lostfan

My wife doesn't do any automatic withdrawals (like I said, she is mentally lazy), only direct deposit. All she'd have to do is take 3-4 minutes to fill out an online form and then change the account number at her job. She won't do it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 01:09 PM) I believe there is legislation pending that would force banks to clear charges in time order, instead of by amount or something arbitrary. Good. The way they do it now is total horses***.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) Sorta like everyone calling the stimulus a failure when in reality, its a slow burn bill - only 20% of the money had actually been spent by Sept 1. Yeah people were saying this in like May. How the hell is the economy supposed to turn around in 3 months?

I tell her to change banks because of her general whining, about pretty much everything her bank does. She hates it so much but is too lazy to bother opening a new account with USAA or somebody and fill out some new direct deposit forms at her job. This is the same woman who always pays the 5 dollar pay-by-phone fee to pay bills because she doesn't feel like figuring out websites.

Going back a couple of pages ago when you were talking about overdraft fees, I wish someone would lay the smack down on banks who think they're slick by holding onto several small pending charges when you start getting close to zero, then authorizing a larger one that came after the smaller ones first so they can give you overdraft charges on all of them when you really should only be getting one, for the large one. Suntrust does this to my wife all the time, although generally the conversation ends because I tell her "quit complaining to me without doing anything about it, either change banks or STFU."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) Did BHO really ever spend the 2nd half of TARP? I sorta got the impression that they wound up not really needing to. Once the banks understood that the government wasn't going to let them lose money after the citigroup and BofA bailouts in Nov/Dec., Geithner kept trying to unveil plans to use the 2nd half of TARP, but then the banks suddenly found out they could raise private funds essentially backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. No, he didn't, he just gave out some high-risk loans (auto industry, etc. although Bush did that too). But I recall back a year ago, when I still watched cable news, watching someone explain the various "bullets" the government had, how the bailout was the last one, how it would be several months before we saw a positive effect. Of course this being the era of instant gratification in the 24-7 news cycle people were already calling it a failure in January and then blaming Obama when the market kept crashing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 10:33 AM) I think that is partially true - but the idea that Obama was responsible for what the Dow was doing is just ridiculous. That it was crashing? Because yeah he didn't have anything to do with that, at all.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 09:24 AM) Fox News: Obama is to blame for the bad economy, but the DOW going over 10,000 is because of Bush. huh??? I'm not going to attempt to say Fox is objective because that would be stupid, but you could probably make a case that the first half of TARP (where the Bush admin propped up the banks) had a lot more to do with the eventual recovery than the second half of TARP Obama's risky investments that haven't paid off yet and we won't find out if they will for a while.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) Meghan McCain - Boob-tastic! (Kinda NSFW) She apparently wasnt ready for the response: There was nothing wrong with that pic, what is she supposed to not have tits? She's a woman.

That's got to just be a random large number he threw out like Strasburg's 50 million. He won't get anywhere near that. A lot of money yes but not 60 million.

I tend to agree with kap on the slowing of bleeding, but perpetual tax cutting is s***ty budget policy.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) Apparently your personal feelings for Mark are overriding your business sense. Unlike you, I hope that Kenny at least CONSIDERS dealing him if things don't go well next season. Are you actually reading his posts or are you just talking s***? He said this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 06:06 PM) It's a dirty hippy blog so you don't have to read it, but I think this is a spot on reply, discussing a phrase from Bruce Bartlett's new book where he says exactly what you did about Bush's "Spending". Quote from Bartlett's book in italics, reply in normal text. Actually yeah I don't think that could possibly be any more correct. That's about what I've been saying for the past 2 years in better language. Especially the last part. Most of the deficit is hard-wired in (Social Security, Medicare, defense, general government operations, and the two wars account for probably over 90% of it) and everybody promises they'll slash the budget but then they find out they can't. So the answer is either raise taxes (which nobody wants to do, ever) or cut spending (which nobody wants to do, ever, even though they talk about it ad nauseam).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) list of lostfan's contributions to this thread... ...and we're done. Seriously, next time I'll read through the 8 page article to see if the thread is misleading. Get over it. So you're aware that your behavior is inappropriate and useless, and you are proud of it and signal your intent to continue with your subtraction by addition. You need to re-evaluate whether this is what you want to do.

I'm amused though by people who say they liked President Bush until his last 2 years in office, as if that's when he started spending because of the Democrat majority. His deficit was due to a combination of multiple tax cuts and 2 wars, not new government programs from the Dems that suddenly appeared in 2 years (he would've vetoed them anyway). Most of these people also criticize Obama for not going forward with the missile defense, while knowing little on actual facts, even though this system was going to cost tens of billions and not really provide much benefit. Many (still) criticize him for wanting to take troops out of Iraq as if we had the ability to leave them there indefinitely.

List of Steve's contributions to this thread: ...and, we're done.

Yeah, I could've told you it's Yemen. Put it this way, the country isn't invisible and there are people looking at it. It's just that the bulk of resources are directed to other, higher profile places.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) He's a weasel who ought to be booted from the caucus, IMHO. He most definitely doesn't deserve to have the gavel in a committee. That should be given to Democrats who run as Democrats. I don't disagree.

The "bad team" argument is pretty irrelevant right now. See that long list of s*** teams I posted earlier.

Ideology isn't as important as demographics in terms of what's going to hurt the GOP. People are fickle about ideology between elections, but demographics are cold hard facts.

Seriously though I know everyone who read that knows full well what I was saying with or without the minor oversight where I decided to stop typing. Lieberman is obnoxious as s*** but this doesn't mean he's a conservative.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) Which is why he's opposing the public option. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:32 PM) And health care. QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:49 PM) What about health care? Thought so. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Hey lostfan, I don't think Lieberman supported health care. lol hi

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) Which is why he's opposing the public option. Meh I should've said "almost." People are like, he's basically a Republican. The dude is no more a Republican than I am. That's just a lazy ass statement.

To be honest, when he said "Rodney King moment" I wondered if he was talking about having the s*** beat out of him and wondered why he'd say that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) What has Lieberman lost? He rarely votes with the Dems. This is a myth that people get carried away with. He's a reliable liberal vote on everything except when it comes to wars/Israel.