kapkomet

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 08:56 PM) Yup, they could just move overseas, because shipping costs are...right.....that whole oil thing.... Either you're missing te point on purpose or you just don't understand. I'm not sure which.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) Care to give a reason? We take residency for granted, but if voters in a town wanted to elect someone from out of town, it seems like it should be their right. After all, they can hire an out of towner for Police Chief, Administrator, etc. Why not hire the best person on the planet, not the best person in that district? Maybe then we would have better overall representation. And I'd scale it up all the way to Congress. That is not how our country was set up, and I don't care for the fact that America is a "rent a (whatever)" society. There are some things that need to be held to a standard as much as possible, and this is one of them. I mean, I could carpetbag like Alan Keyes did (IDIOT), but that's just not the right thing to do, and I'm glad he got his ass handed to him, although, it ended up making our next president, didn't it?

And to counter this, windfall tax on profits is about as unamerican as you can get. It's a grab to redistribute wealth, and what about all the NOL's that XOM and others took in the early 90's for years on end? You simply do not tax someone more because they are fortunate enough to be making money. You want in on the act? Buy their stock. The $30 gas tax holiday, that's just a joke.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) But, to that, I say, what is it that's been propping up the government through the 2000's (let's not talk about mortgages, ) -- foreign borrowing. We spend as fast as we get it and more. Take that away, abruptly, and we're royally screwed. Now that too many consumers cannot qualify for credit cards and such, the government will borrow the money for us and give us the loans directly in the form of economic incentive checks. But this is even better. Other people will pay back this debt! I already addressed that, somewhere in this thread.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) Just wondering, if the voters in a state wished to "outsource" their representation to someone from out of state, shouldn't those voters have that right? Absolutely f***ing not. Dismissed. Next?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) I thought I had told this story before... Back in the early 90's during the a big school funding crisis, we got picked to page for Mary Kay Budak as a group from Elston High School. As a stroke of luck Mrs Budak got us into see then-Governor Bayh to supposedly talk about our concerns for school funding. We were supposed to get 5 minutes, and then leave when he was done. We got into his office OK, but instead of talking about schools, he got busy talking about the decorations of his office, which first lady bought this painting... blah, blah, blah. Finally after about 3 minutes of this, someone who was running out of patience (me) interupted him and told him that the history was interesting, but we wanted to see him because of our school funding concerns. He gave a quick BS answer about doing everything he could do, and we were out of his office in about 30 seconds. Then this is the part where things got interesting. We had brought a banner with us asking the gov not to enact the cuts, that the kids from one of the local elemetary school. We took it and hung it from one of the second floor balconies, until the governor's security force showed up and so kindly informed us that we either had to leave the capitol or face being arrested. We were also informed as we made our way out of the doors, that we weren't welcome to come back! I made sure to vote against Bayh all three times I have had the chance. The funny thing is, he just might be the President who threw your ass out of his office. and all at the same time.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) Whois: I dont think this is linked to Obama or the DNC. I have to do a little more research, but I dont think this is legit. BUT, in my personal experience: I bought a domain for a website i was going to launch (later decided not to launch the site), and temporarily pointed it to a one of my blog posts on my.BarackObama.com. Within a few hours the "redirect" was down. I dont know if the DNC has a way to track if an "outside domain" points to their site. I think many companies stop that so if I were to own "DemocratsAreBabyKillers.com" and point it to Democrats.org it would not work. Yes, they have a way to stop redirects.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) And see, there is a key there - the loan dependency is a definite issue, but I actually think the belt tightening on loans will be a good thing in the long run. People get loans on too many things, and run up credit card bills for too many others. If it gets harder to do that, there will be an ugly interim adjustment period, but then people will simply not be able to stretch as far, and that's actually good. I just don't think this is like the pre-depression days here. I don't see it. But, to that, I say, what is it that's been propping up the economy through the 2000's (let's not talk about mortgages, ) -- consumer spending. We spend as fast as we get it and more. Take that away, abruptly, and we're royally screwed.