StrangeSox

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) OK, so I am at that point. I have been out of college for over 2 years and I have been working full time for the majority of it. I'm currently at home with the parents and have the desire to move out in the near future. I did a pre-approval at a bank a few weeks back and I was approved for a $200,000 loan if I do 20%. I don't have anything near $40,000 for a down payment right. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $15.000. Also, I have one or two friends lined up that would be in on renting a place with me or paying me rent if I buy a place. Now, from everyones experience, would it be wisest at this time to rent or to buy? I'd probably be looking at something in the $175k-180 range if I were to buy and most likely in the burbs around Schaumburg or the surrounding area. Any feedback is appreciated. FWIW, 175-180k around Schamburg is not going to get you very much. The sites I've been poking around lately are: www.illinoisproperty.com and www.illinoisrealestate.com It gives you more flexibility, but renting always just seemed like flushing several hundred dollars down the toilet each month to me.

Anyone else watch Breaking Bad on AMC last night? I thought it was a pretty good, Coen brothers-esque dark comedy.

QUOTE(3 BeWareTheNewSox 5 @ Jan 20, 2008 -> 12:26 AM) Wouldn't a change hurt a lot of jobs too? Don't know how big an impact it would be, but it seems like there's a lot of positions dedicated to helping others file taxes or advising on business decisions? There are, probably millions. But a rough transition period isn't a good reason to stick with a broken system. Besides, all that means is that we have millions of bright people putting all their efforts into analyzing the tax code and filing returns. Waste of resources, imo.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 08:08 PM) Clinton v. McCain would be absolutely horrendous...between the media's dislike for Clinton and the media's unbelievable fawning over everything McCain does. At least with Clinton and Romney the media hates both of them, so there'd be a bit of balance that way. Yeah, but I could vote for McCain without needing to vomit while doing so. Not so with Clinton, Romney, Bush or Kerry. Since, IMO, the Democrats are going to strengthen their power in Congress, I'd like to see a moderate Republican in the White House.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:13 PM) The trouble is, I paid enough attention during the Clinton years that right now, I think that there's a solid chance that a corporatist Republican might well be a better policy maker than the Clintons, and the fact that they've surrounded themselves in this campaign with many of the same people from the last election doesn't help matters. Hillary would have an awful lot of work to do to convince me otherwise in the general. I don't think the Clintons did a very good job with the opportunity they had in the 1990's, and right now, I'd lean towards a fresh face over them again. And the fact that I really hate the idea of political dynasties in this country really, really doesn't help. +1

