NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) Why is it being referred to as "QEII"? Quantitave Easing, Round II.

Per CNN... So its $850B-$900B.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) I have a financial website on my computer that does not allow me to copy and paste. Will try to find a way to post. Someone's reading their BB terminal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) He has a point though...the government was set up to make it difficult to get stuff done. The issue I'd take is that the rules keep changing, to the point that it could well make the country ungovernable. Not just on bills like those...but there are flat out things that we can't solve right now. We can't get enough judges confirmed to run the judiciary. We can't get normal people in the executive branch confirmed. We can't get Nobel prize winners confirmed to the Federal Reserve, and they have to operate under emergency rules because they can't make policy otherwise. We can't learn who is paying for our elections. I do agree with one aspect here - that the 60 vote hurdle in the Senate is stupid and makes governing less effective.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) She was perhaps the greatest salesperson CEO in the past twenty or so years. She was able to sell some very savvy individuals on some pretty "interesting" ideas. I believe Jas' comment is more along the lines of being the worst player in the Hall of Fame. Hells bells, she got there, that is pretty damn sweet, and did it with multiple companies. buh?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:43 PM) BTW, here's those FOIA documents I was referring to: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm of note: That shows what I was thinking previously anyway. Things were being engineered around Bush, and he was talked into it. Bush was a terrible executive who lacked any real courage as a leader.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) I don't know, Fiorina moved up in ATT, took over Lucent, and did some interesting things at HP. I'd say in general she had a pretty successful life and accomplished a hell of a lot. Was she the best CEO ever, no, but you know what, she did what most of us will never do and did it against more odds as a women (especially in the mid 90's). When I was getting my MBA, she was one of the prime examples used of how not to run a large corporation. Seriously, she was considered a prime example.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) Fiorina made serious headway against a long-term senator in Boxer in a state where democrats have a 13% advantage in registered voters versus republican. California is as blue of a state as it gets. And well, it could be construed as a microcosym of what happens when you have an entirely blue state (I'm not going to count the governator). And Fiorina got smeared out of the election. 2 weeks ago she had a chance but Boxer hit her below the belt late. Fiorina was terrible candidate. She ran on a business-savvy platform, which is a joke because she was so incompetent as an executive.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:07 AM) What will fix this country is compromise and that can only happen when you have a nice split power system. And I fully admit when the republicans got power happy they made massive mistakes too. Now here I agree. Hell, as much as I despise both Clinton and Gingrich as people, they were both very smart and very adept at their jobs, and both understood they needed to compromise to make things better. Unfortunately, that relationship was really the last time the Prez-Congress relationship was that effective. Hell, look at Illinois. When Thompson and Edgar were Republican governors, working with Michael Madigan and a heavily democratic legislature, Illinois was actually held up as an example of a state that got things done better than most. Then under Blago and his predecessor, things went to s***. I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:57 AM) Well I had read article and heard pundits state otherwise. Am I saying Obama is spending an extra 200 million, no, but he is certainly spending more and I ask why? And the bigger the entourage the much more significant the security force required and as a result, the security costs increase significantly, which has happened. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:05 AM) Please cite travel costs and "entourage" sizes for Bush v Obama.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:01 AM) I'm not writing off the democratic party, I'm writing off the fact that in 2 more years, more change will occur and the republicans will likely grab a hold of the senate. Whether they get the white house or not as well, I have no idea. Hard to say when you aren't sure who will be running. I also expect the tea party movement to grow more in the next 2 years. Tea Party can't grow without viable candidates for national office, which they don't have. Also, its been co-opted, and I think it will look different in a couple years than it does now. And I sincerely doubt the GOP makes another jump in 2012. Possible, but unlikely. I mean, despite the fact that we are in a deep recession and the President is not well-liked, the GOP was still not able to take both houses. People realize that the GOP isn't some magic fix, any more than the Dems were in 2008.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:51 AM) Hell, I don't believe the 200M figure could possibly be true, but regardless, it sounds like it will be at a significant cost to our government and for what I ask? Do you really think the President shouldn't travel?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:44 AM) Compare it to the typical presidential travel costs. This administration in general has had far more people traveling with him. A much bigger "entourage" per say and the global costs have been excessive. And personally speaking, If it is going to cost that sort of money to visit various countries than no, I'd put a significant limit on presidential travel. We have this huge deficit and spending 200 million a day to travel to India isn't somewhere high on my list of priorities. Typical? Seriously, the main costs involved are security and supporting air force one. Even if Obama has a larger "entourage" with him, which I have seen no evidence of, the increase in cost for extra hotel rooms and meals would be tiny. Come on Jason, you have to be smarter than to think somehow the cost of security and air travel for the President has somehow materially changed with this or any other new President.