AbeFroman

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) Why would you think that? Reduction of taxes is the most pure injection of cash into the economy possible. At a 100% ratio, all of that money reaches the tax payers. When you start looking at the housing market, only those who have sold a house, or took out a home equity loan feel the effects. If you look at the equity boom of the 90's, only those who owned stocks got to participate in that. If you look at government spending, only the people who either have new government jobs, or are in those particular programs feel the effect, and in the case of government spending, any spending has an element of loss equal to the amount of government ineffeciency related to that particular program. Low interest rates only affect those who have the ability to get a loan. Tax cuts are the only completely fool proof method to put money directly into the pockets of people. Economies are ruled by monetary policy. Interest rates are the only fool proof method of putting money directly into the economy. Taxes, in my mind, have only nominal impact on the economy. Low interest rates affect way more than those who have the ability to get a loan. Low rates make it cheaper for businesses to borrow money. When they can borrow money cheaply, they can expand, hire new workers, develop new markets, innovate, etc. Also, when interest rates are low, investment is pushed to the private sector. Stocks attract new investors because stock performance is substantially better than interest based investments (like T-bills, bonds, etc.). When companies have access to capital, they can expand. This is especially important in America where our position as the global capital center gives us the advantage to pursue other international markets unavailable to those without financing. I believe that lowering taxes can expose an economy to inflation. I believe the "pure injection" of money into the economy translates into higher demand for consumer goods. Some of those consumer goods are foreign (e.g. using tax reductions to upgrade from a ford to a mercedes). For every tax cut dollar, the American economy only receives the percentage that is spent on american goods or benefits american companies. The consumer spending which stays in the U.S. drives up inflation in the short term. If a billion more dollars is available to americans, its foolish to believe that prices won't eventually reflect that as well. I definitely understand supply-side theory that tax cuts produce a trickle down affect... and I agree that it is somwhat helpful. But its not nearly as substanial as Reagan disciples want to believe. The Reagan Tax cuts in 81 and 86 were probably good for America (though the deficits are not good). However, its also worth noting that Paul Volker lowered interest rates a whopping 10% in the early 80's. Volker contained price growth, he spurred investment, and ultimately a huge boom in American Business. He is the uncredited hero in the American economy. George Bush Sr. raised taxes in 1990. Clinton raised taxes in 1993. The result? 9 years of booming economy. No inflation, low unemployment. Budget surpluses. If tax breaks help the economy, then we logically should have seen a bad economy from tax increases. It never happened. So I you ask me how to grow an economy, I'll tell you to use monetary policy. Tax cuts are overrated. The Sweds have a 56% income tax... but they have a very powerful central bank. Somehow, they've prospered. .. and they've grown even faster than us.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:00 AM) Kinda going back to this discussion of tax cuts vs housing boom.... Its an op-ed from WSJ, so it is a little biased, but makes some excellent points. Bold emphasis is mine. SS2K - you've spent a large portion of this post discussing the time bomb of ARM's. If there has been a housing bubble in the past few years, how would that have affected tax revenue? Presume that many people took equity out of their homes by refinancing while rates were low. Also presume that many sellers made a lot of money on their homes during the price run-up. I think a logical thinking supply-sider would say that tax revenues increased because overall wealth increased as a result of the housing boom. I believe tax cuts help a little... But the gains in tax revenue and better economic performance is a function of low interest rates. I think too much is made of how taxes affect the economy....

it strikes me that hugh hefner has a pretty good job.

Man... Lidle had that great sinker working today... Where was that in game four of the series?

QUOTE(daa84 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) if only arod had hit .300 against detroit, lidle woulda been prepping for a game, not flying...i blame arod... im probably going straight to hell Its ok... i laughed. The other thing here is that this makes the Yankee rotation even shallower than it already was.

CNN is reporting he was the only person on board the plane... they say there was no instructor on board. That means the three people who died were in the building at the time of the accident... thats horrible

Heres an interesting fact: Cory Fulton Lidle is (was) a direct descendent of Robert Fulton, who was who was widely credited with developing the first commercially successful steamboat. How about that?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) Two things. #1, interest rates were low because a government program, the federal reserve bank, lowered them. #2 If housing is such a huge key to the economy, how can we have a quickly falling budget deficit which has been factored downwards at least twice now in the last year? Also if this is such a huge force, how are tax receipts growing so quickly, while the housing markets is seeing declines like it hasn't seen in a long time? #1) I would hardly call the federal reserve a government program. Institutionally, it has practically nothing to do with the government at all. Its decisions cannot controled by Congress or by the President. #2) You conclusion is eroneous. Government deficits are not a good measuring stick of economic performance. If the government spends less, then the budget will shrink even if tax revenues are the same. In 2005, spending by the Federal government did not grow as much as incoming revenue.... So the deficit shrank. Furthermore (and maybe more imporantly) remember that there is a lag in tax revenue. How the Housing market was in Jan 2005 is not indicative of how it is in December... and certainly not indiciative of how it is now. GDP is a much better indication of an economy's performance. And by all accounts GDP is going to be affected by the housing slump. Don't believe me, then just check this out: Bernanke says that we will see a 1% decline in GDP... which sounds minor, but isit has a massive effect on the US (and world) economcy. http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/04/news/econo...on=money_latest

