn right I want him to fail. IF George W. Bush wanted to spend $XXX money for nothing, you're damn right I want him to fail. Let's quit playing games with the wording because all it does is make everyone's three fingers pointing back at them mighty brown.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) Link, US News Thanks. That's really the premise of why this doesn't bother me. If those lead to breakthroughs, I completely understand it. I didn't say "support", I said "understand". This is one of those issues that is beyond my pay grade. There honestly is not a "right" answer to this one, IMO.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 09:27 PM) Oh yeah, because the government is now throwing in funds, scientists will NOW solve the mystery of stem cells and come up with all of these cures... Also, answer me this, is an "embryo" a human or not? Let's see. As I was saying: it was happening, whether or not you liked it. Now, there's public money essentially replacing private money. So from an ethical standpoint, IMO, nothing's changed. Most of the ultra right wing people (which obviously you are - not labeling, it's just obvious) are against this on the same grounds you are. Honestly, I personally don't care for in vitro, but it happens. If a positive as a result of this practice is we could come up with some medical breakthroughs, then I'm for it, no matter where the money comes from.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) Well, no surprise Obama has little regard for human life. What a load of crock this is. We have some other alternatives for stem cell research, but of course we have to allow these "scientists" who want only the best for man kind to use murdered babies for their research. What a huge load of s***. Anyone who buys this needs to stop drinking the koolaid. This is a disgusting and vile move by Obama, and he using this false hope of saying this will drastically help in the development of making cures for all these diseases more imminent as cover for his sickness. Perhaps one day stem cells will yield results, but you don't have to use dead babies to do so. This is just another way of getting garbage organizations like planned parenthood more money, and making these "good hearted" scientists even richer. How long until Obama allows 3rd term abortions? Probably soon, and he can use the excuse that more developed embryos are better for stem cell research. Holy s***, dude. I got news for you. The ONLY thing that changed today was that it went from private money to public money doing this, and there's some pretty conservative groups out there that actually support this. I'm personally against abortion, and while I may not like this (exactly), I can see the reasons why and "pass" on it as something that I can understand why there are now public funds being directed toward it. Question: how many embryos just "die" because of in vitro? I don't know what those numbers are, but as I said, the only change in today's move is changing the funding. So what did it really change? Nothing. If these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, then I can understand the medical use of doing research.

I was down 44% when I went to get the total today.

I suggest half price books, if you have one where you live. They have a s***load of those types of books.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 07:09 PM) Some new data backing up my case that the banks problems aren't related to the fact that they're not allowed to pretend their mortgage backed securities are worth more than anyone would reasonably pay for them. The problem is they're way, way over-exposed to risk on every side. One thing I still wonder about is the exposure of these guys and of AIG to bankruptcy on the part of GM/Chrysler. I don't think anyone disagrees with you that they have a ton of risk on everthing right now. However, the mark-to-market rules and the ESTABLISHMENT of a proper market is a lot of the problem. The fed was trying to establish a market for it, and that's failed... as to why I'm not sure because I haven't read enough on it yet. I do know that they are trying like hell to get a realistic handle on the market. That is very difficult because how do you value something that no one is sure what you will get out of it? With that said, if the government is going to back it, then the market should go higher, much higher in some cases, which would suggest that the banks have lowered certain assets too low.

That's the great secret, Balta. Seriously, every time these f***ers got in front of a camera, they would scream for Bush's failure. Harry Reid "The War Is Lost". Etc. But then, they never actually backed up their words. They are more deceiving to me then Republicans because they say one thing to the cameras and then do the opposite when push comes to shove. Hello, Mr. Obama re: TARP I, GM bailouts, etc = yes vote on the senate floor, and then run for the NY Times hotline and say they inherited everything. Can we please stop pretending that one party is better then the other?

But it was so different in 2004-5-6-7 that Democrats wanted George W. Bush to fail. Just saying.

I am waiting to cash my 201K, hoping it might go into a 301K before I get out...

