Cknolls

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 07:05 PM) We have bad bets, but anyone mention how ridiculous PIMCO ending up making out based upon there shorts in Fan/Freddie. That was one hell of a one day earning (this is a little dated, because I've had computer problems at home but wanted to point it out cause I Follow PIMCO big time). My big client at work is the company that founded PIMCO. Bill Gross is also one of my hero's, just a great investor. You mean a great INSIDER.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 06:52 PM) The 2 Mortgage giants are an interesting deal, because they were originally started by the government and it's only been really in recent years that they've behaved as entities in the market rather than as government run things. The government guarantee on them was basically implicit. If the government turned its back and let someone run them in to the ground to make a quick buck, the government was always going to have to bail them out. They actually have provided a fair amount of stability in the mortgage market and the peopel who have mortgages probably pay something like a half a point of interest less because they exist. AIG though is another matter. This certainly seems to be another case of the fed deciding that this company was too big to fail, despite all their mistakes. Lehman Bros. going in to bankruptcy is going to be a mess that takes years to clean up, AIG would have been worse. Would have been a major disruption to an awful lot of people's lives (Imagine needing to get in touch with them related to an insurance policy tomorrow. Yowza). Basically, it's the classic example of the government helping the big guy. You go bankrupt tomorrow because of some medical bills, ha, personal responsibility! You shoulda planned for that. AIG goes bad because of some bad bets, and the government is happy to help. Anyway, congrats Americans, we just bought ourselves a failed insurance company! Actually the insurance portion of AIG was the ONLY thing that worked. And I would not be surprised to see Buffet scoop it up.

The New York Times, September 15, page C-1, "A Frantic Weekend That Wall Street Won't Forget," paragraph 5: "...Greenwich Avenue, which usually bustles on Sundays, was eerily quiet." Stamford Advocate, September 15, page 1, "Go Speed Racers: Soap box derby hits the Avenue," lead sentence: "The town's first soapbox derby in 23 years drew hundreds of fans to Greenwich Avenue on Sunday to watch 24 budding racers speed their handmade cars from Starbucks to Richards." All the news thats fit to make-up.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 11:57 AM) Interesting to note that the most clean campaign ever really isn't again... As usual taking a sentence out of context, or just not using the full sentence. "The fundamentals of our economy are still strong but these are very, very difficult times. I promise you we will never put America in this position again." Sounds way different than the crap you have been hearing ad nasuem the last few days, doesn't it? Racist Looks like both sides play with words.

Alt-A loans outstanding total $1 triilion dollars. Subprime loans totaled $855 billion. $400 billion of the Alt-A's were sold in 2006. 16% of securitized Alt-A loans issued since Jan. 2006 are at least 60 days late. Many of these loans (around $270 billion) were interest only or with a low teaser rate, and reset in 3 or 5 years. So we are going to see a wave of mortgages resetting to new rates; rates that can jump 4-8% or more from the teaser levels. Some option arms are resetting at 12.25%, which can double a payment. Wachovia and WAMU were the biggest sellers of Alt-A loans, and had $122 billion and $53 billion respectively on their books at the end of the second quarter.

No surprise here: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809140383 Be careful workers of Clerk's office, I smell a racism defense.

Keep an eye out for GE. They too are in it in a big way.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 09:04 AM) Isn't oil still up 50% for the year? Could be. I'm just saying don't think that because oil is up the DOW should be down and vice versa.

Remember crashes occur in oversold mkts, not overbought mkts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 07:24 AM) Dow's down 350 pts, S &P down 50 in pre-market trading. This kind of consolidation could mean we're nearing a bottom, though. Don't fall for that. People who believe that are the same ones who think the mkt should be up because oil is down another 5 dollars. Oil going down is not positive, it reflects global deflation= not good. We should ping either the 1170 area or the 1155 area on the S&P, whether it bounces there is another story.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 10:10 AM) If I had money in Washington Mutual that I could move, especially if it wasn't in the FDIC insured parts, I'd be getting it out right now. If I hadn't done so already. That doesn't make me face a lawsuit does it? No way. I would have done it already. Watch the VIX. When it approaches the high 28 low 29 level, we are goind to break the July lows. I also believe if WAMU fails, FDIC is out of money.

