mr_genius

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 07:03 PM) Would you please provide the link to where it details the type of CS that you've posted as fact above. I'm interested in reading more about that. TIA. The details that were given about what would be considered acceptable charity work was vague. Examples were given with obvious charity work, but what I saw was worded as if the work would not be limited to these charity organizations. Who knows what the government approved work would be. I'm sure it would change with administrations, but then when college kids are getting grant money to work with Mormon charities on something like 'yes or proposition 8' in California, people would probably see why this type of stuff is inappropriate and not educational.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) So then you're an Obama fan? Kidding. I just don't see how its any worse or different than GI Bill money, or working for the university towards tuition, or assistantships, or any other variety of financial aid for college students. We actually need GI's, so I see why thats important. Working at a school is fine. There is no way I am going to support this program, according to your argument any program like this is worth it because students get payed for all kinds of stuff. I do not see this program as worth while. I probably never will. Again, if you want to pay for this go right ahead. I don't. No way. Isn't it not going to happen anyways? edit: but i do like how educational standards kind of suck and suggesting those be an incentive for a grant gets ignored. how about let students chose? aren't you pro-choice? (messing with you)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 06:43 PM) The possibility of a $40/hour job for a college student is an additional burden? As far as I'm concerned, the only negative I can even stretch to is that the US can't afford to be helping everyone right now with the deficit. The program itself, to me, is fantastic, and I see nothing forced or burdensome about it. Well I guess if this is additional grant money it isn't a burden. I see your point. The program is still terrible as far as I can tell. It accomplishes nothing, just another waste. If we are giving out grants it shouldn't be based on who works for some government approved charity/political operation. No thanks. Count me out. I'm not paying for this. But I'm a elitist jerk that thinks kids should be educated to a decent world standard; passing out flyers for 'rock the vote' doesn't help make our country stronger.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 06:39 PM) By your logic, the US government is "forcing" poor kids to join the military, and "forcing" kids to pay interest on students loans, and "forcing" kids to to play college sports to get their degree. I'm sorry but I don't see how you can stretch financial assistance for college in exchange for something as "forcing" anything. This program does nothign but put an additional burden on low income students. It's not educational as far as my standards are concerned.

QUOTE (MAX @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:29 PM) Jesus guys. For one I am not in college, I just object to forced volunteering as it seems to be an obvious contradiction. I guess he has backed off of this idea, I misread it, or it was misstated in the first post. I am not complaining because I am being forced to do anything. I just think the government should stay out of people's lives. The program is ridiculous. Basically forcing kids that don't have rich parents to do community service work or work for their local Democrat (which you know will happen; stuff like ACORN will be considered preferred service ) if they want a college grant. I would much rather have kids learn valuable skills to get grants. Then maybe we won't have to bail them out with hand outs when they graduate in 4 years.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:25 PM) I don't think it even got that far ('in committee' means its a bill be discussed, right?). It was just one proposal at a hearing, but a lot of conservative pundits have picked up on it and spun it as "the Dems are trying to take ur monies!" just tryin to spread the wealth around dude.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) I am very concerned as well, but the US government won't go bankrupt. go to $-30 trillion and find out. want to take the gamble?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) I believe that if we were in a position where we were a developing country and there was a larger, um, let's call them "US" type economy compared to us, the larger country would have already forced us in to default on a lot of that debt and caused a genuine currency crisis. It's what we've been doing to developing countries for decades. I guess if you mean by 'we', the developed world countries, than yes that is true. But if 'we' is just the United States, you are not accurate. But your right, the only reason the United States gets away with it is because if the United States economy completely collapses there would be a epic world economic depression.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) I'm sure they have lists, so don't go too far. And hide your guns, stockpile ammo now, and closeout your 401k before they take that as well. The Democrats in the house were actually considering a move which would confiscate all 401k accounts. Haha imagine if that got slammed through congress. Total panic would ensue. http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/...t-accounts.html

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) How much do you think the Dow would go to at this point? http://www.cnbc.com/id/27641538 Unfortunately, there is a very real chance we will find out. Excessive amounts of government debt are the proverbial 400 pound gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. We could face a big time disaster with continued big deficits. I mean way worse than now. In 2009 alone we could see a 2 trillion dollar deficit. Could see a massive collapse in government funding, there just won't be any place for the US to get these resources. Total disaster. A bankrupt federal government.

