Out of the Past

What do you mean by the 80% upside down? From what I read the new loans would be backed by Fannie and Freddie (not sure what they mean by "backed") and the borrower would have to meet the Fannie / Freddie income requirements and the home would need to be owner occupied. If the borrower needs to document his income it means people who got laid-off would not qualify for the bailout. The bailout will help upside down people who are currently employed and are currently paying their mortgage. Obama's goal seems to be to prevent people who can afford their mortgage to walk away from them.

What do people think of Obama's mortgage bailout plan? What few details are out I don't like. Basically the bailout will help people who currently can afford their mortgage and are not defaulting but who are upside down but would likely not be upside down had they given a good down payment. If you and your neighbor bought the same house for the same price a couple of years ago and you gave 25% down and he gave 3% and both of you are making your payments he gets a bailout and you don't. How fair is that?

after taking a hard look at the schedule. I see the canes going 6-6, 7-5 at best. And i wouldnt be suprised if they went 0-4 to start off the season, at best 2-2. those first four games are real tough. Got a feeling its going to be a long season for Canes fanes And if the canes do go 0-4, get ready for those FIRE RANDY!!! threads. I dont think so. Admin Coker set this team back 10 years. Shannon is doing a great job recruiting. They'll give him atleast two more seasons (2009 and 2010) to turn the program around. Saban, Tressel, Carroll, Miles, Meyer and the like are great recruiters. Shannon as a recruiter is way behind the true great recruiters. The local media is so full of crap about Shannon's recruiting prowress. I agree he gets two more years.

When the deal collapsed a few weeks ago from what I rememebr reading it was because they couldn't find a viable private partner to manage and operate the tunnel. I think it was an Australian company taht was suppoesed to be it but they were practically bankrupt. If the feds put money in how would that address the issue that killed the deal (no viable private company to manage / operate it)? That wasn't the problem. The private company couldn't manage/operate it because they couldn't put up their end of the financing. The state and county were to put up a certain percentage and the company would put up the rest. Well, the company couldn't raise financing for it. It can still operate and fulfill their end of their bargain, except it can't raise the capital it needs to help finance it. With the financing from the government, it will be able to, unless it completely collapses. This Herald article says the state pulled the plug in December because the company that was going to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the tunnel was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:s1PeMz...cd=10&gl=us

He's bunting b/c he can't hit. Stop overrating the guy...he's nothing special. Stats don't lie. He can be as fast as he wants...he's not going to steal 1B. And judging by his minor league .OBP #'s, and the rate he makes contact with the ball + the little to no power he has...he's going to have trouble getting to 1B. Consider it good news everytime you hear a rumor of him not starting with the big team. Stats are often misread. We need to see if he gets a handle on the strike zone. And stats are often misunderstood especially the ones with fancy names that don't measure what they supposedly measure.

When the deal collapsed a few weeks ago from what I rememebr reading it was because they couldn't find a viable private partner to manage and operate the tunnel. I think it was an Australian company taht was suppoesed to be it but they were practically bankrupt. If the feds put money in how would that address the issue that killed the deal (no viable private company to manage / operate it)?

