NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 06:46 PM) The fact that there is a clear gap between the police line and the protestors, the fact that there's no obvious activity near the police line , and the fact that everyone else is just milling around (and a substantial portion arent either flocking to or away from the confrontation) argues pretty strongly that they fired without warning. If the police even threatened force, a decent chunk of that crowd would have moved quick, the other would have been pushed towards the threatening line. There are also plenty of anecdotes saying the shots came from no where without warning, but those are admittedly anecdotes and I think the crowd behavior is much more conclusive. I think it's probably very likely that they decided hours beforehand that they weren't going to go through the trouble of dispersing the crowd and arresting people who refused, and the weapons were easier and quicker. You may be right, or maybe not, and frankly, where the crowd was standing just moments before they were fired on doesn't tell me much of anything. As we learn more... QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 08:25 PM) After reading up on this on a report posted by the Associated Press, sounds to me like the police/city were pressed to take the action they took. "In Oakland, officials initially supported the protests, with Mayor Jean Quan saying that sometimes "democracy is messy." But tensions reached a boiling point after a sexual assault, a severe beating and a fire were reported and paramedics were denied access to the camp, according to city officials. They also cited concerns about rats, fire hazards and public urination. Demonstrators disputed the city's claims, saying that volunteers collect garbage and recycling every six hours, that water is boiled before being used to wash dishes and that rats have long infested the park. When riot gear-clad police moved in early Tuesday, they were pelted with rocks, bottles and utensils from people in the camp's kitchen area. They emptied the camp near city hall of people, and barricaded the plaza. Protesters were taken away in plastic handcuffs, most of them arrested on suspicion of illegal lodging. Demonstrators returned later in the day to march and retake the plaza. They were met by police officers in riot gear. Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas. The scene repeated itself several times just a few blocks away in front of the plaza. Tensions would build as protesters edged ever closer to the police line and reach a breaking point with a demonstrator hurling a bottle or rock, prompting police to respond with another round of gas." After this all occurred -- on Tuesday -- the protestors planned to return to the scene on Wednesday (tonight). I have no problems with exercising their right to protest peacefully and within the law, but this doesn't sound very peaceful to me. It sounds like some of these protestors were looking for a fight, and when they got one, they cried foul. Full article: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT So according to the AP, when the police arrived they were greeted by being pelted with rocks, bottles and various utensils? Far be it for me to say this, but just because police are waring riot gear, it doesn't make it ok to react like this, and then pretend it didn't happen while playing the innocent victim card. In the end, I'm sure there will be proper investigation of any police doing more than they were supposed to do or instructed to do -- I'm sure there are endless amounts of footage on Youtube showing how evil the police were in this situation...and any officer doing anything illegal will undoubtedly be on tape doing it. Multiple references there to skirmishes and violent actions. Are the protestors right about what happened? Or the police? Probably some of both. Either way, physical violence had occurred, so I'm not overly mad about the use of CS in this case. We will never know for sure of course. I've actually been in a few crowd situations. And I've seen a successful, peaceful protest. They were all sitting down, talking and praying, in that case. We warned them multiple times they'd be arrested, they acknowledged it, some elected to leave, some stayed. Those that stayed, we restrained, and escorted out. None resisted physically, a few went limp for a bit, but that was the worst of it. They elected to protest peacefully. If Occupy wants to be more aggressive, I can actually sympathize with why they may choose to. But they then have to accept the consequences. Then there is the final element here... the larger a crowd like that gets, the higher the likelihood that even if the majority ARE peaceful, there will be one or a few people who turn it into something else. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't really believe that most of the Occupy protestors are violent people, or even want to be violent in this case... just as I don't think that most of the Tea Party people at those rallies are proud KKK members. But in both cases, it just takes a few bad apples, and those are the ones we see on TV... those are the ones who cause a protest to become a riot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 06:37 PM) You have to certify to it (the value of assets) at least once a year I believe. But the house that a loan is against is NOT an asset in the sense of other assets a financial instituion holds. There is a difference between an asset you unencumbered, one that you own but also hedge against, and finally, one that you do NOT own but have a LIEN OR RIGHT against. The last scenario is the case here, and I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that they don't have to revalue those annually. Maybe they should, but right now, I just don't think the banks are reassessing every real estate piece they have a loan against every year.