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) Yes, there's absolutely a reason for that. The reason is the fact that he has not said or done anything newsworthy. Has he given a major policy speech? Has he outlined or re-emphasized a plan for anything? Has he gone overseas and met with foreign leaders lately (yeah, he did it before, and yeah, he got coverage)? Has he done anything besides campaign and whine about the media? No, he hasn't. Doing things like whining about Obama "playing the race card from the bottom of the deck" is working for him so this is what he's doing. Well, I've agreed with you that McCain is not going to get elected by b****ing about Obama. He has to differentiate himself, which is going to be NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to all the Obamatrons (read one in this thread, ) but at the same time, questions need to be raised about his leadership, his influences from the past (hell, read his own book, I have some SERIOUS issues with him from that alone), and what he wants to do from an economic standpoint. All of those policies need to be debated and told why they are bad for our country (NEGATIVE TO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!)... Anyway, McCain is not the anit-Obama. He's McCain. And if his sorry ass doesn't get away from that position (anti-Obama) he's going to get destroyed in the election.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) Actually, I agree with Obama that the minimum wage needs a serious bump, and an inflationary increase built in. I don't have a target number in mind because I don't have the data in front of me, but, it hasn't increased anywhere near inflation since it was installed. Yes, it will result in some limited decreases in hiring, but not that much - places that are looking for minimum wagers are ALWAYS hiring, its the nature of it. I agree, but only to an extent - personally, I think that minimum wage laws should have a floor, but me legistlated from the state level and not the federal. A $10.50 minimum wage will hit harder in Nebraska then it would in New York, or Illinois. Different areas of the country have different needs and can absorb it differently.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) e.g., the fact that he has not said or done anything newsworthy? Excluding the ads because that's been getting attention. It's not like I haven't been paying attention but for the past 2 weeks (or whenever Obama's trip ended) all the focus has been on the ads and how they relate to Obama. You might think there's a reason for that, maybe? You're getting there...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) I am personally not a subscriber to the idea that raising taxes lowers gov't income and vice versa, always. I think there is truth to the idea that tax receipts are NOT perfectly in line with increases or decreases in tax rates - so I agree with the general principal behind it. But I think that this idea that raising taxes will lower gov't income no matter what, is just as silly as saying that increasing taxes X% will have that same X% increase in gov't income. They are both, in my view, laughably oversimplistic views. I actually think that PERSONAL spending is becoming less and less sensitive to tax rates. People in this country spend and spend, its what they do. Rich people, even if they see big tax increases, will still spend nearly the same amount. Poor people and middle income people, in this Obama model, would actually have more cash in pocket, and will spend even more. So in terms of consumer spending, I think his tax increases will probably have a near net zero effect. HOWEVER, I see a LOT of danger in his desire to make changes to taxes on cap gains, and on businesses. I think those increase would see a definite and significant decrease in business spending, and bad things happening in the markets. Not only will that screw up people's retirements, more immediately, it puts peoples' employers in a bad financial position as their market value fades and their profits drop. This pressure will, as it always does, be moved down the chain to the bottom rungs, where people will get laid off, not get raises, not get new jobs, etc. In short, I have zero problem with removing the SS income cap (Obama's plan is slightly different than this though). I also have zero problem with a slight rebalancing of income taxes from middle to top, as long as the overall revenue stream remains constant. But I have SERIOUS problems with increases in cap gains taxes, and any increases in taxes on businesses. And be careful here - if you overregulate an industry, that is in effect a taxation on that business line. Sure it's overly simplisitic. But in this case, listen to what Obama's going to do. I'm telling you, what you're saying here is enough that the man shouldn't even get serious consideration for the presidency, because he's going to fundamentally destroy the system (yes, destroy is my choice of words). Let's increase the minimum wage to $10+ an hour, index it to inflation, WOOT! THAT way, the RICH and dirty corporations will have to pay the POOR more!!! Bulls***. The "rich" and "corporations" will just stop hiring. What will that do? And then, contract the earnings, tax those more... you get the picture. Jimmy Carter waves hi.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) Since the Democratic primaries ended, I honestly cannot think of one thing McCain has said or done that's been newsworthy. That should say something, on many levels.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) 2 weeks from tomorrow. I just purchased the gifts within the past few days. RUN!!!!!!! I think that's one thing we can agree on no matter what political slant you have. Seriously, congrats ahead of time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) You actually believe that don't you...that no matter what the actual tax rate is, we're always on the right hand side of the infamous Laffer napkin curve? You tell me where the money is going to come from for all these government programs he wants to implement? You all b**** about GWB and the Iraq war boondoggle... the same thing is going to happen, just replace one with the other, even IF Obama sticks to "withdrawl" (which I have my doubts, because he will then get credit for "victory").

