3/25    http://www.bankaholic.com/2008/federal-reserve-is-failure
        Federal Reserve is a Failure while the White House praise
        America's new society of ownership during the housing boom.

3/25    This picture pretty much speaks for itself
        http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDA2YTFkMmUxNjliNDIzODU1MWQxZmY1MjdiMDE0OGM=
        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/185608.php

3/26    "But the trustees warned that financial pressures will begin much
        sooner when the programs begin PAYING OUT MORE IN BENEFITS EACH YEAR
        THAN THEY COLLECT IN PAYROLL TAXES.
         "For Medicare, THAT THRESHOLD IS PROJECTED TO BE REACHED THIS YEAR; it
        is projected to occur in 2017 for Social Security."
        [emphasis added]
        http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-social-securitymar26,1,6982890.story
        \_ We heard you the first time.  See a few posts down?
           \_ My point is that *this* year is when the problem starts.
        \_ So what? Bush has been borrowing trillions, what's a few billion
           more?

3/26    Close examination of video footage has found the sniper fire Hillary
        was talking about.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

3/26    I used to work at this tiny little company that was very cool
        and meritocracy worked. But as the company grew so did the
        level of politics and power struggle people had to play, along
        with very territorial management that partitioned the company
        into incohesive parts. Meritocracy still exists though it seems
        to play a much smaller role now. I want to ask you guys. As the
        size of the company grows, does the suckiness grow as well?
        At this point, I'm very disillusioned.          -big company worker
        \_ Suckiness is relative. There are things that suck about working
           at a little company, too. However, politics usually does grow
           as the size of the company grows.
        \_ My experience has been the exact opposite. In little start-ups,
           the people that get drunk with the VPs get all the plum assignments
           and promotions. In bigger companies, they actually do things like
           performance evals and competence matters more. But there is
           office politics (meaning, you have to be well liked by people)
           in both environments.
        \_ Sorry to hear it.  I had the same experience, and it really
           sucked to watch a great place to work slowly turn into a pit.
           My mistake was staying too long (overly sentimental about the
           good old days, or something like that).  In my experience, larger
           companies are unable to maintain high standards in hiring.  They
           need to hire too many people just to keep up, and can't afford
           to be as selective.  Good people don't tend to apply for jobs at
           the larger companies, so they select themselves out of that job
           pool.  Managers at larger companies tend to have larger numbers
           of people reporting to them, so they can't pay as much attention
           to what their employees are doing.  Expectations are lowered.
           Individual productivity is lower.  Middle managers more interested
           in building an empire for themselves and engaging in political
           infighting than in doing something constructive get in and stick
           around like ticks.  Reviews and performance evals seem more like
           mechanisms for denying or limiting raises at large companies.  At
           small companies, communication tends to be a bit more open.  At
           small companies, it's harder for losers to get hired, and they don't
           tend to last long.  Have you noticed that some of your favorite
           coworkers have left over the years?  Find out where they went.  See
           if they're hiring.  Good luck.
           \_ This is really great advice, thanks!!!
           \_ How big were these small companies you worked at?

3/26    Has it rained this March?  Are we having another dry year?
        \_ yes, and no.  We're about normal for rain/snowfall overall.

3/26    Fed discount window borrowings at historical highs
        http://tinyurl.com/2qx69k

3/25    This picture pretty much speaks for itself
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/yst66p [national review]
        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/185608.php