Sent: Thu 9/11/2008 6:52 PM To: Kathryn Lopez Subject: I love her feistiness I am not your typical Republican. Pro-life, gun owning lesbian with a partner and we are voting for McCain and we are doing because of Palin. We love her feistiness and understand what it means to have to take on stupid, ignorant comments about who we are. So we hope she stays on offense and never backs down Keep it boys, your doing a bang up job.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 05:41 PM) now if she was for it while she was running for Governor and against it now, how is pointing that out "bias"? Isn't it just truth-telling? The Real Story Of The Bridge To Nowhere By Rob Safutoon September 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) The Gravina Island Bridge in Alaska, also known as "the bridge to nowhere" has suddenly become a central theme of late in the Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain. The funny thing about it is that neither politician actually had a hand in the original project. Talk of the bridge has been spurred by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "No" to the bridge and told Congress that "...if we want a bridge we'll build it ourselves." That's where the battle begins anew. The backstory is that the bridge in question was used by McCain in 2005 as a symbol of wasteful spending on earmarks. Earmarks are federal funds targeted for use at the state level that are usually slipped into larger bills. As a result many earmarks get passed without having any connection to the legislation in a particular bill. As the NY Times reports it via a story published on 12/17/2005 titled Two Bridges To Nowhere Tumble Down in Congress, "Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity." So the funding for the project was actually killed by Congress long before Gov. Palin took office in December of 2006, or was it? The same NY Times story goes on to state that, "The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose." So the bridge project was still very much alive even after Congress had supposedly "killed" it. The project and funding was still on the table when Governor Palin took office in December of 2006. The previous Governor had, in fact, received the earmark and set aside $113 million for the project. The word is that statements made during Gov. Palin's candidacy for Governor of Alaska indicated that she supported building the Gravina Island Bridge. An Op Ed article in the Juneau Empire dated 10/29/06 states that, "Ketchikan will support Palin because of her support of the Gravina bridge." This indicates a good possibility that at one time Gov. Palin supported the project. But something happened between October 2006 and early 2007 after Gov. Palin took office. A letter to the Editor of the Juneau Empire dated 02/15/07 states, "Charles Fedullo, Gov. Sarah Palin's press secretary, said there is no money in Palin's capital budget for the project at this time. Palin has common sense, that's why." Later in the year another story on the Gravina Island Bridge indicates, "In September, Palin ended work on the Gravina project, acknowledging that the state no longer had a way to pay for a project that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars." So there are four relevant facts in this case that are indisputable. Fact 1: At some level Governor Palin showed support for the bridge project while she was running in the race for Governor of Alaska. Fact 2: Congress made the money for the Gravina Island Bridge available to Alaska, although it didn't have to be used for that bridge. Fact 3: The State of Alaska already had the federal funds in hand when Gov. Palin took office. Fact 4: Governor Palin put a stop to the bridge project and appropriated the funds for more reasonable uses. In September of 2007 the Alaska Daily News ran a story titled State Abandons Ketchikan Bridge To Nowhere that acknowledges the fact that Gov. Palin put a stop to the project and states, "She directed the state transportation department to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport." That same story also reaffirms the NY Times story mentioned earlier in this article by stating that, "Congress stripped the earmark - or stipulation - that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate." Fast forward to today and the Barack Obama campaign is taking great issue with Gov. Palin's statements indicating that she put a stop to the project. Barack Obama was quoted today as saying, "I mean you can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid." Senator Obama was talking about Gov. Palin's stance on the bridge project. The Obama campaign is taking a huge risk in making this stand. Governor Palin never said that she never supported the bridge. Governor Palin said that she put a stop to the project. And some have been saying that Congress killed the project. But the quotes from the New York Times and the Alaska Daily News prove without a doubt that there was money provided by Congress before Governor Palin assumed her duties. The money provided was eventually used on projects that were deemed more "fiscally responsible" for the State of Alaska. So while Governor Palin should be chastised for speaking with a bit too much bravado on the subject given her early stance on the project, she did indeed realize that this effort was a waste of money and put a stop to it. And since Gov. Palin's party, the Alaska Republicans, were behind the bridge all along, she actually went against her own party to stop the project. Those two facts indicate that Gov. Palin is both a reformer and a fiscal conservative as she claims to be. Hopefully the whole truth on this will come out. If it does then Senators Obama and Biden may just have serious egg on their faces. As a footnote, the Alaska Democrats have been caught covering their tracks on this issue. A Democrat sponsored website until recently included information that attributed the ending of the Gravina Island Bridge project to Governor Palin. Strangely enough that page has been removed. But via the magic of Google cached search results I provide a screenshot below. Categories:Politics