You may be right and the tunnel may be ready to go but I don't knwo why you think the tunnel is one of the projects. The projects have not being selected except for Harry Reid's $8 billion train. If the projects were already selected they would have being disclosed on the bill given Obama's view on transparency. I don't think it works that way. This money will be distributed by various infrastructure/transportation agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, to projects that meet certain guidelines (which will be promulgated by rule or perhaps from the statute itself) and apply for such aid. Generally speaking, these kinds of projects are not specifically granted money in a law (except when you get Senators putting in earmarks). My hunch is that there are hundreds of projects that have requested aid from various federal agencies because they can't get access to the capital markets. The federal agencies have probably granted aid in some cases, but in most cases probably have not moved ahead because they simply don't have the money. In this case, they will now get the money. Also, there are various tax components which are too complex for me to discuss here (this would take me several hours to explain, and I doubt you want to read that, and I don't have that kind of time). I believe in some circumstances if projects meet certain requirements they will get grants from the government (up to 1/3 the total cost of the project), in other instances they will get tax rebates, in other instances they will get tax credits, etc. The Miami tunnel project may get money for this - it depends on a bunch of factors to which we are not privy. I would imagine they have requested aid from the federal government already. We really don't know - but I do know that from a design/engineering/construction perspective, they are far along. This articles speculates on how the money will be distributed. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/weekinre...;pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/polit...agewanted=print February 18, 2009 Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas By CHARLIE SAVAGE WASHINGTON Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush's "war on terrorism," the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's approach to fighting Al Qaeda. In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.'s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone. The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team's arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the "state secrets" doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials. And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government "for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information." These and other signs suggest that the administration's changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies. In an interview, the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, asserted that the administration was not embracing Mr. Bush's approach to the world. But Mr. Craig also said President Obama intended to avoid any "shoot from the hip" and "bumper sticker slogans" approaches to deciding what to do with the counterterrorism policies he inherited. "We are charting a new way forward, taking into account both the security of the American people and the need to obey the rule of law," Mr. Craig said. "That is a message we would give to the civil liberties people as well as to the Bush people." Within days of his inauguration, Mr. Obama thrilled civil liberties groups when he issued executive orders promising less secrecy, restricting C.I.A. interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques, shuttering the agency's secret prisons, ordering the prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year and halting military commission trials. But in more recent weeks, things have become murkier. During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law indefinite detention without a trial even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone. Ms. Kagan's support for an elastic interpretation of the "battlefield" amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials. Moreover, the nominee for C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, opened a loophole in Mr. Obama's interrogation restrictions. At his hearing, Mr. Panetta said that if the approved techniques were "not sufficient" to get a detainee to divulge details he was suspected of knowing about an imminent attack, he would ask for "additional authority." To be sure, Mr. Panetta emphasized that the president could not bypass antitorture statutes, as Bush lawyers claimed. And he said that waterboarding a technique that induces the sensation of drowning, and that the Bush administration said was lawful is torture. But Mr. Panetta also said the C.I.A. might continue its "extraordinary rendition" program, under which agents seize terrorism suspects and take them to other countries without extradition proceedings, in a more sweeping form than anticipated. Before the Bush administration, the program primarily involved taking indicted suspects to their native countries for legal proceedings. While some detainees in the 1990s were allegedly abused after transfer, under Mr. Bush the program expanded and included transfers to third countries some of which allegedly used torture for interrogation, not trials. Mr. Panetta said the agency is likely to continue to transfer detainees to third countries and would rely on diplomatic assurances of good treatment the same safeguard the Bush administration used, and that critics say is ineffective. Mr. Craig noted that while Mr. Obama decided "not to change the status quo immediately," he created a task force to study "rendition policy and what makes sense consistent with our obligation to protect the country." He urged patience as the administration reviewed the programs it inherited from Mr. Bush. That process began after the election, Mr. Craig said, when military and C.I.A. leaders flew to Chicago for a lengthy briefing of Mr. Obama and his national security advisers. Mr. Obama then sent his advisers to C.I.A. headquarters to "find out the best case for continuing the practices that had been employed during the Bush administration." Civil liberties groups praise Mr. Obama's early executive orders on national security, but say other signs are discouraging. For example, Mr. Obama's Justice Department last week told an appeals court that the Bush administration was right to invoke "state secrets" to shut down a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees who say a Boeing subsidiary helped fly them to places where they were tortured. Margaret Satterthwaite, a faculty director at the human rights center at the New York University law school, said, "It was literally just Bush redux exactly the same legal arguments that we saw the Bush administration present to the court." Mr. Craig said Mr. Holder and others reviewed the case and "came to the conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security" to maintain their predecessor's stance. Mr. Holder has also begun a review of every open Bush-era case involving state secrets, Mr. Craig said, so people should not read too much into one case. "Every president in my lifetime has invoked the state-secrets privilege," Mr. Craig said. "The notion that invoking it in that case somehow means we are signing onto the Bush approach to the world is just an erroneous assumption." Still, the decision caught the attention of a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Two days after the appeals court hearing, they filed legislation to bar using the state-secrets doctrine to shut down an entire case as opposed to withholding particular evidence. The administration has also put off taking a stand in several cases that present opportunities to embrace or renounce Bush-era policies, including the imprisonment without trial of an "enemy combatant" on domestic soil, Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking legal opinions about interrogation and surveillance, and an executive-privilege dispute over Congressional subpoenas of former White House aides to Mr. Bush over the firing of United States attorneys. Addressing the executive-privilege dispute, Mr. Craig said: "The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened. But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle." The administration's recent policy moves have attracted praise from outspoken defenders of the Bush administration. Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page argued that "it seems that the Bush administration's antiterror architecture is gaining new legitimacy" as Mr. Obama's team embraces aspects of Mr. Bush's counterterrorism approach. Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the sequence of "disappointing" recent events had heightened concerns that Mr. Obama might end up carrying forward "some of the most problematic policies of the Bush presidency." Mr. Obama has clashed with civil libertarians before. Last July, he voted to authorize eavesdropping on some phone calls and e-mail messages without a warrant. While the A.C.L.U. says the program is still unconstitutional, the legislation reduced legal concerns about one of the most controversial aspects of Mr. Bush's antiterror strategy. "We have been some of the most articulate and vociferous critics of the way the Bush administration handled things," Mr. Craig said. "There has been a dramatic change of direction."