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) Clinton leads by five points with the early returns. This could officially be the worst general election ever. It's going to be very, very hard to ever top Kerry vs. Bush in my mind. Clinton vs. Romney would give it a run for its money, though.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) This is all so mental it isn't even funny. We have been being talked into a recession for six months now, and this is their way of talking us out of it. That amount of money is so small, it wouldn't really have a noticable economic effect on a 6 TRILLION dollar economy. Besides by the time this actually hits the economy and flows through, odds are we would be coming out of the slump without this help anyway. It really is pointless. May 6, 1932 A very interesting book could be written on mass psychology and the effect thereof. That everyone is influenced more or less by the opinion of others is obvious. There was no reason for the unwarranted heights which the market reached in 1929 except universal over-optimism - there is, no excuse for the present market value of good bonds and stocks today except undue pessimism. In 1929 no pessimistic comment could survive. Today an expression of confidence in the future of the country is unpopular. Strangely, the peaks of 1929 and the low quotations of today are both due to the same cause, which is lack of intelligent and sound analysis. It is strange that such divergent conditions should come within such a short period and should be due to such identical factors. We are no longer much interested in the fantastic heights of 1929 except that we marvel at our lack of sane judgment. We are keenly interested in the present, and until some time elapses and we can obtain a better perspective it is difficult to realize that present conditions and markets are just as abnormally low as 1929 conditions and markets were excessively high. There are only two premises, which are tenable as to the future. Either we are going to have chaos or else recovery. The former theory is foolish. If chaos ensues nothing will maintain value, neither bonds nor stocks nor bank deposits nor gold will remain valuable. Real estate will be a worthless asset because titles will be insecure. No policy can be based upon this impossible contingency. Policy must therefore be predicated upon the theory of recovery. The present is not the first depression; it may be the worst, but just as surely as conditions have righted themselves in the past and have gradually been readjusted to normal so this will again occur. The only uncertainty is when it will occur. Everyone now seems to be indulging in the futile desire to buy at the bottom, just as everyone sought the very top in 1929. Most conservative people thought that values were much too high in 1928. Their judgment has since been fully vindicated in spite of the fact that values went much higher in 1929. Someone once said that they had made their fortune because they had never tried to buy at the bottom or sell at the top. This only means that they had not striven for the impossible but had been satisfied to buy when values were in general low and had been satisfied to sell when values were in general high, and without regard to peaks, which no one can identify and which, except by accident, are impossible to attain. I think everyone must know that values are now abnormally low. In a few years and with a better perspective they will realize that they were low in 1931. In other words, they were even then way below normal. People are deterred from buying good stocks and bonds now only because of an unwarranted terror. Almost everyone says that prices are going still lower. All sorts of bugaboos are paraded to destroy the last vestige of confidence. Stories of disaster, which are incredible and untrue, are told to foolish and credulous listeners, who appear willing to believe and worst. I wish to say definitely that values were low in the latter half of 1931 and that they are now ridiculous. To prove this one has only to take an average period of 10 to 20 years of earnings, which should provide a proper normal, and compare present values with the value, which such normal earning power would adequately support. The stocks .of many good companies which are faced with no ascertainable financial hazard are selling at only 2 or 3 times 10 year earnings, and at from 5 to 50 of sound book value, disregarding such valuable intangibles as good will, going concern value and trained intelligent organizations which it has taken years and the expenditure of vast sums of money to develop. I wish to say emphatically that in a few years present prices will appear as ridiculously low as 1929 values already appear fantastically high. In 1929 one could only profit by selling. Many of us are instinctively reluctant to sell. There was the problem of reinvestment - there were taxes to be paid on profits. Today the situation is reversed. The present offers a splendid opportunity to the buyer. Great fortunes will be made out of securities bought today. There is no tax on buying and there is no sentimental deterrent. Only unwarranted fear or a futile desire to buy at the very bottom deters people from investment now. Most people who are buying at all are buying Treasury Certificates or the highest grade of municipals. Some are even putting money in their safe deposit boxes. None of these things are cheap. By comparison they are most expensive. The time to have bought Treasury Certificates and the highest grade of short-term obligations was in 1928 and 1929 when values were high and in order to preserve the dollar intact. The present is the time to use the dollar in the purchase of good securities, whether they be greatly depreciated bonds or excessively deflated common stocks. All of our customers who have money must