NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2275483:date=Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:28 PM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) <!--quotec-->No way to tell for sure. Seems like the kind of situation that could be a lot of things. Hopefully someone can come up with a video of it. I meant a video of what happened to cause the detention.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) I wouldn't say "nothing". He clearly wants nothing to do with non-friendly media and in this case had his thugs arrest someone asking tough questions. You were fine until the bolded. That may or may not be the case here.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) Tea party candidates have had a hostile relationship with the media from day one. Sure, most of the ones who got these nominations away from the mainline party candidates are clearly unprepared for the stage they are on. But that still has nothing to do with this case.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) This speaks volumes: via About him? Probably. About this situation? It says nothing at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) The initial story basically suggested that the security guards made physical contact with him first. Fulton says he was trying to do his job when he arrested Hopfinger. “After I told him he was trespassing, he said he was a reporter,” Fulton said. “I said, ‘Sir, that doesn't matter: you've been asked to leave, this is a private event.’ At that time, I told him again he was trespassing, then he hit the guy -- he pushed the guy, well, pushed the guy, into the locker. And at that point we decided he had become violent and would effect the arrest.” I've now read 3 or 4 stories on this, with conflicting reports, but one of them actually quoted the reporters as saying he shoved the guard first, but that he didn't know they were security either. Seems like the kind of thing that will blow over, because no one will have a straight story.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) More to the story? NO WAY! No way to tell for sure. Seems like the kind of situation that could be a lot of things. Hopefully someone can come up with a video of it.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:25 PM) They are for a smaller less intrusive government. Unless you ask questions than they have you arrested. Mybe they should have blackwater guard them. Let's not jump to conclusions here. As I said, it appears the reporter made first contact with the guards in terms of physical confrontation, so this may not be what it seems.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:19 PM) I guess the rest of the reporters didn't threaten to beat him up like they did the guy trying to question Rahm. I don't remember that. But in this case, it sounds like the reporter also shoved the security guard, so there is probably more to the story than just overzealous security guards. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:21 PM) Without commenting on the appropriateness of the behavior described in your post...would you agree that privately-employed security guards should have some level of legal standard that they live up to? Security guards don't have police powers (unless they are off-duty sworn officers, then the rules get fuzzy), but states generally regulate them, as do some localities. So there already should be rules in place to govern behavior. I do not know what those rules or laws are like in Anchorage and/or Alaska (localities in Alaska are a little weird, there are no county governments).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 12:52 PM) Bill Clinton has been called the first black President. I am guessing that goes into the same category. Just as weird. I can't remember though, honestly, did he say that? Or did someone else call him that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) That's, that's a pretty good one. Even stranger from the same video: Is she part Asian?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 12:14 PM) Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) said over the weekend that he's been encouraged to consider running for mayor of Chicago. via LOL, that guy is such a disaster. That will get him nowhere. He's got zero chance.

Just to clarify something here, because of the way its being stated... Jerry Reinsdorf is not the owner of the Sox. He's AN owner, and not even the largest one at that. He's a stakeholder, who also happens to have taken on the role of spokesman for said ownership.

