kapkomet

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 09:31 PM) I really dislike the layers and layers of taxes we pay. But we have to pay for those immigrants somehow.

If they start raising taxes at that level, what a blood bath that will become.

ok... that sound about right to me. Personally, I think that's dangerous. $80K for a household is NOT rich... no way in hell... and that always concerns me. If you double that, and start looking at the lifestyles of people who make that kind of money - now you start seeing the results of that kind of money.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:38 PM) So, if you're opposed to this rate cut...I'll fire back...what exactly is the alternative? You're agreeing that there is going to be a huge downturn in consumer spending in the near future due to the rapidly shifting credit environment, and you're agreeing that there is going to be a huge downturn in other key economic sectors like home construction...so is the Fed just supposed to sit by and let things see how far they can drop? What is the alternative here? IMO, you cut the discount rate by 50 basis, and MAYBE the funds rate by .25 to wait and see where things go from here - it is my opinion that you do not give consumers (read: companies) more money in this environment of rising prices. You make things to where money can move easier, but you don't push it back all the way to the consumer. If you cut the discount rate alone and make funds ACCESSIBLE (NOT available - I know that's very minute in meaning but in this case is very relevant) that is what needs to happen right now.

Tex is just trying to meet his multiple sarcasms quota for the day, so ignore him. About every six months or so, we get to see this I'm now a GOP'er crap just to make a mockery of it all. It must be that time of year.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:19 PM) Yes. And as foreclosures have seen a HUGE jump in the last two months, I think we haven't even yet seen the big dip in consumer spending that is inevitable. Its a lagged effect. All that equity cash people have taken out of their properties is just now starting to run down, and so as the months go by, spending will plummet. The general market fears will only amplify the effect, as people hunker down and spend less. The good news is, that in itself will help counter inflation a bit on highly price-sensitive goods and services. Maybe, but those types of items are not what generally fuels the economy - so with that said, it's going to be quite turbulent. I also think that you are right - they are trying to curb the inevitable (HUGE) downspend in consumer spending. I don't think that this rate cut is going to keep that from happening - AND you are putting more money back into the economy which will drive up prices even more. Ugly ugly ugly.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) I don't have a link, but I do recall that Charlie Rangle, while talking about the huge tax increase he wants to pass once the Dems take a veto-proof majority , set the number at those over $200,000 per year as beeing 'rich'. That is waaaaay too low. Well - $200k annually is starting to get there according to the current tax laws.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:02 PM) Now, instead of cutting costs by $1 trillion dollars in taxes, that $1 trillion is passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices, decreased quality, less investment in R&D, etc. Corporation make their money from the people. If you make them pay more money, the people must pay more money. And I'll agree completely with what NSS posted above. Often times, the definition of "wealthy" used by Democrats in cases like this is really "a little above average but not even upper-middle class." So are you saying a household income of something like $75K and above qualifies as "wealthy" by Democrat standards?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:13 PM) There are two different distinctive interest rates at play here. There is the overnight rate at which the fed lends to banks, and the discount rate, which banks lend to each other at, and which forms the basis for prime rate. The consumer end of things is fine. The discount rate does not need to be changed. Up until today I agreed with Bernankes moves of the Fed stepping in at the discount window and providing liquidity to the system both through the system, and through lower interest rates. Putting more money into the hands of consumers at a time when commodity prices are at record high levels accross the board (Gold 28 year highs, Grains at multi-decade highs, crude oil all time high etc) is a stupid idea, because all it does it create more opportunity for price increases. The banking system needs more cash, consumers do not. And that's exactly right - which is why I think we're now in some trouble. 5% inflation is not what we need - and I'm telling you, we're getting ready to hit some serious bumps in the road.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:00 PM) IIRC, the 1997 Fisk number retirement game was also the infamous Terry Bevington pointing to the empty bullpen game. Weren't we there?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:54 PM) The "media" reported an event. Some outlets then blew it up into something, which is what they do to every candidate in both parties. They aren't biased... they're lazy and incompetent. ok, now that I can agree with.

If we get into a serious 'stagflation' cycle, we're all going to be in a world of hurt. Seriously. We will see unemployment double, if not more.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:30 PM) Ah so now we know how Thompson is going to be stereotyped by the media... I guess it was conviently ignored in the mainstream that dispite the reporters not knowing what Thompson was talking about, Fred Thompson actually knew what he was talking about. Exactly. But the media's not biased!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:36 PM) I agree 100%. They should be looking at the overnight rate, but there are way too many inflationary factors out there right now with record commodity prices all over the place. They are going to regret this move. Hopefully it is the only cut they make, but if they start out with a 50 Bps cut, that tells me more cuts are on the way. If they "regret" this move, then we are all in a HEAP of trouble.