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) I believe the quote is "I told Congress, Thanks, but no thanks for the bridge to nowhere." In reality she really said, "Oh pretty please! Thanks! Oh wait, no? But can we keep that money anyway? Great, thanks! Let's build a bridge in Wasilla!" So I guess, if the text of the script reads, "Thanks..., [but] no... thanks!" it might be accurate. Here's a link to the video of her making the claim on September 9. So your answer to my question is no she never said she didn't support it. But she did stop it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) I call manufactured outrage here. Saying that Dems don't mention some specific persons is no different than saying the GOP didn't mention some other specific persons. No one here came anywhere near defending certain execs because of some party affiliation, and I doubt anyone would. Okay did the Dems ask for prosecutions like they did with Enron? Rhetorical I know. Don't answer.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) Public pressure, after it was exposed to national scrutiny. Wrong.

Did Palin ever say she never supported the bridge? or Did Palin say she put a stop to the bridge?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 11:13 AM) Nothing from the other side quoted directly in this article, but Senator Obama and a few other Dems are making some noise over those executive pay packages for the bank robbers I mentioned above. Its funny nobody, i.e. DEMS, mentions the $92 million dollars Franklin Raines stole or the $26 miilion that Gorleick stole.How about former Veep vetter Johnson? Short-term memory is a b****. And please don't tell me they were not convicted of anything. They ran Fannie into the ground and deliberately misttated earnings to receive higher stock awards. How much value has been lost by this mess? directly and tangentially? Enron is a pimple on an ass compared to Fannie.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) congress. they wouldnt give Alaska the money to build it because they thought it was a pointless project. So, Palin took what little money congress had already given them for the project and spent it elsewhere. She didnt pull the project, Congress pulled it. I thought they funded it but not completely so the project was scrapped.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 11, 2008 -> 09:55 AM) that's part of the lie. She makes it sound like it was sold on ebay... which it wasnt. And she makes it sound liek the idea of putting it on e-bay was her idea... which it wasn. She says she opposed the bridge... she didn't. She says she'll cut spending.... but billed the state for time at home. Like he said, it's the CONSTANT lies. And it's just not her either. The "sex-ed for kindergartners" was a flat out lie. The McCain ad with Wolves lied on both points (that Obama was pushing palin's smears and the 30 people 'air dropped' into Alaska). His constant lies about Obama raising taxes. It's a trend of flat out lies that are DISCREDITED by independent sources that the McCain campaign continues to push even after being called out on them. There's a difference between bending the truth to fit a narrative and flat out lying. Who stopped the bridge from being built?

Gutfeld on Palin Pretty funny: Perhaps, she truly is the devil in a dress, a ghoul that eats children and pollutes the planet and possibly beats Barack Obama, the patron saint of every customer buying wheat germ in bulk at GNC. But I know the real reason why every single elitist media type is terrified of her. They've never met her. And by "her," I don't mean Sarah Palin. I mean "her", an actual normal woman with a bunch of kids, an average husband and no desire to watch "The L Word." She's scary to these folks the way Wal-Mart is scary to them: Both are alien to someone who blogs about their chakras. They won't go there, because they've never been there. To them, hating Sarah Palin is a symptom of larger bigotry against the rest of us, the normal. If they saw her at a party, they would wonder how she got in. She's the anti-Obama, the anti-New York Times, the anti-everything that Tim Robbins loves, which is why I love her — and you should too.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Sep 10, 2008 -> 07:08 PM) The posts on here are f***in hilarious. I like the screwed up system that gives the same value to my uneducated vote as your all worthy and wise one. There are no educated people that like Senator Palin. McCain and Palin will win this election because me and all my stoopid friends. It's so disgusting isn't it??

