NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) It is about taxes, to a large extent, and in a few different ways. Americans have a negative savings rate, which means every dime they take in, goes out the door and then some. This money comes back to the government time and time again in the form of taxes on all sorts of stuff. Whether it is income taxes through jobs created (or lack of revenue because of jobs lost), or sales taxes, income taxes as people make money on home speculation, inheritance taxes as people die rich because of the spiked value of their home, or anything else... the affect on taxes is there. If people are proping up the American economy through home spending to that extent, the economists would not be adding to revenue expectations right now, because even with the slowdown already underway, there would be an effect (ie loss of revenues, not gains) felt now, and even if you want to assume a lag effect, they would reducing revenue expectation, and not expanding them. I do not know what these projections are - I assumed you were referring to revenues from tax receipts, which is not a good economic gauge. If you are saying that overall GDP is going to go up in the next few years, I'd be surprised. That increase in tax revenue could be caused by any number of things, including increase in inheritance taxes due to the baby boomers. My point was and still is, and no one has countered this... the housing boom coming to an end will materially result in a large drop in the amount of cash being put back into the economy that was occurring due to said boom. That will have a significant effect on the economy.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:07 PM) #2 wasn't claiming to be an indication of economic conditions. Supposedly all of the record revenues coming in are because of the housing boom, which isn't happening anymore, yet revenues are still even exceeding these record expectations. Also I realize that taxes are a lag of up to a fiscal year... if this is the case, why are they still raising expectations for tax revenues in the future, if the still pending impact of the housing market is totally yet to be felt. If we were looking at this impact on the deficit (which is what we were talking about in the first place) we would need to look at total deficit and tax revenues, which is exactly what I did. #1. Housing starts are down. There is less construction going on right now. We don't even have to look at a lag, because the numbers tell us it is happening right now. #2. Exsisting home sales are down. Prices are flat at best in most areas, and falling in areas which experienced the biggest booms for the most part. Houses are also taking longer to sell. There is no longer a lag here either. Homes that don't sell, don't realize revenues, which don't generate new sales, which don't generate home improvements etc... It is happening right now... or I guess not happening as the case may be. #3. The situation you are speaking of here is for just new home sales, and only those within preestablished subdivisions. This is a niche market, as the vast majority of home sales are exsisting homes, not brand new construction. Something like this isn't going to serve to artificially hold up home prices to much of an extent. Invest in tulip bulbs lately? You are still not addressing the financial lag that I was referring to (and I think Balta was as well). It isn't about taxes. The lag is in the fact that if people took out cash or lowered their payments, then the positive net cash going into the economy from those people is spread out over a few years. As the money fades and cannot be replaced like salaries can, then the economy begins to fizzle. Further added to that is the 2 to 5 year window for people falling out of ARM mortgages and selling their homes on the quick, as mentioned before. Those lag factors are just now starting to become relevant, and will increase in their effect in the coming 5 to 10 years. By the way, this timing will be coincidental with the baby boomers selling their family homes at a higher rate, as they enter retirement. Not a great combination for the housing market.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) Sex ed isn't split out, it's part of health, which also covers the nutrition you mentioned earler. There is a one semester required adult living class, but it doesn't go into much length but does talk about personal finances, but not to the depth of explaining the various types of mortgages. How much time would you spend teaching kids about mortages? One hour? A week? What is being proposed here is that every graduating high school student should know how to buy a house. They should be versed in the various ways to finance a house. SHould it go so far as to teach them how to evaluate market conditions and comparable values, etc.? Again, if the text book talked about the advantages of ARMs, would you agree that teaching this stuff is a good idea in the schools? And which teacher would you hire to teach a personal finance course? The Math teacher? Social Studies? Football coach? This is part of preparing your child to live on their own and parents have to be parents at some point. IMHO, this is one of the best way for kids to learn personal management. You are again lumping things together that I wouldn't lump together. You asked what I would change... I told you... and you respond telling me it doesn't work that way. Yes, I know that. I am telling you what I would like to see happen. You don't need a course on ARM or buying a home. You need a course on basic personal finance, with sections including buying and selling (and owning) a home, basic checkbook type stuff, time value of money, what interest rates mean, basic investing, etc. Give them the basics, and they will then have the vocabulary and general financial understanding when it comes time to deal with more complicated financial issues. This won't be a magic bullet, but it is a far sight better than not trying at all. Money is one of the most important