NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (MAX @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 12:47 AM) While I might have found the idea behind this to be intriguing at one time, I believe that getting these people to volunteer will end up costing tax payers even more money, despite whatever work is gained from the actual volunteering because of the nature of big government today. Undoubtedly, this is going to turn into yet another gigantic bureaucratic disaster. Change, in my opinion, would be less government, not more. This argument I get. This program will cost money - period. And we are already running huge deficits. I still don't get the idea though, that this program has no value, or that it is some bizarre attempt at turning the U.S. into a communist state or whatever.

Seems to me that the AK and MN senate messes are different animals. In AK, these absentee and mailed in ballots were expected, mathematically based on region of origin, to probably lean heavily Begich. So no surprise on the gap closing there. But I have to admit, the fact that every error correction published seems to have helped Franken, makes me raise an eyebrow.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 07:02 PM) We actually need GI's, so I see why thats important. Working at a school is fine. There is no way I am going to support this program, according to your argument any program like this is worth it because students get payed for all kinds of stuff. I do not see this program as worth while. I probably never will. Again, if you want to pay for this go right ahead. I don't. No way. Isn't it not going to happen anyways? I'd suggest our need for GI's is, at best, on par with a need to have a population better educated and better able to be closer to the leading edge in the global business world. And I am not sure what your last sentence means.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 06:52 PM) Well I guess if this is additional grant money it isn't a burden. I see your point. The program is still terrible as far as I can tell. It accomplishes nothing, just another waste. If we are giving out grants it shouldn't be based on who works for some government approved charity/political operation. No thanks. Count me out. I'm not paying for this. But I'm a elitist jerk that thinks kids should be educated to a decent world standard; passing out flyers for 'rock the vote' doesn't help make our country stronger. So then you're an Obama fan? Kidding. I just don't see how its any worse or different than GI Bill money, or working for the university towards tuition, or assistantships, or any other variety of financial aid for college students.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 06:45 PM) Not that it matters - because from the threat I'm sure everyone bought them - but if you didn't buy postseason you lost your seats so there won't be any additional renewals from those folks. That was what I thought too. But the way my new rep described it, those folks would be at the front of the line AFTER those who bought postseasons. Of course, I guess that's not really a "renewal" per se.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 06:41 PM) This program does nothign but put an additional burden on low income students. It's not educational as far as my standards are concerned. The possibility of a $40/hour job for a college student is an additional burden? As far as I'm concerned, the only negative I can even stretch to is that the US can't afford to be helping everyone right now with the deficit. The program itself, to me, is fantastic, and I see nothing forced or burdensome about it.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 06:32 PM) The program is ridiculous. Basically forcing kids that don't have rich parents to do community service work or work for their local Democrat (which you know will happen; stuff like ACORN will be considered preferred service) if they want a college grant. I would much rather have kids learn valuable skills to get grants. Then maybe we won't have to bail them out with hand outs when they graduate in 4 years. By your logic, the US government is "forcing" poor kids to join the military, and "forcing" kids to pay interest on students loans, and "forcing" kids to to play college sports to get their degree. I'm sorry but I don't see how you can stretch financial assistance for college in exchange for something as "forcing" anything.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) All the reviews I've seen have been bad. Rotten Tomatoes = 75%.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 05:23 PM) Rush Limbaugh is already calling the bailout, the Obama Bailout Plan. LOL'ers. Yeah, this bailout is Obama's like the the Lewinsky BJ was W's.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) Love it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) Hopefully what happened is someone brought the idea up and then a bunch of people had to ask for tissue to clean up the coffee that sprayed out of their nose from holding back laughter. Probably. When I said "in committee", I didn't mean official discussions, I meant the other people in the committee and did exactly what you just described. Only a small minority fo Congress are THAT stupid, just like the civilian population.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) The Democrats in the house were actually considering a move which would confiscate all 401k accounts. Haha imagine if that got slammed through congress. Total panic would ensue. http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/...t-accounts.html Yeah, we discussed this a few weeks ago as I recall. It got killed in committee, thank God.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) Unfortunately, there is a very real chance we will find out. Excessive amounts of government debt are the proverbial 400 pound gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. We could face a big time disaster with continued big deficits. I mean way worse than now. In 2009 alone we could see a 2 trillion dollar deficit. Could see a massive collapse in government funding, there just won't be any place for the US to get these resources. Total disaster. A bankrupt federal government. I am very concerned as well, but the US government won't go bankrupt.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) Whoa, I guess Palson is saying the Treasury has abondoned many aspects of the original bailout. At least they are being flexible. No real details yet from what I can tell about any change in direction. Definitely something to follow. I linked this a page or two ago in here.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) Can we all agree that these monoliths will not make money with the union legacy costs? Even after 2010 when the union takes over these costs, do they(unions) really think they have the funds to cover the costs? They are kidding themselves. I smell union bailout on the horizon. How anyone in the UAW can complain about this situation is beyond me. Job banks, full health care with no co-pays for life for entire family. Not realistic in today's market wouldn't you say? I agree that some aspects of the union contracts are crippling - no doubt. In particular, the standby engineer programs are ridiculous.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) Im taking macroeconomics at u of i, and its my first econ class ever, so im still learning alot about the whole system and everything. But, what I really want to know (because im getting this impression lately), is if all this money is actually helping us, or just keeping us afloat for while until we eventually fall into a depression? It seems like we place a bunch of money in one sector, than another demands money to stay afloat, and then another, looks like the system is just crashing and will sooner or later anyways. The idea is (not necessarily agreeing) that this money isn't just going to the financial sector. Its money that should, directly and indirectly, flow through to all sorts of individuals and businesses by way of credit and loans.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:57 AM) The mkts are bigger than any gov't or stimuli that a gov't throws its way. Obama has a terrible job ahead of him and I personally do not think anything the gov't does will be effective. But I have been quite the bear over the last 18 months. Once we test the 2002 lows at 768 and they do not hold, we ultimately head to 660ish on the S&P. I would look to that level for a bottom on the S&P, and somewhere around 6500 on the Dow. Another thing, this bailout of the auto industry should have HUGE strings attached, i.e., UNION work rules. Putting 25- 75 billion into these companies without either a reduction in blue collar jobs and benefits, or benefits for retirees is like lighting 25-75 billion in a bonfire. I'd rather see the conditions surround development of more fuel efficient cars.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) That was fast. I knew it would happen before the Obama administration took over, but not so soon. GM and Ford are hemorraging cash, and would be looking at operational shutdowns within a few months.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:23 AM) I didn't say that I would be that way. In fact, I'm on record here as saying I'll give Obama a fair shot. I am, however, saying that the bats*** liberals have no reason to complain when the bats*** conversatives give the next president the type of crap that they gave to the current one. It's amazing how now that the most liberal senator has been elected to POTUS that we should all sing Kumbaya and hold hands. Bernie Sanders says hello.