It seems like a rediculous deal for 7-11.... 500k is nothing. this is going to get them all kinds of national media attention for the next couple of days.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) Beyond just the housing value drops, something like 12% of the U.S. economy in recent years was fueled through the housing industry; construction of new homes, upgrades of them funded through low-interest rate home equity loans, and so on. As the manufacturing sector has died and the service sector has avoided raising pay rates, a very large portion of the growth in wages and jobs has come thanks to the housing boom. Cut that off, and it hurts the economy even more. I agree completely Balta... GDP will fall; unemployment rises, etc. The whole economy is affected, including those people who took loans in a responsible manner. Our lending practices require tightening. Its not inherently unethical to give a loan to someone who probably can't handle it.... Its probably unethical to give 50 million people loans they probably shouldn't have. I DEFINTELY agree that its each person's responsibility to understand and manage their financial well-being. But there is also an institutional duty to set reasonable lending policies so as not to cause mass havoc in the financial sector.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) I'd disagree on the blame. There is nothing illegal or, in my opinion, outright wrong with ARMs and other high-risk debt instruments. They are safe in the RIGHT HANDS, for the right reasons. Therefore, I feel most of the responsibility sits with the individual borrowers. Which is why I suggested better educating the borrowing public. And as Jas pointed out... many parents won't know enough to teach their kids. Better to do it in the schools. I think we can all agree that lending practices in the past 10 years have greatly loosened. 25 years ago, you couldn't get a mortgage unless you could put 20% down. Today, its a much different story. I agree that there is nothing illegal about them in safe hands. However, all of these idiots who aren't smart about everything are going to have a massive affect on the national economy. Its no just a microeconomic problem.... These loans, and the subsequent problems that follow have a Macroeconomic affect. GDP will fall, responsible home buyers will suffer if they sell now because of the bubble that has built up in real estate values. Its just simple economics. It affects everyone.

I actually think this could be the "Big Story" of 2007. There are going to be a lot of people in really really bad shape. The blame falls heavily on the banks and mortgage companies who write these rediculous mortgages. Something is wrong when a Bum can afford a 250,000 condo. As for that lou dobbs comment, I always thought he was a conservative... I am wrong?

The front page of Soxtalk says that the site was hacked. Any word on whats going on?

Another Illinois Math and Science Academy graduate hits the big time

Can someone the significance of a nuclear test? We've known for at least two years now that North Korea has at least one nuke. So what difference does it make if they test it? I'm sure we'll see all kinds of diplomatic responses now... but what good does waiting until after they test it do? I guess I don't understand why testing a nuke is so much a greater threat than just having one... Also, there have been recent reports of Kim Jong Il's poor health... Anyone think the timing of this is curious? Presumably, the DPRK could have done this at anytime... why now?

I'll assume this is a mistake (albeit a curious one). Jon Stewart had fun with this on the daily show last night

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 4, 2006 -> 06:21 PM) People who talk about suspicious timing should know that it seems pretty clear that the person in charge of House Republican re-electing strategy seems to have been in the know at the time. If that's the case, the GOP not the Democrats controlled the timing. If the allegations are true that the GOP leadership knew about this months, if not years ago shouldn't shout anything about timing unless they're frantically looking for someone else to blame. That seems to be the case here. I think thats a great point Rex.... anybody trying to play the suspicious timing angle will disregard it. But if they knew about this, then they had every reason in the world to think it might hurt them some day.

