finknottle

So are you saying they don't keep cash-on-hand to cover forseen expenses for some window forward? Or that they play it so close that they dip in a good portion of the time? Certainly keeping a credit line open makes sense, but wouldn't you only want to use it for unforseen expenses and payments not received? Again, I realize my business doesn't project to theirs, but mantaining sufficient cash for the next three weeks forward is not hard and I don't feel I'm losing out on any appreciable return had that money been invested.

I just read a full-page story in today's Washington Post about a Freddie Mac lobbyist for two years, Buse, who is now an aide on McCain's Senate staff. No fire, just innuendo. Naturally, as additional background they mentioned Davis - I kept waiting for them to also mention Obama's ties to the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae CEO's, but not a single word about his campaign or FM donations.

I think the latter. And I heard some financial commentators opine that this opens the USG up to tremendous liabilities without doing anything to help the current crisis.

We've heard alot of dire talk about companies not being able to make payroll because they won't get the loans. As a small business owner, I realize I do things differently: I keep enough cash on hand to make payroll. Sure, I could be making interest on that money, but it's not a lot and having a buffer gives you piece of mind. The thought of borrowing money for anything other than actual expansion is an anathema. So how common is it really for companies to borrow to meet payroll? Certainly it may happen on occasion, but you should be able to predict shortfalls well in advance if you are running your business right. Do most companies regularly try to function with no money in the bank, to maximize the return on their cash? Seems dangerous to me... Anybody have any experience?

So there are some here who believe that losing 20k because of that market drop isn't representative of the middle class. Fine - how representative it is is a legitimate question. I was just listening to an NPR interview of Democrats, who were bragging that their bill includes a key provision to protect the middle class: raising the FDIC insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000. That's a federal guarantee on your deposit, even if the bank goes belly-up. It applies to savings, checkings, and money market accounts, but not stocks, bonds, and T-bills. My question is this: how many Joe Sixpacks have $200,000 in their savings account? I would venture none. Or at least, far far far far far fewer than the numbers who have 200k in their 401k's. It's not a middle class problem at all, as far as I can see. If you have that much money, you are probably investing it in something with a return. The only people this helps are the ultra wealthy who have a lot of loose change lying around between investments. And even they can secure themselves by simply divoiding it up between a couple of banks. So what's the agenda here? Am I missing something?

The banks are not walking away, they are indirectly negotiating (via congress) a way out. If they can't they go bancrupt. You have the same options. When your hospital bills are too high, you can negotiate with someone a smaller payment. If you owe a ton of money to the credit card companies or a collection agency, you can try to argue the total down. Maybe they agree to the smaller amount, maybe you declare bancruptcy and they get nothing. The only real difference - and the one that makes us mad - is that when a hospital agrees to cut your bill in half, they are making that decision for themselves and are effectively paying for 'the bailout.' It's their calculation and their choice. With the current situation, we have the government agreeing on behalf of us that *we* will provide the funding/loans that the financial community needs to keep functioning. The banks are not sitting down with me, the payer, they are sitting down with Pelosi, Dodd and Frank. It may be in our interests in the long run, but it sure isn't palatable.

He's the guy pushing the Home Depot credit cards on you.

GWB is the devil. Everybody knows that the best, most patriotic thing is for True Americans to do is enact higher taxes on the wealthy.

And that's why I've been upfront about my inability to obtain the email itself. Conclusions drawn from cherry picked, second hand reporting need neccessarily remain soft until you see the whole thing. Nevertheless, I fail to see how you can assert that my conclusion is wrong. It seems likely given the excerpts we've seen and the active role the VEU official has played elsewhere in supporting Obama. What exactly do you think the following passage means? Would you only be satisfied if the author had written "register two student voters" in their internal email? Or would you then be arguing it was harmless because they weren't explicit enough to say "register two voters who are students or yours"?

No, you are wrong - I never claimed it was exclusive. I suggested there might be a good correlation, and I stand by that. There might. It is you whose ideology forces you to deny any correlation at all, rejecting the simple scientific fact that one of the two groups will have a higher savings rate than the other. To me the question is whether the correlation is strong enough to be meaningfull - you can't even get to that question, you are compelled to reject the notion that there can be any differences between groups of people in anything other than injustice suffered. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with notions of statistics and correlation? As a Democrat, it may shock you to learn that although men make more money than women on average - ie a correlation between sex and income - there are high-earning women and low-earning men! Wow, rocks your world, doesn't it?