QUOTE (maki @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:47 AM) I think that's about the same rate they gave us last year, as well. We made a decent move last year but I think the lack of communication from our rep cost us at least a section. Of course we've got a new rep again. We shall see. I got the impression last year that renewals weren't that high, as evidenced by many upgrades granted. They look to be 95%-ish this year. But who knows.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) Paulson isn't stupid. My guess is that they knew this all along, but didn't have the votes to get it done if they did it this way orignially. That's why the door was left there in the first place. That is more my guess. And its probably the better idea - I don't disagree with that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Actually, I'm not sure this is true. One of those additional 400 pages or whatever that they added to the 3 page document that Paulson originally requested was actually in there because there were quite a few economists out there who said "Paulson's plan isn't going to solve the problem, what you really need to do is recapitalize the banks by buying shares in them". So, based on this, in the final bill there was a clause inserted that said Paulson had the authority to do exactly this if he wanted to, because enough people were saying Paulson's original plan was stupid and this would work better. And now, a couple weeks later, Paulson himself is realizing his original plan was stupid and is doing it the right way, and Congress left him a door to do that if he wanted to. I obviously did not read the 400 page addendum, but I did get the impression that Paulson had broad powers to change the plan. That's fine, but, I still stand by the fact that making a fundamental shift like this is in violation of the spirit of the legislation.

Outgoing head of CFTC is saying that the new administration would be best served by scrapping the existing CFTC, SEC and bank regluation agencies. He prefers a functional model (as opposed to the current instrument-segregated model) for regulation, creating three new agencies to replace all the current ones. Interesting read. I think I agree with him.

Paulson is now saying that they will NOT be buying troubled assets with any of the $700B bailout money. None. This is a fundamental shift from what they had originally said they would do when they asked Congress for the money. Now, this may or may not be good. But regardless, its bait-and-switch, and Treasury and the administration appear to have pulled a fast one on Congress.

I just talked with my rep yesterday about this (we ask every year to upgrade from 27 game plan to full season in our current location). Upgrades are expected to be done in December and/or January. According to our new rep (Natalie), renewals are already at 92%, and that's just from the postseason ticket buyers. That number will go up with some who didn't do postseason but still may renew. Then they go into new plan requests. So basically, upgrades will be hard to come by this offseason. But definitely contact your rep and see what you can do.