3/26    As foreclosures go up, wouldn't it contradict Bush's idea of the
        great New Ownership Society? Would foreclosure have a lasting
        effect on this cool idea?
        \_ ...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of
           our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more
           vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital
           stake in the future of this country.
                        - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
        \_ We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation
           to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow
           the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the
           generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew,
           with the past cut off and the future ignored.
                        - John Major conference speech 1991.
        \_ It already has. We are back to the ownership levels we had
           pre-Bush.
           \_ People made stupid financial decisions.  This is clearly the
              fault of the Bush administration.  It is part of Yet Another
              Karl Rove plot to destroy the country!  Grow up.  I mean that
              literally.  If you screw yourself spending money you didn't
              have you are stupid and it is only your fault.  Are you a
              believer in "predatory lending"?  Sheesh.
              \_ Yes, I believe in predatory lending. Deregulation and the
                 selfish and immature philosphy behind it has been a
                 disaster. Grow up, indeed. The one last thing that the
                 Republicans had to be proud of has turned to dust. When
                 will you admit that you need to learn from your mistakes?
                 \_ 1) I'm not what you think I am.  2) Please explain how
                    you can "predate" on an adult.  Legal adults of age and
                    means to sign a contract for hundreds of thousands of
                    dollars were somehow "forced" into doing so?  Ridiculous.
                    Fortunately, most people are smart enough to have a loan
                    they can afford, are doing just fine paying them, do not
                    need or want Big Government Mommy help and thus the
                    Republic is safe for a few more years until the next fake
                    crisis that "requires" Mommy's intervention to screw things
                    up even worse.
                    \_ How about fraud? Isn't that predatory? How about having
                       someone sign a contract in a language they don't read
                       and the translater lies to them about the contents.
                       Is that okay in your sophomoric "Atlas Shrugged" view
                       of the world?
                       \_ I think you're missing the point. The op is
                          conveying that he/she does not care about stupid
                          people who make stupid decisions. Survival of
                          the fittest should be how things go, or something
                          like that.
                          \_ I think the op is foolish and immature and
                             is the last person who should be telling others
                             to grow up. Society is based on mutual
                             interdependency and all of our survival depends
                             of the general willingness to co-operate. Things
                             like fraud undermine that.
           \_ Url to prove this?
              \_ http://www.progress.org/2008/baker01.htm
                 Okay, not quite all the way back yet, but very close.
                 \_ Not exactly a reputable source. This site is left
                    leaning and pro-socialism. Case in point, "American
                    dream is a myth! Life is not fair in America!" URL
                    http://www.progress.org/2004/noury05.htm
                    \_ Facts often are "left leaning"
                       http://www.csua.org/u/l4u (census bureau)
                       \_ That's true.  Almost as often as they are "right
                          leaning."
                          \_ Faith-based vs. reality-based
        \_ Ownership Society has more to do with the ever expanding
           choice and your participation in making those choices.
           "On the other hand, having an ever-expanding number of choices
           doesn't necessarily make us happier, just as bigger and bigger
           food portions don't make us healthier."
           http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0512.glastris.html
        \_ http://blognonymous.com/2006/02/ownership-society-means-foreclosure.html
        \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2nft5l [blognonymous]

3/26    The Republican party preaches self-reliance and responsibility.
        The bail out of Bear Stearns seems to contradict these points.
        They're not self-reliant anymore, and they don't seem to bear
        any responsibility. What's up? Will someone who voted for
        George W Bush explain to me what self-reliance and responsibility
        mean?
        \_ Nice straw man.  The only reason for the gov't to get involved in
           this is to provide liquidity--had this happened in the 20's, we
           might have avoided the problems back then.
           \_ Providing excess liquidity was what caused the problems in the
              20's in the first place. The government was involved all through
              the 20's and 30's.
              \_ No it wasn't.  Read "The Forgotten Man"
                 \_ Yes it was. "The Forgotten Man" doesn't refute this and
                    isn't the authority anyway.
        \_ No cookie.