aspects to life in this country - and the schools teach ZERO about it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) Two things. #1, interest rates were low because a government program, the federal reserve bank, lowered them. #2 If housing is such a huge key to the economy, how can we have a quickly falling budget deficit which has been factored downwards at least twice now in the last year? Also if this is such a huge force, how are tax receipts growing so quickly, while the housing markets is seeing declines like it hasn't seen in a long time? True on the interest rate. I should have been more specific. It wasn't changes in the tax structure as touted by some that made the difference. That is what I was referring to. The housing market "correction" just got underway this year. We won't see the major economic effects for a few more years. People already took out the money and re-financed. But in 2, 3 or 5 years, when its time to sell or risk going too high on their rates, we'll see a big sell-off. And when people then find that they are upside-down or close to it in their homes, that will cause some panic and further selling. Plus, starting now, all the economic power of building new homes will slow (developers will slow their projects to match demand at some point). So it will all happen - but its just starting.

As a follow-up, the military seems to now be waking up to that reality: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/...ll=chi-news-hed Troop levels to be maintained through 2010. Now if they can increase them a bit, I'd be happy.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) Beyond just the housing value drops, something like 12% of the U.S. economy in recent years was fueled through the housing industry; construction of new homes, upgrades of them funded through low-interest rate home equity loans, and so on. As the manufacturing sector has died and the service sector has avoided raising pay rates, a very large portion of the growth in wages and jobs has come thanks to the housing boom. Cut that off, and it hurts the economy even more. Now that is a good point, which we have discussed before. Much of the quick recovery from the 2001-2002 recession was NOT from any government program, contrary to what some want to believe. It was people taking advantage of really low interest rates to take out equity or re-fi their mortgages or get into bigger, more expensive homes. That particular ingredient will not be such a dominant force in the coming decade. QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 11:59 AM) Then what are schools currently teaching that you would take out to fit this in? You wouldn't mind in this example of teaching kids that ARMs are a great way to buy their first home? That getting a VISA as soon as possible is a great way to build a credit history? Once you put it in the schools anything happens. As I said in the post... sex ed, for example, doesn't need the attention in public schools that it gets, in my opinion. I don't think it buys the students much. Just my opinion. As for other areas, I'd have to see a curriculum sample before giving you more ideas.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) I have two kids in High School. If you look at their course load, there is no time for classes like this. The parents have to be parents at some point. Sorry kid if your parents suck, but guess what, the teacher you get may suck also. Some parents can't teach ethics, so the school should. Some parents can't reach consumerism, so the schools should. Some parents can't teach nutrition and fitness, so the schools should. Some parents don't talk to their children about drugs, so the schools should. Some parents don't talk to their children about sex, so the schools should. I have to disagree. Who is raising these children? The schools are not a replacement for parenting. TV is not a replacement for parenting. Parents have to be parents. And imagine this. Kids, today we will talk about ARMs. ARMs are a great way to buy your first home. They allow you to buy the home that will accomodate your growing family, while preserving you cash to pay back the student loans and VISA debt you will rack up in college . . . You are lumping in personal and family issues (ethics, drugs, sex) with issues that can be educated (finance, consumerism, nutrition and fitness). The latter category belongs in the schools. The former does not.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) I actually think this could be the "Big Story" of 2007. There are going to be a lot of people in really really bad shape. The blame falls heavily on the banks and mortgage companies who write these rediculous mortgages. Something is wrong when a Bum can afford a 250,000 condo. As for that lou dobbs comment, I always thought he was a conservative... I am wrong? I'd disagree on the blame. There is nothing illegal or, in my opinion, outright wrong with ARMs and other high-risk debt instruments. They are safe in the RIGHT HANDS, for the right reasons. Therefore, I feel most of the responsibility sits with the individual borrowers. Which is why I suggested better educating the borrowing public. And as Jas pointed out... many parents won't know enough to teach their kids. Better to do it in the schools.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 09:51 AM) This wwould be 4 minutes later than usual....im sure espn can pump up their on air crap for a few more minutes. Last I checked, 11 (7:11) minus 5 (7:05) was 6. But I agree with your sentiment - ESPN could care less. Or, MLB can simply tell the Sox to move it up to 7:05 those specific games. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) That's right, its not a big difference, and since they were torn between 7 and 7:30 start times, it sort of splits the difference and puts a few more dollars into the budget. Its not a bad thing. I wonder if Slurpees will be served at the park. Oh yeah, I forgot about those damn Friday 7:35 starts - I'll be happy to see those go the way of the dodo.