some day put that money to work, and into some type of revenue producing investment. Why not invest it now when securities are cheap? Why leave it in cash or invest in Treasury Certificates, which are dear? Some people say that they wish to await a clearer view of the future. When the future is again clear the present bargains will no longer be available. Does anyone think that present prices will continue when confidence has been fully restored? Such bargains exist only because of terror and distress. When the future is assured the dollar will long since have ceased to have its present buying power. If one holds either cash or the very highest grade of short-term bonds as a temporary medium of investment he will find that he has only permitted great investment opportunities in tremendously under priced securities to escape him. It requires courage to be optimistic as to the future of the country when nearly everyone is pessimistic. It is, however, cowardly to assume that the future of the country is in peril. No successful policy can be established upon this unsound theory. It is easy to run with the crowd. The path of least resistance is to join in the wailings that are now so popular. The constructive policy, however, is to maintain your courage and your optimism, to have faith in the ultimate future of your country and to proclaim your faith and to recommend the purchase of good bonds and good stocks, which are inordinately depreciated. You will gain the respect of those people with whom you come in contact by such an attitude. If you can persuade them to evidence their confidence in the future of the country by the purchase of good securities now you will do them a great favor and they will be grateful to you later. It is disconcerting to have recommended the purchase of securities in 1931 as they have gone much lower since. This shakes one’s confidence in his own judgment. You were just as right, however, in 1931 as you are now in recommending investment in securities, which were even then cheap. I can remember distinctly that I could find no justification for values, which existed in 1928 and in many cases recommended sale or advised against purchase. I was decidedly wrong, as prices went much higher in 1929. I was only wrong, however, in that I failed to pick the very top of the market. It is true that values in 1928 were already inordinately high as judged by normal and average yardsticks. On April 18. 1929. I dictated a memorandum, which was published to the entire organization, copies of which are still available in the files. The subject matter of the memorandum was unpopular. It stated that people were buying stocks without regard to “value, earning power and dividends, present and prospective.” It stated that people were buying stocks not because they were worth the price at which they were selling, but because they hoped they would go higher and could be sold at a profit. The memorandum stated that the average speculator who bought stocks upon that theory in the long run lost money. It compared the psychology, which then existed (April, 1929) with the psychology of the Florida land boom. The commodity inflation of 1919 and other characteristic periods of inflation. It pointed out that one could not afford to buy stocks that earned less than 5 and paid less than 3 on market values then prevailing. It stated “perhaps we are going to have the greatest era of prosperity in our history.”--- “Maybe we have already had this era. Perhaps we have nothing but increasing earnings and increasing dividends ahead of us. I hope so. If we have. Present values are hardly justified; if we haven’t they wi11 decline. Many things can happen, most of them unforeseen - politics, wars, economic changes, European competition, money shortage, withdrawal of foreign balances, adverse foreign trade balances, sudden withdrawal of large sums of bootleg money in the call market. Federal Reserve restrictions, interference by Congress or by the Government. These things probably won’t happen but they might. If they don’t present levels may be all right - if they do, the last holder will suffer and not the next to the last, but we can’t all be next to the last.” “The danger signals are waving - higher time money than we have ever known - more speculation than ever before - and tremendous brokers’ loans, though this may be a proper and normal increase in a very rapidly growing country. Not only are the rich and intelligent speculating but many have “their last dollar in the stock market on margin. $5,500,000,000 of record and a great deal more, unrecorded, is borrowed to carry stocks. People are paying 8 or 9°s for this money and generally getting 3 or 4. How long can this last? Can it last until the 3 or 4 catches up to the 8? Probably not.” “I am not a stock market prognosticator nor an analyst. I do not pretend to be a Moody, a Babson, or a Brookmire. I have been rather pessimistic about stock market prices for two years. If I had been an unqualified optimist I could have made a great fortune. I am not a pessimist - I think this country will prosper beyond conception in the next 20 years. I don’t, however, believe in over-speculation. I don’t believe in 9 money for 3 stocks. The former may be temporary - the latter is more or less permanent unless price levels change. I have been taught that a good stock should earn 10, not 5. Probably I am old-fashioned. In any event, this is not the prevailing custom today. I believe that people should speak honestly and not too guardedly. I would not want our brokerage department to be the means or vehicle of severe loss to people. It is hard to be patient with 3 stocks carried on 9 money. Will they stay at a level, which produces a 3 return? John Moody and a great many other excellent authorities seem to think so. I don’t know but I would not gamble on it.” Dean Witter

