southsider2k5

QUOTE (MAX @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:47 AM) How is someone who is in college and working their ass off to pay for it going to find an extra 100 hours to work for free? Its less than two hours a week, or basically an eight hour day a month. Its not that hard.

Beautiful. Congrats!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 06:05 PM) The correct answer is that it was neither of their faults and that people tend to exaggerate the role of the president in the general state of the economy. Honestly it depends on how much change a President enacts in fiscal policy. If they make changes, they deserve more credit/blame. If it is business cycle related, it is different. Doing nothing while a bubble builds and bursts in my book qualifies as having earned blame for a recession.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 04:05 PM) i love the blame game... even lately I've heard conservatives say that this financial mess is all "Clinton's fault". Reminds me back in 2002-03 when we had that recession, they called in the Clinton Recession. When that happened, I said ok... when we had the 1991-92 recession, was that the Reagan Recession??? Quickly, people shut their mouths. Bush was inaugurated in Jan 1989, which means there was two full years at least before the recession started. By the most conservative definitions of the velocity of money through the US economy takes 12-18 months, with a minimum consideration of 6 months. So if someone has "shut their mouths" when you call that a Reagan recession, they should not, because it is long past the commonly accepted theories of how long it takes for fiscal policy to affect economy. The 2002 recession on the other hand started about 6 WEEKS after GW Bush took office, or WAY under what is considered normal for velocity of money to take affect on economy. But then again, if you would like everything after 6 weeks or so into office economically to be Barack Obama's fault once in office, that is fine. I have less problem with it as long as you are going to be consistent.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) Jesus. They lent out another $1T+ OUTSIDE of the TARP protections, and aren't disclosing anything about it? I mean, I can see how we may not be able to immediately know all collateral in detail, but NO information at all? And they are doing this outside the regs? Wow. I mean, really, wow. I'm going to use Barney Frank on this issue, because for once he is right. Ask Chuck Shumer how quickly a bank can fail if there is no confidence in it. This isn't as simple as many people are making it out to be, as there are complex banking and accounting rules at play here. It isn't as simple as here is $700 billion, now lend it out, and everything will get back to normal. People have to have confidence in the system, and in the individual planks in the system. If word got out that So and So bank took a large loan from the Feds, odds are pretty favorable there would be a run, and it would fail. That would actually cost taxpayers more than if they just lent them money in the first place. Add in things like SOX that dictate mark to market account, combined with Depression era banking laws that require deposits be a certian percentage of lent monies, and you can have quick failures there as well. Again, it is less risk to lend them a percentage of assets to prop up the bank, than to cover all of the assets in a FDIC failure. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwide of course. it's only 2 trillion dollars. Nice. Its a sad day when my estimate of triple the original total has been matched in about a month.

Exactly where he should have finished... Personally I hate that professionals from other countries are considered rookies here, but that is another story.

I am pretty happy with my statement!

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:39 AM) I would enjoy a couple of winning ends of some fights, but thats minor. Also, I have to say this, it may be time to see what you can get for Seabrook, the kid looks terrible this season and actually just fell over a few times last night. You can nitpick if you like... Personally I would like to see them get more action from the second level on the power play, instead of all of the shots coming from the points. But so far it has worked.

