jackie hayes

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:53 PM) Ok so the government needs to bail out a total corporate financial failure. I don't think so. If there isn't going to be trillions eaten by the government let them work it out on their own, this bailout is dumb as hell and will only encourage this kind of reckless corporate activity. It takes out all the risk involved, if a oorporation knows they can make risky moves, as all failures will be covered by the government, they are going to take crazy risks and tax payers will end up getting jacked. Also, where are we getting the money to bail out these banks? The federal government is massively in dept, we don't have money. The government will be borrowing this money to cover other poor borrowing procedures. This really is an epidemic in the United states. Financial stability is totally out the window. I don't know how you got "the government needs to bail out a total corporate financial failure" from those comments about IndyMac. I'd never say that about IMB. The shareholders should be screwed. If you mean the FDIC guarantee, I don't know how anyone could be opposed to that. If you mean Fannie and Freddie, well, I don't like it, but you can't really have the companies that holds half the mortgages in the US go bust and expect a good outcome. I agree with most of the rest of what you say. There's a lot of risk in guaranteeing any company. When that can't be avoided, you need a good deal of regulation. And the money is coming, in the end, from future generations, same place the Iraq war money is coming from. Obviously not ideal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) No money vanishes once it has been spent, unless someone is leaving it in a matress somewhere. But once we lend it out, we can't spend it or lend it out again. The point I was making was about the final cost of the bailout. When the money will be recouped (in this case, only partially), the cost is less than the financing. We are not saying, Here's a trillion dollars, Fannie and Freddie, have fun! We're saying, here's a trillion dollars (say) cash. We expect it back, except for the amount that you lose on the mortgage. So if we loan $1 trillion to the pair, and the default rate is 10% (phenomenally high for prime mortgages) and the rate of recouping defaulted mortgages is 30% (phenomenally low), then the cost will be $1 trillion * .1 * .7 = $70 bil. This is just the fundamental notion that an outstanding loan is an asset. Which you certainly understand, but you're trying to obfuscate the real question. As for not having the money to spend once it's out, first, that has nothing to do with what I was saying about the actual cost of the bailout. And second, of course you can. The government is certainly capable of borrowing money now, and a $70 bil change in its net position, while it's certainly a lot of money, is not going to change that. Additional interest costs should be considered, then, but you're still nowhere even remotely close to a $1 trillion cost. The Iraq war, on the other hand, will cost in the trillions. And that's money that's not coming back.

"contending team"???

