Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?

12-09-2011 , 01:15 PM
Can someone provide a link or maybe just an explanation of how Charles Prince and/or CitiGroup broke the law? I mean, I get that their methods were deceptive etc. but was anything about their mortgage buying/selling strategy illegal?
12-09-2011 , 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBorders
Can someone provide a link or maybe just an explanation of how Charles Prince and/or CitiGroup broke the law? I mean, I get that their methods were deceptive etc. but was anything about their mortgage buying/selling strategy illegal?
My understanding is that it basically boils down to the same reasoning why you can't buy fire insurance on someone else's house. You then have an incentive to burn it down.

At least that's part of it. I think the more important issue is that they bundled these toxic mortgages, knowing that they were going to fail, took out insurance in the event that they failed, and then sold those products off to investors, selling them as great investments.
12-09-2011 , 01:21 PM
suzzer i dont understand lines and all that other betting terminology

but you're offering 5:1 on paul beating Obamz if he gets the nom? your $500 to my $100?
12-09-2011 , 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99


Oh man that sounds so horribly painful. Lets just kill SS now to avoid the horror of somewhat increased SS taxes and 10% reduced benefits. TIME TO PANIC.
Isn't this basically you responding exactly like mosdef said you would?
12-09-2011 , 01:35 PM
Ikes,

Kk v. K2 IMO. Ron Paul would lose every state v Obama.
12-09-2011 , 01:36 PM
Still can't believe I once busted out of a final table with KK vs. K2...
12-09-2011 , 01:38 PM
I'm not sure who could have seen this coming. Actress Jane Fonda says she is scared of all the GOP candidates & does not plan on voting for any. Glad she let us know her thoughts on the matter.

"Good News: GOP Candidates Scare and Depress Jane Fonda"

http://dougpowers.com/2011/12/09/goo...ss-jane-fonda/
12-09-2011 , 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
suzzer i dont understand lines and all that other betting terminology

but you're offering 5:1 on paul beating Obamz if he gets the nom? your $500 to my $100?
He's offering you 5:1 on Ron Paul getting the Republican nomination.

i.e. You win if it's Ron Paul, he wins if it's anyone else.

Last edited by Scary_Tiger; 12-09-2011 at 02:00 PM.
12-09-2011 , 02:00 PM
Which is a stupid f'in bet so let's stop clogging up this thread with suzzer's ridiculous offers.
12-09-2011 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almond
I'm not sure who could have seen this coming. Actress Jane Fonda says she is scared of all the GOP candidates & does not plan on voting for any. Glad she let us know her thoughts on the matter.

"Good News: GOP Candidates Scare and Depress Jane Fonda"

http://dougpowers.com/2011/12/09/goo...ss-jane-fonda/
I am no one cares what Hanoi Jane Fonda has to say about anything.
12-09-2011 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
suzzer i dont understand lines and all that other betting terminology

but you're offering 5:1 on paul beating Obamz if he gets the nom? your $500 to my $100?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scary_Tiger
He's offering you 5:1 on Ron Paul getting the Republican nomination.

i.e. You win if it's Ron Paul, he wins if it's anyone else.
oh totally misread what he was saying, i just skimmed and saw the word push thought he was offering the same bet, BUT NOW I C.

nvm suzzer gg etc.
12-09-2011 , 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeshen13
Which is a stupid f'in bet so let's stop clogging up this thread with suzzer's ridiculous offers.
This. Cut it out fellas. Its just lame.
12-09-2011 , 02:22 PM
So what? I made my points and provided quotes to back them up. Does him calling that out ahead of time somehow invalidate my points?

I don't even understand what his argument is. SS needs to be tweaked but we shouldn't tweak it because it might need to be tweaked more in the future? Ok.

Also SS faces it's biggest challenges in the next twenty years or so due to the baby boomer demographic bubble. Once that's worked through, it won't be a major task to set up a sustainable system for SS.
12-09-2011 , 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
So what? I made my points and provided quotes to back them up. Does him calling that out ahead of time somehow invalidate my points?

I don't even understand what his argument is. SS needs to be tweaked but we shouldn't tweak it because it might need to be tweaked more in the future? Ok.