Half point cut. I'll tell you - I think this is a little too aggressive. There's still too many inflationary pressures - i.e. $82 bbl oil, commodities (corn, milk, soy, etc.)... and I don't care what anyone says, you can't discount those items ("core" CPI) when looking at inflationary pressures.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) I thought the illegal part was pretty clear. We invaded a country, one who was no threat to us, and one who was under UN sanctions that were working. That violates pretty standard international law, as it were. If you don't think international law is worth following, then so be it. But we chose to walk all over it. Iraq was a near-zero threat to the U.S. Here is a list of countries who, off the top of my head, represented greater threats to us and our interests as of 2003: Iran North Korea Syria Pakistan (yes I know they are an ally, but it doesn't change the fact) Saudi Arabia (same) Russia Yemen China So let's dispense with the B.S. about a threat, and be honest about why they chose Iraq. They chose Iraq because of location, because of the perceived ease of victory, and because of oil. The sanctions were working because France, Germany, et. al were profiting off of it. Doh! Anyway, I don't think it was "illegal" as the resolutions were pretty clear that we could resume the 1991 conflict if Saddam were found not in compliance with the resolutions, and his government was found in contempt of those resolutions. And I agree there were (and are) bigger threats to the US. But that's not the point.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 01:40 PM) I can't believe you really think that. Was Iraq on the verge of invading the US? Oh I absolutely think that. And really, that's NSS's point - is that we were so arrogant to making Iraq our playground to fight a war. It's sort of like Ohio wanting to fight Illinois and taking over Indiana to do it. The people who get screwed are the Iraqis. I know this and I also think that a lot of resources by terrorist organizations are being funneled into Iraq - whereas it would have been here at home if we didn't invade. Now - knowing that Saddam was pathological in a lot of ways anyway, I think the right decision was made. He had always shown a propensity to go against the rest of the world (Kuwait, Iran/Iraq in the 1980's, WMD's against his own people, defiance to the UN resolutions after 1991, oil for food, etc. etc. etc. etc.) and therefore the decision was made to eliminate that threat.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 12:16 AM) My wife makes the bed everyday, and quite well I might add. She used to ask me to do it once in a while, but my effort was admittedly half assed. I don't ever get that request anymore. I should try that technique on a few other things. It doesn't work.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 01:11 PM) Borchard could hit fastballs. It was breaking stuff that ate him up. You have to think that when pitchers learn they can pump 90 MPH heat down the heart of the plate and Fields can't do anything with it that he'll be in trouble. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to trade Fields now...it would have been better to do that before moving him to LF. For his career's sake, the Sox should trade him to PHI or some other place where they have someone that actually teaches players how to hit. Oh no, that's true - but I wonder if the value is about the same. However, learning to hit the fastball is a lot easier IMO then to learn to hit breaking junk crap pitches. If he shortens his swing and compacts himself a little, he should be all right.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) I don't find them attainable, because of the parameters within which the U.S. military has to work. But that discussion aside, here is the other question - even if we can, should we? I mean, look at what we did. We invaded a sovereign country, for our own political gain. Not in self defense, not to save lives, and not to protect our allies or ourselves. It was an aggresive, illegal invasion. This country has lost much of its leverage and political power world-wide now, because we decided to do this. That decision will be hurting the U.S. for decades to come. OK, so I'll bite. Why was it ILLEGAL? And I think that word has some serious ramifications. And I disagree on the part of "not to protect or allies or ourselves". I think by creating the battle field there, it's saved lives at home. Now - the real debate is - we've ruined XX millions of lives in Iraq - and all for what? I do think that it DOES protect ourselves and our allies. However, it's probably not by the means we wanted it to be.

Josh Fields = Joe Borchard? (let the rumblings begin... )

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) Again with the assumption. I've said before in here, I've said it to you... I am very well aware of the real reasons for attacking Iraq. It was never about WMD, or how Saddam was a bad man (those were way, way down the list, if they were factors at all). It was about: 1. Creating an anchorhead for democracy and capitalism in the Middle East, hoping it would spread in the region. 2. Have more control and influence over the flow of oil from the Gulf 3. Creating a military depot in the region allied with the U.S. 4. Centralize the greater military and politcal conflicts in a country of our choosing, where we could battle extremism head-on Those were the main drivers. They are plenty long-sighted - just not very intelligent. You cannot create democracy at he barrell of a gun. It would have been much, much cheaper to invest in getting off oil entirely, then to invade and own Iraq. Now I have been wrong on a lot of things, but I'll tell you, these facts all seemed pretty damn obvious to me from the get-go. I just don't understand why this administration couldn't see it too. Well, there already is capitalism in the Middle East - it's called Dubai, for one. The 4 main points you listed is a lot of it, and I wasn't singleing you out - most people are very short sighted when it comes to Iraq. Really, it all goes back to 8 weeks after the launch of the war. If they would have gotten in there and stabilized things right away instead of it festering (for many reasons - but most of it was a HUGE vacuum because no one knew who was in charge), then I think things would be very different now. That part definitely rests to GWB, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (aka the three musketeers). I do think that the 4 things you stated are attainable, if they don't back down . . . but most people don't have the stomach for it. Now - I'm NOT saying that we should "stay the course" - but I am saying that we need to make sure things get cleaned up as much as they can be and hope that we can get more people to forge alliances like some parts of Iraq has done in the last 2-3 months.

I've said this before, but it's very short sited to look at Iraq as a very short term thing, which most people are.

There are extremeists in every "religion"... and they are all screwtards. It's about as simple as that. But, it amazes me people who want to jump all over BushCo as making things "worse". I'm sorry... 3000 + people, in basically a blatent act of war, is pretty much as bad as it gets. And that was not BushCo's fault, as much as some of you out there want it to be. Now, by going after them in several different ways, it's "worse"? I'm not buying that kool-aid. Obviously, though, it's not going to change anyone's mind.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 07:22 PM) Exactly. That is yet another example of how U.S. policy has all but handed those terrorists a victory - it now appears to many in that region that U.S. policy is simply a hatred of all Muslims, instead of targetting those who actually caused 9/11. They thought that before, during and after 9/11, so it's really not any different then it ever has been.