kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:30 PM) Then vote against it and abandon the theatrics and stop pretending like you actually want to compromise. I have no issues with that. The problem is that there is a lot of compromise that is wanted, but the majority party (I don't care which one, they both do it) shove their bulls*** pride in front of what is really good for America. Why? Lobbyists and their own self interests. That's my problem with these assclowns.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Let me ask you this. If the opposition President had met with you regarding a bill that you disagreed with the vast majority of, would you vote for it because a small part of it was something you liked? Would the President meeting with you honestly change your mind if you still thought in your heart that most of bill was wrong? I don't get how stuff a few bones into a trillion dollar bill is supposed to placate a party that disagrees with the huge premise of the bill. To me, it doesn't make a difference. If you believe the bill is going to do more harm than good, you should vote against it. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:21 PM) Even though your constituents voted for and support what the President is proposing? The problem is MOST AMERICANS DO NOT WANT THIS BILL! What a f***ing shocker, eh?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) Now that is just patently untrue. He has, as far as I know, "gone back on" a grand total of one thing: lobbyists in the administration. What other promises has he gone back on? Meanwhile, he has also screwed a few things up - i.e. some of this cabinet nominations, and his inability to exert more influence over Congress about these stimulus bills. Those aren't broken promises though. On the other hand, he has done a number of things he said he'd do, already. Look at his XO's, that we have discussed in here. Obama has stumbled, but he's still more good than bad, so far. That's a far cry better than what we had before him. Though there is still lots of room for improvement, and the lobbyist thing irritates me to no end. The loopholes in interrogation methods. The method of standing up for what Nancy Pelosi wrote for him in the House version of the "stimulus" - telling House GOP "I won". Yea, some change. Some outreach. There's a lot more but the point's the same.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) You're sounding like Sean Hannity more and more each day. Really? I wouldn't know because I don't listen to them. However, the facts are plainly speaking for themselves because he's going back on damn near everything he said he would do with the exception of the things that will placate the hard left.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 07:41 AM) Kap likes GWB? Really? No, not really. In fact, I think his idea of "small government" was part of the reason Obama thinks he can spend his way out of this recession to the tune of $1T. In that area alone, GWB was a colossal failure. Of course there's more... but the point I keep making over and over is that THEY ALL SUCK. And I think that Obama is the biggest fraud and double standard president we have seen for a long, long time. As long as he doesn't lie under oath, I will at least respect him more then I do BJ Clinton.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 10:19 PM) Your schtick is getting old. Is it? Probably because it's true.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) Says Mr Know-it-all. Aren't you the same person that was telling us that there was no way he would even get elected? Hey, you're one of the ones that says he will fix everything. We've been over this before, many times.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 08:52 PM) Why is it you only seem to want to acknowledge that either Obama changes everything, or nothing, when reality is clearly between? Because people say the same thing about everyone else, unless it's their guy. I'm only making the point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:12 PM) Because I'd say 90% of people out there don't post the raw #'s, they post the comparison numbers. It makes sense anyway, it normalizes out the average inflation. And quite frankly, when I googled it, the first 10 graphs or so all showed it in that normalization. Here's the only presentation of the raw #'s I could find. Source is here, indirectly using the WSJ name. Grabbing a few extra details: I think the normalized one is also interesting in that it actually increases the boost the last 5 years or so, because the median income has declined relative to inflation. And one more point...if you accept that a huge chunk of corporate profits being tied up in bonuses and salaries is a problem, but you say that the government can't fix it, please offer up a solution, because right now nothing is going to fix it, and as I mentioned, the bonus reward for producing high quarterly/yearly profits combined with the lack of penalties for long term failure is almost a guaranteed method to continue driving the explosion of investment bubbles. When you look at the relative percentage of these bonuses, they are a very small overall percentage of the company profit. It's a piss in the ocean to talk about what you're going after, it's only symbolism.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:22 PM) Anyone feel like we're doomed? I wish I could find the clip of the Simpsons when Homer is telling the story of Maggie's birth, and they get to the part where Homer's in bed talking the Marge, and says "We're doomed! Doomed, I tells ya!" and then he lets out a scream with his head getting big like a balloon and popping. Nah. Obama has it all figured out and he's going to save us.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 03:47 PM) Anyone who knows how extensive lobbyists' influence is in Washington knows that's a promise that can't possibly be kept 100% and should have known that from jump. Then don't go around screaming "CHANGE" and "TRUST ME" and all that bulls***, knowing f***ing damn well he wouldn't keep his promise. Gee, no different then anyone else, imagine that.

