Mavric

Ubel for the three ... we do actually have an offense, right?

We're on pace to beat them by 16!

10-8 after five minutes means we should win 80-64, right???

What does this mean in terms of peat?

With no offer yet, I'm guessing Plan B.

still haven't been anywhere near great but better the last couple games. Can we take another step up?

This one has Badgerfan written all over it. I nominate Badgerfan.

Second.

The fallacy of Paul's comments is he's implying that they actually liked us before we "endlessly bombed" them and that they were innocent bystanders in all of this. Not saying that is justification for war but he's making up a straw man arguement.

Fair enough, however he still has a point. From the start w/ OBL there were other ways to deal w/ him that were all legit and legal...we choose the war one because we wanted blood/revenge after 9/11. Shoot first, ask questions later.

I'm curious what you think these would be?

We can get away w/ this because we are the #1 power. Most countries can't, so they have to go through the proper channels. For example...Cuba can't invade Florida and take out the terrorist that we are harboring...although if you think it was legit for us to take out OBL like we did...you should think Cuba has a right to do this. Bosch is the name of the terrorist we protect in FL. Google him if you're not familiar w/ him.

Another straw man arguement because it makes the assumption that we would be willfully harborning a known terrorist. If we were playing both sides of the terrorism game, it would be a totally different story on a lot of things. Are you making that case?

I'm not saying it was the only cause but I'm not sure you can argue that government didn't play it's part.

Washington Post:

[HUD] neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.

...

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans.

...

But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

 

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."

...

In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.

The Wall Street Journal:

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.

 

For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.

 

Fannie and Freddie also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. Fannie and Freddie were important contributors to the demand for subprime securities.

...

 

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did the same thing with traditional banks. It encouraged banks to serve two masters -- their bottom line and the so-called common good. First passed in 1977, the CRA was "strengthened" in 1995, causing an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families.

...

By pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country, politicians could push for increases in home ownership and urban development without having to commit budgetary dollars. Another political free lunch.

Fannie and Freddie and the banks opposed these policy changes at first through both lobbying and intransigence. But when they found out that following these policies could be profitable -- which they were as long as rising housing prices kept default rates unusually low -- their complaints disappeared. Maybe they could serve two masters. They turned out to be wrong. And when Fannie and Freddie went into conservatorship, politicians found out that budgetary dollars were on the line after all.

I wouldn't mind seeing Shoff get a shot. I watched him play in person this year and really wasn't terribly impressed but he is a stud wrestler (I think his first three matches at state last year lasted a COMBINED 1:45 or something like that) which is usually a good sign and apparently can run track as well. If we end up with a few more scholarships than expected, he could be worth a flier.\

Edit: I didn't give him enough credit. His first three matches at state last year lasted 10 seconds, 28 seconds, and 13 seconds. He slacked off in the finals and only pinned the guy in 3:28.

And no socialist that I know of wants anything remotely close to Soviet central planning (corrupt and bastardized socialism). Our economic system has always been a mix of socialism and regulated capitalism. We have lost too much of the regulations on predatory capitalism, and our socialism has become corrupted by corporations serving as grossly inefficient middlemen.

 

Seems to me like all we ever do is add regulations? What regulations have we lost?

 

The trend in regulations is that they are being written more frequently by industry insiders who have a conflict of interest, and funding for enforcement/oversight has been decreased.

 

Banking: Repeal of Glass Staegle (cause of banking crisis).

 

Energy: Revolving door at MME (cause of gulf spill).

 

Despite CFTC report, there is still rampant speculation in oil markets.

 

Securities fraud, and the inability of the SEC to do anything.

 

This is such a broad topic that it would take a considerable amount of research by people dedicated to honest debate.

Yet you've still only given one example of less regulation. All the rest are examples of more regulation (I assume) you'd like to see.

To state the anything at MME is the "cause" of the oil spill is nothing short of ridiculous. The spill was caused by human and/or equipment failure. You can make the assertion that some regulators doing something different would help prevent such an occurrence but they cannot cause it.

Also, as I stated earlier, I believe that the implosion of the subprime mortgage market was the "cause" of the banking crisis. The main contribution of deregulation (as I understand it) was that it allowed banks to become bigger and work on both sides of investing. However, this has nothing to do with the actual subprime lending - which was mandated by the government. The only thing the regulations still being in place would have done would be to make the effects of the collapse only affect the banks involved in lending - those banks would have been hit harder (as they had fewer alternatives to make up for the losses) while the banks not on that side would have not been affected as much. (I'm sure that is an over-simplification but that's my general understanding).

Nominate jsneb83

Second jsneb83

Anything (B/P)o (P/B)elini says has to be gospel.

Can you please read my entire post instead of trying to pick apart one phrase?

I said the ball is "screaming" coming out of his hand, he's got a "cannon arm", has "zip on the ball" and is "doing a lot of things right." Then people accuse me of saying he can't improve which is made up out of nowhere. I said comparing him to Kiel is "setting the bar pretty high" but just needed someone to compare him to.