You may be right and the tunnel may be ready to go but I don't knwo why you think the tunnel is one of the projects. The projects have not being selected except for Harry Reid's $8 billion train. If the projects were already selected they would have being disclosed on the bill given Obama's view on transparency.

Thanks. It doesn't matter now. Yesterday the guy said they had them but they were in the truck and hadn't being unloaded. So I call today just to make sure and the new guy says they sold out yesterday. Bestbuy pulled the same crap with another good deal but on that one I wasted time by driving to Dadeland. Supposedly they had 18 in stock so I go there and the SOB says we have them but not at that price becasue of this and that upgrade.

I don't think these are "shovel ready" projects. Even the tunnel is not shovel ready. It takes long term planning (years) to get these huge projects going. One of the problem is you'll end up spending a lot of it by the time the economy already recovered. These long term projects should be in separate bill as they have nothign to do with stimulating the economy right now. One bill should have addressed the stimulus and another the pet projects.

My mom wants a laptop. She has never used a computer and basically wants it for simple stuff like email and internet. Is this a good deal for $399? Compaq Presario CQ60-212US Notebook PC AMD Athlon? X2 QL-62 Dual-Core Processor 4GB installed memory 250GB hard drive SuperMulti 8X DVD?R/RW with Double Layer Support 15.6" Diagonal High Definition (8) HP BrightView Display 802.11b/g WLAN 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader Weight 6.52lbs Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit with Service Pack 1 1 year warranty http://www.staples.com/office/supplies/Sta...rtNumber=780117

I don't think it matters that the Marlins don't own the stadium if they control the management of it and get all the revenues from it as I think is the case (not 100% positive) for the next 40 years. By the time the county gets management control and the revenues from the stadium it will likely be worthless.