Another 300 pt. drop today

Torrents.

Yes, I can, as that's my entire argument against 100% free markets -- they have some pretty terrible consequences. There needs to be some level of regulation to prevent such atrocities. Also, without government anti-trust laws (more regulations), many markets would have developed monopolies long ago and would no longer be free markets. Free market is a great system, but 100% free market is not.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) Free Markets are the best answer. I have a masters in economics and have studied economics for the past 15 years diligently. Free Market Capitalism is the only system that no matter what (industries rising & falling), net production always increases. Free Markets bring us child labor, sweatshop labor, and slave labor. They also gave us massive industrial pollution to the point of rivers catching on fire. They're not always the best answer. Don't get me wrong, capitalism is great, but purely free markets have their flaws.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) First, no, it would not be "Federal oversight" to the ENTIRE country. It would be Federal oversight on a case-by-case basis. ...in every part of the country. And, once precedence was set, it would become de facto standards.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) If what affects AND BOTHERS people in Illinois, does NOT affect and bother people in Nevada - why should Nevada be imposed by the SAME LAW? If Indiana's polluting the air makes Illinois' citizens upset, but Utah polluting the air does not make Nevada residents upset - why should Utah have the SAME RESTRICTIONS as Indiana? That is a REMOVAL of civil liberties. Our society has simply become USED to this and accepts it as status quo now - not realizing that it is Un-Constitutional. Now we're back to the short-sighted nature of people. If everyone in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin is just fine and dandy with dumping pollution in Lake Michigan, it doesn't mean that we should or should be allowed to. Purely free markets aren't always the best answer.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) So since you have ignored all of my other replies, I am curious if you will answer me as to how if we eliminate federal oversight, and add to the overburdened federal court system, meanwhile eliminating income taxes, how do we pay for the court system to figure all of these disputes out? Fixed that for you, since his position seems to leave the power in the hands of the Feds still, but just leaves everyone in the dark with no guidelines to go by.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) Anyways, you can see how tenuous the connections can sometimes be in order to have standing. And it that comes back to the question: Do we really want the courts going through thousands of issues on a case-by-case basis like this?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) Well, now that I think about it, since a lot of environmental regulation and law is attached to the 5th Amendment takings clause, that does have some connection with property. But again, Illinois doesn't own Lake Michigan. The US government does, in effect - correct? So by nature, doesn't it have to be a federal matter, as opposed to Illinois going to court to protect property? Illinois owns lake front property that would be affected by the dumping.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) i meant that something like that can change your views on the world. I don't see how your wife getting breast cancer would change your views on domestic economic policy, foreign policy, etc. Health care maybe, but I doubt Mrs. Edwards was chosing between medical treatment and eating that night.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) four years ago his wife wasn't diagnosed with breast cancer. that changes things my friend. So...he wasn't genuine or sincere before his wife had breat cancer?

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) It is a state's right to do as they choose though. #1 your argument is completely invalid - because "dumping" is not allowed - not because it is unhealthy, but because it violates property law. Property law is the highest law. Dumping is simply against the law - not against a regulation. It is the same as why I cant walk over to my neighbors house and dump my trash on his property - it is against the law and I'd get a fine for littering. That is why THAT problem would not occur. I suggest you read up on property law to further understand this (dumping into Lake Michigan from Indiana, still affects Illinois' property - and property law is the highest law ). Secondly - if a state wants to pollute the air, and it's citizens do not have a problem with it - then that is their right as a state. If the neighboring states ALSO do not have a problem with it, well, then there is no problem. If a state does have a problem - then it becomes a federal case - which the Constitution is BUILT for - with the Supreme Court. And no - there would be no "guidelines" for ALL states to adhere to. It would be a "case-by-case" basis. If Montana was polluting the air around Wyoming at the same rate as someone in Indiana and the citizens of Wyoming (unlike the citizens of Illinois), do not have a problem with it - why should Montana have to adhere to the regulation placed on Indiana? Because "you" feel they should? Because the citizens of Illinois feel they should? That is Wyoming's business, not Illinois's. Your arguement reaches into bad territory here. You are now imposing that there "should" be one order for everything - mandated by the government. If the citizens of Wyoming don't care about the plant being in Montana, why should they adhere to what Illinois says? They shouldn't. That is Wyoming citizens' right. The problem is your argument is that there should be "one order". What if the USA has higher restrictions than Canada? Should we impose our law upon Canada? Or should we impose our law upon Mexico? What others do is their business UNLESS if affects our national security. Your argument is one that the federal government of the USA can make the decisions that are the safest for all citizens. But, what if Canada has tons of pollution pouring in nearby USA cities? Should there be "one order" that tells each country how to live? That is irrational and illogical & takes away civil liberties. If I live in Wyoming, and the citizens of Montana are polluting my air, and myself and my neighbors are okay with it - then that is our business - not yours. If you live in Illinois and Indiana is polluting your air and you are NOT okay with it - then it must be taken to federal court to have YOUR case decided - which is what the Constitution, giving it the Supreme Court, was built for. Your argument falls apart pretty quickly. Illinois isn't telling Indiana what to do; the Federal government is. Indiana has as much of a say in the Federal government as Illinois. And you still didn't address the fact that this system would (and did in the past) lead to extremely congested court systems, protracted legal battles, and wasted resources and time. Let's take your argument a step farther -- why is the state level the best? Why not limited state roles and bring everything down to county or city levels?

