southsider2k5

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 11:49 AM) But you've been calling Obama a hypocrite for the past 18 months. "He's just like any other politician" If she has gone on record as being against government waste, so is she. This isn't mutally exclusive.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) If your whole raison d'etre is ending government waste, billing the state a per-diem to sleep in your own bed is pretty ridiculous - legal or not. Its not something I like for those reasons, but it makes it legal.

A couple of other interesting things I didn't see mentioned here is that Obama has 40 fund raising stops planned in 30 days, while McCain is essentially free to campaign all he wants. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

If it stays that long over the really warm gulf deep waters, it is going to be ugly. Tex you had better call Kap and tell him to prep the guest room.

Speaking of the bridge to nowhere, guess who all was for it before they were against it? http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama...o-nowhere,1628/

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) Well, Kim still had somewhat of a world view. These doubles may have never been outside of whatever city they are kept in. One bats*** carzy General whispering in their ears and suddenly South Korea is invaded. However, maybe of of these Kims could have a desire for peaceful reunification with the south? In reality, I would be shocked if that happened. They know better than anyone else that most of their claims are full of s***. Even past that, they know that invading their neighbors would give the rest of the free world the chance to invade the North and kick them out of power, which is what they fear most IMO.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 10:24 AM) I read about this a day or two ago and wasn't sure what to make of it. Very frightening, and very possible. In reality, how much worse could PRNK be? They have literally starved millions of people to death and been a thorn in the side of the entire world. What could happen, a madman steps in for him? Oh wait...

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 10:39 AM) When I pull back into my driveway I can still be on the clock. It depends on what you do for a living and what your companies policies are. In a lot of telecommuting jobs or people who have to support a home office, the lines between the home and work blur a bit. It requires personal restraint and knowing what is truly you being on the clock. My home office is a full extension of my work office. My work phone moves over to my work phone in my office when I log in at home. My internet is 100% expensed every month. I have expensed some meals at home. Yes its my house, but when you get impacted on your weekend for an unexpected critical issue that takes up 36 hours of your time, I think a 10 dollar meal is more than palatable to ask. Good point. Odds are she is enacting government business, even when she is at home.

QUOTE (Steff @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) Big surprising response. Don't round up the mileage... I'm not sure what all that is about, but something like 3 other people said basically the samething. It seemed as if people were comparing notes on business travel to me. If that was not the case, I sure missed it. But OK.

QUOTE (Steff @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) So what do you think people here are stupid and don't understand the concept of getting reimbursed for making business trips? That wasn't even close to the point that was being made. Wow.

QUOTE (Steff @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) Seriously, or is this another stupid joke? Uh, no, I am serious.

I'm making a business trip tomorrow, and I am on the company dime as soon as I get into my car to MDW.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/0...=rss_topstories

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) The government isnt sending Obama back to chicago to see his family. and Alaska isnt sending the kids to see mommy. That's where i see the difference. If Obama were traveling home to "meet the people" or whatever you want to say politicians do, then that's totally cool with me. I just dont see how sending the kids to and from home is "state business" worthy of billing the state. I will bet you money that Barack Obama traveled back to Chicago plenty of times on the taxpayers dime. I would even guess that his family got paid for occasionally. From what it sounded like when the Pelosi stuff was raging, everyone does, just most fly commercially. It does get charged back to the taxpayers.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 08:27 AM) hmm... no. do tell. She got a large private plane to fly her and her family back and forth to California.

QUOTE (ChiSox35 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 12:13 AM) He is by far my favorite ballplayer. I hate to see him go. I wouldn't mind one more round with Oakland, but only if he's healthy enough to do it. If not, how about eventually becoming the White Sox 1B coach? It would be awesome to see #35 hovering over first. It would make up for all the times he would bypass it with a long one to left. If he is interested, he would make a way better hitting coach.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 07:46 AM) Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home I take it you don't remember the stink over Nancy Pelosi doing the samething with her family?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...n-poll-wom.html

