NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) Have either of you guys been able to take the 5k pre-tax savings account "deduction," plus the child care credit? I'm guessing they don't allow you to do that, but I haven't looked. My wife's work does that, she pays in each paycheck, and we get money back, so it is pre-tax, for $5k a year. But you cannot also get the child care credit in addition - it is one or the other. You DO get the CHILD CREDIT, as dependent, either way.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) There is almost a case for just having one parent not work to avoid those costs if you get much higher than that... For some people, that is the way to go. In my case, my wife has a PhD she worked hard to get, and has no desire to leave the workforce. Neither do I. Fortunately, we both make more money than the cost of day care would be, so we are financially better both working, than one working. Everyone's math is different. And it is way beyond math, of course. We just really like having our kid(s) be socialized in a more dynamic way, so "school" (day care) has that benefit. She has lots of fun, learns a ton, etc. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) Thanks guys. First thing I say to my wife tonight at dinner, "Changed my mind, no kids. Just another dog." Day care is but one possible path. Also, where you live, day care may be much cheaper. And one thing i forgot to add, you can take $5,000 a year of that cost as a tax deduction, which helps.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 09:10 AM) Ours will be 375/week QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) A WEEK? Where are you going to be taking him/her? That is pretty commonplace for the Chicago suburbs, for a good place. Ours is in that territory, I think it was actually $400 a week to start, and goes down with each level, until $350 for pre-school. Our daughter just turned 3 and just moved up to preschool, she'll be in there another 2.5 years before starting kindergarten at the elementary school. Now we have another due in June, so for about 2 years, our day care expenses will be about $700 a week (they do a small discount for multiple kids). That is $36,400 a year for that two years. Each kid, when they get to kindergarten, will have cost in day care tuition... $107,280. Oh my god. I hadn't done that math until just now. ho. le. s***. Thank god we moved somewhere that the public schools are excellent, so we can have a 13 year pause in paying school tuition. Then there's college. Also worth noting, you can get cheaper than this. Or, amazingly, more expensive. We picked the place we thought was best, it happened to be the 2nd highest of the four we looked at. ALL of them were pricey, and we thought it was silly to shave off the last ten or twenty bucks a week for a lesser education. Honest to God, I had not done that complete math until just now. Unbelievable.

That works, at the price. LH bench bat, defensive replacement in the OF, backup plan for Rios, De Aza, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) Well, that is interesting, because the Sox may have some sort of right to assign temporary use or sublease the Park....I can't imagine the ISFA can just lease the stadium to another tenant during the baseball season without the permission of the main tenant, the Sox.... My guess is both would profit. Of that I am sure.

QUOTE (SpainSOXfan09 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) So, would Ricketts pay a lease to Reinsdorf or the ISFA? And how would consessions be divided up? ISFA owns the stadium, so the Cubs would pay ISFA for its use, not the Sox. As for concessions, all I know is that there is some sort of deal there where the Sox get some chunk of the revenue. I have no idea how much, or if it varies based on item, etc.

If they are doing a serious rehab of Wrigley, then this is exactly the scenario that will happen. And I am fine with it, since it will probably bring some money into the Sox pockets, and also into the ISFA which ultimately benefits the Sox anyway. But 2013? They haven't even begun to get any sort of funding for such a project, I doubt it could happen that soon.

Wasn't sure where to put this, but, I LOL'd.

How could you not mention the 'stache? I am disappointed.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) No, 2 WAR/yr is league average, and market rate per WAR is roughly $4-5m. Wait, how can 2 WAR possibly be league average? Doesn't anyone see the flaw in that?

