NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) Of course it's different, he's our Savior. Yes, that is exactly why it is different.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) Or, perhaps employees of companies could band together to form some sort of group that gave them bargaining power to push for a better plan if they had easy access to the details of their plans and felt they were being ripped off. We could call these groups "onions" or something close to that. Most "onions" probably don't have much knowledge about these things, and they tend to focus on salary, health care, and the dinosaur known as pension plans. Also, most people aren't part of "onions". Instead of bullying businesses, which is unfortunately what unions often do in the modern context, I'd rather see the government incent businesses in positive ways to foster this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) This seems like a very cool and useful weapon in fighting back in Wall Street's war on America. Similar to health care, 401k participation sorely lacks real choice. Most companies that offer them, offer one fund company. You can choose from many different funds of course, which also has a major effect on your outcome. And the match level is really just part of compensation (though many people fail to take it into account, good or bad). But the expense ratios at fund houses are rising quickly, even as brokerage costs to them are decreasing. And consumers lack real choice. This website is a good start - the more information the better. But even better, would be to find some way where you could have companies work not with individual fund firms, but with some sort of pool, and their employees could choose which fund house to go with. The differential cost if this sort of thing should be very small, so, it should be realistic. Companies could even choose to just do it on their own, by offering more than one choice. This could be incented in some way, perhaps via business tax breaks to offset any additional costs of adding more fund house choices.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:27 AM) http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1 WASHINGTON (AP) - A government watchdog group says the federal government overpaid for stocks and other assets from financial institutions under its $700 billion rescue program. The chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bailout funds told the Senate Banking committee Thursday that Treasury in 2008 paid $254 billion and received assets worth about $176 billion. The figures were reached by extrapolating the results of a study of 10 government transactions. The Treasury by Jan. 23 had spent about $294 billion on more than 300 companies under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. In one bright spot, the inspector general in charge of reviewing the funds said the federal government has received more than $271 million in dividends from preferred shares obtained through the program. The term "overpaid" could mean many different things. I'm curious what they mean in this case.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Since it seems like I will get b****ed at every time I start a new thread about something that Obama and/or his administration has f***ed up or done wrong, I'll just post this one here. Why is Obama trying to kill white people?!?! (I would put that line in half-green if there was a selection for that) FEMA's respoonses in Kentucky the last 2 weeks have been at least as bad, if not worse, that they were during Katrina. All during Katrina, we heard from screaming people about how the eeeevil Bush admin was trying to kill black people in the are by giving them inadaquate releif help and trailers reaking of chemicals, etc. Well, in Kentucky, due to snow and ice sotrms, people have been without power for weeks, food, etc. So what does the Obama run FEMA do? Send them food that could kill them! http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/04/fema....tter/index.html So, since Bush got the blame whenever any person or agency under him f***ed up, does Obama get the blame here? Or, once again, is it different? Let's see... Katrina killed a few thousand people, and FEMA screwed up big time. This event has killed few if any, and as far as I have read, FEMA has responded reasonably well. This peanut butter thing is of course the fault of the company and/or the FDA, which Obama is working to change. So... if you are looking to show that Obama's administration is doing much better than Bush, you succeeded. But in reality, I don't see much Obama effect on this incident at all anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) Then does that not give the TARP program an additional $8 billion or so (assuming a couple billion loss because of how crappy of a deal Paulson negotiated for the taxpayers) which can then be moved to a bank that actually is in trouble and actually does need the additional capital? If this particular firm isn't practically bankrupt, then they shouldn't have been forced to accept the TARP funds anyway. Exactly. Weird, on financial matters, I usually agree with SS and disagree with you, but here its reversed. I do not think this is the end of lending. See my responses, and add in the fact that this added money wasn't resulting in bigger lending anyway, from what I have read (at least not in large enough scale).