Rex Kickass

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) The worry there is that if AIG files for bankruptcy, you could get a run on AIG where all these people holding those trillions of dollars worth of contracts come rushing in at the same time trying to get whatever slice they can get. It could blow the whole thing up. AIG has its tentacles attached to so many places in so many other companies that anything rash risks bringing them all down. Look if we just get the CEO to go on CNBC and say its just a managed bankruptcy, just looking to get all this labor off our books so we can focus on our core products and so on, I don't think it would be a problem.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) You do realize there's been periods of years between the seasons right? There are students here who pull more all-nighters than that in a month. Oh no, I didn't. I never watched it.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 04:31 AM) Ha! Moss is a moron. The show is only like 13 hours old and Moss has already been fooled like 20 times. 24 is terrible, yet I just keep watching... What I don't understand is this is like the sixth 24. Doesn't Jack Bauer ever get like a day off to eat and sleep and go to the bathroom? Damn, 6 days would totally wear me out.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 16, 2009 -> 09:03 AM) Then how does this compare with Bush taking away freedoms? Good point, if its not a right - how can it be taken away? You can't take away freedom with taxes. After all, freedom isn't free. I know that's true because I saw it on a yellow magnetic ribbon on someone's car once.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) It's too late for a bankruptcy for AIG. The reason it wasn't done was just disclosed this weekend. AIG paid $90+ billion to banks all over the world. Now we know why they were "too big to fail". What, no outrage on this? That's why all this is amazing, and the FAKE outrage from Congress and Obama. They know this, they knew this, and now they're playing with smokescreen tactics. Personal responsibilty is the theme here. Those who lie on mortgages don't deserve it, and frankly if you don't know what you were signing, you don't deserve a bailout. No one does. Most of us were/are against bailouts. But they did it and now we're stuck with the consequences. We have to be careful what is merit. If teachers get "merit" increases, did they do the job? If so, PAY THEM. If not, goodbye. Same with these contracts. Did they do what was required? Then they get paid. Simple as that. I don't think its too late for a bankruptcy at all. Our bailout is a loan, the US is not just an owner, its a creditor. Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't honor the contracts. But we should also do whats smart for the company we own. How many of these retention bonuses were paid to people who since jumped ship? We are in a bad labor contract with these workers. We should do what many of the same executives think should happen with GM Ford and Chrysler. File for bankruptcy, that way these horrible contracts can be voided and more reasonable rates of pay can be established.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 01:35 PM) Here's the difference, NSS. The government is our money. We the people. These bonuses are individual people's... they earned it, right or wrong. Allow me to put it this way. I just got fired so that my old manager could get his fat ass bonus. That's wrong. But contractually, he got his because HE made the numbers. Look, I don't like the bonuses either. But it's a different issue, and it was known, and now they are using it to prove that the rich people can't get away with this! That makes it doubly wrong in my book. So mortgage bailouts for people on 200k houses they couldn't afford is outrageous to the same people who have no problem accepting a company making 73 millionaires from 2008 bonuses rewarding a 160 billion dollar loss essentially being paid for by government money. I don't pretend to know anything about finance or economy. I'm barely able to keep my own accounts in check. But I think its pretty crazy that so many of the same people who were outraged about a small percentage of bailout money going to help a wide swath of people who own homes and could lose them are now covering ass for AIG rewarding failure to the tune of up to 4.6 million dollars. We get upset about the idea of teachers not getting raises based on merit, but these same people quickly shrug their shoulders when it comes to treasury backed Wall Street bonuses. There probably should be some outrage here. And the truth is the federal government should take AIG through a managed bankruptcy. This way, AIG can shed these horrible contracts for its employees and release themselves the burden of rewarding failure. That way these contracts can be voided and new more reasonable ones drafted to the bottom line. So many people talk about organized labor bringing business to their knees. Their demands were relatively simple. Decent medical care, a retirement plan, profit sharing, some degree of temporary security during lay-off periods. So many of those benefits have been systematically stripped away during bankruptcy after bankruptcy. If its good enough for a steelworker, it oughta be good enough for a moneypusher.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 07:17 PM) Coke II was basically pepsi IIRC. Coke II was the last gasp effort to market New Coke. After they spent all the money to change the formula, they did still market new coke with Coke Classic for a long time. It never caught on obviously. So they tested Coke II with focus groups and it seemed to work well too, but it didn't quite do it in actual sales either.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 01:06 AM) Dean did his job well as head of the DNC, once he shut his mouth. Steele is too much of an arrogant prick to keep his piehole shut, I think. He never really dealt with policy. He dealt with party building and he defended the ideology of the party in public. It's sort of a shame to see Tim Kaine sort of dismantling the 50 state strategy that helped the Democrats get to 59 seats in the Senate in four years.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 01:03 AM) That's not what I'm saying at all... but then again, yes, at the same time. I'll try to explain. First, this comes back to health insurance being a "right". It's not. It just isn't. And please don't give me that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" crap, it has nothing to do with that. (Not you, Rex). Second, the bottom line responsibility of a company is to return shareholder value. Period. Period. Period. It's not to employ us all and give us good paychecks, an insurance package, and all of that. We give a resource to the company, they pay us for that resource. I can't say it any more plainly then that. Somewhere in the 1950's, it became practice for companies to give health insurance. OK, it didn't cost much. Let's then thank the unions to taking this to an extreme. THANKS, UNIONS! Over the last 10 years or so, the costs have skyrocketed, for a number of reasons, which I have outlined before on here, and even just recently. There are ways to get that back in line. However, what is happening is that Obama is throwing companies a bone here. They will get health care off of their books in exchange for some of the other bulls*** that's going down. IMO, that's the dirty little secret. There's a lot more going on here then can be seen or heard. It's the only way that the squaky wheels will get turned here. Quasi government takeovers on a whole hell of a lot of industry. We'll make sure you won't have to pay for health care anymore. Woot! Tax breaks for health insurance? GONE! That way, we (taxpayers) and everyone gets insurance! Bonus! How do you regulate that? By who, when, where, how, and what is seen. I can't see it any other way. There will HAVE to be limitations on it because of the sudden flood of people that they are going to get in to the system. It's supply and demand. So, I guess the short answer is you're right... but at the same time, it's what the government gives and takes for businesses. They have to give that money back to shareholders so it can be reinvested. If the government takes more and more chunks of money out of the market system, it will face greater risk then it does even now. Actually health insurance really started as a means of competitive hiring. Offer better benefits in lieu of more money. Health insurance is not a right, but I think its foolish and counterproductive for a developed government to not provide at least basic health care to its citizens at low cost with the focus being on preventative care.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 12:44 AM) Thanks for helping me answer BigSqwert... Dean was an idiot about policy, but he certainly wasn't about putting the grassroots back together on the Democrat side. He deserves a lot of credit for that, that he never really got publically. Howard Dean as head of DNC? Yes please! Howard Dean as President? Umm, no thanks.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 12:51 AM) For the sake of where this is going, I hope you're right. But I don't think you are. With that said, business is going to do just what SSI and I are saying. Then what? We have to move toward UK/Canada/France/Italy system. There's almost no choice. Like I said, I hope you're right but I can't see how they can only do part of this. So essentially because we can't count on corporations to be good citizens, we shouldn't make a change in the way health care is provided?