3/26    NBC/WSJ poll shows Obama has survived the Wright imbroglio relatively
        intact.  Meanwhile, Hillary's negatives continue to soar.
        http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
        http://img210.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=49717_9_123_419lo.jpg
        \_ I told you guys a year ago Hillary would never be President and
           you laughed at me.  Now most of you are here saying how horrible
           she is and how she should get get of the race.  Hillary hasn't
           changed one bit in the last year.  Why are all of you bashing
           her now?
           \_ Please point to the thread where you attacked HC so we can tell
              if you were attacking her based on credibility or gender.
              \_ Are you totally new here?  Except for the last ~8 weeks, the
                 motd has been all about HRC and her inevitability.  My
                 favorite response to my comments on her unelectability due
                 to her ridiculously high unfavorability ratings (amusing that
                 you assume I a) attacked her or b) it was gender based) was
                 someone who posted a silly url to one of the 'vote with your
                 money' fake market betting sites.  Show me all the rabidly
                 pro-Obama posts prior to Jan/Dec, or the rabidly anti-HRC
                 from Dems.  Good luck with *that* motd search.
                 \_ Let me sum up the problem for you: you post anonymously;
                    there have been a lot of comments against HRC; it becomes
                    difficult to verify your "I told you so" claim without
                    knowing which of those comments were yours.
                    \_ Let me sum up the problem for you: I don't care if you
                       believe *me* or not.  It is not "me vs. the motd!".  It
                       is a simple fact that until very recently the motd was
                       full of "HRC IS INEVITABLE!  CANCEL THE ELECTION!  WE
                       NEED A CORONATION!" types.  Now that Obama is winning,
                       quite suddenly the mood has shifted heavily against her
                       here, despite the fact that she hasn't changed one bit
                       from a year ago when this place was full of HRC cheer-
                       leaders.  This has nothing to do with me.  I don't give
                       a damn what you think of me or my track record.  I want
                       to know what caused all these people who very recently
                       loooooved HRC to turn on her like she was Karl Rove's
                       pet dog.  *She* hasn't changed a bit.  You're just
                       deflecting.
                       \- Are you so clueless to think there is a "the motd
                          unified opinion"? Would you care to evaluate
                          (explode motd). I'm probably as active a motd
                          editor as any, and I've disliked Hillary Clinton
                          since at least 1996 [possibly 1993-1994, but
                          "on the record" since at least 1996].
                       \_ I still think HRC would beat McCain, but I like
                          Obama better.
           \_ Funny how so many Dems have suddenly turned on her. I didn't
              like her then, but I like her now given that Obama is her
              opponent.
              \_ You would rather see Hillary as president than Obama?
                 \_ Yes.
                 \_ No.  She still can't win.  My dog could beat her in
                    the general election.  Well ok my dog isn't 35 so he can't
                    run, but if they didn't create anti-dog ageist rules, he
                    would.
                    \_ I've been saying forever that Hillary is too
                       polarizing to win, but people kept pushing her.
                       Interesting that those same people now think she's
                       a terrible candidate just because Obama has the
                       momentum. I think Hillary is terrible, but at least
                       she has experience in the form of Bill. Obama is
                       completely green and not ready for primetime. I
                       get the feeling he turns to Michelle in the morning
                       and says "Holy fuck! I might be President! Can you
                       believe that shit?!"
                       \_ Bill is a sleaze and a low-life but his personal
                          life and various crimes aside, his actual policies
                          weren't that bad (about the best you can say about
                          modern politicians, unfortunately).  His wife and
                          her opposition are both worthless.  It amazes me
                          that either got this far and may actually end up
                          as PotUS.  More amazing to me is the visceral hatred
                          each camp has towards the other.  Their policies are
                          exactly the same.  It's all just identity politics
                          and has nothing to do with leading the country.
                          \_ And Bush has been a great president, right?
                 \_ He "likes" Hillary for the general in the same way that
                    Rush does.
                    \_ Because Obama is unqualified?
                       \_ Stating something repeatedly doesn't make it factual.
                          \_ What has he ever done? I am not saying
                             Hillary is super-qualified, but Billary is.

3/26    I'm willing to give Hillary a break.  Bosnia was a mortar/sniper
        zone in the 90s.  Going there did involve a little danger.  No
        matter Sinbad has to say.
        \_ Do you feel confident enough in your Hillary support to sign
           who you are?
        \_ Nobody said it didn't involve a little danger, dumbass.
        \_ But you forget WHY she was crowing about Bosnia.  Supposedly that
           was her big "I'm experianced Obama isn't" card.  When it became
           pretty damn obvious that by that argument Sinbad was CiC material
           she started embellishing with crap that just wasn't true.  The
           problem started with an attack that just didn't make sense and
           rather than backing down Hillary just started making shit up.