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) K State does have a brutal schedule coming up. They pretty much have to beat Kansas tonight. Funny thing is the way the Big 12 did the schedule most of the league got Missouri and Kansas back to back and a few of those that didn't had K State in between them. Not that anyone in their right mind would have thought Mizzou would have been this good, but it's funny to have back to back top 5/10 teams on your schedule. I'd be willing to bet Iowa State doesn't win at Baylor and K State seems unlikely given the Wildcats desperation. I meant the home game against Baylor. I give them about 40% to win that one, and a similar 40% at KSU.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) What I think is going to happen and what I think deserves to happen are two different things. If ISU finishes by beating just OU and Tech then they're going to have an extremely weak profile, granted I'll have to compare them to everyone else before I can say if they deserve to be in or out. That being said if we're going to compare them to a say 9-9 or 10-8 KSU team then the Cats get the advantage because of their ooc wins against LBSU and a full strength Alabama. I suppose if KSU and ISU have basically identical records, you make a good point about the OOC games. But KSU has struggled of late, so I think it will be a stretch for them to finish 10-8, or even 9-9 in the B12. QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) And for the record NSS, last 10 games and conference rpi are two things the committee has supposedly dropped from the selection process. Also, I swear it's just a coincidence that ISU happens to be the team I'm picking on this year. I'm actually rooting for them, their whole body of works just lacks quality. Oh I didn't think you were anyway. Honestly, I am just happy with what Freddy has done this season, I think he's truly improved the team and the program in a big way, regardless of what happens the rest of the way. QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) That potentially weak finish is what does it for me. It's kind of unlucky scheduling. If those last 3 games are split up the resume probably looks better, but when you're in/on the bubble like Iowa State currently appears and lose your last 3 regular season games that becomes a bit of a red flag no matter who the losses were to. If the selection committee picks today they're in. I just think they're gonna need to win one of those 3 games or make the Big 12 semis to avoid their resume taking a hit at the time of year when they can least afford that. Having those three on the schedule to end it, and 2 on the road, definitely hurts. But if there is a silver lining, it is that if they are competitive in those games, they will be pretty well tuned-up for the NCAA's if they make it. QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) I think when it's all said and done Texas will be in the tourney. They are young and getting better and Barnes can only do so much to keep that talent down. But yes, I think you have it right when you talk about how tough the Big 12 is this year due to losing colorado and nebraska. Because as we've seen, even marginal teams are really tough to beat at home. Anyhoo, my production is kstate rights the ship, and them and texas finish strong and make it. Texas has a hot hand. I personally think K-State crumbles, Texas passes them, and you get ISU and Tex in, with KSU out. For as bad as ISU's last three games are, KSU is hitting a similar lineup for their NEXT three games: vs KU, @Baylor, @ Mizzou. Then vs ISU. Texas has 4 of 6 remaining games on the road, but only two games against the big boys: vs Baylor and @ KU. They might have the easiest remaining schedule. If I had to throw out predictions, --ISU wins one of the KSU or Baylor games, and beats OU and TTU, to finish 21-10/11-7. --Texas wins two of their three road games against weaklings, beats OU at home, loses at KU but upsets Baylor, to finish 20-11/10-8. --KSU loses the next three and loses one of the ISU or A&M games, ends at 19-11/8-10. Looking at that, assuming Baylor hangs onto the three seed, ISU is 4th, Texas 5th, KSU 6th. That pits Texas against ISU after the bye round, and KSU plays Baylor. I think ISU and Texas are both in, even if they lose first round in the B12 tourney (against each other, one of them has to). KSU needs a win or two in the tourney to have a chance, so they need to upset likely-Baylor in the first round after the bye. Feel free to bookmark this post so you can point and laugh later when I am totally wrong, which happens a lot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) Why? This is TARP money. The White House basically can do whatever it wants with that money. It wouldn't be anything newly appropriated. It is a financial offset of incoming revenue. It is a new cost, in accounting terms. Also, as I said earlier, none of that matters anyway, because it makes no sense for the banks to do that. And people who want in on HAMP won't qualify if their loan is already crammed down, because they will no longer meet the HAMP requirements.