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:21 PM) Its makes absolute sense. That one trillion dollars has to come from somewhere. Those obligations are as real as any other obligations we have. The only thing that doesn't make sense is why people seem to be more upset about $4 gasoline than losing their houses. Yes, it comes from somewhere. But you are saying that once it's spent, it vanishes. Which is wrong.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:06 PM) If you want to use those standards there is no social security crisis because of all of those IOUs we have on file. That makes no sense, but you keep on thinking that if you like. It's more like thinking that LTCM didn't really have investments of $1.25 trillion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:05 PM) Google trillion dollar bailout and tell me how many hits you get. How credible is CNN money and Standard and Poors. Keep in mind, this was 3 months before Fannie and Freddie were allowed to hit the discount window, and this is JUST for these two "banks". That doesn't include the money given to other banks, nor does it include the bailout that is coming down the pipeline. http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/econo...sion=2008042217 About.com adds it up to $1.2 trillion http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/06/02/fe...-it-working.htm And to even give you some liberal love... How about the Huffington Post? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henry-blodge...ve_b_93052.html And I am still waiting for you to start carving up all of the blatantly partisian, misleading, and blatant lies elsewhere. The S&P report is not available for free, so I can't look at what they are referring to. The other links are talking about $1 trillion in financing, not cost. Bernanke (back in November) guessed that the final cost of the whole shebang would be in the "ballpark" of the S&L total (he said ballpark of $150 bil, though it's $250 bil or so after adjusting for inflation, so figure the ballpark is about $100 bil down the lines and $500 bil to straightaway center), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21694890/ Fannie and Freddie guarantee about $5.5 trillion in mortgage loans. Given the relatively high quality of those loans, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe the final cost will be $1 trillion. Hell, even IndyMac's most recent default rate was only 8%, and that's one of the most subprime-heavy lenders anywhere. The default rate on Fannie and Freddie's prime mortgages would have to be many, many multiples of that to approach $1 trillion. It's not even remotely plausible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) Everyone talks about the Republicians being in the back pockets of the energy companies and it is front page news. We have Congressmen pretty much taking bribes from banks who are about to get a bailout that would end up being twice as much as we have spent in Iraq or ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Add up all of the oil company profits, plus the Iraq war, plus all of the oil company subsidies and you still don't approach one trillion dollars. Yet no one seems to care. We have Congress people in positions of power who should be minding their words knowing that they can move markets, taking down banks. Another key figure in this scandal was helping to pick the Democrats Vice Presidential candidate. Yet no one is mentioning the effect that this will have on the debt or deficit the way that they are anything connected to the republicians like this did with Bush's $140 billion stimulus plan that today costs one third of what has been allocated for this mess so far ($400 billion). Shouldn't this be front page news? Shouldn't this be something people are angry about? I'm sorry no one liberal enough for you all cares to make this a big deal. Its too bad the mainstream media hasn't dug into this story, and I'd really love to know why. It has everything they seem to like... Politicians knee deep in corporate interests, huge amounts of money, scandal, power abuse etc. Yet, this is essentially regulated to the business pages except for a headline or two. But I will bet Exxons next record profits will be front page news, again. Laughable. And you're the one talking about faux outrage. Show me a credible source of your claim that Fannie and Freddie will cost the federal government $1 trillion. Not that they'll have financing available, blah blah blah, but that the END COST will be $1 trillion. You are comparing it to other costs, so unless you're just being flagrantly dishonest, that's what you should mean. Can't wait. If you look at what IMB itself said in the wake of Schumer's comments, the worst case version of the story goes like this -- IMB was already teetering on the brink of failure, and Schumer's comments triggered a fairly small number of withdrawals which pushed them into an area where automatically-triggered additional regulation prevented them from being able to raise capital. They certainly would have failed anyway (they'd been losing money for a long time, reflected in the stock price plummeting 80-90% over the last 6 mo; the default rate on their mortgages was most recently at 8%, and there was little hope it would get better soon). A think-tank report blasting IMB that came out the following Tuesday would have been enough, or a moth flapping its wings in Sacramento. Can't wait for you next post of Republican cant: how this all could have been avoided with lower taxes and less regulation.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 14, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) Obviously the article is a little harsh, but the actions of the senate getting involved in some of these financial institutions is a huge joke. They don't have a f***ing clue how these companies are ran and while IndyMac and many of the large financials got involved in some risky investments that backfired, they still have the resources and abilities to recover long-term. But when idiots like this senator go out and grand-stand they end up putting out statements which completely effect how the market and individuals react. That's just wrong. For an 'average' senator, sure, but Schumer has been involved in the minutiae of banking for years and understands as well as most anyone in DC how these banks operate. It's too bad we only find out now that Countrywide was a-okay before Schumer started running his mouth. Subprime lending was the tits until Chuck spooked everyone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) Schumer runs his mouth, the bank has a run, fails, and its not his fault. Yet another politician who doesn't understand that words mean something. http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/11/chuck-...ailure-results/ Wow, talk about a total s*** article. If you wanted to post IndyMac's release or Reich's comments (which are stupid enough as-is), you could have linked any number of mainstream press articles. Instead, you chose the most incendiary, baseless, downright stupid take you could possibly find. Shameless.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 14, 2008 -> 01:03 PM) I guess I just don't see the love for Barry Sanders. I'm not saying he wasn't a great back, but people put him up there in the all-time lists. He played a shorter career and often competed against Emmit Smith for best back of the year (and lost). If you're going to have Emmit be overrated, then Barry is there too. And even if he had a better line, that's a slippery slope. You define a persons career based on what they do, not what they do with what they have. No way. Emmitt had a longer career, but looking at what he did in those last few years, it probably shouldn't have been much longer than Barry's. He stuck around WAY too long just to break a record. Barry's worst Y/A for a season was 4.3, which is higher than Emmitt's career average. Emmitt was a reliable, durable rb, but Barry was on another level. Not even close.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 14, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) Reggie Bush Now or when he was drafted? I don't hear anyone lately who's not ragging on him.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 13, 2008 -> 01:06 AM) Oh, very nicely done. Wasn't there a tv thread? Whatever, Til Death blows. Awful, cowardly show.