Just a friendly reminder of two important things... 1. Political discussions need to remain IN THE FILIBUSTER, period. That is what this forum is here for. Don't let that stuff bleed into other forums. 2. Whatever disagreements or issues you have with people in this forum, when you go elsewhere on the board, LEAVE THEM AT THE DOOR. This is a Sox site first and foremost, let's not further darken the alreday often-negative mood in other areas of the board by bringing personal beefs across the borders. Check your political and personal issues at the gate on the way out. WE thank you for your support.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) Here is helicopter news video of the start of the attack. The crowd stands there, milling around, people walking around, for the first :30. Then things start exploding in the middle of the crowd and everyone runs. Well, I watched the video. First thing worth noting is, they were "standing" in the middle of a large intersection. So certainly they needed to be dispersed. And apparently, the police used verbal and bullhorn warnings for quite a while beforehand. So as far as I am concerned, they all should have had the expectation they'd be arrested. But now, the question is, what police tactics do you use? It would seem like the best thing to do, at least to start with, is to have the police move in a tight group to one area of the crowd, and start cuffing people and taking them away. Ideally, you just keep doing this repeatedly until everyone is gone. If things go relatively smoothly, there is no need to do much else. My question is, was that sort of thing already tried? To me, that is the key here. If they tried that, and were met with physical resistance by a large crowd, then I am totally Ok with them backing off and firing gas cannisters into the crowd to disperse them. But if they skipped that step, and went straight from verbal warnings to gas cannisters, then I agree it was too much force escalation too quickly. Does anyone know the answer to that key question?

QUOTE (Cali @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) I was a KW backer over Ozzie for the 2011 offseason and was pumped when Ozzie quit....until this SHAM of a managerial search with KW pulling a guy who had no interest in managing a team so soon to lead the team when better options were (and still are) out there. I want him to follow Ozzie out the door. I made it a point to try and not be so negative and pessimistic before the 2011 season cause I felt like I wasn't enjoying my favorite team/sport, but man did the 2011 season just suck that out of me, and the managerial choice for 2012 just made it soooooo much worse. Nothing short of Kenny signing Pujols (read NOTHING AT ALL) will make me excited for the 2012 season and I HATE it. Where are you getting the bolded from? If he didn't want to do it, he wouldn't have taken the job.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 05:54 PM) Then none of them should have been used to disperse a peaceful crowd (sans physical restraint in the event that a person is actually arrested). If they were indeed a truly peaceful crowd, just sitting or standing there or talking and what not, then I agree, none of those are necessary or reasonable.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 05:42 PM) There are plenty of tools beside rubber bullets. I've failed to see a report that this was anything like rioting. So I suppose if it's a matter of trespassing, death isn't the most reasonable response. And death wasn't their response. You know what else occasionally kills people? Tear Gas / CS. And OC. And batons. And physical restraint. And tasers. These are all force tools that rarely kill people, but on occasion do. Now, that all said, I have not seen the videos, and I don't know if what they did was appropriate or not. Have you? Do you?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) how many deaths need to happen from these non lethal weapons from police before they stop using them on massive crowds. Unbelievable. Between bart shutting down cell phone service and this, the bay area has some f***ed up police stuff happening. 1. Do you know what the crowd was actually doing before this happened? And thereby be able to make any rational judgment as to the police response? 2. Do you understand what non-lethal means in terms of police tools? It doesn't mean zero chance of death, because frankly, ANYTHING the police do in terms of use of force, including just cuffing someone if they resist, can occasionally result in death. Non-lethal means the percentage chance of death is very low. A gun on the other hand, or a blunt force weapon if used on red zones, is lethal because the chances are much greater. 3. If the protestors were doing something illegal - breaking stuff, burning stuff, throwing stuff, whatever - what tactics would you suggest they use?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) Same hat every day. Hat was probably 15 years old at the time, my oldest Sox hat, probably got it the year they put the new uniforms on. Have not worn that hat since. Ah HA! Its YOUR FAULT they haven't gone back! You'd better put that hat on starting on opening day in 2012, mister.