This team is just playing some scary good hockey right now. The only thing they really need to do is cut back on the penalites. Other than that, they look incredible right now.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 01:51 PM) You can't endorse from the pulpit. It violates your 501 c(3) status. If Mormon leaders wanted to go out and speak independently about this, that would be fine. It's perfectly legal to do so. But what the LDS did is such a clear violation, its ridiculous. This was probably the least followed rule in the past election.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) Very true. The guys I'd like to see targeted would be ready for AA or higher starting in '09, meaning they'd ideally be MLB ready around mid-to-late 2010 to join Poreda the starter, Beckham the 2B/3B (assuming Alexei sticks at SS), and possibly Danks the CF. 2010/2011 should be the first year in a very long time that we'll have a very nice crop of young, homegrown talent coming up together. Two of the SP would have to be ready to step into the back of the rotation for 2009. In a perfect world, we make moves like this: Jenks for SP ready now + SP prospect Dye for SP ready now + SP prospect Paulie/Swisher for SP ready now + CF prospect Javy for SP prospect + corner OF/1B power prospect So in a "perfect world" we take a division title winner and trade 4 of our best players for prospects? When did we become the Marlins?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 08:02 AM) That's OK we can still make him look bad. All McCain supporters need to start yelling FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! He can't stick to a plan for 2 days without bending to the wind! Must have been some negative poll data. I also heard we all better join the NRA because he's going to take away our guns his first week. Evidently he has eliminated Congress and the Courts as well. I'll bet Barack reads Soxtalk in his freetime, you know as the worlds most famous Sox fan, and he saw our debate so he decided to change his policy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) Options close first, baskets out, vol out and takers in. It starts at about 2:30 usually. The push is just amazing. Its been so predictable, that is what is strange.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 03:00 PM) Rallying again, now up near intraday highs again. Check that, passing highs. Its amazing how the last half hour of the day exaggerates the trend of the day for the last six weeks or so.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) This isn't even drawn up as a bill right now. He's not even the President yet. So we have to wait until January 20, 2009 to discuss anything he is talking about? I don't buy that for a second. I think it is totally fair to talk about anything Obama has proposed up to this point. He is our President-Elect after all. He is the only one whose policy thoughts really matter anymore.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) If this were anything more than a paragraph on a website, sure. If he articulates this plan more formally, I'm all for debate. If it goes to Congress, lets discuss it. But let's not scream that the sky is falling just quite yet, and don't go accusing the new President elect of indoctrinating children to start a healthy discussion. That sort of crap is what has dragged political discussion through the mud. An open discussion on the merits or demerits of having mandatory civil/ community service for school children would be great, but starting out the discussion with accusations isn't helpful. Pretty much one person in the whole thread has said that. The rest of people involved in his the discussion have been exactly what you are talking about. I would actually argue this thread is exactly what has been missing in political disscussions for the most part. Instead of everyone taking the discussion to the party platform talking points, there has been some great give and take of the issues by 95% of the people involved here. I think you are unfairly generalizing an entire thread based on one person.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:21 PM) We better not have the government do anything, ever then, because at some point someone might possibly expand it into something we don't like. This isn't an official proposal or bill. Analyzing every word just doesn't matter too much at this point. From everything else he's said, this would be optional for grant money for college students. I'm not sure about HS and GS, but many schools already institute these policies. We haven't had that dreaded slippery slope towards government enslavement from that. Extrapolating this to mean that the government is going to withhold your tax returns unless you complete required community service is absurd. I would rather see people debating the merits of a bill before it passes, versus afterwards. Its good for the public to be educated about what is going on in their country. I think it is a healthy exercise in Democracy to have these exact kind of discussions. Maybe if more people did, they would be more willing to hold their elected officials accountable.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:10 PM) Obama giving his first post-election press conference right now. Markets dipped a bit, but are still up pretty decently on the day. They dropped off about 150 Dow points while he was speaking. They are still up about 160, but that was after being off over 900 points the last two days.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:14 AM) So what you're saying is the government needs to take some sort of drastic steps to force the banks to start lending again? I have a suggestion. Let's go back in time over a month and give them $700 billion dollars. That ought to free up the credit markets by now, right? I mean, if we dumped a bunch of money in to the banks wouldn't they have to start lending it? They woulnd't hoard it or use it all to keep their dividend payments high would they? Which would have worked really well when the banks still went under because their capital ratios, which to some extent are dependant on stock price, weren't suffecient to keep it in existance.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) Give up one of those silly bowling leagues and you'll be all set. LOL There is actually a really valid point in here, and it goes back to all of the college students who are saying that they are "too busy". Its a life choice. For people who have to have the money, it is a choice of going to college or not. At that point, you most likely make the life choice to give up something that you think is ultra-important right now, such as a social life, sport, club etc. Guess what, that prepares you well for the real world where you make those very same types of choices during your life. Look no further than having kids. I don't have to tell anyone on here about how much you sacrifice of yourself after you have kids. Its a good thing to have that life lesson earlier, rather than later in life.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:34 AM) This is what made Tuesday so great. We got a candidate elected whose biggest controversy is whether or not Americans should perform community service in exchange for a tax credit. This isn't even on the list of the biggest controversy's for an Obama Presidency.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) It's a nice idea, but when I was in college, I was working a lot just to support myself and afford books (and the binge drinking)... 100 hours of community service when you're already paying for the schooling seems like a joke. 100 hours of community service works out to less than two hours a week over a year. Then again you can think of it this way 100 hours/$4000 is $40 an hour, tax free, or probably more like $60 an hour in real wage costs. What other job are you going to get that kind of money?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) So you prefer every student gets that $4000 tax credit for free? To answer a little more precisely, no. In the big picture, I do not like seeing the giveaways for free that our government has in most programs. I really like the idea of requiring service in exchange for a scholarship. There are some excellent lessons in life that kids can learn. The first being that yes, in the real world, there is a price for everything. They aren't just going to be handed anything. I also believe if so many things weren't made so easy, there would be more incentive to not depend on the government. I believe it teaches work ethic, and it also exposes them to more things that they might not otherwise see in their lives. I believe it also gives them incentive to stay in school, as the things you see as a volunteer can really inspire you to do more with your life. I have been working in various forms of volunteer work since I was a freshman in high school. I think it has done wonders for me.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) So you prefer every student gets that $4000 tax credit for free? I already said what I thought up above. I was curious as to the logic of why people were thinking what they were on this topic, especially when viewed through the historical context how programs tend to be labeled based on the groups they affect.