NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) Ok, then in no longer trying to be argumentative, genuine question...when did Congress ever explicitly approve HAMP? My impression is that it was just something that the Treasury created itself under its existing TARP authority, in which case they can just change the rules however they would want. Is there explicit legislative rules here? Your post makes it sound like there are, and that contradicts my current understanding of that program. I am not aware if they did or not - my point was (and this is still true) that Congress allocated monies for a broad but specific purpose in TARP. If that money is essentially re-used or redistributed, that causes a conflict. Treasury or any other executive agency cannot simply spend money it takes in as it likes, they all have rules for that, and any spending outside those specified purposes requires Congressional action, as I understand it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) Where is the Treasury department taking any revenue in here? Where is the federal government taking in any revenue? If the settlement is structured such that there are 2 parts...payouts to the states so that the states go away, and then writedowns of private mortgages, with additional HAMP funding going to the banks to grease the wheels, there is no money taken in to the Feds that Congress needs to disperse other than previously allocated TARP funds. This is probably why they wrote the settlement that way anyway, so that there would be nothing for Congress to approve. Hm, perhaps revenue was the wrong word to use. Let's break this down. The whole argument being made in some of these articles is that the money from the settlement, or some big chunk, essentially goes away because it is already covered in HAMP.... Money to the states is gone, agreed, so that isn't an issue. Take that money out of the settlement. Nothing there being double-used. Penalty paid directly to the government is small, I think it was $50M or something, enough to cover expenses of the legal proceedings etc. This is indeed a revenue item, and it needs to be used within the confines of Treasury's mandates. So it can't be double-used either. That leaves the mortgage write-downs. Congress approved money to go towards write-downs and adjustments to existing mortgage balances. That is spending by the US government, legislatively approved. If the settlement allows for HAMP write-downs to count towards the settlement, that is in essence re-routing the money from the HAMP program to other uses. In this case, there IS the possibility, if the settlement allows for it, that the settlement obligations could be met in this way. And now that I look at it, for this portion of the settlement, I think you are right - it is possible. TARP had very broad, almost blank check-level restrictions on it. HAMP narrowed that for part of the money. But even in HAMP, this does appear to fall within those rules. So, regarding the write-down portion of this, I stand corrected. It is possible to have this happen. Though I sincerely hope it does not, as that would be truly bogus.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:15 AM) No, because HAMP was never approved by Congress. The treasury department received approval to spend $700 billion under TARP as it saw fit, with the guidelines that it was spent for these goals: "(1) protecting home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings, (2) preserving homeownership, (3) promoting jobs and economic growth, and (4) protecting the interests of taxpayers. ". Congress effectively approved the Treasury department spending TARP funds however it wanted in the housing market. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence anywhere that the Treasury Department is taking in any income through this settlement (show me where I'm wrong). The 2 parts of it i can see are payments to the states and mortgage writedowns (financed by the HAMP program as I've noted). Congress DID approve the MONEY for HAMP, and the spending within HAMP falls within the confines of what Congress set out. How can you not see that? And it doesn't matter what agency the revenue from the settlement is accounted to. It is a revenue item somewhere, and the only way any agency can spend it is if their legal charter establishes in law such spending. For example, the Department of State takes in revenue for passports, and it can obviously use that money, within certain parameters. Does Treasury have a Congressionally-approved mandate to be able to re-spend money it receives via legal settlements as it sees fit? Maybe, but I doubt it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) Did the "US" actually pass HAMP or was that TARP money (I like alphabet soup). Here is the key difference you keep dancing around... HAMP was money approved by Congress to be spent in a specific way. Regardless of whether it was part of TARP or not, Congress approved the spending. Money coming from this legal settlement is a Revenue item to the US government. The executive branch, in my view, cannot simply spend money as it comes in, without Congressional approval. Does that make it more clear?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 07:07 PM) This is a few days old now, but the recently leaked Heartland documents really do confirm the widespread agenda of deliberate lies and misinformation. When one group is completely dedicated not to science, understanding, investigation and exploration but only to their own ideology, you can't have an honest, public debate about this issue. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012...P=ILCNETTXT3487 I have no doubt there is widespread lying and manipulation among those in denial of climate change. But that still does not mean every argument against AGW is invalid. Just as I said before.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) How is that even possible when the Dept. of Justice was a major negotiating party in the creation of this settlement? If you read the entire thing I posted instead of that one line, it would make sense. The "US", as meaning a party to a suit, agreed to a settlement. But that is not the same legal authority as the "US" that passed HAMP, because of the key difference about purse strings.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) Kansas State is hitting Mizzou in the mouth. KSU wins it. Have to give credit to bmags, who I believe was the one saying KSU would turn it around. Wins AT Baylor and Mizzou? And KSU's remaining three games are vs ISU, @ A&M, and vs OSU. They should win at least 2 of those 3. Texas, meanwhile, after having the hot hand, is looking most likely to be the odd team out, if there is one. Currently a game back of KSU for 5th in the conference, sitting at 17-11/7-8, and still have to play @ KU. Saturday will be fun: Mizzou @ Kansas, ISU @ KSU.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 02:14 PM) How can there be legal challenges to a settlement agreed to by the US and 49 attorneys general? Because it wasn't agreed to by the US. But HAMP was. That is the whole point. The settlement was entered with monies going to the federal government. If that money is then re-spent, without Congressional approval and using a Congressionally approved measure, I am not sure that can really stand.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 08:01 AM) listen guys, you haven't figured it out yet - but i'm just here so that there's at least ONE thing y'all agree on. and i guess i just really need to pull back on my tendency to use nuclear hyperbole because everyone always seems to take it extremely literally. mental note to self. Perhaps you haven't really been acquainted with mr g, but he does tend to be a wee bit sarcastic.

