ptatc

QUOTE (Blackout Friday @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 05:26 AM) Cashman has done a great job of leveraging talent and fiscal power. I can’t think of a recent example better than Chapman for any team. Acquired for relative peanuts, traded for a mint, re-acquired months later for only money and no draft picks surrendered. Quite the trick. I believe Hahn has done an excellent job, and is as competent as any GM in the game. We were lucky to have not had him poached before his promotion. I think we have the clearest path to success in a couple years within our division, but the Yankees will be a force as well. The key is to make the playoffs and hope that you come in hot. For all the crap people give JR, this was a good move by him. Telling Hahn that he was the next in line to KW so he wouldn't leave, he had many opportunities. Then kicking KW upstairs and giving Hahn the position. They both still have a say in all activities but the importance of each opinion changed.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 12:00 PM) I also don’t agree with making it cheaper for larger corporations to do business. Your cuts should be to make small business more competitive with the low cost low margin corporations. Agreed. Jobs are jobs but I think locally is better.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 11:02 AM) Cutting 400 million from Medicare and adding over 1 trillion to the debt concerns me more. I agree the debt rising is a big concern. That is what I stated earlier. That is the primary issue for tax plans. Not spending more than you generate.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 10:25 AM) What’s wrong with the economy? Also athletes are not even on the same planet with the wealthy controlling this bill. The whole rising debt recently would seem to be a long term problem for the economy. However, the charts and comments from the previous post is a little reassuring. The Illinois situation of debt increasing is worrisome. People and businesses are leaving in droves. Its not happening for the country at that scale but it does concern me. That was my point about the athletes and owners. Even that world is totally beyond my comprehension.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 10:19 AM) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...tes_public_debt Chart at the top is helpful. Debt will shoot up in recessions/depressions and wars. You can see the 80s debt ride up due to decreased revenue and military spending, dip as a surplus from rising revenues occurs in 90s then increase from new wars and decreased revenue. Then shoots up in 09 due to a huge drop in revenue. But the rising debt in 80s/90s was rising less due to circumstances (war/recessions) and more due to policy. Thanks. That is a good simple way to look at it. The comments about the debt not being high relative to other developed countries is a good sign.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 10:11 AM) It is the philosophy that making the rich richer will benefit everyone. That they will just pass this new found money along. It would be like a drug dealer giving Charlie Sheen cocaine and telling him to hold it for someone else. It never has happened, isn't happening, and will never happen. Cutting corporate taxes will give everyone a raise? 5% of the S&P 500 companies paid no taxes. Trump hasn't paid taxes for 15 years, boasts of being worth $10 billion. Is he passing down his money to the little guy? This is all about keeping their donors happy. But, like anything else, it's the sum of your parts is what counts. Making your poor, poorer, your sick, sicker, doesn't make America great again. The nerve they had actually going on twitter asking what you would do with your $4,000 raise, was incomprehensible. What ever happened to republicans and the deficit? To be honest I really dont care about making the rich richer. Ive been around enough athletes and owners to know tnat is a different world. My concern is the health of the economy of the country. Countries such as Greece and others are really struggling. Having more people employed would be a bigger concern than tax cuts in general. I don't know enough about the economics to know if this will work or not but the goal seems to be a good one. As I've said before the politics of this type makes me sick as well but something needs to be done to improve the overall economy.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:57 AM) Well it’s not the largest ever. And it’s very similar to Reagan and Bush. So I guess the question is was the economy better during those times as opposed to the other times. I read that the debt increased more during the obama administration than any of the others. Is it not true of the Reeagan era.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. I don't recall this type of massive tax overall ever happening, let alone repeating it over and over again.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) And the whole zero tradition, wanting to win with a franchise that hasn't won much, small market, closer to Japan than most, up and coming team. They check off a ton of boxes as well. They've had one of the most important playoff wins in history. Beating the Cubs in 1984.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:18 AM) I'm in no way a supporter of it, there's too much stuff like the estate tax that has no benefit other than lining pockets. I have to read more about the pass through tax, cause it might not help the real smallest businesses anyway. Some of the poor/middle class will receive tax cuts, but those will come at the expense of the other half of the middle class that will see tax increases, especially if they itemize. A big wash. In the end, it seems like a standard conservative plan. Give more money to the people and companies that employ the everyday citizens. With more money, they will create more jobs and have more production and stimulate the economy, at least that's the rationale. In some situations it works but in many it just creates a bigger income gap as they just keep the money to themselves. This seems to be what the people who like it are touting. In theory it makes sense. More people working, more jobs healthier economy. The whole tax cuts that disappear in 2026 will be offset by more people employed and no businesses in the country. It will be interesting to see if it happens.

