John Adams

Forgive him. He wanted to take at least one shot at the Dem VP since he can't defend his own.

Given Monday's debacle vote and some of this testimony, every voter should take a long cautious look at their incumbent Congressperson this time around.

I like to call it the "Rivals lesson." Rivals was the flashy (crappy) website; TBD is a the simple elegant design. Which is better? Guess I could call it "the Range" lesson too.

I wonder what the lesson here is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html Many more excerpts at the link. I love how these Congresspeople on the House Finance Committee(!) go to the fox to ask if it needs more help guarding the henhouse--and then take it seriously when the fox says "no."

Also, buying a house shouldnt be everyone's rush. I invested in my 401K (to match what my employer was giving) when I was an hourly employee when I was in night school undergrad. Over time, I bumped that up and when I was still in my 20s, I tapped that money (which had grown to some 25K after taxes and withdraw penalty...the 401K balance was maybe 40K) to put a down payment down on the small house I still live in. That was a stupid decision driven by the "need" to buy a house. If I had just saved for 4 more years in cash (maybe foregoing the 401K savings a bit), I could have had the down payment for the house and that 40K in 401K would be worth over $200,000 (if I stopped contributing the day I bought the house) today. That pisses me off. People rush to buy houses for tax breaks, as investments, because paying rent is "burning money." It's often the wrong decision. You get almost no equity in your house for a long time so you're burning money (and more of it) to live in a house. You have loads of extra bills. And the tax breaks don't begin to offset the outlay in money spent. As an investment, housing values historically barely beat inflation. The two exceptions are the last decade and the one right after WWII. You buy a house because you want it; not because it makes a ton of financial sense.

They would be confused.

Most rapists get no more than 5.

He's the anti-Dwight Drane. Stojan, maybe Buffet is the Antichrist. DD, what does Revelations say about the Prophet from Omaha?

I have a friend doing 7 years (no less) for carrying an illegal firearm. Not for shooting it. Not for drugs. With no priors. 7 years.

I read your post and echo what someone else said. You should really talk to a financial planner. Not a single one would tell you to save for your kids college BEFORE saving for your retirement. I bet there's hardly a full-time employed couple in the USA that couldn't figure out a way to save 12K/year. Read The Millionairre Next Door. It's a sobering look at America's millionairres, most of whom are not Paris Hilton or pro athletes, but people like my uncle Bob. He was a miserly !@#$ who worked as an assembler at GE (read: very low wage worker). Lived in 1 home his whole adult life. Used to switch banks every 2 weeks in the 50s because banks were offering 2 shares in a newfangled thing called a mutual fund. Never traveled. Bought used cars he drove to dust. Retired at 65...lived 20 more years. When he died at age 85, he still had 2.5 million dollars. All his that he earned from his years as an unskilled laborer. 2.5 million. Right at the end, the MFer wouldn't buy a new pair of socks and was asking women in his retirement home to help him sew the holes closed.

Palin is like a lot of people; just not like you. If she has 100K saved, she is seriously undersaved for her age and not as prepared for retirement as she should be. Any online retirement calculator can deliver that news. I have an honest recommendation: The Millionaire Next Door. It changed the way I buy and spend, and I thought I lived pretty modestly before I read that.

He's voting Dem. No worries.

The market is down 20% since the beginning of the year. She lost 20K. Means she had about 100K saved...She's what, 45 or something? She'd goddamn better have 100K saved. Good lord--she's got almost nothing saved for her age.

From play by play on the same website, on first down (including the clock-burning time late), the Bills had 10 first down passes, 14 first down runs. Take out the clock-burning plays (after the Lindell FG), and it's about even.

I was sloppy.

I am not sure the differences in the deal (where I put the ellipses) really tell the "why" of the different deals. But this last bit makes some sense. WaMu was holding on until it was too late where Wachovia was proactive. Thus it wasn't the government that made the deals different--it was bank management.

I read that this morning and it's one of the things that prompted the question. The WaMu deal was totally ready so that the second it failed, the deal went through--all brokered by the Fed. Why, if the Fed was in the middle of both deals, were they handled so differently?

Both the WaMu and Wachovia buyouts were brokered by the government. Wachovia's deal was brokered (with some caps on losses) before Wachovia failed. Wamu was allowed to fail before the deal was final--in fact, the deal couldn't be final until it failed. Why were there 2 such different approaches? I haven't read about this anywhere and figure there must be a reason.

You mean the sentence where I said "..."fatcat Wall Street CEOs," to paraphrase our Marxist populist-fear-fanning-Democratic-presidential nominee?" Is that the part where I portrayed him as sympathetic? Is your mom reading this for you?

the woman at Dooce.com makes 40K/month on her blog. We only make 30K/month.

Because. He. Uses. That. Term. Like. I. Said. Three. Sentences. Before. I. Used. That. Phrase. Get. It? Or. Should. I. Go. Slower?

It got answered 3x dimwit.

And now comes this story about a father who killed a would-be rapist intruder in his home. In both cases, the father is in the right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html

You Libs are dingy. Obama used the phrase--he's not in league with them.