mr_genius

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 08:15 PM) Letterman tears in to McCain on air. meh the "i vote for who celebrities say too!" group is already totally voting Obama

damn .5

i hate this bulls***

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 06:18 PM) I agree with SS, I just want to see some oversight on how the money is spent. I also don't want to see no bid contracts on advising. Yea there is no way that we should just hand over 700 billion to wall street. This is now a taxpayer investment and decisions need to be made by representatives of the people. As far as I'm concerned AIG and such are gone. No bailout. However the government should step in to stabilize the financial situation. Is this going to grow government? yes, but it obviously needs to be done.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) Reid calls McCain: A Democratic source says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just called John McCain, and told him on the phone that it "wouldn't be helpful" for him to return to Washington. Reid is an idiot. McCain AND Obama are going back to talk to Bush. This financial crisis will GREATLY effect the next president. Obama is certainly going to DC to go over things as well as McCain. http://www.wnbc.com/news/17551484/detail.html However, delaying the debate is another thing, McCain needs to go to the debate. He can do both.

lead off walk

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2008 -> 12:40 PM) Plants do not have a central nervous system nor a brain. They do not feel pain. but farming plants with a mechanized process kills a crap load of animals . think bunny rabbit and harvesting machine.. farm land also takes away from animals natural habitat. so if you want to really save the animals don't eat, ever. less people = better environment for non-human animals!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 05:01 PM) ahhh but none of them are running for president right now. What all 5 did was wrong. True. Thats one advantage for having very little national experience and not much of a voting record on national issues. Obama hasn't been around long enough to have been much of a factor in this mess.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) Michelle & Co. - Looks like Joe Biden, in his interview with Katie Couric, was copying off the wrong classmate’s exam again. He said (video here): “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘look, here’s what happened.’” My recollection is that the stock market crash was in 1929. Two problems here: Television did not even exist in 1929, and FDR was elected in 1932, so he wasn’t even the leader at the time of the crash. When Joe was in history class, was he cheating by looking over the class dunce’s shoulder, or does he just make this stuff up? Of course, TV celebrity Katie Couric also didn’t note that Biden’s statement was doubly incorrect. Her goal was a softball puff piece.” haha imagine if Palin said that. a complete MSM frenzy of attacks.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) ahhh the Keating Five. interesting ah yes, 4 Democrats and McCain. In which Alan Cranston (D), Dennis DeConcini (D), and Donald Riegle(D) were found to have improperly interfered with investigation of Lincoln Savings and McCain was cleared. not so sure you, a hardcore Democrat, want to get into the blame game on this one again, do you think the bailout is good? was the SL bailout a good move? did it set a bad precedent? do you want more government oversight? what exactly are you trying to say?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) I guess I am missing something in this, how did these banks know they would be bailed out? At best the knew there was a possibility of getting bailed out, but I fail to see where it was a fact they would be bailed out. There is a precedent, an example would be the S&L bailout. They know the government is going to bail them out. If they don't want government regulation, then they shouldn't be coming to the government open palmed (gimme gimme 700 billion) when they fail. I am going to ask you the same question I asked Balta. What are you getting at? Is this an argument over whether or not bailouts encourage risky business practices? Is this an argument over if the bailout is warranted? Is this an argument about what the correct course of action is? Is this an argument just for arguments sake ? I think we probably agree that these banks need more regulation, especially seeing that we are on the hook for their actions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) There's a big flaw in your argument, and it's the flaw that has caused this bailout...that we let these banks get so leveraged and so interconnected and so big that if any of them truly go down then basically it winds up being a gigantic disaster. Thanks to the bank deregulations of the late 90's, these banks were able to borrow enormous sums of money from each other, vastly more than they had assets they were able to cover in the event that their debts were called in. By doing so they were able to push up their profits enormously in the short term, but that left them over-leveraged in the event that the housing market turned, and now they simply don't have the money to cover the debts they wrote...and if they go down, they take every other one with them because they all owe a piece of themselves to each other. That's why Lehman went down right after the FNMA nationalization, that's why AIG was bought by the government right after Lehman went down. There are really only 2 options here. Either we be prepared to bail out these "Too big to fail companies" if we don't regulate them well enough, or we expand antitrust activities so that these banks and investment firms never get too big to fail, which would mean breaking up a hell of a lot of companies right now. No, the argument is not flawed. My assertion that the fact that these banks knew they could make huge risks because they would get bailed out did add to their risky lending behavior. You can ignore this fact, and that is fine with me. Now before I continue with this argument, what exactly are you getting at? What is your argument? Do you have a point? Is your point that more regulation of banks, which are insured by the US public, is the way to go? If so, we agree and this argument is pointless. If the tax payers are on the hook for these banks then we sure as hell have the right to protect our financial interests as our tax dollars are basically the banks back up financial reserves. What exactly is your solution? Better government insight when it comes to controlling our risk as it is involved with the banking industry? Sounds good to me.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 11:55 AM) In all it's wisdom, the poll on CNN.com is asking who is to blame for the financial crisis: Republicans or Democrats. the correct answer of "Republicans and Democrats" isn't even an option.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) So what you're saying is that the solution is in fact to start enacting windfall taxes on every industry we can think of? no i'm saying if a corporation makes bad decisions and goes bust they don't get to dip into taxpayers funds to get a bailout. if they want to take a risk and fail they aren't getting a massive tax payer bailout. big tax increases aren't the solution to this mess