I respectfully disagree. Please point out line by line what you think is pork and why you think it is pork, and do not refer to Republican talking points. Also please point out instances where welfare is disguised as tax cuts. I don't have the details but correct if I'm wrong the biggest spending chunks includes about $150 billion in aid to state and local governments (this figure includes medicaid) to plug the budget holes they should plug themselves by cutting spending. This is pork. The other big spending chunk is about $150 billion for yet to be determined insfracture spending projects. These are pork but can be moved from the pork bucket if and when they prove to be worthy projects. I doubt the $8 billion targeted (but unnamed) for the metrorail between Anaheim and Las Vegas will be moved from the pork bucket. On welfare, there are "tax cuts" going for people who don't pay taxes with the earned income tax credit. Social Security recipients are also getting "tax cuts" and I'll bet a high percentage of them don't pay income taxes and for those the tax cuts are welfare. Please provide a definition of "pork" in a stimulus package. 1. Aid for states that are having a hard time paying police officers and teachers is not pork. Cutting spending during an economic meltdown such as the one we're experiencing right now is just as bad if not worse than raising taxes during a downturn. These states are having problems meeting their budgets not because they planned poorly but because the tax base has shrunk as a result of the economic downturn. This is not pork. This is the best way to avoid hundreds of thousands of layoffs that would occur if the federal government didn't step in. You seem to be okay with states and municipalities laying off teachers and police officers; I am not. 2. It's actually not $150B for infrastructure spending... it's more like $60B. Please tell me how spending money on infrastructure projects is not stimulative. And please also tell me what projects are worthy? I say they're worthy if 1) they're shovel ready and 2) would save or create many jobs. The Port of Miami Tunnel could get significant aid. That is not pork. And it would generate thousands of jobs down here. 3. The earned income tax credit and the tax cuts for social security recipients constitute among the most "stimulative" tax cuts around. I get your point, but the whole idea behind the stimulus is to stimulate spending, which in this case is ideal. Nevertheless, many people who day pay income taxes and small businesses ARE GETTING tax cuts. We are fundamentally in disagreement not because of "pork" or any other silly term you use, but because I believe that spending and tax cuts are stimulative any way you look at them, and certain spending and tax cuts are more stimulative than others, and you clearly do not believe there is such a thing as stimulative spending. The multiplier effect varies depending on the type of spending, and the multiplier effect you get from spending money on food stamps, welfare, etc., is the highest you get from any form of government spending or tax cuts. Targetted tax cuts to people who will spend the money is the most stimulative form of tax cuts, not the tax cuts to the rich. Fundamentally, if you don't believe government spending can be stimulative in a downturn (which would put you at odds with 95% of all economists), then you think the entire stimulus is pork. Again, I really don't know what you mean by pork, besides, of course, what Republicans consider pork, which is spending on anything they don't like. According to CNN (*) the infrastructure projects are $150 billion. If the $150 billion is spent on worthwhile projects that would be needed regardless of the state of the economy then go ahead and do them but otherwise they're pork. To spend billions on a project a couple of yeras down the road (or maybe even longer) just because we need to stimulate the economy RIGHT NOW is ridiculous. I don't really have a problem with the welfare to the SS recipients and the non-taxpayers as this will stimulate the economy right now but just call it what it is anf it's welfare. If you call it waht it is perhaps they would motivate themselves a bit more. State and local governents absolutely need to cut spending. They spent like drunken sailors when times were good and now they need to adjust their budgets to the current reality. If private entities can adjust their budgets to current realities I don't see why governmental entities cannot. (*) Not a particularly reliable news organization but I'll go with their number over yours.

I respectfully disagree. Please point out line by line what you think is pork and why you think it is pork, and do not refer to Republican talking points. Also please point out instances where welfare is disguised as tax cuts. I don't have the details but correct if I'm wrong the biggest spending chunks includes about $150 billion in aid to state and local governments (this figure includes medicaid) to plug the budget holes they should plug themselves by cutting spending. This is pork. The other big spending chunk is about $150 billion for yet to be determined insfracture spending projects. These are pork but can be moved from the pork bucket if and when they prove to be worthy projects. I doubt the $8 billion targeted (but unnamed) for the metrorail between Anaheim and Las Vegas will be moved from the pork bucket. On welfare, there are "tax cuts" going for people who don't pay taxes with the earned income tax credit. Social Security recipients are also getting "tax cuts" and I'll bet a high percentage of them don't pay income taxes and for those the tax cuts are welfare.

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures. The whole Republican in the cabinet thing is nothing more than an Obama ploy to mask his partisanship and far leftism. You can't blame Gregg for backing out after the obscene way in which Obama politicized the bailout and the census. How can a guy look bad for not allowing himself to be used as a token? Yes, Obama is clearly a far leftist, communist. Indeed. You're right. That's why he suggested a stimulus with 38% tax cuts. Yup yup. You're right. I don't know where you're getting the 38% number from but assuming it's correct I believe the costs of the ATM patch is about $70 billion and this patch is done every single year so that right there reduces the tax cuts to around 30% and a good chunk of the 30% is actually welfare disguised as tax cuts. So we have 30% of tax cuts (includign the wekfare ones) and 70% in bridges to nowhere like pork. Not a good deal.

