kapkomet

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 07:31 AM) Terrorist attacks is wrong; continued troubles in the Iraq war would be more accurate. How many times did we hear over the past 5 years from right-wing blowhards that Dems wanted America to fail? I think they did, in a weird sort of way. In that way, to quote Obama's administration, this is a golden opportunity to pass everything we wanted in the past 25+ years and you just don't let things like this pass you by.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) Accepted. Looking back, I could have commented with my link to emphasize my opinion. FWIW, I laugh at everything Pelosi has to say. She has to be the stupidest Speaker of the House we have ever had.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 08:46 AM) You're right, NS. Very slippery slope we're heading down. Maybe I'm a naive idiot, but I'd rather have a bunch of failed banks than a bunch of banks propped up by a government that can't budget themselves, telling the banks how much they can pay their employees, what kind of bonuses they can pay, etc. I know that NS thinks that this is just GOP carpet bombing, but I think this is only the beginning of the slippery slope.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 08:47 PM) No or limited regulation helped bring us where we are. I'm ok with corporate accountability. Are you serious?

This (thread) is showing why this whole thing is stupid. Seriously. Not what people are saying, but what people are quoting and the arguements it all involves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 07:07 PM) Love to hear other opinions on this. If you were a government buying htese things up, how would you value them? It's a good question - because honestly that's the million dollar question now. I have some high level ideas, but if I figure it out in detail, I will not need to find a job again for the rest of my life. I'll throw my high level ideas out later - I need to go help carry in groceries.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) It helped bolster confidence in the financial markets after repeated fraud at companies like the ones you mention. And it's bulls*** - you know this. So this "stimulus" will help "bolster confidence in the financial markets after repeated" (downturns) "at companies like the ones you mention"... it doesn't make it right.

There's a huge debate going on in accounting circles about how to "fair value" these assets (in a bank's case, these are assets). IASB and FASB are studying it and have some proposals on the table. This pronouncement could be one of the biggest in years. Remember, there will be one set of accounting standards in the next 5 years (supposedly) and international views on how this gets booked is currently significantly different then how US companies do it. That's part of why this all started here and have now flushed out in the rest of the world.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 11:22 AM) I know. I'm not allowed a little kaperbole now and then? Anyway, actually forcing foreclosure relief on the banks would be a vastly more effective means of helping that market stay some of its losses. The reality in the mortgage market is that the overheated markets are going to decline until people can afford those houses based on the incomes that they have. And since a lot of those markets were dramatically overbuilt, that means that the prices are still going to decline an awful lot. Yes!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) Huh? Who's envious? You just arbitrarily injected that word in here. I am! You all need to start handing me 20% of your paychecks since I'm poor now. I mean let's just take out the government middle man, mmmmkay? Hand it over! Share the wealth!

QUOTE (juddling @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) As Banyan would say...this is gold Jerry....gold!! Pelosi tries to explain how $330 million dollars allocated for STD prevention will stimulate the economy. I'm all for preventing STD's but come on. Yea, she wants "stimulus" all right. Dumb b****. I seriously hate her just about as bad as anyone in Washington. And before someone says I'm being sexist, Harry Reid is a dumb b**** too. Seriously, the Dems can't do any better for leaders of their parties? Obama's ok, I disagree with him, but at least he's intelligent.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 11:11 PM) Im not an accountant, Ive just seen the statements. That's a fair answer.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:08 PM) Ive seen people $5,000 total (state-fed etc) in taxes on $30,000 income. If you are single with no dependents and are an independent contractor who has almost $0 expenses, you are not going to get many deductions or rebates. No one thinks about the single earners who have basically no write offs or deductions. Granted this is a small part of the population, but you cant just say no one does. But the maximum savings for the person could only be what $250? Oh and the tax system is graduated, so all of us would actually benefit. Basically saying that everyone who makes over 15% would be getting a $250 rebate. Then you're a stupid independant contractor.

I guess ideas don't matter, just f***ed up radio show hosts.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 05:12 PM) Obama is on CNN talking about the 20 billion in Wall Street bonuses sounding all pissed off (well as close to pissed off as he ever sounds). Nice act job. He doesn't give a s***.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 03:52 PM) Then you run the risk of looking like pussies like the Dems did circa 2003-2005, the GOP is in "back to basics" mode right now. At least the House is, I don't know about the Senate. That's because the House GOP is from pretty safe GOP areas - most of these guys will not lose their seats even if things swing even more to the left. Their political danger is next to nil.