I don't see how the settlement against the banks here can leverage the HAMP monies in that way, I don't think that is legally valid. I also think we should wait to see how the supposed clause is actually written. That said, I am glad this is being discussed, on the off chance it really is that ridiculous of a hole. And if it is that ridiculous, not only is it bad for all the obvious reasons, I'd suspect there will be court challenges as well as a lot of political vitriol well-deserved.

Shack- When you say the dealer bought it back for what you paid, does that include all the taxes and fees?

I haven't gotten to watch them, but this UNM team is intriguing to me. Looking ready to run away with the MWC over UNLV and SDSU. I've seen them have some good teams, but I can't remember any in recent memory at this level. Alford has apparently done some magic since going there. Anyone seen them yet? What makes this team tick? Weird that two of their four losses were home against NMSU and neutral court against a horrible Santa Clara team.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 05:06 PM) Ugh Optionshouse is now pushing their tax data release to March 15th, this is ridiculous. The new rules on retention of cost basis data are screwing up everyone. If a large shop like Schwab had to push out to Feb 15, a smaller shop like OH will really have a hard time with those kinds of rules changes. Any other smaller shops are likely in the same boat. That said, pushing out tax data that far is a pretty big screw-up regardless, and you'd think it would be priority #1 (after keeping trading up of course). You lose customers that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) Why do you say that their economy was going that way regardless? Much like the rest of the continent, they had a huge slump in 2008-2009, but they had basically moved back to slow growth in 2010, just like much of the continent...then they began substantial budget cuts. And just like in the US, once a country has contracted that much, it ought to be quite hard to make it start contracting again, because there shouldn't be another shock to be delivered. Furthermore, they also had their debt under control, at 65% of GDP, before 2008. Before 2008. You see, it was "under control" then, but the way the economy was built, it was too high a level for being in a good economy. If it was 65% in a bad economy, that would have been fine. Portugal is not the United States.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:51 AM) But if severe austerity measures keep knocking the economy down, debt won't get any better. Evidence that short term austerity disallows long term growth?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) Evidence that this is true in the long run? Not having crushing debt in the future?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) Invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, badgering.....whatever it was, it was wrong on many levels. Those coaches should lose their jobs. Totally agree there. Aside from the lawsuit, if I were an administrator, I would push for the removal of those coaches.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) It doesn't matter. Legally schools can do pretty much whatever they want. Regarding privacy, yes. I still think it was wrong what they did, but, legally it will be a difficult case to make. But locking her in room, and badgering her, only to get a false confession, about something not even related to school work... they are screwed on that part, I have no doubt.

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) would have expected miguel gonzalez somewhere on that list He has really struggled after his strong 2009 in Bristol. Plus he's had injuries. His hitting got better in 2011, but that was repeating A-, and he still only posted a .650 OPS. He's still young so I wouldn't say he's fully off the radar, but I doubt anyone would put him in the Sox Top 25. Maybe still in the top 50.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) Is austerity making their situation better or worse, their debts more manageable or less? Short run? Worse. Long run? Better. That is the whole purpose of these moves.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) Even if she was openly gay at school, that doesn't mean her mother knew or that she wanted her mother to know. If it's not an invasion of her privacy to lock her in a room and threaten her, what would you call it? False imprisonment? I tend to agree with shack here. This did not qualify as abuse as described, so the coaches were clearly wrong in telling the parents such a thing. And besides, locking her in and badgering her is just wrong no matter what.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) Expansionary Austerity! What is being ignored here is that Portugal's path was going that way in the short term regardless. It is not as if the ecomony there was growing, then was stopped by this action.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) This one was particularly shareable. That was awesome.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) OK, seriously, does just the sound of this frighten any of the Dem trolls in this thread who are concerned about personal liberty and such? Honestly, ask yourself if you would be OK with it if the parties were switched. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/obam...--abc-news.html I am sort of the resident centrist, but... I don't get what you are saying here. How is this related to personal liberty? Is anyone being asked to do something against their will?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) 5k per household Correct, and... QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) (Crap) ...also correct.