I couldn't find a more recent Iraq thread, so... Update: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061011/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc_2 Total deaths in Iraq pegged at 655,000 since the start of the war. That is 2.3% of the country's entire population. I realize that some of those deaths were probably deserved. Many, however, were not. Let's not forget that it isn't just American soldiers and Islamic extremists/terrorists/insurgents dying over there. And before you say it Nuke... yeah, that is the toll of war. Innocent lives. But that is exactly my point. Was Saddam worth this? Did Saddam kill even a small fraction of that number? And is BushCo's real mission, to set up an anchorhead (military, political and economic) in the Middle East, really worth this much death? Will the American public think so in 5 years, when Iraq still isn't stable? Because rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq is at least a 10 year effort. I hope everyone realizes that, and realizes the continuing cost in lives and money and political capital that we face. Its a shame we were dragged into this nightmare - and sadly, we still need to see it through. We cannot leave now.

QUOTE(mreye @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 08:40 AM) I must have misunderstood something when I read "GOP Only - Sink or swim together" Hmmmmmm???? I've pointed it out before... give me one of those online tests that covers a large number of political issues, and believe it or not, I'll side with the GOP (not BushCo, but GOP tenets) almost as often as the Dems. When we did the Prez candidate profiler in here a while back, I was one of only a few whose list wasn't all Dems over GOP or the opposite. Just because I have a lot to complain about, that doesn't automatically make me a Democrat. I'd probably be complaining just as loudly with Dems in office.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) ANyone know of any good places to look for forclosures? I would have to go see if its still true, but, at one time, you could trade futures and options on bankruptcy and foreclosure rates at the CME. SS2K5, are those contracts still out there? Any open interest?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) I've said it before, probably not here, it's the parents job to teach their children to function as adults. We are shifting parenting responsibilities to the schools. Parents should teach their kids about family finances, how to balance a checkbook, how to purchase items, how to finance stuff, how to unclog a drain, lease an apartment, patch a hole in a wall, grocery shop, plan meals, ec. Except they don't. And actually, I don't agree anyway. I learned that stuff from my parents because I needed to know. Great - I was fortunate. But secondary education is supposed to prepare kids for adult life. To me, finance is just as important as math or English or history. It should be included. I am NOT saying we need to teach home maintenance or meal plans.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) housing prices were way too high before. the market needs a correction 1. Its already correcting. Dropping prices in the absurdly overpriced markets in Cali and Florida and other spots. Prices leveling nationwide. That's about what it needed. 2. People going into foreclosures, or more often, just needing to sell and get out of their homes and downsize, will in itself help correct the prices. The immediate effect is broad deviations in sales prices. Then the market re-centers, lower than previously or level to it. So, the people who were short-sighted enough to get into a 2% mortgage 5 yr ARM that loosens to prime +8% or someting absurd, will sell before reaching that point and help the market correction.