Whoa, I guess Palson is saying the Treasury has abondoned many aspects of the original bailout. At least they are being flexible. No real details yet from what I can tell about any change in direction. Definitely something to follow.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:38 PM) You're not too big to fail. You need to leverage that 401k to the point that you're controlling a hundred billion or so. Once that happens, when your 401k starts declining, then the feds will have to bail you out. Especially if you own a lobbyist or two. Agreed.

Market is tanking again. I think my 401k needs a billion dollar bailout.

At least all those poor souls will still get their hefty bonuses. That's all that matters. I'm willing to toss in a few more trillion, if thats what it takes to keep em happy. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/12/...in4595179.shtml The sad thing is he probably actaully believes this would happen. Barney, there is no chance you rube. I think I'll post a detailed evalution of the failed bailout in a few days. I'll explalin why it was destined to fail.

QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) Funniest Obama headline ever......too funny ummm....Earth to CBS News.......he did that a LONG time ago....... Wow, thats just amazing.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:01 PM) My concern is that the turnout seems a bit fishy. The trend everywhere else was that turnout was a record high. Here we go with Alaska now. Let me guess, stolen.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 11:07 AM) Source:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html The Democrats are just basically forging votes now. I hope one of them gets caught and thrown in jail. Every f***ign time they lose it's 'irregulatries' or some crap. They all do it. Even when they lose a primary against another Democrat, it was 'stolen'. It's this kind of stuff that reminds me why I really despise many of them. *ends rant*

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) That. I'm also somewhat amazed at the amount of rope Lieberman is being given here. Neither Obama nor Reed is any hurry to "punish" him. Lieberman will be a reliable vote on social issues for the Democrats, they probably figure there are better uses of their political resources as there will certainly be some battles on budgetary issues. Obama might consider that Lieberman could actually do some across the isle work to help him get his policies going; as a shrewd politician he may see some potential benefit from using restrain. Which is saying a lot, considering that Lieberman gave a big speech at the GOP convention and completely supported Obama’s opponent. Oh and Obama might not want to lose any possible Joementum, as heads22 would say.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 07:39 AM) In other words, more of the same. We have to do it, or so the conservatives tell me. I guess it comes down to your definition of what a conservative is. A neo-con big government, big spender will of course care nothing about a $20 trillion national debt. They will also support earmarks, bribes, wasteful spending, pretty much anything as far a spending. It's way low on their list of concerns. I at least understand and can respect the view point that possibly 1 trillion was neccessary or so was needed to save the financial system (even though I have a series reservations with how the bailout structure was set up). But the neo-con takes it way past that, and not everyone who supports a bank bailout is a neo-con. Endless spending; 1 or 2 or 9 trillion annual deficit is fine with a neo-con, but certainly not anyone whom accurately considers themself a conservative.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwide of course. it's only 2 trillion dollars.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) He wasn't talking about the bill - he was talking about what amounts to an XO by SecTreas. Not that I am defending the bill OR the action, nor am I saying the GOP is any worse than the Dems on this. On this general subject, I don't see one party having screwed up significantly more than the other. I actually blame the GOP a little more than the Democrats for this. But you're right, it's not a significant amount of additional blame.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) FYI, if you want a comprehensive look at who is getting this money and when, I suggest ProPublica, a great investigative journalism non-profit site that has been doing an awesome job. http://propublica.org thanks for the link.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 01:14 PM) Yeah the automaker bailout... no thanks. I was willing to swallow this banking bailout pill even if it was bitter but there's no reason we should be subsidizing the failures of the U.S. auto industry. If they want to, they can pay off my car note which will free that up for me to put elsewhere in the economy. /high5 haha how bout it. the worst part is they were actually given money to make more fuel efficient cars years ago, during Clinton presidency. The basically didn't do anything that the money was supposed to be for, they insisted on SUV's and stuff. The Japanese companies thought the US automakers were getting an unfair advantage, but decided to double up efforts to make efficient automobiles. So basically, the US companies sucked, and the Japanese ones ended up destroying them in the market. Sometimes giving these companies money does nothing but encourage lazy, short sighted operations.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) Anybody see Nobel Prize Winner Krugman say we need another stimulus package. $600 BILLION DOLLARS. WTF!!! it's more financial madness.

Truth is the Democrats pushed for this bill hard and WERE in charge of the house and senate. On another note, Dems push for automaker bailout. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1fc10c0e-ae63-11...0077b07658.html and a bigger AIG bailout and credit card bailout all to fix a banking debacle they played a major role in. if you think the Democrats are any better on this stuff you're fooling yourself.