Lobbyists had Obama's bill but members of Congress did not. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whi...bbyists-do.html Congressional Offices Don't Have the Stimulus Bill, Lobbyists Do February 12, 2009 04:14 PM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link | Print By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers We're receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can't get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know?but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?'" Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs. Worse, there seem to be several different versions of what was agreed upon, with some officials circulating older versions of the package that seems to still be developing. Leadership aides said that it will work out later today and promised that lawmakers will get time to review the bill before Friday's vote.

Gregg comes out looking like a loser here. He couldn't have figured this out before? Obama is a Democrat (relatively liberal on many issues) and Gregg is a conservative. This will make the Republicans look bad in the public eye, as Obama is reaching out to them and they're rejecting his overtures. The whole Republican in the cabinet thing is nothing more than an Obama ploy to mask his partisanship and far leftism. You can't blame Gregg for backing out after the obscene way in which Obama politicized the bailout and the census. How can a guy look bad for not allowing himself to be used as a token?

It's amazing how so much crap was thrown in under the radar that has nothing to do with a short term boost to the economy. This medical tracking thing or the $20 million to install a kayak launch pad in Morningside (Miami neighborhood) may all be good but it should be debated.

To put it simply, its quite obvious why the parochial schools in coral gables, coconut grove, etc. are not closing. There parishioners can pay up every Sunday at church. Those aren't closing because the students (or their parents) pay thousands of dollars a year in tuition to fund the schools.

Those schools are heavily subsidized by the Archdiocese and the Archdiocese is going through very rough financial times. I don't understand the outrage.

I completely disagree with Panetta saying that we should not prosecute CIA employees (or whoever) that engaged in waterboarding. Waterboarding is a war crime, plain and simple. I think that is his position because the new administration would be open to torturing in some cases but they can't say so openly because they don't want to piss-off people like you.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uui...8C74407AC4B0C97 Solis nomination vote delayed By: Alex Isenstadt February 5, 2009 02:02 PM EST Rep. Hilda L. Solis? nomination vote has been delayed by the Senate committee in charge of vetting her for the secretary of labor position in President Barack Obama?s Cabinet. The delay was announced moments after USA Today reported that Solis? husband had recently paid off $6,400 in tax liens on an auto shop he owns in Los Angeles. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee provided few details on why it postponed the committee vote on Solis, though Senate Republicans have expressed concerns about the nominee?s refusal to answer questions on a wide range of labor and union issues. Republicans are gearing up for a huge fight on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make unionizing much easier, and they are targeting Solis? nomination. The Obama administration insisted Thursday afternoon that her nomination was not in danger. ?We're not going to punish her for her husband's business mistakes," said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said at his afternoon White House press briefing. In its announcement Thursday afternoon, the HELP committee would only say it needed more time to review some fresh documents related to the Solis nomination. But in a statement today, HELP Committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and ranking member Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) issued a statement saying that Republicans had not placed a hold on Solis? nomination, as they had threatened to do so. ?Today?s executive session was postponed to allow members additional time to review the documentation submitted in support of Rep. Solis? nomination to serve in the important position of labor secretary,? Kennedy and Enzi said. ?There are no holds on her nomination, and members on both sides of the aisle remain committed to giving her nomination the fair and thorough consideration that she deserves. We will continue to work together to move this nomination forward as soon as possible.?

When ESPN says: Last Updated: 02/02/2009 I think they mean they last updated the page on 02/02/2009 which is two days ago.

have any of you in marlinsbaseball have spoke to him??? because he not been online for past 8 days last time i spoke to him was on jan 27 when he responded to my message i send him this been longest time he not online that i remember since i meet him here Send him an email.. he posts on the AOL message boards with the same broncobob27 username..