Rick Perry seems to be indicating, due to his poor performances, that he may not participate in any further debates. Says his mistake was being in them at all. One school of thought is that this will help him stay away from an area of weakness. Problem is, he already showed he's weak, and now if he does elect to not go to any more, I don't think that helps the image. If he had chosen not to from the beginning, that would be different. Besides, if he were to win the nomination, he'd have to do some debates with Obama anyway. Thoughts?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) That's because Jake Peavy is a myth. We've got some less than league average dude who talks a big game, not the former NL Cy Young Award winner. Yeah that's it. He didn't suffer a massive injury or anything.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) On a similar note, anyone else been to the new Direct Loan servicing page? They completely f***ed it up. I used to have all my prior e-correspondence, payout schedules and summaries of my loans (letting me know, ya know, when I'm expected to finish paying these things) and now all that s***'s gone. It's the most basic "here are your loans and how much you owe" web page. I can't believe it. I essentially have zero paperwork now for what I owe and what I owe in the future. If you know your term, your current balance, your most recent payment principal/interest and your rate, you can use an online calculator to show you the payoff curve.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) A lot of people preach about re-financing, and in some respects it CAN be a good idea. But what I've observed, most people do it wrong or do it for the wrong reasons. First and foremost, unless your interest rate is dropping by MORE than 1 full percentage point, don't bother. Example: you are going from 5.25% to 4.15%. If it's less than that, it's really not worth doing. Now, add in the fact that you have to have your home re-assessed (this is a few hundred $), you will have to usually pay 1% of the loan amount up front (probably 1000$ more), and then closing costs, which they sometimes hide by rolling them into the loan (but you're still paying them). All told, you'll probably end up spending close to 2000-2500$ out of pocket to re-fi in addition to all the time you'll spend doing it, which is never fun. Also, if you only had 25 years left on your loan you have 30 again albeit at lower monthly payments. Something important to keep in mind about this is it's all based on a bet. Do you really believe the dollar is collapsing or moving toward hyper inflation? If so, is the re-fi really worth it long term? Additionally, why try to pay off your loan early? Reason I ask this is because you're paying to do this with 2011 dollars...which they love. If those things happen, you'll probably notice that in 10 years, you'd be paying them off with money that's worth far less, and much easier to get. If those things don't happen, and the dollars value skyrockets, and money becomes increasingly hard to get, well -- you still didn't lose anything. Always keep in mind that when they tout re-financing, they'll show you a "total dollar savings" in one up-front lump sum, which is disingenuous because the money is actually spread out over a 30 year curve. Will it save you money over time? Yes...but at what up front cost versus what will those dollars end up being worth in 10 years, or even 20? The problem with "home equity" is it's dead money. Why? Huh? Think about it...if you want that money back, YOU HAVE TO BORROW IT FROM YOURSELF. Ever hear of or take out a "home equity loan", which is the biggest fool loan in the history of the world? Funny thing, they're loaning you YOUR OWN MONEY and you're paying them to do it. The only time you need to care about home equity is when you're SELLING. Otherwise, don't worry about where you loan stands so long as you have a good interest rate and the stability to make the payments. Whatever the case may be, so long as you planned on living there for the foreseeable future, in 10-15 years, odds are the housing market will have stabilized and at the very least, you won't sell into a market where you'd take a loss. These are all really good points. I just want to add one more... as Y2HH said, there is a significant upfront cost to refinancing. So one thing you want to watch out for is, what is your time scale? If you plan to sell your place in a year or two, then even that 1% change is likely not worth it, because the upfront points and fees will wipe out your savings over such a short timeline.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 08:21 AM) Any thread with Greg, Marty or Victory (sometimes elrockin) in it. Well, Victory seems to have left the board some time ago. Greg and marty, yeah, they do have a way of unifying the rest of the board.

Is there a thread on this board where you two AREN'T arguing?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 07:57 AM) Considering that 1470 people with incomes over $1 million paid $0 in federal taxes in FY 2009, and that the average tax rate drops as incomes increase over $1 million, yes, what they're paying right now isn't nearly enough. Which is one of the reasons why a simpler tax code is a good thing. And as SS pointed out, simpler doesn't have to mean completely flat. It could simply mean removing most or all special deductions and credits, keep the income tax brackets, and lower all the rates a bit. I kind of like the idea of limiting Congress to a specific maximum number of credits and deductions. Make the law so that the income brackets and rates can be changed, but that the tax code can only have a MAXIMUM of, say, 5 possible credits and/or deductions on personal taxes (and 5 on businesses). It allows for some flexibility, but keeps things from getting out of control again. And it forces Congress to prioritize. So you might go with, say... PERSONAL 1. Mortgage interest - deduction 2. School tuition, room and board - deduction 3. Property taxes paid - deduction 4. Charitable contributions - deduction 5. Purchase of solar/wind/other alt energy equipment - % credit of total amount spent BUSINESS (keep in mind that this tax on income, not revenue like it is for personal, so employee and facility costs are already deducted) 1. Fully US-based project R&D spending - deduction 2. Purchase of solar/wind/other alt energy equipment - % credit of total amount spent 3. Charitable contributions - deduction 4. Net increase of US employees - credit per increased net head count 5. Purchase of real estate - deduction Just saying, something like this, with a progressive tax bracket like we already have, could make for a tax code that would be just a few pages long. And would also make it so that any individual could file their own return quite easily. Also, related topic... I'd be in favor of lowering the tax % on cap gains and dividends, in exchange for not being able to deduct losses from investments (on net - so if you lose net money total on the year, you get no tax, but also no deduction). See if you can guess why I think that's a good idea.