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 12:43 AM) Odd why are my relatives purchasing supplemental insurance like crazy over in Ireland if universal health care is so grand. I have had a few relatives put on waiting lists to get procedures that we can get over here real quick. I am a diabetic, and I don't need some governmental overlord deciding that my care is not cost effective because its a chronic condition. And before you say well your company can pay for it, just like it does today. Companies will drop health care the minute the government offers it up for free. Why would they flip that cost if someone else is giving it out. I suggest people spend more time in school learning a skill or a trade, and less time worrying about government handouts. I don't think we are headed towards a UK style socialized medicine path. But I do think we are moving towards a system where there will be some basic healthcare coverage available to all Americans. For a huge chunk of the US population, that would be a godsend.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 12:40 AM) Agree on some points. However, my "absolutist" attitude comes from the man's own words. Don't put the stick up your ass and then 6 weeks into it go back on your word. On the "earmarks" he clearly had choices and he chose not to take them. You might not have seen it, but I do agree with his recall of the embryonic research. I gave him credit for that one, and yes, it's quite controversial. To his defense, which I'm sure you don't accept, Obama did basically say he's not going to force reform through on what's essentially a budget process that should have been completed last year. His budget for 2010 will be a big enough fight that seems to already be starting and I think that's where the change comes. Now the earmarks in this bill are no longer anonymous. For the most part they used to be two years ago. That's progress, no?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 10:03 PM) Hey stupid ass Michael Steele... go f*** yourself on the constutional ban on abortion, and gay marriage, and all the other bats*** crazy ultra right wing crap. Now, if you want to ban that stuff at the federal level and make it a states rights issue, then more power to you... but that is not his intent, and I know it. I am against the federalization of these laws. They are state issues. Period. This is the problem when the person in charge of building the party and bringing people together and raising money starts to talk about actual policy.