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) They need to be destroyed and returned to the banks so that they will have to take some responsibility for the crapass loans they make. Having the governement there to bail them out is exactly why we got into this mess in the first place. Definitely, these government bailouts certaily modify the risk reward scale. Just tossing 700 billion back to a bunch of failures is only going to encourage thes types of reckless buisness models. Go for the big windfall profit, as if you fail, you will get a big bailout and start over.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 09:16 AM) A 269-all tie will get you Obama/Palin. that would be hilarious

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) $150 billion to start? The Democrats want delay this as long as possible so that they can spend the 'bail out' money if Obama wins. either way it's only adding to the national debt and srcewing us in the long run. i read a great quote from an economist recently about the bail out; "We decided to go with cancer, rather than car crash."

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 22, 2008 -> 01:38 PM) Something about this bailout always rubbed me the wrong way, but I didnt know why. Well, i guess I found what I was looking for. the more i read about this bailout the more i despise it and i have been anti-bailout from the start.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 20, 2008 -> 12:41 AM) I hate that Obama has managed to NOT put away this pair of posers already. It should really be like 65/35 at this point. EDIT: Oh wait, he's black. Therein lies the explanation. green?

Worst of each- Obama: I don't like his proposed massive spending increases. McCain: Don't like his foreign policy. US = World cop and the massive financial costs of having such a policy. Basically I think both will spend way too much, even though we are gonna be 10 trillion in debt soon.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 18, 2008 -> 04:50 PM) former stance. oh yea i forgot, he's the same as George Bush.... er wait. they both wanted immigration reform... hmm, well McCain is evil. yea lets go with that.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 19, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) I love the comment at the end by the Fox journalist. "It's an honor to look like her" haha thats great

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 19, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) Which is what? That he was an advisor. Damn the MSDNC for trying to cover for Barry ,AGAIN. Hey wait a minute.... slow down there, Keith Olbermann is a completely unbiased journalist doing his job. How dare you question him.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 19, 2008 -> 06:22 PM) The Onion Hacked Obama's E-Mail: haha Richard Cheney

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2008 -> 09:42 PM) Because they're data mining everyone's. And I'm clearly a Democrat. Anyway, in all seriousness...why is it a good thing for me to give up my privacy to the government but it's a bad thing for someone in the government to lose that same privacy? Whether they're reading my specific ones or not doesn't matter. If Governor Palin isn't breaking any laws then why is it a bad thing for her emails to be made public? The feds do much less data mining than Google, Microsoft, or Apple. If you're worried about someone reading your emails and invading your privacy online, it's highly unlikely it will be done by the feds. I don't support any organization doing such things, for the record. As far as your 'why is it bad for her private emails to go public?' question, it boils down to if you think for the sake of legality everyone's personal communications should be made public. It goes along the lines of 'if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't care' and honestly I don't agree with that type of argument.