I suppose you've already asked this yrself, but it seems worth asking, just to be sure. The stuff with your car is actually bad, not just the typical oil change crap, right?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 13, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) 300 million could buy a lot of alcohol. Not if you add in all the stuff you'd buy online after consuming the alcohol.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 12, 2008 -> 02:30 PM) I suppose in truth, I could give all but $1M to various charities and non=profits. Maybe buy large shares in a few alternative energy companies. Or give my money to the poster known as jackie hayes. Whatever works. As long as the amount of money I ended up with was small enough that I wouldn't have the entire world looking for handouts. The latter choice totally works.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 12, 2008 -> 10:34 AM) No way I'd want to win 300M. Life = ruined. I'd honestly rather win 1 million. You could do that and move on with life, and it would be a good life. Solution: Sign a contract giving everything in excess of $1 mil to me. Pareto improvements as far as the eye can see...

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jul 12, 2008 -> 09:47 AM) You dont need three hundred million to do two chicks at the same time. You're forgetting that there are only 1.5 chicks in South Dakota, so wite would have to fly them in, after constructing the state's first airport. It adds up pretty quick. I can't imagine much to do with that much money. The only immediate thing would be buying a house. The rest would be invested. See, lotto gods, that's why I deserve it more. Even though I don't buy tickets.

New on rotoworld! This is awesome. "They would rather trade him or make him Aaron Rodgers' backup." Priceless.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 11, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) John Madden just collapsed in happiness. Really, this is just getting old. The Packers have all the leverage here, but they'll come out looking like ass-holes if they don't do anything, considering how loved Farve is. My guess is, eventually, he'll get traded or released, and either the Bears or the Panthers (don't know, Delhomme and Moore is a decent 1-2) will sign him. I really, really, really doubt Carolina is going to happen. Minny seems the most likely place. Everyone's saying the Packers will look bad at the end of this, but I just don't see that. Do most Packer fans really believe the team only exists to serve Favre?

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) Showed where his priorities were when he took that offer over San Antonio's or Boston's. So all in all, I like the Pietrus signing now, even though it means Keyon Dooling is probably headed back to Miami. Pietrus is no Maggette, but he's still a very solid value for the MLE. No question it's a good deal for the Magic.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 8, 2008 -> 10:21 PM) Yeah that team's going to be good next season, top 6, and the East has gotten a lot deeper already this off-season. Magic signed Mickael Pietrus as well for the MLE. Interesting signing, that we'd go for him over Maggette, because he's a better defender and 3 point shooter (which is what we need from the SG spot). It'll be nice if we actually have someone to guard Rip Hamilton come playoff time. Maggette's going to GS for more than the MLE, so he probably wasn't an option.

Strange tangerine man wears citrus colored garments. Not a big talker. Haiku written by an emailer for the guy sitting next to the two announcers. These announcers do make it fun.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jul 7, 2008 -> 06:21 PM) beasley/rose making paxson look bad 3 pts 5 TO and some bad D for rose Still summer league. Adam Morrison, superstar. Though I think every Bulls fan better be prepared for Beasley to look better this year. Out of the gate, that's almost guaranteed.

Wow, Chalmers just owned Rose. Make that stop, Derrick.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Jul 7, 2008 -> 05:46 PM) My fault, Jackie. I know Rose is 1. I believe Beasley is 44 (which is weird, because he will be 30 for the year). Rose hasn't done jack so far. BTW- I wonder if ThunderCats is their official name now? Also- I love how they keep making fun of David Padgett and Aaron Gray. Now they just called the package MIL sent to NJ for Jefferson a "bag of balls". For the next 5 days, I'm thinking it's as official as we're gonna get. I think you're right on Beasley's number. That's what I thought I saw earlier, but I wasn't sure.