Maybe this helps: The analysis prepared by Palin's office added up travel costs for time in Anchorage, other parts of Alaska, out of state, and public safety costs associated with gubernatorial travels — in other words, most of the cost of such travels. Palin's office found that she had spent $122,970 in her first nine months in office. I don't have a figure for her entire first year, but if she spent in the final quarter at the rate she spent in the first three, that would be about $164,000 for the year. These are the figures for the other governors: Murkowski 2006 $525,392 Murkowski 2005 255,823 Murkowski 2004 217,023 Murkowski 2003 275,546 Knowles 2002 278,026 Knowles 2001 210,968 Knowles 2000 89,578 Knowles 1999 73,700

From NRO: Geez, give the guy a break. So Obama can't tell the difference between pigs and pit bulls. So what? It's not like he can't distinguish between a domestic terrorist and some guy who lives in the neighborhood, a fetus and an infant born alive or the lunatic leader of a terrorist state and a reasonable statesman

The gift that keeps on giving: Joe Biden’s comment today, suggesting some contradiction between support for those born with developmental disabilities and opposition to embryo-destructive research is among his more appalling and insulting gaffes to date. As CBS reports it, Biden said: I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research? When asked whether this was an implicit reference to Sarah Palin’s son with Down syndrome, Biden’s press secretary put out this statement: This is a clash of policies not a clash of personalities. We've heard not a dime's worth of difference between the McCain-Palin ticket and the Bush Administration on medical breakthroughs that millions of parents and doctors believe could save lives and transform the quality of life for countless Americans. Where to begin? First of all, the example Palin sets in how she and her family have welcomed her Down syndrome child points in precisely the opposite direction from Biden’s call for the destruction of human embryos for research: it points toward a society that treats every human life as deserving of protection and regard. It is the very reason to oppose embryo-destructive research. Second, while stem cell work, including embryonic stem cell research, can help in the study of human development in general, as a matter of basic science, the notion that it offers a path to the treatment of Down syndrome or other developmental disabilities is just not sound. The basic science (which at its edges could have some impact on the study of developmental disabilities) can be and has been pursued under the Bush administration’s stem cell policy, and even the most adamant advocates of the policies Biden has supported have not listed a cure for Down syndrome among the miracles they promise. Biden’s remark is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which some Democratic politicians treat the relevant science here: they don’t themselves think this is one avenue of cell biology that could offer important help in one range of potential biomedical advances but rather they see it as a kind of magic bullet and universal cure-all that allows them to be for curing all that ails the human race and accusing their opponents of being against it all, meanwhile paying no heed to ethical concerns. Third, to the statement from Biden’s press secretary. I certainly think it would be nice if there were no daylight between McCain and Bush on stem cells, but in fact John McCain voted to overturn the president’s stem cell policy, just like Joe Biden did. Unlike Biden or Obama, though, he has been very eager to encourage new advances in cell biology that could well make the entire debate moot, by making available the benefits derived from embryonic stem cells but without the need for embryos, and so with no ethical concerns. McCain is well informed about these advances, and has suggested they could change the balance of moral goods involved in the stem cell debate. He wants a solution that could advance medical research without undermining our society’s commitment to human equality or dignity. Joe Biden seems just to want a political weapon, and seems not to know much about the subject. The Obama campaign is now backing away from Biden’s insulting remark, and especially arguing that it has nothing to do with Sarah Palin (despite the obvious contextual evidence to the contrary). The Democrats have been hoping for a gaffe from a VP candidate, but this isn’t the gaffe, or the candidate, they had in mind