I've said this in here before... our current curriculum in high schools (private AND public) around the country has a big hole in the middle of it - HOW TO FUNCTION AS AN ADULT. And I don't mean socially, or in the workplace - I mean day to day things like basic finance, basic practical nutrition, etc. High school students should be required to take a course in basic personal finance. Do that, and you give them all the tools to spend and save defensively.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 6, 2006 -> 04:58 PM) My favorite jazz is actually the original New Orleans style jazz which I know makes me a bit wierd. Not the corny dixieland send up version, but the real thing ala' Armstrong and the Hot Five/Hot Seven, King Oliver, carrying through later to Sidney Bechet, Albert Nicholas, etc. I can go to the French Quarter and be completely happy taking in 3 or 4 sets at Preservation Hall, even though you can't get a drink (But, hey, that's why Pat O'Briens is two doors down!) After that would come the WWII/post WWII era stuff, up through the bebop era. Art Blakely is a favorite from that broad era. Listening to Lionel Hampton's mastery of the vibes still leaves me in absolute awe of how good he was. I went throgh a fusion kick in my late teens, with Mahavishnu/McGlaughlin/Cobham, Wes Montgomerey, Lean-Luc Ponty, George Duke, earlier George Benson stuff, etc., being among my favorites. I grew very tired of the elevator muzac style drek being passed off as "smooth jazz" ad I think that helped me get out of the fusion kick. Then again, some of my favorite Zappa albums are pretty much fusion - One Size Fits All and stuff from around that time when George Duke, Chester Thompson, Ruth Underwood, etc., were in the lineup. I think Lonnie Smith is to the Hammond B3 what Hampton was to vibes, and I dig the heck out of that stuff but I don't know that it qualifies as fusion. Great stuff. While New Orleans sound is good to me, my top choice is brassy big band stuff. Not necessarily your classic dance band routines... slightly more modern, but still jazz with that "wall of sound". Artie Shaw Orchestra, some Basie stuff (though that is older), but even better is Stan Kenton's 50's stuff. Or, go a different Big Band route towards be-bop and big bop, like Maynard Ferguson's stuff (though Maynard's chops have been shot for some time, his bands are hot). I also loves me some Dirty Dozen, Tower of Power and Lester Bowie. If you like fusion, you'd probably like those guys.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 02:51 PM) I don't think anyone, even strong supporters of the "Paygo" rule, would argue that having the government totally unable to issue debt is a good thing. The key point though is the current fiscal mess we've gotten ourselves in, which makes instituting that rule, at least on a temporary basis, a good idea. We're deeply in the red right now, but we're not deeply in the red at a time of national crisis. The economy is strong, and has supposedly been strong for years. Yet we're still printing money like it's going out of style at the federal level in order to finance such emergency measures as the Medicare Insurance Company Bailout act and so on. In other words, we're spending a ton of money on credit cards basically because we can. Given the fact that there can only be so far any nation can push its creditors, and the large bills coming in the future to provide health care for the retired baby-boomers, something needs to be done to get this deficit spending under control now. Presumably, in the event of a national crisis of some sort, that legislation could be overturned. I personally believe that a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget would be a good thing. It would allow for 2 exceptions: formal declaration of war (and then, only war spending could go over), and second, a super-majority of Congress (2/3 both houses) for fiscal emergency combined with a required budgetary plan for return to even money (which would become policy on enactment, and need to be overriden by that same supermajority to overturn).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) So, one of the lesser known methods Wal-Mart has used to maximize its profits is to take advantage of the fact that most people don't actually know how much a lot of products cost. The classic example is given in this story from 2005...a simple pocket comb can be purchased by most people for about a quarter if you go to a barber (the barber in this example gets them for $.08 a piece). But at Wal-Mart, a cheaper comb goes for $.99. People don't know well how much they should actually spend on such a product, so they buy it from Wal-Mart anyway. Wal-Mart gets around this by identifying roughly 1-2% of their products that people actually do know the price of. These goods are then always placed at the lowest prices, advertised, and given key spaces within the stores. So, people see the goods whose prices they know at lower prices at Walmart, and simply assume all goods are well priced there. It is for this reason that Wal-Mart's slogan had to change from "Always the lowest price" to "Always Low Prices" several years ago. I spell this out of course in the Wal-mart prescription drugs post...because...guess what...they're doing exactly the same thing with prescription drugs. Creating a level price for about 100 drugs, some of which should be less expensive than the $4 talked about here, repeating the same drug on their list several times, and so on. I guess I don't see why that is a bad thing. Still looks to me like the overall model here helps Walmart AND helps the consumer (or is at least consumer-neutral in the net).

