NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 09:54 AM) I also think something needs to be done to prevent private companies from becoming "too big to fail" again, otherwise we're stuck in the same mess of needing to bailout companies who paid executives more money than they can spend in a lifetime to run the economy into the ground. Or we throw out the idea of "too big to fail" and watch what happens when AIG, Lehman, GM, Chrysler, BoA, Citi, etc. all fail within a few months. I am on board with that in general, but there is a real problem with that in the banking and investment sector, specifically. People WANT their banks and their investors to be stable and solid, and to many people, that means big. There is a mismatch there between what people want from THEIR bank, and what they want BANKS to be. And I am not sure how to reconcile them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 09:49 AM) Putting a band aid on a gashwound does nothing. The perception that executive compensation is the problem is garbage. It just isn't true. Especially when your labor costs are billions over other competitors. It is akin to the idiotic idea that disclosing compensation would somehow stop its growth. At the end of the day, all it means is that people who have no idea how to run a bank and auto companies, are going to end up running them. That is just genius. http://www.thebigmoney.com/features/todays...ing-fat-cat-pay Executive compensation being what it is is a definite problem, for all the reasons I mentioned. The quote you put here agrees, by the way. You seem to think there is some nice, fat trauma bandage that will fix everything at these companies that were bailed out. That would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, its not reality, pretty much for any business. There is a LOT wrong there, and paying executives huge money regardless of success or failure is one of those problems. If you can't see that, then I can't help you, and this discussion goes nowhere.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 09:41 AM) Even if we say tens of millions of dollars (a few dozen jobs worth, maybe) doesn't impact the bottom line that much, it impacts the executive decisions. What motivation did the "best and brightest" have to do anything but run up artificial or short-term gains for personal profit at the expense of long-term sustainability? They were going to walk away set for life regardless, and the more risk they took on and the better the profit looked that year, they better off they were. Exactly. I think its bizarre that I am getting hit from people on the right for saying these execs at companies still being bailed out deserve what they are getting, but then getting hit from people on the left when I say the gov't should leave the ones at companies NOT on the government dole alone. To me, that is 100% the key point here - if you want to go be a private company, then feel free to cut into your company's profits and give yourself a less than engaged workforce by paying your executives gobs and gobs of money even if they fail. But the minute I own you - as we all do right now if you were so inept that the taxpayers had to bail you out - then you have to live by my rules. And my rules say, you ain't getting paid big bonuses while you are using my money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 08:09 AM) The idea that somehow the compensation packages of executives have pretty much any financial impact on the bottom line of these companies is a joke. GM as a company had revenue of $150 billion in 2008. Even if you want to use the extreme number of $100million, you are still talking about less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the bottom line. The irony is that you can make a much, much better argument for the impact of the union negotiated wages having a much larger impact on the bottom lines of GM, and where is the outcry to limit their compensation, or to have the government take them over? Like I said, the perception is garbage. This is just not at all correct. First, for any company, saving 10's of millions of dollars is definitely meaningful. It means the ability to hire more people, or buy more equipment, or advertise more, etc. - so there really can be no question it has an impact. And that is far better for the economy than one guy getting that money. Is it a huge overall economic impact? No, but that shouldn't stop it from being made. Companies are made mostly of small spending/saving/investing decisions, and they all matter. Second, you are arguing with thin air on the union thing - I siad before, repeatedly, that the union labor contracts have been part of the problem. Are you saying that these companies should only fix one problem, when they have many? That makes no sense. Third, you say again that the perception is garbage, and yet you still didn't answer to my point on it, whcih I stand by. Showing other executives that taking massive risk means you may get bit in the ass, is definitely a good thing.