I totally called this like a year ago, that it would happen again this year. Happy Birthday!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) I really feel like your guys' opinion that it's just a casual series of unavoidable mistakes really misses the essence of the problem. Your argument makes sense if the case I cited above was a rarity. It really isn't; that is explicitly how the program has worked for the millions of people who have had their trial modifications denied. There are a ton of examples. If it's an accident and a mistake...it's a mistake that has lingered for a year and a half, which no one has had any reason to correct. LAT Those are s***ty things that those banks did. Of course, its also not possible to do a foreclosure in 30 days anyway. What makes you think that this is anything other than the obvious - that the bank f***ed up? The bank does not want to foreclose - its in their best financial interest to have their people keep making payments. Foreclosures cost the bank thousands of dollars to execute, not to mentionthe cost of selling it, so they don't win in this. What is the motive here that would be effective?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) Then here's my question, and this is why I refuse to believe that "they're not getting away with a fast one". If everyone is losing money on this...if the mortgage servicers, the banks, and the investors are all losing money...isn't it worth their money to build a better working system? Why do we have this system? If you're running a program at a bank/investment firm that you set up and run from the ground up, and it takes a good portion of your investment portfolio and significantly degrades it, losing your company a ton of money, shouldn't you be fired? Wouldn't your superiors step in and say "Stop losing money" if they were losing money? Either these guys are the worst businessmen in history or they're not losing money like you say they are. You are trying to make something black and white, that isn't. First, yes, obviously, the systems need improvement. Second, do you really think that any institution dealing with something as complex as mortgages and foreclosures and HAMP is going to get everything right, every time? Third, you have these banks taking on all these new programs and regulations, and it takes time to adjust to them. In the meantime, people will get hurt, I never said otherwise. Still, this particular situation is weird to me. It sounds as if, if she missed just one payment, but kept paying, she'd be at worst a month behind. That one month of mortgage payment is not enough to make financial sense of the bank to foreclose - it would cost them a lot more than that just to handle a foreclosure.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) She got foreclosed on because she missed a payment...because the mortgage modification company told her to skip a payment. From that point on, they started tacking on fee after fee until she was canceled out of the modification program and given the option of either paying the full amount with fees or losing the house. I'm not disagreeing on that point, from the taxpayer's point of view. I'm just arguing that we wouldn't have the current system if the banks didn't want it this way; their lobbyists designed the entire structure of the program. It's been a disaster for everyone except the banks. So what you have proven here, is that... 1. The HAMP program has been poorly implemented 2. There are instances where mortgage companies are f***ing it up What is the surprise there? And still, your original point that the mortgage company somehow makes out well in all this is unsupported. They will LOSE money by foreclosing on that property, they aren't getting away with a fast one. They are screwing up, and in the process, its sounds like, screwing themselves AND their customers. I'm sure that happens here and there, no doubt.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 17, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) I've been in some of the country areas and they are crapholes. But the infastruture in the cities is impressive and that is the start. India doesn't even have anything close to that. Honestly, you take the poorest crappiest place in America and it doesn't compare to the nice areas (outside of the few 5 star hotels in Mumbai) of Mumbai. I have to disagree with this. When I was in Mumbai, some parts of town (the financial district, and Nariman Point) were actually pretty nice. Looked similar to a lot of European cities in terms of infrastructure. But then, there were large swaths of the city that were truly 3rd world. I spent time in Mumbai, Delhi, Pune and Agra. The first three, which are cities with a lot of recent business growth, were studies in extremes. I remember looking from the roof of a hotel I stayed at in Pune, at two properties next to each other. One was a corporate building that was downright extravagant, complete with a marble f***ing driveway, leading to a modern glass and steel building. On the other side of the fence from that property, was an abject slum.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) Like I said it's just my impression, but I think in a whole lot of the mortgages issued 2004-2007, that broke down completely. We've heard way too many anecdotes so far. Remember that 2008 thread on the auto loan where the issuer lied about the income to get her a BMW? Car loans Mortgages Way different.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 03:33 PM) Like say, deliberately lying about a person's income because otherwise the mortgage wouldn't have been approved? I think that has happened all the time. That's what happens when you deliberately stop verifying income. In that case... if the mortgage went into foreclosure, the bank or mortgage holder could very well sue the underwriter or whomever did the background. I tend to doubt that happened regularly, and here is why. I've had mortgages and loans before, big and small, with a number of institutions. And every single time, they wanted copies of W-2's showing income.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) You're saying that like it's a flaw and an accident, rather than a deliberate end-around. Its both, or some of each.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 03:27 PM) Well, frankly right now I'm just going on intuition...but really, I don't think you could have yet gone wrong by overestimating the level of malfeasance on the part of the financial and banking industry over the past 10-ish years. If there's something they could have screwed up...they screwed it up worse. I think the thousands of illegally stamped foreclosures is probably just the tip of the iceberg here. I'd agree that the financials, the large ones particularly, are still midstream in overhauls. And yeah, you are going to find flaws in what they do all over the place. But malfeasance doesn't by itself determine the scale of the problem in this case. As I've repeatedly said, this is only an issue of the mortgages themselves are materially flawed. I'm not talking about, the notary's license has the wrong zip code, or the there is a typo in the mortgage's recovery clause, or some page didn't get initialed. It has to have a true damaging effect. Otherwise, the instrument stands. If any security or debt obligation could be nullified simply because of an immaterial typo, you could probably nullify half the financial contracts currently out there in all instrument types. That just won't happen.

Also of note here, there is a fascinating study in both the flaws and the strengths of the open markets here. The flaw is, these mortgage providers and underwriters were apparently not well policed - that will absolutely need to be addressed. The strength is, the market itself will work these losers out of the system via this path. Unfortunately, this is the more expensive path, than if things have been better policed to begin with. And one other aspect that worries me about this or any other financial regulation changes we are seeing discussed or implemented... much of it is creating a TON more work on the enforcement end, but I am not seeing signs that the enforcement agencies are getting funding to do that extra work. Creating more laws to enforce costs money, Congress often forgets this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 03:17 PM) Yay, an excuse to post this article! The scary part here is that they have zero idea of how big of a problem this could be. Securitized mortgage debt will indeed take a hit here. But the thing with MBS's is, the instruments themselves are intended to be risk-inclusive. So I don't think the instruments will be toast. What might happen is, if the mortgages within the instrument fail to any serious degree, then the holders can sue the issuers, and in turn the issuers can sue the mortgage banks, and in turn the mortgage banks can sue the underwriters. That could get ugly, if again as was discussed before, there is any significant level material flaw in the original mortgages as tendered. Another aspect here is, we again go back to swaps. A layer on top of this could be that, if the risk on these MBS's was swapped, and the swap is called, the protection seller may not be able to cover in large scale, and even if they can, they may sue their way down that same chain. This would cost everyone money in litigation, and could bury some underwriters and mortgage providers (which may be a good thing, if some of them have routinely put out bad mortgages). Fortunately, I get the impression that the level of material flaw will not likely be very high. We'll have to see.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) Brown haired guy who's not Steve Doocy quote of the day: LOL, love this comment:

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) The other side of that is how much protection should a good samaritian have before being compelled to act. The whole reason that people are scared to help is they don't want to get sued. Good Samaritan laws are aggresively protected for that reason. Acting in aid (outside of job duty), as a good samaritan, unless you do something stunningly negligent and stupid, you are protected per se from criminal prosection, and in strong spirit from civil liability. Lawsuits against good samaritans rarely succeed, unless again, the actions of the good samaritan are just amazingly and obviously stupid.