kapkomet

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 07:45 PM) 75% of the vote is in and Barack is still holding the two to one lead. Wow, this is an ass whipping of biblical proportions. Even the biggest polls I saw were only 18% wide. Clinton is going to have a hard time explaining this one away. They already have. That's why you saw BEFORE the primary that they were going to lose because of the black vote. They've already "softened" the loss before it even happened. That's yet another reason why I said after NH it didn't matter what happened or where, that the race is over.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 07:13 PM) Our market is and always will be a cycle. You are absolutely correct. But, what you don't understand - unless you are even more vested with knowledge of economics than myself (and no offense because I do doubt it, simply, because I have my Masters in it from Harvard) - what you are missing is that the Feds ability to really "affect" and "do what you're used to seeing it do" is really coming to a halt. The fact is that the Fed has toyed with the market so much, and created "artificial" boom & bust cycles that it has reached a point that it is beginning to not have any control over it. They are, and have, thrown a complete overload of money into the market that we simply cannot sustain it - no matter what we do at this point - because it has caused a ever increasing credit/deficit problem that can no longer be contained. They need to drastically raise the rates, get the foreclosures done, kick people out that have tried to live above their means & get an equilibrium back into the market. They can no longer "lower the rates" to help. They can no longer flood the market with money to help. The economy, based on advanced economic research, has reached a point that it is too late to do these things to help. Putting off the recession is only making the impending recession much, much, much deeper - to the point that we're risking a depression that is worse than our economy can take. We can no longer fund what we do as a nation. The Federal Reserve has lost its ability (which was destined to happen, if you study economics well enough to understand why) to control the market as it could. Its not a result of something in the last few years. Its simply the "snowball rolling downhill" effect that has happened over the past 50-60-70 years. We've tried to "control" something that is not controllable. You can contain it for some time, sure. But in the end, this control is simply an illusion. This stimulus package is just another straw on the already broken camel's back. The War in Iraq is a bag of bricks dragging behind the camel. We simply do not have the funds to pay for what we're doing & that is simply the truth. We, as citizens, paid over 1.2 Billion in income taxes last year & not one penny - not ONE PENNY - was spent on anything to aid the country/citizens. All of it went towards the INTEREST alone that our country owes on its credit. The most basic economic principle: 'When you live above your means, you are destined to live below your means' America, simply, has been living above its means - living on ever mounting credit. Citizens & the country alike. This credit is something that has taken years & years & years to catch up with us as a nation, but the time is nearing when it will break us down & nothing the Federal Reserve creates in terms of market rates, money controls, or government stimulus packages can stop what is happening. Its sad, yes, but it is true. Those folks who live in a class above where they should - with moms/dads working 2-3 jobs will be the hardest hit. They, quite simply, are living above their means - if they need to work this hard to simply pay for their house, their car, their children - they're simply living above where they are 'destined' to live at. That is economic fact. And, when nothing more can be done - a time that is approaching in the ensuing years - these will be the first who will live below their means. It is hard, I suppose, for the younger generations to really understand this - because they've never seen it & are mostly unaware that it really can happen. Not that I'm old by any means, far from it, but with my background in economics - I know the ramifications for what we've been doing as a country. Those who haved lived above their means (which is a SIGNIFICANT portion of the population now about $15,000 in debt) - will be living below their means. Layoffs will reach record highs, unemployment will soar even more, the dollar will eventually crash & in turn, the cost of living will skyrocket & there will be no jobs or money out there for most everyone to keep up. And that means MOST of you/your parents who view this site. The worst things that can happen right now: Fed drops rates, the War in Iraq continues, socialized medicine passes, tax increases, & more stimulus packages. I understand, during these times, its nice to get that check for about $1,000 - but that is part of the problem. You should NOT want the government handing you this check - because it is only going to make matters that much worse in the future. They're going to be bad, but the government, the war, and the Federal Reserve are only making the impending issue that much worse by trying to stave it off a bit longer. We need to simply let it come. People are going to lose their jobs, people's lives are going to be wrecked permanently. People are going to lose their homes, their cars, etc. The problem is - in human nature - we don't want this to happen & rightfully so - but, by trying to put off & escape the problem we are only going to ruin a deeper & more vast group of lives in the end. ok, nevermind. I'll go for part of this, until my eyeballs pop out. First bold point. I agree with that, but the thing you have to understand that most economic old school theories seem to forget is how intertwined the global economics are now. And, I think you're forgetting that as well... well, not forgetting but not discussing it. Second bold point. Remember, as I just said, the global implications of what you're talking about. And furthermore, do you even understand what the money going through the system will do? It's sort of a dart on an elephant's ass, but it will stop the bleeding at least enough to raise GDP by 1%. That means growth, albeit small. Also, you have to remember that the dollar falling is part of a bigger global balancing act. Look, I can't disagree that we've bitten off more then we can chew, but you have to remember the basic supply and demand rules here and remember the global implications. You can't just focus on the Fed monetary policy and then tell me you are Harvard economics material. I ain't all that, but I certainly can tell you that it's not quite the picture you're painting.