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 09:52 AM) The fall out has begun... What does this mean you ask? It means less money available for lending in the end. You can bet if an industry leader like GS is going to do this, that you will see a lot more banks pulling out, and instead sacrificing lending while they try to raise more capital. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home Fallout? I call that a good result. First of all, GS isn't lending out much money anyway, that itsn't their gig. They are an investment firm. The borrow a lot more than they lend, and they lend to other investment firms anyway, not mortgage holders. Second, if more banks can pay that back with the pegged return, that is a good thing. Third, for banks that actually lend to consumers and businesses for development and real estate, if they can raise enough cash to pay back right now, then they are stable enough to work their way out of this situation anyway. So no need to give them this money. Also a good result. Fourth, for banks that can't pay it back right now, the restrictions are good anyway. More return for investors, more cash to do something useful with. Really, I see no downside here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) Fair enough. Either way, its results in a more efficient use of resources. Agreed.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 08:41 AM) I think off the top of my head, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain all have troops over there ATM, but I could be wrong. I know we definitely do. I think he meant logistically. Afghanistan's borders include Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tadzhikistan, China (but that border is very small and in very rugged terrain, in the Hindu Kush), and possibly India via the Kashmir (but I am not sure the parts of Kashmir along that border are India's). None of those are particularly attractive countries for cooperation, except India, and I am not sure they actually control those borders.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 08:24 AM) Interesingly enough, judging from my municipalities perspective, most of the projects I have seen proposed for stimulus spending, where things we were planning on doing anyway, but might not have been able to do because of cutbacks. Most of these things were going to happen anyway though. Has anyone else seen this happen on a local level? One big project in my neighborhood of Chicago is the rebuild of the Fullerton/Damen/Elston intersection (which is probably the worst in the city). They originally proposed making Fullerton go underneath the other two, but that was very pricey. They've now settled on "moving" Elston avenue, to have it intersect in multiple places, kind of like what Lincoln does around Lawrence/Western. Anyway, the plans are there, the city and state have approved them (I think), and they are now "saving up" money for it. A project like that, for example, which is a high priority for the city because of the value of reducing the traffic there, could get going now instead of in 3 years if it got money from something like this.

So, for the first time in a while, I am looking to write a letter to the President's administration. Specifically, I am writing to suggest a policy idea. Some of you may be familiar with it, because I started a Facebook group as a sort of petition for it. The idea, in short, is to suggest to Obama, and SecInt Salazar, to take all the land currently in Wilderness Study Area status, and based on the BLM's proposals, promote them to full Wilderness areas (those that the BLM studies have said should be). Its really a low cost win. The land is already in federal hands, and since it is a proposed WSA, that means no mining or drilling is happening now anyway, and also that the BLM already decided the natural resource capabilites of the area aren't particularly great (otherwise, the WSA wouldn't have been proposed). But you get a big win with environmentalists without taking any more land out of circulation, and you protect more green space for the long haul to help keep the air cleaner as well. Plus some limited recreational opportunities (hikers, campers), which could be used for revenue for BLM or other agencies who own the land, to help pay for maintenance (as a WSA, its pretty much 100% cost, there is no permit system for use). I was also considering some secondary ideas to throw in there - like handing over management of the wilderness areas to private non-profits (like Nature Conservancy) to reduce costs. And using this low point in the real estate market as an opportunity to buy up ecologically important land that is already for sale, on the cheap, to help prop up the market a bit and get the government a good deal. I am not sure I will be mentioning these other ideas though. Anyway, here is my dilemma... should I send a letter to Obama, or to Salazar (Sec Interior)? Or both? Do I send a typed and signed letter, or submit it electronically? Do I mention the Facebook petition, or no? I stand open to the advice of the Busterites.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 05:47 PM) Link So its OK because Palin (maybe) did it? That's a pretty low bar to set.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 07:00 AM) Less crimes to prosecute leads to less prosecutors, I would think. It would seem that way. But I think what Mr Eye was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that prosecutors already have way more cases to try than they have time for. You probably won't cut prosecutors - they'd just spend more time on other things. Which, by the way, is not a bad thing.