It makes me so happy that a blown defensive play by Torri Hunter was the difference in this one.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) Abe, one question though...if Hastert does wind up taking the fall, which is how it certainly appears...what happens to his natural successor, John Boehner, the current Majority leader in the House, who also seems to have known about it and taken roughly as many actions as Hastert? It incumbent on the Republican Party to find someone who's clean and not afraid to fight for what's right. Whoever it is, it has to be someone 1) with credibility, and 2) the forsight to maintain his credibility by doing whats right, even if its not right for a particular member of the party. If that means its time for the Republicans to go back to the drawing board and find a new rising leader, than thats what they should do. I don't know who that is... but there's 200 some odd republican congressman. Many of them are reputable. The Republican message should be that this person is a sharp change from the old ways of Hastert.... Our Republican Party will not fall because of the bad acts of a limited view. This is principally what I don't understand about the bush administration. They seem so slow to acknowledge error. Why on Earth would you stand by Hastert? It make absolutely no sense at all. This IS worse than the Clinton episode. So stand up and change it. I really think the American people want a government that isn't afraid to just do what is right rather than play party politics.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 4, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) I'm glad you brought this up. It's funny how it's a "personal matter" with Clinton, but THIS, MY GOD, THE REPUBLICANS, ALL OF THEM, better step down because of what they may, or may not, have known. Nice double standard. It's all about the children... please. I don't hear anyone saying that, except to dramatize it. And truthfully, that's sick and wrong. Oh by the way, he wasn't impeached over that, he was impeached because he lied about it under oath. That's called perjury, and it's a felony, except when Clinton does it, (over a personal matter). I don't see that happening in this case. The party that this involved resigned immediately. What a concept. Kapkomet... It seems like you're playing partisan politics here. Why are you protecting Hastert so much? Shouldn't there be accountability if Hastert concealed the fact that a child-predator was in Congress and making inappropriate gestures towards employees of the government? What makes that the Democrats fault? Right now, we have a lot of details about what Hastert knew and did not know. Right now, the preponderence of evidence suggests that he knew about Foley and the Pages and did nothing so as to avoid political turmoil. If he did conceal material information about a child predator for political purposes, thats is the type of thing he should be asked to resign for. I can't think of anything worse than covering up for a child-predator for political gain. That's politics at its worst. I'm pretty sure that would get anybody fired from a job. I'm pretty sure thats why the uber-conservative Washington Times is saying Hastert should resign also. I'm sympathetic to you desire to avoid political turmoil right before an election. But I think conservatives would be MUCH MUCH MUCH better off if they said the following: "Hastert, you're out. We're not going to take this. We are the republican party and we're tough as nails on child predators. We're going to conduct a full investigation, through a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. Here is Congressman X, he's our new leader with vision and toughness to fight for a better america." That would be insanely more effective than to keep a lame duck Speaker in place who many people believe aided and abetted a child predator a month before an election. But hey... I'm a Democrat. What do I care. Its to my personal benefit for all these right-wingers to stand by Hastert.... QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 4, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) Much as it pains me to say it, Hastert really has to go. If he doesn't step down because of this then the voters should make him next month. I was listening to Kudlow and Company on CNBC radio a while ago and Hastert actually called Larry Kudlow before the show. His explanation for not moving on this a year ago when the E-Mails surfaced was "we were distracted and too busy at the time". What a load of horses***! To offer a lameo excuse like that for sitting on a sex scandal involving kids is beyond the pale. Nuke, I think you're right. Not only is it better for America, its also better for Republicans. I think standing by Hastert is the absolute dumbest thing they can do. He can keep his seat... Just force him out of the Speaker role. I'm a Democrat. Politically, it helps us if he stays on... but its bad bad bad for people's view of American society and government. I hope he resigns... or the right wises up and forces him out on their own.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 06:34 PM) And these assholes in the Democratic Party are literally RUNNING for the cameras to talk about resignations up and down the House? Welcome to October, and welcome to holding on to the story until Congress ajourned for the elections. What a shameful act all the way around. Yeah... this is almost as shameful as impeaching a popular president during a time of peace and economic growth for lying about getting a blowjob. Hate to break it to you. If republicans knew about this and concealed it or failed to report it, Its WAY worse than the lies Clinton told. Their acts jeopardized the safety of underage children. Hastert voted to impeach clinton... By his own standard, Hastert should resign. Oh, by the way, its not just Dems....the loyally conservative Washington Times is also calling for his resignation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_...ert_newspaper_1

There's only one: That acoustic ending to "Layla" by Clapton's Derek and the Dominos. Just like that scene in goodfellas

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 07:33 PM) Maine South and Prospect are the only two north side schools with a championship tradition. New Trier is the most hatable high school in the state of Illinois. Mt. Carmel is the most hatable school in the state. They recruit kids from all over for their teamsa, their coach Frank Lenti is the scum of the earth, and they once successfully sued and stopped the entire state wrestling tournament because they had been disqualified for violating the rules on the number wrestling tournaments they hold. The throng of 50 something Mt. Carmel alumni that cling to the "glory days" and believe that nobody is as good as Mt. Carmel sickens me. I'd like to see the school closed. New Trier is wealthy, but mostly harmless. Other than the fact that the parents of all those kids are loaded, there's really no reason to make them hatable.

I think they'll get soriano

Been cruising the Queen K Highway? I stayed at the Fairmont Orchid some years ago. beautiful...