QUOTE (GenericUserName @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:09 AM) Yeah they can sign minor league deals. There was even an article about Putnam where he commented about not knowing if he would be tendered and if he isn't if he would be back with the White Sox to do rehab. This is common practice with fringe guys. Don't take up a roster spot because they can't pitch, but keep them in the organization to bring back to the MLB at a later date.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:45 AM) Well, I'd say that it actually is perfectly in line with modern conservative philosophy to enrich the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, but there are more ideologies than American conservatism or liberalism. Maybe just straight up plutocracy more than anything, really. The bill doesn't really include anything you'd see in a modern liberal tax plan. Ok. I was honestly curious when someone said it was neither conservative nor liberal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:39 AM) This bill was not a compromise bill. If it isn't liberal nor consevative philosophy then what is it?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:23 AM) White Sox only have 7 guys on their 40 man roster that are legitimate bullpen options for next year: Aaron Bummer, Jace Fry, Dylan Covey, Danny Farquhar, Nate Jones, Juan Minaya, and Gregory Infante. They will be adding a ton of pitching Burdi. He should be up at some point.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 01:39 AM) Athletic supporter? If you can't be an athlete be an athletic supporter.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:18 AM) Who is "they." This board has a lot of conservatives on it, however this isnt anything even remotely close to a conservative philosophy on economics. Its neither Liberal or conservative. I dont know what you call it. Compromise?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 08:15 PM) As the partisan lines grow deeper and deeper it's only gonna get worse. Many Congresspeople don't even have to think anymore, they just vote along party lines and are guaranteed re-election. There really needs to be a serious third party emerge or it is only gonna get worse. Agreed. It's more than just getting elected. The rhetoric is bordring on hatred which really makes both parties at fault. Its for this principle I voted third party in the presidential election.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 03:14 PM) I think there's general agreement that a more simplified tax code would be more fair no matter how we did it, but I would also note that, just as in the exercise we went through, simplified does not always mean more fair or better. These two comments seem to contradict one another.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) There's been plenty of studies on this. A flat VAT is very, very regressive. As a percentage of their total income, the wealthy spend far less than the non-wealthy, who spend nearly 100%. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01...-is-regressive/ The wealthy save and invest a much higher percentage of their income than the poor or even the middle class. The way around this would be to exempt "necessary" goods like food or clothing from a VAT, but that again makes a more complex tax code. We do that already with sales taxes at least for food, fwiw. Most of the difference there has to do with the VAT not including some significant items, not the least of which are financial services and multiple residences and travel. Most of it is also based on % but they do not discuss the ramifications on the gross revenue. The wealthy do spend a more than the non-wealthy but not as a % of the income. This is why an income tax is still needed but shouldn't necessarily be the primary tax. I agree the necessary items should be exempt, especially food. I think it would still be a more simple tax code and more fair than the current system. However, A tax or money person, I am not.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) Yes. If you make a lot of money, it's really, really good for you. If not, not so good. I'm not sure about this. Remember the income tax would also go down in the process. Think about how much money you and I spend, then think about how much the wealthy spend. How much revenue would be generated at 20% from $2,000 suits, luxury automobiles, private aircraft and other things that only the wealthy purchase.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:47 AM) 100% publicly financed campaigns with zero outside contributions would be nice SCOTUS has basically ruled that you can't have any campaign finance laws though due to free speech. That works too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) They're largely already millionaires going in or make most of their money becoming lobbyists and peddling their influence and connections once they're out. And a lot of it comes back to financing campaigns. Billionaire donors hold a whole hell of a lot of sway. It's part of why such accumulating so much wealth in the hands of a few is damaging for democracy and freedom. Our Senators and Reps answer first and foremost to the guys cutting the big checks. You and I are somewhere way down the line. They need a campaign cap like a salary cap. Politics and baseball have something in common.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:35 AM) Yes, I want the tax code to be exactly 10 pages. Not 9 pages, not 11 pages. Never mind. Either way, there will never be reform when the people who make the laws are among the very wealthy. People in Washington have zero incentive to make legit changes. The GOP "makes sure it hurts Democratic states and voters as much as possible". The Democrats make sure the poor are given just enough handouts to make sure Democratic states and voters stay Democratic while doing nothing to hurt their own pocketbooks. I guess one side appears better than the other because it pretends to help people, but nothing is really ever getting better for most of the country. And it gets worse each voting cycle.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:38 AM) These people stopped representing their voters decades ago, and I'm f***ing sick of it. People we elect shouldnt be made millionaires while in office. No doubt.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 10:08 AM) Canada has a VAT too, IIRC. You've still got to have a bit of a complicated code because the richer you are, the less money you need to spend on essentials. If you just had a flat VAT with no other assistance, stipends, etc., you'd have a massively regressive tax code. Someone making $30k a year spends nearly 100% of their income on things subject to a VAT, someone making $30M spends a tiny fraction. I would agree that it can't be the only tax. It isn't in the EU either. But if it was a major portion of it, I think it would be helpful. The wealthy will still pay more as they spend more. I don't think it should be based on what % of their income they spend. They will still provide the vast majority of the government tax revenue.