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) Revolution? I don't think so. Anymore than 2008 was a revolution. Cycle, maybe. Pendulum, maybe. Revolution, hardly. Thank you. This goes for the economy too, BTW. The eeyore crowd is driving me nuts. People seem so attached to the idea that we're headed for disaster that they are willing to ignore both the data and the history saying otherwise.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:38 AM) Show me where it happened. Show me where any sort of serious discussions happened. The dem's threw a middle finger to the repubs after 2008. They had all the mandate they needed from the voters and could push through whatever they wanted. All the repubs could do is try to block the progress and sit around and do whatever they could to slow the stuff that they didn't believe in from going through. And well, they had little ability to impact or stop it and the bills pushed through are all the evidence I need to support my opinion. First, look at the bills that DID pass. The Stimulus bill was half tax breaks, which was not the Dems' intention, that was a concession to the GOP. The Health Care bill had all sorts of modifications to it to make it palatable. Clearly, concessions were made for votes. Second, its been well-reported that Obama and his cohorts have reached out to GOP leaders in Congress, and were basically told that there was no interest in compromise. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:42 AM) I should note, I'm not saying the republicans wouldn't have done it any different between 2008 and 2010 with that mandate. But what happened happened and a lot of flawed legislation was passed which a decent part of Americans don't agree with in full or have issues with. Why else do we have a 3rd party showing up and to an extent this tea party movement is more a party. Hell, there are varying degrees to what tea partiers stand for. Some consider them an extension of republicans but they also want to make it clear that they have their own thoughts and beliefs and to be frank, some could argue that some of there core beliefs go back to some of the things our country was founded upon (which was small government). The revolution happened for many reasons but by and large my personal belief is in a small government that ensures certain necessities but by and large stays out of your way. Again, all of the above is my complete and utter opinion and nothing more. Revolution? Hardly. They took the house, and couldn't take the Senate despite how bad everything is. And did you seriously say Obama is one of the worst Presidents in history? He's not even the worst President in the past decade.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:32 AM) No, it is as simple as the democrats pushed everything they could through for the past 2 years and never reached out for any sort of olive branch. Obama never had any conversations with the minority republican leaders. It was pretty much an FU given by the democrats to the republicans. They didn't want to work with the repubs and had the power to do so because America had voted them in. Well, that has changed significantly now. That is complete B.S. Obama tried that route multiple times and was rebuffed. The lack of cooperation is absolutely a two-way street, and the GOP has just as much blame for it as the Dems or Obama do.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) Ya, they've passed legislation that had major holes and it is pretty evident that America wasn't happy with what had been passed for the most part. That's more accurate. And part of that has some truth. The health care reform bill is a huge cost with some major problems, though it will also save money in some areas. The stimulus bill most certainly helped keep more people working and improved infrastructure, but it also failed to do much in the way of sustainable job growth because it was far too short-term in its approach. TARP though, was a huge success. But here is where we hit part of the issue, and that is that the American people have a wholesale lack of understanding of economics and the concept of time. Most people you talk to point to TARP and say what a huge waste it was. If they actually worked with the facts, they'd see the government did not spend $700B, in fact, they MADE MONEY on it, AND helped stave off true financial disaster. That is the "marketing" problem Obama has referred to, but really, he shouldn't have said that, because it makes things worse. He should be out there talking succinctly and directly about these things, instead of providing platitudes and a general air of superiority, both of which are killing him.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) A positive note from last night: Prop 23 failed in California. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/11/03/03...-law-13439.html Excellent.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:20 AM) I think the biggest story last night was the absolute obliteration of the Dems in the state races. The D's are a two coast party and nothing more. That's about the same as saying the GOP is a regional party of the South, which many said after 2008. Neither are true.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) passing legislation and productive are two different things. Eh, on this part, I agree with Balta. This wasn't about people not wanting their reps and senators to do nothing - if it was, they sure as heck wouldn't have voted so heavily GOP, who were (as you noted) the party of NO. It was about the economy being bad, and about the things Congress DID do, not aligning with their vision of what TO do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:14 AM) Suffice to say I disagree with pretty much all of this except for the Obama caving part? Pretty much every modern recovery has been promoted by a substantial rate cut by the Fed to the point that housing investment begins to pick up. That's not going to happen this time. Small business investment is slowly picking up, but that will be substantially hurt if the deficit is cut and the dollar begins to strengthen in response. The Fed thinks that things are going the wrong way enough that QE2 is basically ready to be announced; dumping another $500 or so billion out there. I think you're right that the Republicans wont' care much about debt...but that's because I'd expect that we'll see a $4 trillion or so tax cut package moving by January. That's the one thing that might be enough to push the other way and make large investors stop sitting on their hands. What we will see pretty quick is an end to infrastructure spending, significant cutbacks on unemployment benefits, and much more rapid deterioration of public sector employment (i.e. a lot more teachers, police, and firefighter cutbacks). Oh, and about 3 