Is he this years Jack Egbert, or does the kid have a chance of making it to Chicago without a ticket?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 08:21 PM) You know what, after a little bit of thinking, I'm starting to agree with you, partially at least. You might well be right that if the GSE's didn't exist at all, then the banks might not have pushed as much risk out there as they did, because they might not have had the government backing them up. I think that we'd probably have a bigger problem in terms of some of the banks that were that stupid going under, and we might well be bailing out the whole banking industry already instead of just parts of it, but well. The interesting thing I think I noticed here is that it seems we might both agree that what happened with the GSE's was actually the worst option possible for everyone except a few shareholders, lobbyists, and Congressmen. If they'd stayed fully public entities like they started off, then they never would have begun taking on bigger and bigger piles of more and more questionable mortgages, because the government was setting the standards and never was getting in on the Alt-A mortgage game. If they'd never existed....then the banks out there would be a lot bigger, but they'd also be absorbing a lot more of the risk on their own and we wouldn't have to worry about such things as whether or not the Chinese would stop buying our dollars if we didn't bail them out. The worst possible situation is the one that we let develop, where we partially privatized those GSE's and let the lobbyists turn themselves loose to write the rules governing them, such that the risks behind any mortgage they took out were taken public but all the profits were allowed to go private. History has shown us that the best system results in some banks going under, and most importanly, bad debts being written off. Look at Japan's 20 year slump and realize that they haven't recovered because it is culturally taboo to write off bad debts. As a bank you can only lend a certian percentage of your reserves out. If a chunk of that is sitting on the books as bad debt, you can't lend against that, and it shrinks the pool of available mortgage money out there. Taking money off of the market drives up rates for everyone else. I really believe between the waste of government and the lack of knowledge of complex financial instruments, they have proven that they don't belong in the mortgage business, or in anything financial in general. I would fully agree with your last statement. Being in the middle on this is the dumbest thing possible. Even government waste was better than the system collapsing under its own stupidity.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) Just because Haeger was DFA'd doesn't mean he's gone. He most likely will just be outrighted to Charlotte. I believe the samething happened with DeWayne Wise this year? He was DFA'd and then added back later on?

Ozzie can't plan on having him back. He has to assume he won't have him, and be surprised if he does.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 08:02 PM) But haven't more than a few banks already been caught completely with their pants down by having taken up so many of these crappy loans that they wrote? Let's hypothetically imagine that the GSE's didn't exist. And that whole $5 trillion was held by the banking industry. The banking industry basically went crazy over the last decades, destroying regulation, using every accounting trick possible to force short term profits higher, etc. Wouldn't a lack of having these GSE's mean that we'd be facing the largest set of bank runs in history because no one would have the cash to pay for anything once the mortgage market turned? And why is that? Because they knew they had a rich uncle that would cover their mistakes. Having Uncle Sam there to sell this crap to, only perpetuated the cycle of doom. If these agencies weren't there, the banking industry as a whole wouldn't have endangered their entire existance the way they did knowing they had a golden parachute. Would there be individual banks that pushed the envelope, sure. But for comparisions sake, how many companies actually pulled an Enron when no one was there to rescue them? You can count them on one hand. Finally, you aren't going to change my opinion with the "OMG, what if everyone did the worst possible thing they could do in a situation scenarios." You can't remove one piece of the puzzle and just assume everthing else would stay in a vaccum. The economy is dynamic. It doesn't work that way. I don't believe in the nationalization of much of anything because I believe 100% that the government is by far the least effecient form (in general) of commerce on the planet today. They have zero incentive to get anything right and every incentive to take more taxpayer money, since their entire existance depends on us thinking they serve some vital function. Nit pick out single examples and odd scenarios if you like, but my basic understanding of economics doesn't follow that idea that government is better. Heck our own founding fathers warned us about government.

This power should have never been held by one or two large groups. Banks should own their own loans, which would make them responsible for their legitimacy. By having a governmental agency to dump the bad loans on, we the people, have to pay for the people who have lived outside of their means. This is truely a bipartisian clusterf***, and all you have to do is look at all of the key people in both campaigns who have involvement in these two companies. I will definatey agree with that much.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) Too bad we're actually 80-62. 22 games over sounds a whole lot better than 18. Eh, the games ahead is the most important part anyway