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) We are not in a liquidity crisis, in my view. Not nearly. But I agree that Obama's tinkering with the taxes like this is a generally bad idea when the economy is struggling. A few small changes might be needed, but, he's talking about some major fundamental shifts. One other caveat though - his plans for tax increases are not as drastic as some are portraying them. That is what I was trying to point out as well. He basically wants to return to Clinton-level taxes on income and cap gains. I don't agree with those changes, but, its not as if he's reaching for new heights here. With everything else he wants to do, Clinton era tax rates will explode the deficit worse then it is now.

QUOTE (moochpuppy @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:27 AM) Better late than never. I was wondering who was going to dig this up.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 09:39 AM) Btw congrats to Mark Billiards and Jimbo's Drinker! Has your day come and gone? I knew it was this summer... I guess so if you're referring to the past on your gifts... congrats as well.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 09:27 AM) After 8 years of GWB policies what exactly do you see in McCain that says to you "Oh yeah. That is definitely the right direction for our country!" Well, I'll answer part of that. My biggest disappointment in GWB is his lack of spending restraint. He has failed miserably, and we will pay dearly for it. BUT, making government BIGGER is certainly not going to solve everything that you proponents of (insert government program here) want. It just doesn't work, and time and time again it's proven. McCain seems to be better engaged in the spending waste, but I doubt it - that's part of why I don't like the guy. However, I know that Obama wants to create the biggest redistribution of wealth in history, and I'm sorry, the financial structure of this country wasn't founded on "redistribution of wealth". It was founded on capitalism - and LIMITED government interaction (not total free market, that's impossible, but the government wasn't designed to take money and redistribute it).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 09:19 AM) Bob Cesca rules. LINK First, Pat Buchanan is an assbag. Let's just get that out of the way. Him and Ann Coulter should just go marry and not reproduce. But, I still DO have many of those questions that the writer of this article tries to make satirical. I DO NOT question the "patriotism" of Obama (that type of thinking is stupid and ineffective, and if the GOP wants to start crap like that, they are plain stupid), he doesn't have to prove anything like that. But he DOES need to prove that he can lead this country effectively. I don't think he's done that, nor do I, because behind the smoke and mirrors of his speeches, he's pretty empty and has some policies that will mess us up for years and years (yes, I know, I know... Democrats think he's the best thing to hit politics since FDR, but you would.)

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) I have very little confidence in this team down the stretch. The White Sox have a pretty strong recent history of playing badly (some may call it choking) down the stretch. Hell, they even did it in the year that they won it all. We only have a half-game lead. It's hard not to learn from the past, and the past says we play like garbage in the stretch run. I can't help but feel like Nice picture.

That's the whole point of the Sox are in first place thread... Enjoy it, we're in a pennant race when no one expected us to be. If they fight, even if they come up short, it will still have been a good season. Let's make the playoffs and see what happens!

This right here, if McCain could learn to explain it in common terms, would win him the election. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen.

You libs should love the GOP for this.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 08:11 AM) What is really unbelievable is his numbers after a first pitch strike. .168 avg. .225 slugging pct. If you throw a first pitch strike, and I believe he's only put 13 first pitches into play this season, he basically hits like a run of the mill NL pitcher. Which tells me he's waaaaaaaaay over thinking up there.