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) The state of Indiana has every right to lower their standards as low as they please. At this point, the states of Michigan, IL, etc. must sue Indiana on the basis it is harming the lives of their citizens and it must then be taken to a Federal court to be decided upon. But each case should be decided in a case-by-case manner - not as a national case that applies to all states. Because what if there are neighboring states that do the same thing elsewhere in the country and neither of the state's citizens have any problem with it? Should they be made to adhere to a law that they don't agree with simply because Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin's citizens didn't like it? No, states have the right to do as they please - and if a neighboring state has a problem with it - you sue them and take them to the Federal government for a decision. Doesn't each state suing each other over every single issue create another gigantic beuracracy and log jam in the court system? And, ultimately, isn't the Federal government still deciding and setting a de facto standard for every state to follow? And why should Indiana have the right to harm residents of other states, indirectly or not? Why should they be allowed to trash the enviroment even if no other state was affected?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) You know the interesting thing here? I think that while Bureau may have an interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause that is as valid as mine, but I think his interpretation shows the flaw in it through the example he's trying to defend. Specifically, in that last clause, Bureau says "slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy". Whether or not that may have been correct, if the South judged that to be the case, then that institution was going to continue until either the south judged that it needed to change or until something was changed to force it to happen. Considering that I judge slavery to have been a crime against humanity, I consider the fact that the federal government was able to stop that crime through whatever means necessary to be a solid argument as to why the federal government should have that level of power over commerce. I can take that example farther, to things like simple workplace protections, environmental protections, and so forth, but the key element I find here is that if defending that particular interpretation of the commerce clause requires one to defend the institution of slavery and find it to be a problem that the federal government could act to get rid of slavery, then I have a clear problem with that interpretation of the commerce clause. I was thinking the same thing while reading his post, but I couldn't verbalize nearly as well as you did.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) Personally, I think everyone might be missing the point of Paul's argument. I think when he brings up the fact he would have never gone to war with the Confederates, people bring up the slavery issue & he responds by saying slavery would have phased out just as it had in every other country. What he is saying - is that the Union did not have the "right" to go to war with the Confederacy. He says (and is generally cut off before finishing due to the question of slavery), that it is not in the Constitution that the USA should "war" with a state that feels a general and logical reason to secede - and the Confederacy (especially at that point in time), had one. Paul is simply saying, that this time is when the beginning of civil liberties began to be taken away by the Federal government. It "should not" have been a Federal issue about slavery. It was a state issue & that is what Paul is saying when he says that the Civil War should not have happened - because it was a state issue, not a federal issue. And, I for one, agree with that statement. The states should have the power to do as they choose & the citizens can choose to move to a state that they 'agree' with more. That is Paul's point. Except the slaves, of course... Besides, the Confederacy attacked Union forts first.

More fun times of improper SWAT team use. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=85887 First-0hand account: http://ksnydersj.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/...-the-home-game/

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:40 PM) lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system. Maybe he's being outspent because he doesn't have nearly as much money because he doesn't have nearly as much support? Look at Ron Paul, he's frequently ignored by the media but still rakes in the cash.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:20 PM) now this is absurd. a Nevada judge said that Kucinich could participate in the debate. that's effing ridiculous. he's only going to screw over edwards and to be annoying. i've lost all respect for this guy. so instead of a good debate between the top three we'll have another moron wasting time. f*** it. after the poll in NV i was actually getting hopeful but this hurts Edwards. damn him. Edwards (or any other candidate) doesn't deserve anything. If he can't raise enough support on his own, without needing others to be excluded, than that's just too bad.