SOX and executive compensation are two completely different issues. I have a really good article in a financial magazine about exec compensation, what caused it to sky rocket and what they should try to do about it (short of the government getting involved.) That same magazine has a lot of interesting stuff about the "fair value" concept that we talked a little about a week or so ago (that I didn't answer very well but I will, sometime soon).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 06:37 PM) Compromise reached after centrist Senators agree to cut 600,000 jobs from the economy. If only they'd allow me to write the headlines sometimes... These job numbers are all bulls*** anyway. It's just to add to the dramatics of the whole thing.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:54 AM) People who request read receipts on every e-mail they send. God is that annoying. I always click no. It is annoying, but I have that set on my email now - because if I do get an answer I know they at least got the email - it's important in job hunting.

How about the fictional character "Texsox"?

I have a s***ton of money coming back, which is nice because of not having a job.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) it's not fully online unless you have a WSJ subscription, but there's a fascinating summary of Bernake's dealings with Merril Lynch and BofA last fall in there today. Here's a summary. I just read that whole article. Pretty interesting.

Obama Warns of 'Catastrophe:' What Happened to 'Hope' and 'Change?' I love that headline. We all know what happened: the brainwashing of America to pass every pet Democratic project that they have wanted for the last 40 years presented itself in a "collapse of the economy".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 05:47 PM) Link That's not true. Per diems are not taxable (depending on how it was set up - let me say it that way). If Daschle was receving services of this type, and it wasn't under contract or a "per diem" travel allowance, whatever, then he owed taxes on it and it was his fault for allowing the structure of this stuff to be like it was. He was either given bad advice or not careful enough to think about the consequences of doing the things he was doing from a tax structure standpoint.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) LOL, I submit to your detailed logic. I know. I didn't have time to explain myself. I haven't had time to put a lot of time into this... but I will, hopefully. Still trying to catch up from the weekend trip to the inlaws.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) Even if I grant you that point, the reality is...the people doing the math saying how big this package needed to be watched that number rapidly grow as time ran on. And the longer we hang this up in the Senate, the less effective it will be and the bigger it will need to be to be effective. Even if Bush had been able to push another $100 billion or so out the door late last year in the form of a stimulus package, even if it were the less effective tax cut variety, it would have significantly cut how big this package would have needed to be by getting it out sooner. No it wouldn't. Quit drinking the kool-aid, please.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) -Harry Markopolos (The Madoff whistleblower) in testimony today. Nice quote. Seriously, they can find first base, but do they want to find first base? That's really the question here.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) I think "hoping" for collapse and recognizing the opportunity a collapse brings are two different things entirely. When things are going smoothly, it's hard to recognize potential disasters. When you are in the midst of disasters, it's easier to show the public what can help - health care, green technology, regulations, etc. The democrats always have social reform to bank off of, they may have been hoping for failure in Iraq, but really they had all the ammo they needed in the fact people were lied into the war and could paint the republicans as irresponsible hawks. I don't think the Republicans want any Americans to lose their jobs, but I think they are playing some dangerous politics for themselves right now. I agree with this point, for sure. I just think that the "calamity" and the "disaster" and the "catastrophe" (Obama's choice word of the day) are being overused to ramrod their legislation through without anyone seriously questioning it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:38 AM) What? I was the one who started the thread and said I didn't like the slope we were going down. What I mean is, they want to control everything about business that they can. This is just the start.

I think the "patriotic" idea is over the top, but I do think they are viewed differently because of the "D" behind their names.