Why does CJ need a nickname? CJ stands pretty well on its own. Can't really shorten it, unless you want to call him "C". Forced nicknames are annoying. If he earns one through some funny story, then great.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 01:00 AM) Is it written similarly to No Country For Old Men? I don't care for McCarthy's style of writing...I read No Country, but I must admit, it was one of the more difficult books I have ever tried to get through....I did order The Road shortly after it came out, and it's been sitting on my bookshelf while I have read everything else I have to avoid it. I actually tried to read it a few months ago, but gave up after a few pages...I just can't get into his style... Definite similarities, but by the nature of the writing style I described, it changes a lot from book to book because he is enveloping different characters. Plot-wise, The Road is linear and single-threaded, for the most part (with some look-backs), so that does make it different than NCFOM's multi-threaded story line.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 04:13 PM) Perception a garbage reason for this. Totally disagree. Sending a message to other executives to keep themselves in check, to not take companies barrelling down on immense risk and not caring because of their personal parachute, absolutely has value. It has value in the same sense that any criminal punishment would - sends a message to would be criminals to think twice. Now, as it happens, I also agree with the move on its own, sole merits. You are into the government for billions because you failed catastrophically as a company - well, guess what? Now we, the taxpayers, own you, and you have to live by our rules, until you can get back up on your own two feet. Deal with it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 03:42 PM) Which is more or less the same thing in this specific example. Not really, not in terms of what the money will go to, or in terms of the effect on perception, which is key here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) Yet by taking money out of executives pockets, and putting it back into the government, this is exactly what the Democrats are falling over themselves to praise today. The money isn't going to the government, its just staying in the company, in that case, as I understand it.

I mentioned this earlier today in the speeding thread in SLaM. This pisses me off. However, let's be clear - as I said in SLaM, this is what makes people hate the cops (the blue wall). The unfortunate side effect is people project that hate to ALL cops, when only some are this insultingly slimy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) And the follow up argument to that would be: look at what private insurance companies give us. Its not realistic. I feel like I'm arguing with someone holding up one of those picture face masks, and the mask is of Balta, but you are the one holding it.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) That's f***ed up. Absolutely agree. The blue wall thing is disgusting to me, always was, when it comes to cops acting plainly and obviously against the safety of the public.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) ah, so you predict in another year and a half the Obama numbers will have played out? i don't think there will be any jobs recovery until, at best, 2014. if ever. I think those jobs are gone for good. but lets all hope i'm wrong. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) They are. There's no manufacturing sector to retrain people for. And, these companies are learning that they can do without the employees termed during this downturn and still turn a nice profit. I keep hearing "GREEN" is what will save us, but that's just wishful thinking at this point. So you guys think that "this is it", huh? Unlike every other economic recession the country has endured, THIS one will end it all. Seriously? Because that is incredibly far-fetched. Anything is possible, but your scenario is extremely unlikely. As for the stimulus play-out, it will happen over a period of years, I don't know exactly how many - maybe 2 or 3 or 5. And re: Kap's point about "green" and both of your points about manufacturing job losses, well, that's sort of true - many of those jobs are gone for good. Well, guess what - this isn't new to this recession, this is what economies have to do - mature into new realities. And you are damn right that means "green" tech, but more broadly, that means we need to all have a come to Jesus moment here, and realize that heavy manufacturing has not been the engine of success for the American economy for at least 40 years. This is NOT something new. The thing that put us over the top in recent decades, and at an increasing rate, was getting out in front of technology and beign innovators, inventors, and marketers. This is what drives our economy to be such a powerhouse. Green is part of that, but really any new tech or new business is what we need to focus on. I don't understand why people don't see this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) The follow up argument is going to be: health insurance for its citizens should be considered a service provided by a functioning government and not a business model I think that sentence should only apply to situations where private business is not realistically possible (delivering the regular mail), or where national security is concerned (military).

ObamaCo does the right thing here: executives at 7 companies who were bailed out and haven't paid it all back yet are ordered to slash their bonuses and pay.