I'll vote to ban school prayer regardless of what you do. As to where I pulled that conclusion out, I got it directly from the excepts that are floating around (all we have until the email itself surfaces): and from http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/vi...obama-blue-day/

Hey, I agree with that. In fact I started out supporting Biden, in part because I respected his standing behind a responsible bill which on the surface favored the credit card companies against the little guy - sure to be unpopular within the party whose nomination he was seeking. I respect courageus stands against the sentiment of ones own party (like his call for troops for Darfur), which is why I never warmed to Obama. It was only later that I learned that his courage was probably more based on his being in the pocket of MBNA, and his son lobbying for the credit card companies.

So you would be ok with Republican districts sending emails to teachers telling them to wear McCain colors on Democracy Day, pointing out that there are a lot of potential supporters among those that they teach, and setting a goal of each teacher recruiting two students to Republican causes? Got it.

Good find. I think it puts the finger on the fissure between the largest class, the upper earners, and the rest with respect to savings and government intervention.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking. It is a politically incorrect fact of science that when you have a large set of samples, divide them into two sets, and make a measurement, there will be a correlation. It may be statistically insignificant, it may be significant but random, or it may be significant and meaningfull. But one set will always score higher than the other. So as far as savings go, the first step is to ask what the actual correlation is before asserting that there is none, or explaining it away in terms of external factors. Why are you so sure there is no correlation? Let's tweak the question a bit. Instead of savings rate, are you so sure that there is no correlation between latitude and party? I'm pretty sure that there is. How about income and party? Or support for increasing welfare and party? Why are these plausible while a meaningfull correlation between savings and party is not?

Then why did the email say to recruit two supporters, referencing who they teach? (I've tried unsuccessfully to dig up the actual email on the internet, but can only go on excerpts given in the reporting.) As to being too young to vote, they are not too young to canvass or influence their parents. Don't you remember the thread about the blue-clad elementary students singing Obamo songs on youtube? http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=73192

I pick and choose. I basically penny-pinch, except for a few activities where I open up (within limits). Save all your money, except lunch lavishly, or buy books, or whatever. The point is that I think compartmentalizing by hobby seems to lead to good financial discipline, without the psychological baggage.

Boxes, bubble wrap, and shipping labels.

Really? I wondered if the savings rate is correlated to political beliefs - it seems a reasonable point of inquiry to me. Maybe I don't know what you mean by flame. Go ahead and make a reasonable hypothesis. I am willing to bet (if I may dare make another sweeping generalization) that the reaction of the right will be people people arguing your points, rather than (to make a sweeping comparison) the left's condemnation without debate of Larry Summers controversial question about education. For the record, is it your expectation that there is no correlation between politics and savings rate?

If it were Palin, they would be ripping her a new one over the shady deals instead of apologetically mentioning the controversies and repeating statements from the Biden camp that there was nothing improper. But it does gives some new stuff that I hadn't heard before, like the mansion he bought for 185k and sold 20 years later to MBMA (who frequently appeared before him) for 1.2 million, plus reimbursement on some other sales. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Upper-middle class, white collar white guy in his 40's... who is an avid Democrat. Maybe that's your correlation. I'd be willing to bet that there is a correlation, for comparable income, between being a Republican and the personal savings rate.

Thank Joe Biden for pushing the act protecting credit card companies from personal bankruptcy defaults. Not that I'm against it - I just am amused at how his relationship with MBNA and the credit card companies is kept pretty quiet now that he's campaigning as the defender of the little guy.

Issue-driven momemtum? Like what? There are no issues being pushed by Obama right now. He is sitting back and letting the media rake over Palin and McCain. If there is momemtum to Obama right now, it is less about him and more about support fleeing McCain. Obama's not getting them because he's focusing laser-like on the issues and positions that they care about, he's getting them because he's not the Republican. Relative to other candidates in other campaigns, and even his own from six months ago, there is no particular theme, issue, or position at the forefront of the Obama campaign right now. He coasting while things are in is favor. It's the right move, IMO. Don't make news as long as the media keeps hammering McCain.

Sorry, the two are separate, only connected in the sense of abuse of public roles. Did not mean to suggest that the teachers were going to intimidate anyone, only that they were being told by the union to do something very inappriopriate - namely, have an organized day of support at the schools for a candidate (everybody wear his colors, but no shirts with his name, that'll give us legal cover!), and target two new supporters per teacher for Obama. You think that's ok? Is it ok if school administers in Republican dominated districts do the same thing?

He was forced to retire for abetting illegal accounting practices in a 2004 scandal, and sued over outrageous bonuses he paid himself (there was a subsequent settlement). But don't count on the media bringing him to the publics attention - he and the other scandal-plagued CEO's of FM were touted as Obama's financial advisors on the mortgage issues. (When McCain ran an ad linking them to Obama based on Washington Post reporting, the Post 'factchecker' column famously gave it a pinnochio nose, saying that the ad was based on reporting not deemed credible!)