Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) If "Taking out a mortgage" is the "Extreme example" in terms of the requirements of financial literacy, then we're truly screwed. I think you're just stubbornly ignoring the argument here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) No it isn't. Every time you guys rant about job-killing regulation...this is exactly what you guys are ranting about. New rules that require certain types of information be available in mortage documents? You guys hate that. A whole agency which is devoted to making sure that documents could be understood by people reading them? That's the worst threat the financial industry has ever faced and its creation must be blocked at every step. It costs banks nothing to verbally explain things to a customer. It costs banks a negligible amount to fill out a government form that contains the same information they had previously in a different form.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) Which brings up another sort of fascinating topic in history... technologies that were gained, then lost. Rome got real good at concrete, but I believe that after Rome fell, there was a period of a few centuries where the European world "forgot" how to make it, before "discovering" it again. The problem comes down to specialization, and eventually when we hit the next dark age it'll be the same issue. Once a big chunk of the people with that knowledge die, having the technology around you doesn't really help. You need to go through the discovery process again.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) That's true too, the paperwork is changing. And basic overview sheets that have broad statements of protection for mortgager and mortgagee are now part of the process. Still though, just because of the scale of money involved, I would never go to a mortgage closing without an attorney. Oh absolutely.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Just more job-killing regulation. Terrible attempt.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) That's what I was getting at. You still should have an attorney present on a mortgage closing, because the few hundred bucks that costs you is well worth it against the risk assocaited with hundreds of thousands of dollars. But just going into that closing knowing the basics of what you are doing, would go a long, long way towards avoiding some of the messes people got themselves into. Then of course, Balta takes that, and makes it into needing a $5M legal team to do anything financially. Really we should be subsidizing the cost of anything anyone ever does. In a perfect world every citizen would have a "government helper" who is tasked to fully protect you against any potential harm.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) Or they could just require that the documents are written in a way where screwing people is legally impossible. Did you consult with an attorney when you received/purchased your current health care policy? They're getting there actually. And there are new laws in place concerning the amount of information that you need to be told as you fill out the various mortgage and loan documents.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 08:22 AM) And how many times were banks able to shunt people onto sub-prime loans when they would have qualified for prime loans? Seeing the bank's rates and basic exclusions is like seeing the U.S. recommended daily allowances but having no trust in the actual numbers presented. It's like dining at a fast food place. If you're too stupid to realize that a 15% interest rate is worse than 8%, or that an adjustable rate mortgage means that the rate will be adjusted every X amount of years and that payments will go up accordingly, then you shouldn't be buying a home. It's that simple. You shouldn't be able to drive a car without knowing how to operate it, same applies to home ownership.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 04:14 PM) I've also been meaning to pick up Guns, Germs and Steel which follows a similar theme to Mann's books. Read the first 10 pages and you have the book. Really the rest is pretty boring. Anyone interested in Lincoln's views should read Team of Rivals, an excellent book that gives you a lot of background of not only Lincoln's political history but the country's as well. The nation was much more split between slavery and anti-slavery by about 1830 than I had thought previously. From what I can recall from the book (read it like 3 years ago), Lincoln was a realist. While personally he didn't care for slavery and he spoke out against it on multiple occasion, his first priority as President was preservation of the Union. Yes, he did say that he'd allow southern slavery if that meant the Union would be spared, but honestly I don't buy it. I think he (and other politicians like him) would have sought some sort of concessions from the South to phase out slavery or limit it in some way. The slave issue was hitting an apex as the civil war stuff started. Other state/federal issues were also at play that really generated the war movement. Slavery was just the easy cause to attach to it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) “ Yeah, I'd just like to repost my quote from before. At the end of the day we're now arguing whether to take a threat seriously, which just leads us to 8 years of "WHY THE f*** DIDN'T YOU ACT WHEN YOU HAD A MEMO ON YOUR DESK ABOUT IT. WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER!" Who knows what this guy was capable of. That's the funny thing about criminals and terrorists - they're unpredictable. Normal, sane people don't do what they do...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) That's Gretchen Mol. I reckon she was close to 25 in Rounders, so I'd say the age is perfect. It's not her fault she's still so blazin'! Born in 72, so that broad is 39. Hot damn, lookin' good. Wow, yeah kudos to her. She's incredibly hot for being near 40.