On a related topic, what makes people hate cops more than penny-ante traffic tickets? This.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) FWIW, driving "too fast for conditions" can encompass more "conditions" than just weather i.e., the amount and speed of other traffic, whether the street is in a residential or commercial area, time of day, etc. Correct. But its also a less easily defensible charge in court under those circumstances.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) Because, it should be pointed out, that mail communications should be considered a service provided by a functioning government and not a business model, IMHO. Oh I agree with that. Its also why I do not think the USPS should be in the business of competing with UPS and FedEx in the areas where they do viable business - the USPS should not have to spend gobs of money on marketing and advertising, which ultimately leads to them running profits, then pouring profits into growing the agency, then losing money and going to the tax till to pick up the slack. It makes no sense for them to do that.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 10:52 AM) All three deliver mail. They all have different business models. No one viably competes with the USPS, for many reasons. But if some private company wanted to give it a shot, then, great. Just not going to happen, though. And as far as I am concerned, the USPS' business model is nonsensical, but I've described that here before.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 08:21 AM) You can also ask for the calibration records of the gun. You can ask, but I don't know any traffic cops who actually carry those around with them. Maybe, if they are unusually precise, they keep them in their car. If there is even a hard copy printed, which may not always happen (I don't know the new guns at all, and never had more than second hand knowledge of the old ones, I wasn't certified for it). But keep in mind that the cop not having them is not in itself an automatic dismissal. Might help though. Just don't get pulled over by that cop again.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 08:36 PM) oops http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house....cumentID=150826 I think its funny you choose the 7 months number, which is actually 5 months of big jobs losses, followed by the economic trends reversing the past two months. But really, the stimulus bill was never going to be a huge boost within the first 6 months anyway. No one ever said it would be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 07:25 AM) Rape: a pre-existing condition. also: Your baby is too fat or too small for health insurance. Some of these rejections are just grotesquely, morally wrong. This is where Congress SHOULD step in, at almost no cost to taxpayers, and write a law specifically just addressing pre-existing conditions and insurance rejections for such.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 10:47 PM) You cant go up to a judge and tell him an excuse without pleading not guilty and trying to do so will piss them off. The easier you make it on them the easier they make it on you. This is honestly some of the worst advice Ive seen given in this forum going on in this thread. The fine will be like $100 and there will be minimal court supervision. Its ridiculous to think the judge might just throw it out if you go up there and tell him your speedometer is broken. He saw the cops radar, whether its bulls*** to get a ticket for 4 over or not the cop proved that he was speeding to him when he showed it to him. Also, if you try and say the radar was broken you are taking the burden of proof off of them, because youre admitting the radar said you were speeding, and putting it on you to explain the gun was broken. Theyre not going to take your word for it. They also arent going to "throw it out" and charge you court cost, because you dont pay court cost if you are innocent. This isnt from a lifetime spent in traffic court either, this is common sense. Anytime a judge throws a charge out it is normally because it is lumped with other charges as well. There is a room full of people and several of them were charged with the same thing. You think they will magically throw it out with 10+ people waiting to be called that have the same ticket? The cop was a jagoff, you have to miss work for going 4 over and it sucks and its gonna cost you some money but the punishment is so minimal trying to pull a My Cousin Vinny is a waste of time/money and wont work. Your first sentence confuses me. Obviously, if you have a reason to give, you are pleading not guilty. Who said otherwise? Also, I never said anything about proving the radar gun is broken, as that is impossible. I was talking about the typically accepted margin of error of the instrument - and I have discussed this with traffic court folks before. There is fuzziness there, but, that (at least was) the magic number. As for the rest, well... OK then. You are welcome to feel however you feel about it. Of course they like it easy - but also, of course, they have to follow the law, and also, of course, if you have a valid reason to present, then you have the right to show why you are not guilty. Saying those aren't true, as you are, is the bad advice here. ETA: Oh also, about the court cost, that is not really true. If you actually go plead not guilty and make a case of it, and are found not guilty, then yes, court costs are not payable. HOWEVER, what I have often seen happen is, they will agree to what is essentially a nolo contedere (I may be misspelling that), and in exchange the ticket and fine go away, and you just pay court costs. Its not a NOT GUILTY plea in that case, its basically a compromise. Sorry I wasn't clear there.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 03:53 PM) They do it to potential terrorists all the time, the thing is whether they can prove that the person actually had intent to do something. If they intended to carry out their act with/without the FBI and the FBI's informant/decoy was just a conduit then they have no leg to stand on. Yes, the law applies to all domestic agencies (except, in some limited circumsances, the USSS) when it comes to this. Some judges may be more flexible than others, but if the entrapment resulted in an intent that would otherwise have not been there, then its a house of cards.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 21, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) Or this... Those are things that either no one else wants to do (deliver the mail), or should do (soldiers, or again, delivering the mail), for reasons of national security. You think health insurers are bad, they are nothing compared to the likes of Blackwater/Xe, in terms of how horribly they abuse the public trust. These things are not in the same universe as health insurers.