The comment I originally replied to said he has "awesome mechanics". I think that is overstated based on what a lot of QB experts would look for in a delivery. I'd say they are pretty good but it would nice if he would quicken up his delivery. With as strong of an arm as he seems to have, I would think he could do this without losing much.

I believe I said earlier in the thread that I'm excited to have him because he looks like he could be a really good QB. But if he's as good now as he's ever going to be, maybe I'm wrong.

And no socialist that I know of wants anything remotely close to Soviet central planning (corrupt and bastardized socialism). Our economic system has always been a mix of socialism and regulated capitalism. We have lost too much of the regulations on predatory capitalism, and our socialism has become corrupted by corporations serving as grossly inefficient middlemen.

Seems to me like all we ever do is add regulations? What regulations have we lost?

Really? You don't know about the deregulation of Wall Street over the last 30 years and how it greatly contributed to the stock market crashing?

1. So one industry losing some regulations qualifies as "too much"?

2. I believe the crash of the subprime mortgage business was one major cause of the crash. Why was there so much investment in subprime mortgages? Because the government mandated it. That sounds like an increase in regulation to me.

anyone who served as a player or coach for nearly 3 decades deserves to be recognized. it's not like he's gettng his name on the entrance to the stadium or something. it's just recognition.

 

also, i like the fact he was the freshman coach for 15 yrs...developing talent before they hit the 'show'...seems to have done a pretty good job of that

I really wasn't sad to see Frank go as HC. Not a failure but not getting it done either. However, a "lifetime achievement award" is not unreasonable, IMO.

And no socialist that I know of wants anything remotely close to Soviet central planning (corrupt and bastardized socialism). Our economic system has always been a mix of socialism and regulated capitalism. We have lost too much of the regulations on predatory capitalism, and our socialism has become corrupted by corporations serving as grossly inefficient middlemen.

Seems to me like all we ever do is add regulations? What regulations have we lost?

Sounds like it's not exactly a lateral move, either. "Defensive run game coordinator" sounds like co-DC to me.

I know this is setting the bar pretty high but it's a name I could find quickly.

There is considerable difference in how fast the ball comes out.

We need bigger improvements out of him or it will be a similar season as before. There was very little from the start to the end of this season.

I guess I'm not so sure about this. Which one of our four losses this year did he cost us the game? The Wisconsin game would be the first one on people's minds and he obviously didn't play well but we also gave up 48 points which is tough to overcome in any circumstance. Against NW he was 28/37 for 289 yds and 2 TDs and ran for another 53 yds. He also didn't have a great game against Michigan but I'm not sure what he was going to do to overcome the total meltdown by almost everyone else. He only "missed" on about two passes vs. SC and had our longest run of the day.

I'd like to see improvement from him just like everyone else but I only see maybe one game where he could do enough by himself to get us any more wins. We need a lot of people to play better. Even some of TM's biggest critics would disagree with your last statement.

How many quarterbacks coming out of high school are a finished product?

 

What says he can't improve?

If that was a question for me, I expect that he will improve. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he has a long way to go. Anyone with as much zip on the ball as he's got has to be doing a lot of things right. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

9-3 or 10-2 seem likely.

Hopefully. I would think 4 non-con wins plus NW, PSU, MINN & Iowa would be pretty realistic. That's eight. Wisc, tOSU, Mich & MSU? If we don't win at least one of those, that could be bad. I don't think two is asking too much. More than that? I'll have to see how we look after four games.

My problem with the "enhancements" to the originals is two fold. Firstly they change the story, which, let's be honest wasn't shakespere in the first place. but secondly they add nothing to the actual film. I mean would you have realized "Jaba the hut" put a bounty on "Han Solo" without the additional scenes with Jaba walking around seeming reasonable and greedo shooting at han first in the cantina?

I mainly liked the space sceens - explosions and dogfight scenes. The CGI Jabba didn't work for me either. A couple of times it filled in a plot hole but other times it changed the story.

I think you may be surprised soon.

That's funny. My fortune cookie said the same thing yesterday ...

I cant get enough of this guys awesome fundamentals, he already blows TM out of the water fundamentally!! What a talent, good thing he is coming here!

He's got his own fundamental problems but not as bad as ... well, you know.

Pretty long stride and a big windup make for a slow delivery but it's screaming once it gets out of his hand. I watched the championship game and wish he would have gotten to unload it downfield because he looks like he's got a cannon of an arm but he'll have some things to work on as well.

Badgers and Packers letting things slip away ...

And now there are three. Oops.

Everyone must be too busy with Giants/Packers (including myself).

Badgers up 24-21 at the half. Not sure how it's even that close as the Huskers are shooting 37% from the floor, 16% on 3s, haven't been to the line yet and are getting out rebounded 18-9. Apparently 11 Wisc. TOs are enough to keep it close.