Also SS faces it's biggest challenges in the next twenty years or so due to the baby boomer demographic bubble. Once that's worked through, it won't be a major task to set up a sustainable system for SS.
I don't want to get into a pissing contest about what "tweaking" SS entails. I agree that there are many ways to raise revenue and that the govt should honor it's commitments. I'm saying that the system in it's present form isn't as secure as it was intended to be or as it's portrayed to be.


BTW this came across the wire today:

NLRB Drops Case Against Boeing
Quote:
A top official with the National Labor Relations Board announced on Friday that the agency was dropping its politically charged case against Boeing, in which the agency had accused the company of violating federal labor law by opening a new aircraft production plant in South Carolina.

The N.L.R.B.’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the labor board had decided to end the case after the machinists’ union — which originally asked for the case to be brought — had urged the board on Thursday to withdraw it.

On Wednesday night, the union announced that 74 percent of its 31,000 Boeing workers in Washington State had voted to ratify a four-year contract extension that includes substantial raises, unusual job security provisions and a commitment by Boeing to expand aircraft production in the Puget Sound area.
12-09-2011 , 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
How have you guys not seen that video before?
huh? I've posted it like 20 times probably over the years.
12-09-2011 , 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoBoy321
My understanding is that it basically boils down to the same reasoning why you can't buy fire insurance on someone else's house. You then have an incentive to burn it down.

At least that's part of it. I think the more important issue is that they bundled these toxic mortgages, knowing that they were going to fail, took out insurance in the event that they failed, and then sold those products off to investors, selling them as great investments.
And don't forget the rating agencies rated the securities.

There's not really a problem with taking out the insurance in my view given the nature of how CDOs are constructed IE "insurance" is typically used for the highest rate tranches.
12-09-2011 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adios
I don't want to get into a pissing contest about what "tweaking" SS entails. I agree that there are many ways to raise revenue and that the govt should honor it's commitments. I'm saying that the system in it's present form isn't as secure as it was intended to be or as it's portrayed to be.


BTW this came across the wire today:

NLRB Drops Case Against Boeing
I lol'd pretty hard at Boeing's response.
12-09-2011 , 02:59 PM
Betting on hypothetical events that will never come to pass actually sounds like fun.

What odds can I get that, when they meet in next year's World Series, the Mets will beat the Orioles in six games?
12-09-2011 , 03:01 PM
Thanks for your post on SS mosdef.
12-09-2011 , 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Therefore if Romney think that Gingrich deserves crticism it can only be because he thinks that Cathlocism is obviously an incorrect religion. Does he really want to go there?
Or...huge shocker....candidates will say things that aren't consistent or that they really don't believe if they think it will help their chances....in this case by hurting the chances of his main rival.
12-09-2011 , 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
Or...huge shocker....candidates will say things that aren't consistent or that they really don't believe if they think it will help their chances....in this case by hurting the chances of his main rival.
Obviously. When I say "it can only be because" I say it sarcastically.
12-09-2011 , 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Obviously. When I say "it can only be because" I say it sarcastically.
Ok...i wasn't sure if you actually expected romney to have such degrees of internal consistency.
12-09-2011 , 03:46 PM
So no one feels like responding to my post that claims worst case scenario SS benefits would have to drop 80% assuming no tax increase? So let's say modest tax increase and cut to 90% of current benefits.

Why is that so terrible again that we have to wring our hands and decry the entire existence of SS?

Oh yeah, because people who hate any kind of social safety net will use any opportunity to paint SS as unsustainable.
12-09-2011 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adios
I don't want to get into a pissing contest about what "tweaking" SS entails. I agree that there are many ways to raise revenue and that the govt should honor it's commitments. I'm saying that the system in it's present form isn't as secure as it was intended to be or as it's portrayed to be.
Well that will happen when you have people living longer combined with a massive baby boom generation starting to hit SS age. It doesn't mean the entire concept of SS was unsound to begin with.
12-09-2011 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Well that will happen when you have people living longer combined with a massive baby boom generation starting to hit SS age. It doesn't mean the entire concept of SS was unsound to begin with.
The funding of this program was never on sound financial ground suzzer. The more appropriate analogy is the one of mortgage industry's teaser rate where they offered a below market rate for the first year to suck you in and then jack up the rates in year 2.
The obv difference in my analogy is that the mortgage industry disclosed what was going to happen in year 2 and the govt did not.

      
m