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) Then all it takes is for the settlement rules, which still aren't out btw, to say that loans for the settlement could count towards HAMP, for that to happen. You're assuming that someone will write a rule in a way that will be bad for financial institutions, when they can write that same rule in a way to be less useful to homeowners and good for financial institutions. I'll hope you're right, but having the HAMP program pick up most of the cost seems like how I'd expect this kind of thing to work out. Count towards HAMP? This is a legal settlement, not a piece of legislation. If the money being settled on against the banks requires added or re-used government funding, that would take an act of Congress to make work. And that won't happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) Walker is also going to have an enormous Citizens United warchest backing him thanks to it being a nationally publicized race. And his opponent will be well-funded for the same reasons.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) The loans aren't already crammed down, if they were, then this settlement wouldn't have any applicability anyway. Secondly, the holder of the loan has to ask to participate in the settlement as well, right? Did I say somewhere that HAMP was writing down the value of the asset? If I did I apologize, that sounds stupid. The value of the asset has depreciated on its own. HAMP was paying financial institutions to write down the value of the loan to more closely match teh value of the asset. This settlement will do exactly that...financial institutions will write down the value of the loan by some amount to move it closer to the value of the asset...which is again, exactly what HAMP offers incentives for the financial institution to do. The loans would be crammed down if they become part of the settlement. Then, HAMP won't work for those loans. Alternately, if they HAMP a loan, it is no longer going to make it into the settlement. There is no scenario I can think of in which you could apply HAMP and the settlement to the same loan - they are really almost competitive, or at least additive, programs. And think about this. If you are a bank, and one of your loans is modified down by HAMP, what sense would it make to then settle that loan down even further? It is the less-risky asset at that point, that would be idiotic. Or, if a loan goes through the settlement process, then the customer won't want HAMP, so again, not happening.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) I believe he's polling ahead of any of the possible alternatives. If it was a straight-up "recall Walker" vote, he'd probably go down, but it essentially forces an early election. The fact that there is no clear opponent yet means those numbers are pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is the current feeling of people in the state against Walker. But of course it is true, this will depend on who runs against him. If the opponent turns out to be a complete disaster, then Walker gets to stay.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 01:33 PM) I think you're overthinking it. The Bank hypothetically is the lender in these cases. They have lent money to buy assets which have decreased significantly in value. The settlement involves them writing down some portion of that value, taking the losses on those loans. The HAMP program paid banks to do exactly that, offering incentives to write down some portion of the value of those loans. The HAMP program did not involve payments to the borrowers, that'd be socialism, the HAMP payments went to the lenders or people who owned the loan, not to the borrowers/people who owned the asset. Looking at it that way, it makes even elss sense. If the loans are already crammed down, then they aren't eligible for HAMP. And furthermore, the holder of the loan - not the lien - still has to ASK for HAMP. And by the way, HAMP does not write down the linked asset. It writes down the loan principal. The banks can use whatever math they'd like to value the hard assets.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) That's not the point when Iowa State has such a crap non-conference resume. Of course that is the point. Forget Iowa State for the moment (and I don't even disagree with you about the crappy OOC resume, by the way)... The B12 lost the two cellar-dwellers, making it an awfully tough conference. One of the three strongest this year certainly, maybe one of the two. I think there is zero chance the selction committee leaves 7 of the 10 out of the field. You can say it is irrelevant, but it won't be to them, and that is what matters. Also, remember, the selection committee tends to like teams getting stronger near the end. Now, that could cut both ways for ISU; if they get creamed in all their last three games, that looks bad... but their overall success has been in the latter half of the season. Or... are you saying that as of this moment, KSU or Texas make a better case? I for one think the conference games are more meaningful as a whole than the early season OOC games. And history seems to indicate the selection people do as well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 06:49 PM) Scott Walker is going to use almost all of the bank fraud settlement money not for helping homeowners in need but to fill short-term budget holes. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/1...tlement-budget/ What a piece of garbage. He'll go down in the recall election. He's the poster child for overreaching. He was swept in on a wave of anger over poor management of state budget and government... the people who have been happy with some of the things he did, like getting state unions to agree to cuts, cutting some other budget items... but then he goes and does really stupid s*** just for the sake of LOOKING conservative. Like this above. Or like turning down a BILLION dollars of federal money for a rail system that would cost them basically nothing. Or like not only getting concessions from the unions, but making it so the unions couldn't even negotiate in the future. It will be fun to watch him go down in flames. He deserves it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) At this point, all I can give you is blogs, of course, but here you go. That still doesn't make sense. First, if a bank makes a mortgage loan, they do not also hold the loan. They hold a lien. If they hold the asset and the loan, they both go away. There is no other way for it to work. If they are saying, loans that a bank bought, they are still not the owner of the loan - they are the owner of the lien, just by a relation instead of directly. If they are saying, banks who own securities with underlying loans, then they are STILL not the ones who owe money. Maybe I am missing something here? But I see no scenario under which a bank can use HAMP this way, because I see no scenario under which a bank would OWE a mortgage loan. It just doesn't make any sense.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 11:23 AM) Their overall profile would be extremely weak if they just beat OU and Tech. That being said I wouldn't put it by the committee to put them in the field just because of their conference record. QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) Exactly on both parts. Plus, 10-8 would be an issue because they'd enter the B12 tourney on a 3-game losing streak. I'm not saying Iowa State needs to win out or even close, but winning one of those three final games makes them a lock. So, do you two think the B12 - whose power numbers put them as the 2nd or 3rd strongest conference this year - is only going to send 3 teams to the Tourney? I just really, really doubt that. My guess is 5, with the obvious three, Iowa State and one of KSU or Texas. 4 would surprise me, and I think 3 is out of the question.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 11, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) Just read a report which suggested that the loan writedowns resulting from this deal would be eligible for the HAMP program, according to administration statements. If that's true, then writedowns from these settlements would be paid back largely by the federal government. I don't think so. HAMP is customer-requestor, not lien holder requested. And if the customer's loan was already written down, they don't need HAMP. So where are you getting this connection?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) PIMCO is saying this will hurt pensions a lot more than the banks: http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/pimco-...02/10/id/429048 They are upset because the value of the funds which have mortgage securities in them - which by the way are a very small piece of the net 401k pie - are going to do down. Well, they already went down because people knew about the defaults that have been piling in for, oh, 5 years now. The bigger worry for fund houses is that those funds are going to become even less popular than they already are (they have fallen off a cliff anyway, this just accelerates the dive). Again, this was all going to be the case anyway, it is just accelerating the inevitable. One thing it DOES illustrate though, is that people need to be aware what they hold in their 401k's. I suppose it is possible that some people have big chunks in privately-held debt-based funds, though after the last few years anyone who does is clearly just 100% tuned out of their investments. But even for them, this won't hurt them anymore than they already have been, or would have been.

I see people talking about ISU's chances at the tourney coming down to their last 3 conf games - have to disagree. They are currently 18-7/8-4, with this remaining schedule: Mon 2/13 @ BAY (#6) Sat 2/18 vs OKLA Wed 2/22 vs TTech Sat 2/25 @ KSU Wed 2/29 @ Mizzou (#4) Sat 3/3 vs BAY (#6) Even if they just win 2 (home against OU and Tech for example), they finish 20-11/10-8, and I have little doubt that gets them in. They'd be top 4 in the conference, over .500 in what is currently looking like the 2nd or 3rd toughest conference, 20 wins, and at least one win against a top 10 team. So barring a collapse, this team is in. Now, if they can pull off a win at KSU or an upset against Baylor, that just helps their seeding. They may also help themselves with a win in the B12 tourney. But they are on the inside right now, and will only fall out if they fail to win 2 of those remaining 6. Big 12 will likely send 5 teams, and possibly even 6 if Texas continues its climb.