bmags

low-balled him or paid him what we should have?

let me write down this routine and send it to cbs. This is hilarious.

yeah, no problems with that. I'm pretty sure they are going to match too.

it's funny b/c i think that trade was the turning point for a lot of people when it came to truly realizing the gamble holding onto prospects like them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2010 -> 02:35 PM) I think the reality is we've got a combination of problems. Are there people who just go to McDonalds for their kids every night out of laziness? I'm sure there are. Would those people change their habits if you eliminated the corn subsidies and suddenly fast food and soda prices went upwards by 50% relative to fresh fruits? Some might, but a lot probably wouldn't. Are there people who are in 2 income, middle class families who simply don't have time to prepare a meal for their kids and who use those things as a fill-in? I'm sure there are from personal experience. If you raised the price on processed foods by 75%, would that make it that they suddenly have the time and ability to prepare a full meal? My guess is no, and I think that's a very, very common issue in this country. what if you subsidized fruits and vegetables as much as you have meats and corn?

you guys are also missing the point that in both cases the government has helped the consumer make a simple choice of taking the cheapest route to a meal.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 15, 2010 -> 03:53 AM) Where's the line? Where do you stop "subsidizing" things? For the record, don't ... answer the question. Why aren't you criticizing the people buying subsidized oil and causing us to lose leverage with dangerous "rogue" nations, causing people to die from air pollution and destroying industries in the gulf, when they could just be less lazy and pay a little more for cleaner energies, walk more or use public transit. This is choices, and these people are just lazy.

Perfect timing. Yglesias: "One piece of pushback I got from some right-of-center folks to yesterday’s post on how conservatives don’t care about the deficit was to say that well maybe some Republican Party elected officials are bad on this, but the conservative movement is different. I think that’s entirely false. President George H.W. Bush struck a bargain with congressional Democrats that reduced spending and decreased the deficit. Some Republican Party elected officials backed him. But conservatives were apoplectic. After all, the bill raised taxes. And conservatives care more about making taxes as low as possible than they do about reducing spending or reducing the deficit. I had Intern Ryan take a look at National Review’s Reagan Archive and it makes the point quite clearly. Take a look at Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute and the Club for Growth celebrating the triumph of Reaganomics without offering even a glancing criticism of Ronald Reagan’s high deficits. Instead we get this: The Reagan way was spurned throughout the 1980s as “voodoo economics” (one of George Bush Sr.’s few memorable comments.) Many college textbooks to this day even argue that Reagan’s economic policies were flawed because they created record budget deficits. But the textbooks don’t mention that as the national debt rose by $2 trillion, national wealth rose by $8 trillion. They also don’t mention that the Laffer curve worked: Lower tax rates did generate more tax revenues at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal tax collections rose from $500 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 1990. In August of 1982, NR ran an editorial on the question “Has Reagan Deserted the Conservatives?” that doesn’t mention the word “deficit” at all in evaluating his record, but does deem it “astonishing that Reagan should support, rather than threaten to veto, the huge tax increase being engineered by Senator Robert Dole,” a tax increase designed to reduce the deficit. Jonah Goldberg edged close to the truth when he wrote “the argument about government over-spending has become an argument about the deficit. I care a lot about the former, I don’t care very much about the latter.” But while it’s true that conservatives do care about spending, it’s important to remember that their overwhelming preoccupation is with taxes. The major examples of spending reductions we have, the 1990 and 1993 deficit reduction bills, are both loathed by conservatives because they included tax hikes. Conservatives don’t think it’s necessary to “pay for” tax cuts with offsetting spending reductions and they don’t think balanced deficit reduction packages make sense. That’s because they don’t care, even a little bit, about the budget deficit."

hell yeah. Let's hope that this isn't the new "tyson chandler has a hook shot!"

yeah, i was wrong, i was also 16 at the time though and only knew how to judge prospects by their hitting and pitching numbers on chicagowhitesox.com.

Lowering taxes has clearly led to an incredibly balanced budget. We have absolutely no recent stories of taxes being raised prior to the budget being balanced.

For example, i'd like to see your reaction if we didn't subsidize dirty energies.

GUYS DID YOU KNOW JEREMY REED HIT .400 ONE YEAR?!?!?!??!?

hahaha

i was so pissed. i believe i said "if you gave up Jeremy Reed there is NO WAY you give up Olivo with him!"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 07:11 PM) Are you kidding? Have you bought groceries recently? Produce is incredibly cheap. You can spend 20 bucks and get a weeks full of produce pretty easily. It has nothing to do with the government. They're not forcing people to buy certain products. Lazy people choose to buy the convenient, pre-packaged products. It has nothing to do with the price. That person isn't hypothetical. It's a pretty good chunk of the welfare recipients I've seen and worked with. Got no job (or have a s***ty job), their food and housing is paid for, but they got cell phones and tv's and other "necessities" that get them through life. Produce is incredibly cheap compared to what. It also doesn't save like meat, grains, etc etc. I struggle to spend less than $160 a month and I'm a) buying for myself B) probably on a similar budget to these families. I'm a) buying for myself and B) probably on the same budget as a lot of these families. And I eat rice, beans, lime, onions tomatoes and 1 meat a week. This is not eating truffles.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 05:44 PM) Yeah, cuz it's SO awful to say that someone on welfare or on food stamps or who stuff their kids full of processed crap because they can't afford/spend the time on healthy food, walking around with a cell phone and watching TV on their 60 inch flat screen, doesn't have their priorities straight. God f***ing forbid our society has some sort of expectation of self-responsibility. Life would just be easier if the government gave us everything! it's so hard to live life without a computer or cell phone or tv! The wealthy people have them, so I should have them too!! It's my right!! they stuff their kids full of processed fat because that's what is cheap. Now why is it cheap? Government. I love how when the government is legitimately into peoples lives you act like they aren't. If fruits and veggies were subsidized the same amount as meat and corn you'd see how much more "responsible" these peoples food choices get. as for your hypothetical welfare person that you create to show why welfare people are all evil communiss lazy and hellbent on stealing your money, well, who cares. Enjoy it, it makes your life easier.

also, cell phone plans are comparable to land lines, so who gives a f***. This isn't 1980.

how much of a difference does "need to live" and "need to make a living" mean to you all? All those jobs you can't walk to, cross them off, you don't need a car to live! only shelter water and sustenance. Oh you're potential employers want to "reach you"? Haha, sure you lazy bastard! Oh, right you need a "computer"? Not according to Laslow! f***in bums.

maybe a bunch of mediocre centers are just harder to come by than a bunch of mediocre guards...shock...and it's probably true!

QUOTE (Chi Town Sox @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 05:02 PM) Isn't that amazing, seems like he's been around longer than LBJ, to me at least Considering the draft in front of and after him, it was a sam bouie-bad pick.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 04:55 PM) That is if we get Reddick. I also think Raja Bell would be a good fit. yeah, sucked to read this morning that KC Johnson thinks the Magic will match.

i really just don't give a s*** about nba owners.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 03:10 PM) There's an old saying that goes "Finding a job is a full time job". and it's f***ing true.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) At least last year...Chris Bosh was substantially better than Derrick Rose. That could change this year. yeah, i don't know, i don't think the advance stats handle point guards well. Frankly, i don't think it's coincidence that nash has been a part of some of the most offensively efficient teams in the league. I think he's better than bosh and makes a bunch of other players better. I think if Rose cuts down on the turnovers and increases his efficiency, he'll be better than bosh even if the numbers don't show it. When a pg is the main offense provider on the team I don't think the stats really do them justice.