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 07:19 PM) You know the amazing thing? Most of that paragraph I think he's completely right about. Save the anti-socialized medicine part. But there's some completely impossible theory in part of it. I'm not getting into the pissing match, though.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 02:22 PM) Yeah, its a good time, not for everyone though. Europe as a whole is a tough pill to swallow for many Americans, its just a different culture, more relaxed in some areas, and some people just cant handle it. For me, my rankings are hard, and I keep changing them Heres my US/Canada list 1. Chi-best city in the world 2. San Diego-just awesome, burbs on the ocean are the jewels, OB, PB, Encinita 3. San Fran-amazing 4. Vancouver 5. Denver/Austin-tie both are just plain cool, with good people 6. Baltimore/DC area. Great drinking and eating towns. 7. Salt Lake City-actually a pretty good drinking area, I like that the best ski towns are 20 min away 8. Phoenix-just love the overall feel, although there is WAAAAAAAAYYYYY too much driving around 9. Dallas-good town, good food. people are a bit weird sometimes. 10. Cincinnati-great sleeper town- Mt adams area is a diamond in the rough. 11. Boston-people are annoying as hell, great drinking though, good pubs. Hey, you bastard, I resemble that remark.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) Don't worry, you'll get another .75 or so next week. I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 04:48 PM) The problem, though, is that this $140 Billion does not actually exist. It is coming from simply printing $140 billion more dollars. That doesn't mean the money is actually "worth" anything. This is only going to further hurt things and create a bigger bubble so that when the recession actually does hit - it will be far worse than it was intended to be. The simple printing of money is what is devaluing the money. Oil didn't hit $100/barrel because the price of oil went up. It hit $100 because the dollar fell so much. Printing more money is simply going to cause more inflation, and therefore, more of the same problems. Prices will continue to rise on everything at a rate that the ordinary & even the strong middle class cannot keep up with. With simply printing $140 billion extra dollars, by the time it works its way thru the market, the money will be worth much less than that. And it won't only be that money, but it will be all money that becomes worth less. All the money in people's savings accounts becomes worth less, the money in your paychecks, etc. It all becomes more and more and more severely devalued due to the inflation caused by simply printing money to try to 'fix' the problems. The fact is, for many, many, many years the Federal Reserve was able to "correct" these market problems because the problem was not this bad yet. But now, the Feds power is becoming more and more and more useless to serve the 'purpose' that ordinary citizens think it 'fixes'. The Fed has simply tried to pull the market out of recessions (not their "point", I know, but what many think the Fed is for), etc., but the problem now is beyond what the Fed can withstand & when it gets to the point that it simply can't 'fix' the problem anymore - there will be a massive problem for most every citizen. Runaway inflation will wipe out much of the lower middle class - which is the vast majority of citizens (including probably most posters - or poster's parents - on this site), and will irreversably damage the lower class. The reason is because the Fed simply cannot drop the rates much lower. They're already at 3.5%, and banks STILL don't want to lend the money because they've taken such a massive hit from the current problem that they simply cannot afford to take further damage. What the Fed SHOULD do, even though maybe not 'popular', is raise the rates pretty significantly. Get the people to lose their homes who are already destined to do so & and that would help much, much more. The Fed is trying to make sure the lower middle class simply can "keep their home & barely get by for the next 2-5 years", but at the cost of actually losing their homes, jobs, and cars after that point. They're trying to make today's blow softer at the expense of tomorrow - when they could make today's and tomorrow's equally as bad - but today's and tomorrow's low will not be nearly as bad as "protecting today" at the expense of tomorrow. This is kind of a new era for people who "work(ed) in the marketplace" because this has not exactly been seen before. Many people who are not complete authoritarians on economics really do not understand what is happening because, frankly, you can't understand what is going to be happening without a VERY VERY strong knowledge of exactly how economics work. They think they can predict this and that based on yesterday, when in fact, the market has been changed to the point that what is coming cannot be fixed by the monetary & fiscal policies used in the last 50-60 years. Do you have any idea of how cyclic our economy is? I don't disagree with some of what you're saying, but... EVERYTHING is a cycle, and will always be, as ebbs and flows happen over time. There was, is, and always will be boom and bust cycles. The Fed's real job is to make sure there is ample money supply during the bust times and to restrict money so that it isn't so plentiful when things are going really well. The problem is these people got greedy when there was free money all over the place (when rates were at 1%) and now they're paying for it. It's pretty much as simple as that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) It probably is, but the mere fact that he has a picture with them makes me laugh. People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones, so the Clintons should probably put the bolders away. The Clintons have freaking PLANETS (not boulders, not stones) that they should put away.