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 03:41 PM) In the current market I'm not sure a cert alone will get you a job, but it's worth a try if you really like technology. It's not that big of an investment to buy the books and study up and pay for the test. If you have time, I would suggest trying to get into a good computer science program. The University of Illinois has a top notch one. Starting school at a community college is good too, just make sure you take a good mix of the math and foundation type classes for computer science. However, I heard even some computer science grads are having a little trouble in the current environment. Of course, nothing is for sure. Everyone's having trouble in this environment. Trust me. This is the longest I have not worked since high school (20 years).

Conditioning? Gavin hadn't pitched so well for so long before?

This is one of his best... that is just awesome. Then his remark to BA...

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Yeah,as a matter of fact I do ....its just shameful of how unsanitary it is though. You have to create the "mood". Secret Rondevous... shipps style...

CKnolls, Do you agree we see 10%+ bounce if we get rid of mark-to-market? Huge upside, IMO.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:09 PM) When the underlying pieces of a products are still worth 50-75% of the original cost of the asset, the proper valuation of the whole is not 5% of original cost. The proper valuation should be an aggregate of the pieces of the whole. Even though there isn't a market place for these things anymore, there is still the easy underlying asset to judge proper value on. These aren't binary options. There are still real, tangible assets making up these products. I agree about the too big to fail part, except the agencies that I want to see broken apart are the agencies who started giving inflated valuations to these commodities in the first place in Freddie and Fannie. Ding. Winner.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 10:21 AM) Saturday. Drinking from 2 in the afternoon to 6 the next morning. One of the best, if not the best, all day session I've ever had. Lots if girls dressed in skimpy little green outfits, what more could you ask for. (borrowing from your other post in the catch all...) Boinking one (or more)?

No, your premise is not right. These VPN's work directly with the OS.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) These naughty Nurses around my way are fantastic. And they just love to wear a thong to go under them scrubs. I bet shipps knows where the secret closets are around his hospital.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) It makes a big difference, because it is the write downs that are killing the banks right now. If they weren't writing down assets, we wouldn't have a probelm. Even if they aren't what you judge them to be, they are murdering the capital ratios of banks and making money just disappear from the system. Speaking as someone who actually deals with securities valuations on an everyday basis, its also worth noting that just because there isn't someone who is willing to pay a price for something, doesn't mean that is not what they are worth. Exchanges give valuations to all kinds of things all of the time which aren't based on trades. Heck I would estimate something like 95% of all exchanged based options contracts are settled on a nominal value, and not a traded actual value at the end of the day. Valuing these securities at something other than a traded price is the overwealming common practice. You are warming up to what I'm going to go through on the mark-to-market post. I'm going to explain it from an accounting perspective and why in a large way that is NOT to blame for all of this. Again, it's very complex... a lot of professional accounting people disagree on the application of the FASB.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) Holy s***, now we know why Bush and Reagan wanted star wars so badly... It's not the Russian, but the aliens he wants to blow to smithereens! These bastards must be stopped!!!

Balta, either your missing a piece of the puzzle or I'm missing your point, because if these assets are worth more then "nothing" then why would the banks go insolvent? They have already written down the value because of mark to market accounting rules. But not entirely... that's the catch here, which is very complicated to explain. Hell, most accountants get this wrong, IMO. CPA's don't even understand it, so how in the hell can anyone else? I need to go get my 201K taken care of... and a couple of other errands.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 07:51 AM) You are getting at part of the issue here. These MBS's, CDW Swaps etc., are single-create OTC instruments. They are one time contracts, not like a fungible or exchange-traded security. Therefore, establishing what the "market" will pay for it is all a big game. How do you mark to a theo market like that? The answer is, the accountants can value it however they'd like, and they did that, and now look where we are. There are tools available out there for valuation of OTC contracts like swaps, but they all have a different way of doing things. MTM only works with liquid, venue-traded, repeatable securities. That's part of it. I think the makers of the market is why we have the nuclear holocost right now.