mr_genius

terrible umpiring

safe again!!!!!

go go go NOOOOOO

bad call

nooooo

haha

uh oh

now for the walk off against dempster

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 09:11 PM) I guess this is where I am confused, if everyone knew about it, then what did he report that was so damaging? And if everyone didn't know, where is his greater responsibility? To the individual investors and voters who elected him, or the banks which contributed (assumption) to his campaign? na what he did was perfect. he was on a committee, said nothing about horrible lending practices, then once it was too late to fix he decided to come out and be an idiot. example: Lets say i am engineering the scheme for a large parallel processing system for scientific applications. I am on a committee to design it, and I go along with everything. I even take credit when things look good. However, the design is terrible, and when it does not work I come out and tell everyone that they messed up. I'm not the team lead, so none of it's my fault. and i get to criticize and try to draw any attention away from my horrible work. the chuck schumer way. USA!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 07:41 PM) I think the answer is #2, for 2 reasons. First of all, Senator Schumer is, as far as I can tell, not in charge of the Senate Banking committee, Senator Chris Dodd is the current chairman. He is on the committee but is not chairman. Secondly, the only Democrat other than Senator Dodd who has been chairman since 1995 was Senator Sarbanes, who was chairman from 2001-2003 after Senator Jeffords flipped the Senate when it started off 50/50 and went to 50-49-1. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) was chairman from January of 2003 to January of 2007. haha he's on the committee. he should have said something or done something. i do like how you guys are defending him though.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 06:40 PM) When many of these mortgages were being doled out (1/03-1/07), I believe the answer was not in charge of the Senate banking committee. Are you saying that The Senate Banking committee is not in charge of The Senate Banking Committee? or That Schumer was not in charge of the Senate Banking committee, therefore holds no responsibility? or The correct answer to the problem was not on the Senate Baning committee?

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) 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. "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." It sure seems like you were advocating a bailout of Fannie and Freddie, as you argued the cost would be fairly low and that the poster you were countering had a laughable argument against.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) In the minority, stuck without subpoena power. I actually agree with you on this, the Republicans are more to blame than the Democrats, as they have been in control of this financial disaster for a while. But Schumer knows where to find a microphone, he didn't saying anything during the housing bubble when all these bad loans were being granted. I love how the current chair, Dodd, was basically taking bribes from these lenders, so I don't have any confidence in the Dems fixing anything. And Richard Shelby ( R)--the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs - sure let this get out of control.

Another question, where was Schumer and the Senate banking committee when this problem was developing? Asleep at the wheel, as usual. And this is the government we are going to trust with covering all these companies? greeaaat

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) I'd love for the feds to be able to say they're not going to bail the banks out, I really would. But how realistic is that if the worst estimates on bank failures (I've read maybe 150 banks over the next 18 months) turn out to be true? The government bailout won't fix anything. There will still be the same financial issues, just now they will only add to national debt. A completely out of control debt. The weak economy has a lot to do with this debt, the bailout will only intensify problems.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) Good post, but I will take it further. And actually, we wouldn't be loaning them $1T anyway. Why lend them or give them money on the 90 to 95% of mortgages that are in good standing? No reason to. The outlay would only be in the 10's or 100's of billions (which is still BIG money, but not on the scale that some of the fear-mongers in the press are trying to protray). Furthermore, you some of that outlay for the bad loans can be recouped when the collateral assets (homes) are sold, over time. The US government is not going to have to lay out a trillion dollars. Not even close. If it's not that much money they can borrow the money themselves. If these investments are actually good ones, then the market can easily right this. The US is in debt, we should not be giving out massive loans to anyone. We will be taking out loans to give loans.

What do you mean if ??? Winning the lottery is the main part of my retirement plan

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 10:30 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 09:03 AM) Wow, you're REALLY reading into this aren't you. I said "what the f***??" because it was incredibly poor judgement. It doesn't take a "Mr. Genius" to know that some less-educated folks will look at that cover and not see it as a joke... and they certainly won't open it up to read the pro-Obama content. Satirical political cartoons on the cover of the New Yorker are common, I can remember one of Hillary when she ran for the NY Senate seat. It wasn't poor judgement, it's what the New Yorker does, and I'm glad because I like the New Yorker and if they start making their magazine stupid like a Katie Couric broadcast I'm not buying it anymore. I don't remember any of this outrage over a satirical GW Bush cover (which there have been numerous).

QUOTE (mreye @ Jul 14, 2008 -> 11:31 AM) You have to go to Wrigley Field!! haha

lol now the New Yorker is part of the vast right win conspiracy. you guys are so off on this one i don't even know what to tell you all

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 14, 2008 -> 01:03 PM) If Obama were the Republican nominee and this was run, the GOP would be on every major news outlet and every talk show decrying this and saying how dare the "liberal media" libel a presidential candidate. the New Yorker cover is actually making fun of the perception of Obama. The New Yorker has been very pro-Obama, claiming that they are intentionally trying to hurt his campaign is false.

Schumer is a hack and has no business being on any board of consequence. The Dems are neck deep in this banking scandal, a lot of them have major investments in predatory lending. It's one the reasons the MSM won't do any real substantive coverage, they know that their party is involved heavily. The MSM is just pro-bailout, hoping it will go away.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Jul 13, 2008 -> 06:51 AM) I'd love for Metallica to deliver something half as good as any of their first four albums, but I really doubt they have that in them any more. Cliff Burton's influence on that band is pretty much gone, after he was gone things went downhill