dozen investigations into the Black Panthers. Edit: This is also the end for a whole lot of clean energy companies and investment, because their tax credits will dry up and they won't be able to compete with the tax credits given to dirty energy. Every major recovery was the result of fed moves and housing build-ups? Seriously? I'd say that happened exactly once, not every time. Housing prices were pretty stable in growth rates until the 90's, when they started to get steeper, but the real big moves didn't start until 2000-2007. Small business investment isn't slowly picking up, look at the data - its picking up at a very high rate. Of course, they were down so far, they have a long way to go. But there is nothing slow about it. A $4T tax cut package? A tax cut package on par with the size of the entire US budget? How can you even say that with a straight face? Infrastructure spending will not end, you are being hyperbolic again. I am sure it will slow down from mid-Stimulus bill levels though. I could care less how many investigations they do, that's all a distraction really. The only thing you say here that may come true, probably will, is a ramping down of alt energy funding, which I agree is stupid. -- Your post, in general, reflects something I am seeing a lot of, and its disturbing. People are looking at things that happened recently, and assuming that all of history has been that way. But that simply isn't the case. An extreme example is the idiots who said after 2008 that the GOP was dead. Seriously? Have these people ever read any history books? Things fluctuate, politically and financially, its reality and its inevitable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:52 AM) The Republicans will not pass a budget that does anything other than defund the ACA entirely, and Obama will not undo his most significant legislative accomplishment and will not remove health insurance for millions of people. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is the one who caves, honestly. If you look at my list, you will see it is mostly Obama caving. And if you read between the lines of the words coming from the GOP establishment (not the Rand Paul's of the world), you will see they are all but signalling that they won't entirely block ACA funding the way you think. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:53 AM) I think we're going to yank out the government supports rapidly, and I think employment is going to follow. It won't skyrocket, but there's still no reason for anyone to invest instead of sitting on funds. There is every reason to invest right now, if you can. For those businesses and people with the money, they already are investing, because debt is so damn cheap and exports are working better in the currency view. Look at the manufacturing data, and the small business data, over recent months. Its all right there. And for those that can't, well, many of them have already failed, leaving opportunities open for the survivors. This is how pretty much every modern recovery has started. And I don't know what government supports you think are going to be yanked. The GOP is not a bunch of Sharron Angles, despite your characterization. Most of the GOP'ers in Congress are not stupid, and you are not going to get a majority in the house voting for huge, crippling cuts, in the midst of a delicate recovery. Just won't happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:33 AM) The government shuts down next summer when it can't pass basic spending bills. I see you and many others already lining up behind the disaster train, because Congress will be split. To me, this is THE test for Obama post-inauguration. He has to make the decision here, on what he wants to do. He tried to bang his head against the wall of Congress for two years with a majority. Will he do the same without that large majority? Or will he realize that the most effective Presidents find ways to work WITH Congress? Not that Congress doesn't have some of the blame here, by the way, they do. In fact, I think they are doing worse than Obama. But Clinton's approach after 1994 was the right one - even if Congress was going to act like a bunch of asses, he still needed to work with them to put his name on cooperative efforts if he wanted to be re-elected in 1996. Obama has made a lot of mistakes, but I think he's actually going to recover nicely from this, and make things happen better in the next two years than he did the first two years. Watch for modifications (but not rescinding) of the Health Care bill, some targeted stimulus-like work that is heavy with tax breaks instead of direct spending, extension of all tax cuts short term but only some later, and a continuing stream of fin reg work. Also, just my view, but I'll bet the economy starts significant improvement (faster pace than current) in 2011. And that ultimately will lead to Obama being re-elected, as long as he also accomplishes some things as noted above with Congress.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 2, 2010 -> 11:51 PM) If somebody pulled that at my job that'd be a MAJOR issue if not a fireable offense. QUOTE (The Critic @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:57 AM) Any company that allowed that to happen would be in for a hailstorm of lawsuits. Yes. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:18 AM) No one wants a paper receipt left with the voter Tex. That's obviously flawed since it allows for vote buying. The point of a paper receipt is that it removes the "Black box" counting method and gives the voter a chance to verify that his or her vote was recorded correctly. You don't take the paper receipt with you, you drop it in a box on the way out. Thus, in the event of a computer malfunction or a recount, there is a second record of votes other than just what is stored on the hard drive. Removing that material from a polling place ought to be a crime. As long as there is a paper receipt that the voter can see AND goes somehow into that "audit" box, then that is all I was looking for here.

These results are about four things, in this order: 1. The economy sucks and the Dems are in power 2. Obama's agenda doesn't jive with what the American people seem to want 3. Dem-controlled Congress was awful, unable to get many good things done 4. The Tea Party succeeded at the lowest levels (voter interest) and the money tier (non-candidates), but simply had no meat at all in the middle (actual US-level candidates that were at least marginally competent). New Tea Party darlings (Angle, O'Donnell, Miller, etc.) mostly were defeated. Of the seats the GOP took, some were taken by moderates like Kirk. Now the fun discussions can begin - what happens next?