When I heard that phrase last night in the MSM discussing "jobs saved" I laughed - hard. There's no way in hell they know what that number is and they are running it out to the media so they sound like heroes.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:05 PM) I don't doubt for a second they aren't that bloated. They have tons of employees and thousands of facilites, but its because they handle an enourmous volume of mail. I had a negative view of the post office before I got a look behind the scenes. I need to choose my words carefully about this subject. They aren't THAT bloated, but there's some places where it's pretty fat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 09:23 PM) Given the circumstances, overall, I'd say it looks like a decent bill. Could have been better, could still get worse if the Senate includes the AMT stuff they're talking about and that costs some of the spending package, but compared to dumping out more as tax cuts and getting a boost as weak or weaker than the one we got in the summer of last year, it's a decent move. Yea, we have to tax those evil rich bastards more! Listen, can you just go ahead and hand me your paycheck, since I'm unepmployed, have no insurance, and my kids are starving? I'm not sure how much Kaperbole ™ is in this sentance... I figure if I just start looking for handouts, it will all be better.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 06:11 PM) I have done a lot of work for the post office, more on the technical side, but its pretty interesting to get a glimpse into their operations. The post office has generally turned a profit, outside of the last year or two with the explosion of fuel costs which has greatly impacted their operations. They make their hay off of bulk mail and packages, on that Christmas card to Grandma I can almost guarantee their losing. I have been in a lot of USPS facilities, and I don't think most people realize how big an agency it really is and how many people they employ. They are one of the few "government" institutions that I don't think could be beat by private enterprise in the cost effectiveness and quality of their service. UPS may be great at delivering my stuff from Amazon, but something tells me they could be a lot less efficient at delivering my Aunt's birthday card. I've also worked extensively for the USPS and done some heavy contract analysis for business done with them (especially Christmas, called CNET) HASP, WNET, etc. It's not as bloated as you would think. I'll leave it at that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 06:43 PM) It's a good thing the Democrats listened to the Republicans' objections on the Stimulus bill and pulled out some of those egregious things like repairing the national mall and covering contraceptives while adding $20 billion or so in non-stimulating corporate tax breaks rather than spending additional money on things like rails. Otherwise, the vote might have been much less bipartisan. This whole thing is a clusterf*** of epic proportions, but as long as Obama gets what he wants, it's the best thing for "AmeriKKKa" ever. I'm so nauseated at this whole thing already - I don't care WHAT party you are, this thing is terrible legislation.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 04:35 PM) I would argue that the USPS advertises because they have solid competition. Yes, they do. I worked in that side of the business for a pretty long while.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) From testimony given before the Small Business Committee last summer. For every dollar you cut in corporate taxes, you get $.30 back as GDP gain. For every dollar you cut in the payroll tax, you get $1.29 back, because of how regressive that tax is. For programs that actually create jobs, it keeps going up. Corporate tax cuts have among the lowest multipliers out there. The money just winds up either horded or in the hands of the shareholders who receive the largest amount of dividends, aka the people who don't spend the extra money if its given to them. The cuts in corporate tax rates shouldn't be measured as a multiplier effect. That's the wrong way to look at it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 03:53 PM) You want to cut some government waste? Here is a target rich environment - the Postal Service. The mail has basically no competition, and should be run at cost. Plain and simple. And yet, this agency actually spends all kinds of money on advertising. Seriously - they spend 9 figures a year on advertising. That is 100% waste, right there. And this year, the USPS may need to cut back service because they are so deep in the hole. The provision of necessary government services should charge what they cost - not more, not less. Its really damn simple. If they can't make their expectations, then raise the prices. If fewer people use it... GOOD. That is less money going to a government agency, and probably some of it goes to other areas of the private sector. Really?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) Let's see...you want a media related rant? There are something like $25 billion in corporate tax cuts stuck in the stimulus bill to try to gain Republican/Business support. It goes to things like Casinos, oil companies, telecom companies, etc. Corporate tax cuts are some of the worst stimulus out there, because their multiplier effect on the economy is so low. Programs like health care, providing funds to states, rebuilding some of the decaying infrastructure in the national parks...those actually directly create jobs because you need to hire people to do them. They also have a vastly higher multiplier effect, because the people you hire are going to spend that money. So which things do we hear the most about? The effective ones, or the ineffective corporate tax cuts? What?