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) as usual, Edwards making a late surge (up to 19.2% RCP Average) but it's not gonna be enough to grab 2nd. why do people wait so god damned long to realize their best option? lol And this is in his "home country" (not state, but close enough) and he's fighting for votes? Shouldn't be that way, if he were a true frontrunner/leader.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 08:15 AM) They have more of a fruit drink taste, than a Gatorade drink taste. I love it. Hmm. I'll have to try it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 07:49 AM) Has there ever been a better set of players moves than Esteban Loiaza? They got his near Cy Young season for $500,000. Then they traded him for a guy that won 15 games in a row, and powered them to a World Series title. Plus how could you not love his Soxfest shirts? SHHHHHHHH... that would imply that Kenny Williams did something right.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 08:55 AM) It's off steroids. *rimshot* Nicely played.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 07:58 AM) Who else could they have endorsed? Oh, I realize that... but he's the most like them, and it really shows.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 08:57 AM) WSJ grabs on to the Edwards as Kingmaker theory. So who would he go with? The "secret meeting" between Clinton and Edwards last weekend now looms larger, doesn't it?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 08:52 PM) NY Times with the half-hearted McCain endorsment And that says it all, doesn't it?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 02:06 PM) This is the same type of rebate as the previous one in 2003? (I believe). Remember when people were filing their taxes the following year and were b****ing they had to claim the rebate as income on their taxes. This is feelgood politics at its best!! The dollar index loves the stimulus package. Hyperinflation here we come. That's not how I'm reading this. It's a rebate for taxes already paid in, not an "advance" like the 2003 was.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) Ok, so this would be the equivalent of a 1 time tax cut of $1200...and so if I were to say, have already been planning to take a honeymoon this summer on my 1 year anniversary, I might just think that it's paid for by that rebate. (Not that I mind paying the taxes of course, as the communist hippy that I am. I'll just stick myself into the Ron Paul wing of saying "Ok, if they're giving it to me I'll take it") Beautiful. Enjoy your honeymoon that was just payed for by the rest of us.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) And is shared by every candidate. They all want to talk about their positives and divert attention away from their negatives. Sure, but the Clinton Spin Machine is dirt digging and s*** slinging, while the others talk about the issues more.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:58 AM) Huckabee is in a world of hurt now, that not many people are talking about. he is having a helluva a time raising money, and is fading fast. This is going to be down to McCain and Romney really quick. And they both f'ing suck. What an AWFUL election for true "get the government the hell out of my life" conservatives.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:34 AM) I should note, I really believe that this "smear" campaign by the Clintons is a direct attempt to get people to not talk about her record or her past. they want a diversion. Exactly right.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) Agreed. Side note and I'm trying to phrase this so it comes out properly. IMNSHO, she has a bigger set then any of the other candidates, from either party, and certainly more than her husband. Perhaps, in this climate, she may be a better choice then I've been giving her credit for. Directly to SS2K's point, she wants it both ways. She was intimately involved in every good thing that happened in the Billy years, and WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY far away from everything bad. Now how the f*** does that work? And people still dig this woman. WTF is wrong with people?

Listen, to all you Obama supporters, I REALLY hope you are right and come out on top. You see, I could never vote for Obama because of the stances he has. BUT, I can *RESPECT* Obama if he were elected, assuming he doesn't go to the dark side of being an asshole because he's president. And that for me is huge. I can disagree with some of the politics, but at least have some integrity and straightforward discussions about policy. The Clintons, obviously, do not have that. I hope he pulls it out, but I don't think it will happen.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 09:23 PM) IMO, ther'es nothing Obama can actually do that will get him back into the race. He's losing a lot of super Tuesday polls and Clinton is steady in national polls. The only thing that brings him back into the race is a major Hillary slip up. *DING* And it amazes me how much head in sand people there are on this board. No offense to any of you, and I'll GLADLY eat crow if it's not true... but there's NO WAY that Hillarity loses this nomination now.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 05:37 PM) We thought the same thing before Iowa. We thought that it was over before NH. Except it wasn't. If Obama wins by 6 or 7 points in SC, suddenly we see a new narrative here. I didn't think it was over before NH, for what it's worth. SC is not a player in the overall momentum, IMO.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) Bush's policy record on the environment has been horrifically bad. For the most part, I agree, although I will say that I agree with his stance on Kyoto. Until the rest of the belchers of s*** in China and India are held to the same standard, you can't sign that treaty.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) She has been fighting because she had such huge leads before the primaries and caucuses started, and she lost that lead pretty much entirely. She was watching her candidacy walk slowly away from her. She then reacted, starting the week before NH, becoming an entirely different candidate. And that worked for her in NH and NV - we'll see if it keeps working though. By the time it won't work, it's too late. IT'S OVER. The media has latched on and will not let go of it.