So I think some others have referenced Boardwalk Empire in here. My wife and I just started season one last night. Got through 4 episodes in one sitting... needless to say we liked it a lot. My only problem so far is the casting of Jimmy's mom. She's supposed to be what, late 30's? But she looks 25. Sorta strange. That, and the Chicago accents are terrible. But that's not really a big deal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 13, 2011 -> 10:08 AM) Ben was incredible because he would get so far down at points, you actually felt sorry for him. Then he would just crush someone totally unexpectedly, and even unneededly. I think that is what sets him apart from Gus who it is just a business for. With Ben it was personal. I agree with this.

This made me laugh. If the left can point out that the GOP has brainwashed conservatives to think what they think, so has the left. He likes to spit out the "facts" but has no idea what they actually are, or why what he wants is a good thing:

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) But they would control their own product, which is a very valuable thing. There would be significant difficulties and getting it set up and in determining salaries. It would mean making less money, at least for a while. But that doesn't mean their only option is to take whatever the owners offer. No doubt that eventually, one day, some players would be in a better financial position because of it. But ultimately you know they're just going to be in the same exact position as current owners now. "What do you mean I have to earn less money than the players?! I paid for the damn franchise! I risked my money! Lock out!"

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) That's from an article on Grantland almost two weeks ago. Awesome read... We Need a Renegade Basketball League How many franchises lease a building though? I'm guessing if the owners are about to lose out on being owners of an NBA franchise, are they really content with just being landlords for a new league?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) I would be shocked if their contracts didn't contain clauses relating to work stoppages and scab players. Oh i'm sure there's a clause about lock-outs. But they're not scab players when there is no NBA player union. They're just straight up NBA players, drafted and signed by NBA franchises.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) lol. They'd have a tv in .00000000000000000001 second. You guys are ignoring the money involved, not whether TV networks would be interested. At the end of the day, creating an entire new league (which btw, will be set up by SUPERSTAR players for their own benefit...who i'm sure will be 100% in favor of sharing the revenue equally, the % of their own money used to start the league be damned) and all the money and energy and time invested in doing that, to ultimately make less money than the current deal. Why would they do that unless they just want to become investor/owners and probably do the same s*** the current owners are pulling? It's a great idea in theory, and a terrible idea in reality.

"Some rogue terrorist in the mountains of Afghanistan wants to hijack multiple commercial jets on the same day and run them into the World Trade Center? HA! What kind of weed are you smoking? That could NEVER happen!"

And i'm guessing the TNT and ESPN's who already have the billion dollar deals with the NBA aren't going to get out of those contracts very easily. It's not like the contract says "we now have the rights to air the NBA, but only if the NBA has superstar players." The NBA will field teams full of scrubs and existing TV contracts will have to be played out. Is ESPN going to invest another billion to air a new start up league?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 11:31 AM) Yes, I'm sure no tv station on earth would try to get the rights to that. What major, national network is going to get into a bidding war for a "league" that has no definitive presence and a "league" that could simply vanish as the players go back to work for the NBA? I'm not suggesting that no one would purchase the right to televise the game(s), but i'm sure it would be on a game by game type basis with very little money in play. Compared to the money the players would get from NBA TV rights it would probably make sense to just take the NBA's deal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) And because the NBA doesn't have an anti-trust protection, they could get away with it. That would be incredibly stupid of them. No TV rights = no $$.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Oct 11, 2011 -> 07:20 PM) Doesn't sound too worrisome but none the less.... http://blogs.heraldtimesonline.com/iusp/?p=15939 Creanscum!

Dusty Dvorcek I thought was going to be pretty good but he got hurt. Anderson was also pretty good, at least for a season. Isn't he doing ok with his new team? The bigger point, obviously, is that Angelo hasn't drafted well, and worse, hasn't addressed the glaring problems with this team.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 11, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) You might want to check the figures on Boozer's deal. It's nowhere close to a max. I could have sworn with the sign and trade deal with Utah that it was essentially a max deal. edit: yeah I guess I was wrong. He's only signed through 14/15 at 13.5 mill up to 16.8 mill.