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 07:02 AM) Perry is making Bush look like an eloquent intellectual. Perry also has dropped to fifth in the last poll I saw, pulling 6% support now, just barely better than the candidate who flashed in the pan right before him (Bachmann). He's behind Romney, Cain, Gingrich and Paul.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 07:49 AM) Has there been any point in the last 5+ years where "Not enough roster spots" has caused us to make a move we really regretted? There was a roster spot for Randy Williams for crying out loud. And as noted earlier, after those folks become FA's, the 40 man roster is at 31 or 32. Even if you protect 4 of those 5 minor leaguers, you still have 4 or 5 spots open on the 40-man roster BEFORE trading anyone. Shouldn't be a problem to put Danks on there, and they can drop him later if need be.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:07 PM) It would require them to take the loss on the original loan. Yes, and then attempt to gain relief via seizure of the linked asset - the home. But as I said, I really don't think SOX required what you are suggesting for mortgages. Though it might be a good idea to do things that way, as it might give a better indication of the actual capital health of the banks.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 07:13 PM) Something = learned Now wait, I am not 100% sure it works that way. Doing that would require the banks to re-value homes regularly, and they don't do that. Furthermore, the bank does not own the asset - they have a lien against it. As I understand it - and I admit this is more from the investment side of the world, not retail loans - loans are assessed by risk level and assigned a projected % of loss. The bank then has to maintain assets to protect against that level of anticipated loss, plus some degree of margin as specified by banking regulations. They got in trouble before by building the math based on the assumption that home values were always at least what they were at the time of loan origination. When that ceased being true, it all fell apart (this is the mortgage aspect of the fall-apart). Now, one way to address that COULD be to force revaluation of homes and look at LTV ratios in assessing capital requirements... but I didn't think that was actually being done, at least not yet.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) I was thinking the same thing, and wrt to ss2k5's post as well. SS2K5 has been pretty consistent in saying that in this economy, tax cuts are a mistake, as are tax increases, until the economy begins to recover a bit.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) Is Epstein really going to hire Sandberg? Doesn't seem to be his type of manager, I would easily see him hiring Martinez. Theo supposedly was looking at hiring Sandberg to manage Pawtucket before the Phillies grabbed him.

This topic reminds me, here is something really unlikely... what would happen if everyone in a city (or even just a neighborhood) flushed their toilets simultaneously?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) I've been aware of that for a long time, but I've always wondered who was the biggest shareholder. I can't say for sure now, but at one time I think it was Einhorn.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) I'm in a similar situation. I can make my payment, but I'd like to get a better rate and lower my payment. Can't refinance without an appraisal, though. And my house won't meet the current regulations. What doesn't make sense to me is that I know that Chase didn't sell my loan, yet they won't refinance me because the house is underwater. If I owe them $300K, and I'm current on my payment, and I'm not looking for relief from the principle owed, why won't they refinance my loan? I'm willing to pay the full amount, I just want to get the lower interest/payment. The really bad thing is that the banks were committing fraud when they loaned money to people in 2007-08 before the meltdown. They knew that there were thousands of houses that were going to be foreclosed, and these foreclosures would drive down housing prices, yet they still accepted the appraisal values on new houses. So, if my house was bought for $350K, but the foreclosures were going to make it worth $280K 9 seconds after I closed on it, they shouldn't have loaned the money. They were greedy, yet we bailed them out. And what has happened now, is, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Whereas before, someone with marginal or worse credit could buy an expensive home with 5% or even less (or zero) down. Now, you have to have sterling credit, massive income and 20% down to get a loan at any decent rate (if at all). Reality should be somewhere in between. QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) My point wasn't that it was a one-for one credit. What I meant was more that at 4% I am in no hurry to pay it down. My payment has dropped almost 20% over the last 5 years due to the interest rate dropping. If rates get to the point that you can actually get a return on you money then I will take the extra amount that I put into my house via excess payments and get a return over 4%. The tax deductability is a bonus. Well yes, at 4%, it is only marginally over inflation (and will likely be less than inflation when the recovery does finally kick in). So definitely you did a good thing there. We got lucky, bought late last year during a rate dip, and got 4.125% fixed for 30. Also got a foreclosure home, so the price was right.