bmags

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 11:11 PM) why isn't that a valid concern? People downstate pay for their roads and the rails up here with their tax dollars, but only use the roads. People here pay the same, but use both. They're paying for something that they never use. I get that you can't have a tax system that covers ONLY what each person uses, but when you add in the corrupt political machine up here, plus the waste of money this city goes through, I can relate to their anger about having to cover those costs. I don't use the roads. But perhaps they should think to realize that our rail system has brought in a lot of population and business to that city, which provides the vast majority of money for this state.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 19, 2010 -> 07:31 PM) Somewhat OT, but I bring it up since Balta posted a link a few posts ago referring to the story: I'm a bit bewildered as to why anybody is surprised that the idea of a mosque (although it sounds more like a center than a mosque) in the shadows of ground zero is controversial. I think a group certainly has the right to put a mosque/center wherever it chooses, but putting one in that spot is a really sticky situation for a lot of people to deal with, regardless of how unfortunate that might be. from TPM reader from New York:

seriously, he's awful, so awful now.

part 2 http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-sec...l-security-inc/ unfortunately I woke up late and likely won't be able to read this until after work. But I'm anxious to talk about it then.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 19, 2010 -> 10:21 PM) Well obviously it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, but where they are talking about the disorganization and duplication of tasks is absolutely true, I thought that was common knowledge and I was surprised the article gave it so much attention. There are a lot of different reasons for that I could name off the top of my head: Turf battles - not just interagency battles, intraagency battles, and these really aren't going away, it's the nature of bureaucracy. One unit/section/organization wants to have control of a certain mission. This means personnel, funding, prestige, etc. Prima donna/alpha mentality - everybody wants to be doing something important and "sexy." Everybody also wants to be relevant, people genuinely believe in their work and they want to be doing something high-speed. This kind of overlaps into other areas too, like where one agency says their files are too important for another agency to see. Are the files really that important, or do you just think they are? Poor organization/overlapping of similar missions - Analysts produce similar products that someone else is doing, but the organization they work for wants it done a certain way. This also creates unnecessary rivalries. Another organization has a similar mission and the first agency takes offense to it and feels like their toes are being stepped on. Profit motive - self-explanatory. Billing positions is the reason private companies are in business so of course they have incentive to be actively adding value, however that's done. This isn't really that big of a problem though IMO and it can be managed. also I didn't think the article took a negative tone on people in the business, just that the system itself needs to be refocused.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 19, 2010 -> 10:21 PM) Well obviously it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, but where they are talking about the disorganization and duplication of tasks is absolutely true, I thought that was common knowledge and I was surprised the article gave it so much attention. There are a lot of different reasons for that I could name off the top of my head: Turf battles - not just interagency battles, intraagency battles, and these really aren't going away, it's the nature of bureaucracy. One unit/section/organization wants to have control of a certain mission. This means personnel, funding, prestige, etc. Prima donna/alpha mentality - everybody wants to be doing something important and "sexy." Everybody also wants to be relevant, people genuinely believe in their work and they want to be doing something high-speed. This kind of overlaps into other areas too, like where one agency says their files are too important for another agency to see. Are the files really that important, or do you just think they are? Poor organization/overlapping of similar missions - Analysts produce similar products that someone else is doing, but the organization they work for wants it done a certain way. This also creates unnecessary rivalries. Another organization has a similar mission and the first agency takes offense to it and feels like their toes are being stepped on. Profit motive - self-explanatory. Billing positions is the reason private companies are in business so of course they have incentive to be actively adding value, however that's done. This isn't really that big of a problem though IMO and it can be managed. I think there are things people just take for granted, things like - "well, i'm sure theres redundancy in our counter terrorism efforts" and then there's the scope and scale. And I think when our budget has tripled in 8 years and people aren't even sure it's made a difference, it's a pretty topical series.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) Yeah, but there was action by the Obama admn to make it more popular - the gigantic stimulus no one wanted to pay for and the overhaul of healthcare to a form most people don't like. And really at the rallies I've been to, they don't really differentiate between Repubs and Dems. Yeah, the people that attend are probably 80% Repubs, but the message is anti-Washington (Congress specifically), not necessarily anti one particular party. Hate them all you want, and continue to believe that the "Obama is a Nazi" faction is a part of the "movement," but they're really not. They're the extreme fringe that shows up. The discussions and lectures are very much in line with 1980's conservative thinking. It's not exactly radical - government is getting too big and needs to get out of my life. I'm guessing most tea partiers didn't care for the way Bush increased the size of government either. anti washington is pretty republican. And if it's 1980s conservative thinking, then no, I don't take the tea party seriously that they are concerned about the budget. (and OMG do they realize that Reagan had actually raised taxes during his presidency? Will he be disowned soon?)

i wish i knew more to use this search function. they should do a web tutorial of some guy whose smart showing how he's searching for s***. If anyone's read todays i'm interested to see what you think.

christ mccartney and ringo could do a tour just playing beatles songs and probably sell tickets for $500 a pop

are we sure it's going chronologically? Perhaps they are going to do some theme based episodes.

As the newspapers die out, I think it's important to acknowledge some pretty incredible work that we likely won't see during the transition http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ 2 years in the making, and actually tries to challenge a status quo idea that more resources = good. Today was pretty fascinating, i can't wait to see the full thing.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 06:03 PM) shut down the roads. the economy will thrive on horse back. it's not that, it's the attitude that dominates springfield that downstate politicians throw hissy fits that their constituents have to pay for the citys rails, when people in the city also pay for the roads down south that maybe %10 of the amount of people are served than are with urban public transport.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) Frankly, despite all the commuting I've done this year, I've been disappointed that I haven't seen more ARRA signs. I-55 is hell. I was stuck in traffic for 40 minutes to go 2 miles in the middle of nowhere

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 02:18 PM) Another possible 11 game-winning streak? Hit me! jinxy mcgee

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 01:51 PM) First... these are public schools we are talking about. I'm all for getting parents heavily involved in nearly all things school, but frankly, the school diet will not be helped by most parents. For public schools, the schools need to do something - either independently, or at the state or federal level. Probably best at the state level. Second... If the only people buying oil futures contracts are planning to take delivery, then you no longer have a market whatsoever. Oil prices will go up FAR faster that way, than with having futures markets. there are numerous, numerous studies that ALSO show that kids given a healthy diet performed better on test scores than those on high fat/sugar diets. It's a fantastic investment.

excellent, all these people using gasoline are sucking the teat of the government. the lazy bastards.

"a Magic" sounds so dumb. What a dumb name.

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."