I don't get absolutist discussions about the way a lot of policy is done. Not all earmarks are pork. Some are worth having. Should there be a better way to get them through Congress? Absolutely. But you can't expect wholesale change all within 6 weeks. I've been pretty quiet about what we've seen so far, because I don't want to be caught up in spin from either side. I will say that I think Obama has played to the center and his solutions have been fairly reasonable. Lots of liberals think he's too conservative. Lots of conservatives think he's too liberal. So I see this as pretty reasonable so far. There are plenty of things that Obama has done that I'm not terribly comfortable with... but I think he's working hard to both make changes in the way Washington works as well as recreate the air of civility that the DC power keepers lost in the 1990s. Government is a messy dirty business. It takes time to make the changes that we all want. Some steps have been taken, but its only been 6 weeks. Miracles don't happen overnight.

Alright there, good times then!

So if they pay back the money, that means that it really didn't cost us as much as they say?

Did he just seriously blame Obama for causing panic after defending his advising on national TV that millions of people should dump all their holdings out of the market in the same paragraph? Oh wait, just consecutive ones.

Don't blame me, I voted for Cynthia McKinney.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) Or getting jobs in the Presidential administration after just having reported glowingly on it? Hey if it works for Tony Snow...

QUOTE (YASNY @ Feb 21, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) Even if the value of the home goes down to where they are backwards, they should be able to pay their mortgage. If they can't they either had some very unfortunate circumstances happen or they shouldn't have signed the note to begin with. I'd guess that the latter applies to the majority of those in default. I don't disagree with you, but defaulting on the loan essentially means that the bank has 0 chance to recoup losses on a loan because the collateral is worth considerably less than it was when the loan was issued, no? So if the homeowner who might be in danger of default (but a helping hand could keep him on track), wouldn't that same helping hand in turn help the banks as well?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) As I have said a million times before, this stuff just destroys the capital ratios of the banks. Taking a loss now, and getting it off of the books allows them to clear the bad assets off of their books. It puts money back onto their balance sheets and allows them to lend again. This plan not only locks them into a loss, but it keeps the bad assets on their books. Its exactly why the banks keep wanting the "bad asset bank" more than any of the other plans that are being kicked around. The rest of these plans are just going to exaserbate the problems. This plan is also just going to artificially stop the housing market from finally hitting bottom and actually starting to recover. I fail to see how helping someone whos tens of thousands of dollars backwards on their mortgage from going in default before they actually do go in default is bad for the industry.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 09:40 PM) There's a way out of that using the Federal Reserve. There is no way out of a deflationary spiral through monetary policy once you get to the point we're currently at. It's not pleasant, but it's better than 1930. If you're lost in the woods and you find a trail, you don't necessarily care how rough the trail is if it gets you out of being lost. On another note, a weakened U.S. dollar is almost a necessity at this point. It's been propped up through the system that was at the heart of all this...money flowing back in to the U.S. so that the U.S. could buy stuff on credit. The trade deficit, not the national deficit. A drop in the dollar will strengthen U.S. manufacturing relative to the rest of the world. That's simply something that needs to happen. The dollar has to weaken. The dollar is still weak, relative to the Euro and extremely weak relative to the Yen. It's not 1.60 to the Euro anymore, but its still worth less than when Euro trading was introduced in the 90s. With the EU facing much of the same crisis we are, its a wonder the dollar isn't stronger. The Dollar is down nearly 20% from its 52 week high against the Yen as well.

Insurgent wars are just so damn difficult to win if you aren't the insurgency. There's so much balancing that needs to happen to make Afghanistan helpful... and the US may find itself in a deal with the devil so to speak to keep the pot from boiling over. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the answer may lie with Iran. We may have an opportunity here to work with Iran in a meaningful way that may actually help out our interests there as well. Instability can very easily spread, and the potential for an unstable Iraq on one side, and unstable Pakistan and Afghanistan on the other side would have to make an Iranian government nervous. In fact, its race for a nuclear weapon may be more about self-survival then it is about anything else. Major powers will do whatever possible to keep a nuclear state from completely failing - which is why we never pulled the carpet out from Pakistan in the last couple years. There has to be a way to tie in a degree of increased influence in Iraq and Afghanistan with nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and increased stability in both countries. I think the Afghanistan issue and the Iraq issue can pave the way for a more normal relationship with Iran if that tightrope can be walked.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) I'm just at a loss why any of those Senators in DC would approve someone appointed by a Governor under such a cloud. Is a single vote that important to throw all integrity out the window? While in the end this may be good for my side, it's yet another disgrace for all politicians in general. Pathetic. If you can't trust a former Attorney General (who was believed to be squeaky clean, by the way) to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth our whole judicial system comes to a screeching halt. Because constitutionally they don't have much choice. If the appointment is legal, and ultimately it was a legal appointment, the Senate is bound to seat the named replacement.