If he's a 14 year old, then I'd feel a little badly. But I suspect he's an adult, a Mariners fan trying to pass himself off as a journalist. In which case, he put himself out there, and deserves the criticism.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 04:06 PM) From what I have heard from a couple agencies here, the government is looking for projects that are ready to go *now*. What are the projects where shovels are ready to go. No 5-year studies, no 18 month bid process. They want the money pumping through *now*. So there may be more deserving, but too far off projects, that are not funded while less worthy, but ready to go stuff, gets funded. I know of a couple projects here, relatively small potato stuff ( I do see the reasoning behind that criteria. What good are projects that will not happen for a couple years? Actually, a lot of transit projects fall into this category. Proposed, planned, approved and even some money ready to go, just waiting for enough funding to proceed. Those could get going pretty quickly.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 12:45 PM) Newt was the only one I could remember, mostly because I place him in my top 5 most intelligent elected officials of my lifetime. I forgot about the Tip'ster Or Foley or Hastert?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) The biggest problem is the second we lower troop levels in Iraq it will go back to being the way it was in 05. The surge really hasn't done anything. The "surge" in the most literal, narrow sense, did very little. But the "surge" was paired with some changes in strategy that most definitely did some good things. For one, the new military leader (Patreus) at that time implemented a program similar in style to community-based policing, changing the way the US military was doing their business. That went a long way towards reducing violence. Also, a change in political strategy occurred, where the US did more direct negotiating with certain entities it refused to deal with before. These were changes made that actually had a positive material effect. Coincidentally, certain politcal shifts occurred in Iraq among the groups already there (Mahdi Army, Sunni Militants), which allowed them to dial down the violence. This exposed AQ and made them easier to deal with, and took away some of the violent "noise", making the US military more capable of doing their jobs. So in the most literal and surface sense, yes, the Surge was a small effect. But talking about the broader changes, it had a large and important effect. This may or may not have a lasting effect as the US draws down - that is hard to say. But it gives them a much better chance of succeeding independent of the US.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) So wait exactly, could someone reword the 2nd part for me? Nothing in the CNN article gives a good explanation for the 2nd part that people are saying is the slippery slope and how it operates, just a suggestion that more work will be done in the future. Apparently I wasn't the only one who reacted badly to that second part, because the article is now not the same on CNN. It doesn't contain the words it did. Before, it made mention of a second part, where banks that were NOT given extraordinary help (TARP), but who accessed normally available federal funds (which is nearly all banks), would be subject to certain restrictions on compensation and spending. That part is gone now.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) Like Catholic Priests? Yes, good example.

Van Dyck in Trib saying this rumor may be more than just a rumor.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:11 AM) Unfortunatly there were many a bandwagon type fan in attendance that couldn't name you one member of the South Side Hitmen or don't know who Jimmy Piersall is and didn't know that Harry Carey first started his take me out to the ballpark with the White Sox. Not every Sox fan needs to be a SoxTalk-level expert. That doesn't make them bandwagoners. Just casual fans. We need those to have the money to make the team better.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:38 AM) This will go over about as well as the plan to disclose CEO salaries did to bring them down... Thankfully, it will get shredded and changed before passing in some weak form. Like I said, it you are only talking about bailed out banks, and leaving it at stated at that level, I am OK with it.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:38 AM) It does seem to be a lot of Dems lately, though. You'd think Larry Flint would have paid someone to dig up some GOPers that didn't pay their taxes by now. Oh its definitely Dems right now, its a Dem President. Well, Geithner is really neither, and might lean GOP, from what I have read. And he actually got in. Daschle is definitely a Dem, I know nothing about the Performance Czar person. I just think that things like tax evasion, which aren't about the political job per se, shouldn't be framed by party. Wrong is wrong, and you see people in both parties doing things wrong. By making it about a party, if its isn't actually the party itself doing it, is dangerous. Its similar to indicting any other group of people based on the conduct of some people in that group - could be a religion, for example.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) I know that NS thinks that this is just GOP carpet bombing, but I think this is only the beginning of the slippery slope. What? I was the one who started the thread and said I didn't like the slope we were going down.

Cheney snapped on 9/11. Just completely derailed. He's obsessed in an unhealthy, and frankly Unamerican, way. He is so focused on these dangers that he is willing to discard anything in the Constitution to try to fight them. That is, except actually fighting the CAUSES of terrorism. He'd rather fight the terrorists themselves and them alone, despite that they will keep coming, for ever and ever, as long as the engine that creates them keeps running. He's just lost his grip on what America is supposed to stand for.