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 8, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) It was red, but there are more democrats. I figured it was previously red but, with the population dynamics changing as we discussed a few weeks back, was turning blue. Either way, it represents a party turnover in Congress for Iowa 1.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 8, 2006 -> 06:35 PM) I know a lot about 'honor killings'. I've helped out with organizations to cut down on those types of activities. Then again, I've seen a few "good, Christian conservative" dads go apes*** and beat the Hell out of their daughters because they became 'unpure' before marriage in the news. Every religion has it to a degree. Again, it isn't about Islam. It is about fundamentalism. Take a look at the threats that came out because of the TV show, "The Book of Daniel". It is all about small sects of fundamentalist belief in any religion. Buddy Christ and Dashboard Muhammad powers activate! I wouldn't even say its fundamentalism. If someone is a strict, fundamental Buddhist, they probably aren't out there trying to kill anyone. Its EXTREMISM, and even more directly, its not religion at all - its people using their religion as an excuse or shield for their selfishly motivated actions. If I decide I hate Bob, and I behead Bob, then I am a murderer. if I behead Bob and can convince people its what some version of God told me to do... and if I can convince others to believe it too... then its religion. If we don't seperate these acts from religion, we will never, ever end the war with the Middle East.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 09:18 AM) That whole conspiracy about republicians somehow exerting their control over speculation trades and forcing gas/oil prices to plummet is pretty much ready to be flushed down the toilet with the rest of the crap. It turns out there is a conspiracy to control prices, but it is OPEC, conspiring to keep them high. It wasn't too long ago that they wanted to keep oil in the $22-28 per barrel range, now they are pissed prices went under $60 a barrel, and are cutting output because of that. Don't forget to send a thank you card to your local emir. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/49296ee0-56f6-11db...00779e2340.html I wouldn't even call OPEC's actions a conspiracy. They are by definition a cartel. They don't have to conspire - they just act as a group when it benefits them.

QUOTE(3 BeWareTheNewSox 5 @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) A senior U.S. official said China was given a 20-minute warning ahead of the test and in turn told the United States, Japan and South Korea about getting the advance notice. so no, most likely not a coincidence That, to me, is actually an encouraging sign in itself. The fact that China both has the means, and the desire, to inform the US, Japan and South Korea of such a thing inside a 20 minute window.

When I was living down in Tennessee a few years back, The Christian Brothers (who run a high school in Memphis) forbade the students to see or read the HP books or the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit books. They said it promoted witchcraft. I love how these books and movies, which shine through all the garbage and violence out there today in showing children (or their analogs) doing good for the world, are evil. But its OK to play "Doom" on your playstation and kill a bunch of people.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 05:00 AM) He never said he wasn't running for the VP nod. He's also a great fundraiser. And, he didn't say he'd NEVER run - just not for Prez, this time around.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Oct 6, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) I have a friend who's uncle is Braley but anyways, Braley's going to win. That district is primarily democrat anyways plus he just seems better imo and I'm a republican. But the district was Red before, not blue - republican rep, right?