Balta1701

QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 05:33 PM) I can't imagine a Sox pitcher actually obeying such an order. Even if the pitcher otherwise likes Guillen, why would he care about sending a message to a well-liked former teamate for getting into a spat with Oney? Doesn't make sense. He could always have a rookie do it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 05:32 PM) You have to understand that the majority of the public is worried about the deficits. When one party is swearing we're bankrupt, it's too counterintuitive to say "well actually 100% debt:gdp ratio is not unheard of for countries" blah blah people won't believe you. So they fought to make the austerity measures out of the short term and to include defense cuts. Given the circumstances, the question becomes whether you wanted that or the country to not pay it's poorest citizens social security because there is a delusional congressional majority and pass off congressional responsibility to a super committee. This is what you see in republics like the united states when a party starts behaving like republicans. One reason our country worked so well was because the ideological alignment was out of whack due to racism. that doesn't exist and it favors the party with more rigid discipline. Why is "The deficit is causing unemployment" an easier argument to make than "We need to hire people to do stuff!" People are only worried about the deficit because both parties have come together and agreed that it is the problem that is causing unemployment and needs to be dealt with. Until this deficit hysteria started, no one was worried about the deficit, nor should they have been...they were worried about being jobless. People are more than willing to make the 2nd argument...it just gets consigned to the sidelines. Unless the person with the bully pulpit makes it, no one listens.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) I'm past the point of thinking that Obama is just weak and ineffective. I don't believe he has anything close to a progressive agenda. The amazing thing though is that sometimes he'll get up and just nail why a progressive agenda is important in a speech, and then he'll never take any initiative to back up his own words.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 05:05 PM) "she all of the sudden became the world's biggest derivative regulation backer" And yet left enough loopholes that Dodd Frank still has very few teeth behind it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:58 PM) Part of the problem here is that the reason Democrats had such strong majorities is that they had conservative candidates win seats. My objection here isn't against voting for or campaigning for liberal Democrats; it's against voting for someone just because they've got a (D) next to their name, even though they might be a terrible politician with what would have been considered strongly conservative positions a decade or two ago. Especially in the Senate though where it actually mattered...how many of them could win if they were legit liberals? Nelson in Nebraska? Lincoln in Arkansas? Are those seats going to be won by Russ Feingold?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) Right, and that's what BS and I were stressing to you recently. I can't imagine when the Democrats will have as strong of a position as they did 2009-2011. This is the best they can do? And 7 months later, after one measly election in which they lost the House, they're not only begrudgingly voting for but actually proposing far-right, far-reaching fiscal reform/austerity in the middle of a prolonged recession? You know, I think they did a fairly decent job in 2009-2011 of getting passed what they could given the Filibuster constraint. That was probably the most productive Congress since the 60's. My problem now is I'm watching it all get thrown out the window.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) You should see the gardening thread! It's no longer safe for work. I don't want to hear about your "Gardening".

bmags, I used to be the guy saying exactly what you're saying. Now we're at our 2nd budget cut debacle in the past what, 4 months? And whether we like it or not, there'll be another one with another shutdown deadline in September. Yes, the PPACA was good policy, and the Dodd Frank act as written was at least decent policy, and there are other victories (lilly ledbedder, etc.) But how much of that matters if it gets rolled back in the next deal? How much does a health care coverage expansion matter if 12 months later you get rolled to the point that you're taking on significant health care coverage cuts? How much does extending one type of protection gain if simultaneously you're doing things like dramatically slashing student loans? Maybe I'll be back saying what you're saying again once there's a Republican nominee...but this budget debacle really has me down.

The reproductive rights fight has come back and the left is losing. Quite badly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) Gotta vote Democrats to keep Republicans out! That way at least it's Democrats passing conservative bills! Hell, at this point there's a legit argument that the Congressional Dems were more effective in 2004-2006 at preventing bad policy from happening than they have been in 2011.

Now that we've finally got this debt ceiling done, the Democrats are going to do something about jobs. Their solution? Tax breaks and spending cuts.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) Does it matter? He can't hit anyone as evidenced by his .383 OPS this past month. Actually it kinda does...because if there's a righty on the mound, then that means Rios is getting played despite Ozzie's affection for platoons.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 02:28 PM) Guess who's in the starting lineup again! It's our favorite guy, Rios!!! You've got to be kidding. Who's on the mound today?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) parts could have broken off int he crash The stardrive sections are usually much more built-up because they have to contain the forces from the propulsion systems. If the ship broke up, the saucer section would be much more damaged and more of the stardrive would be in tact than the saucer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Just judging by your response, you have been already hearing what you want to hear, which make this another one of those exercises in futility. And judging by your response, all you've got is "Less regulation".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) that's what he said. The price of oil moves a lot more based on expected demand than on the dollar. Right now, oil is behaving as though it is a supply-constrained system. If the global economy wants to grow, it begins to demand more energy, but there is no current way to produce energy from oil faster (we have been at a global production plateau since ~2006). Therefore, when the economy starts to recover, oil prices spike high enough to offset the new demand...and that means they spike far enough to damage the rest of the economy so that it can't grow any more, thus wiping out the demand spike.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) And here is a crazy idea, maybe we should make things so that the economy isn't dependent on government spending? Aside from the usual "Less regulation" canard, feel free to offer suggestions about how to achieve that.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 11:59 AM) I thought you were adding another cool note to the story, and then I googled it That doesn't look like either a Constitution class ship or a Defiant class ship to me.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) And by mid 2009 you're back up to pre-crash levels. It was a temporary drop. We're still in a depressed economy and are now paying more for gas than at anytime in the last decade. But global demand had recovered to mostly where it was pre-crash by 2009.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 11:24 AM) It moves based on both. But since oil is traded in dollars, the value of the dollar has a big impact. It's not the only impact, however. My point is, move the dollars value back to where it was during Clintons administration, and you'd be paying a buck 50 for gas now. Really, the value of the dollar has decreased by a factor of ~3 since 1998? That doesn't seem right to me.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) Um, have you been alive from 2008-2011? Yeah. The economy collapsed in 2008 and by December 2008 I was paying $1.75 a gallon. The price of oil moves a lot more based on expected demand than on the dollar.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) Strengthen the dollar the gas falls. It's really that simple. We have the weakest dollar of all time...high gas prices should be expected. Weaken the economy and gas prices fall also.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) I think it should have been 20000. Frankly, that's what rewriting the entire federal budget should take. They just postponed that part until the "Super Congress" does that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) What would public support be for doubling, tripling, or more basic consumer goods prices to push them into line with American labor costs? I don't think you need much media coverage to know that answer. If nothing else watch people's reaction with the price of gasoline. The price of gasoline has gone up by a factor of what, 5 in the last 12 years, and yet we still can't get a reasonable domestic energy policy crafted.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) How much does campaign financing and media coverage influence or even overwhelm what "the public" wants, though? The debt ceiling deal certainly doesn't match what polling indicated, and I'm pretty sure there was overwhelming support for substantial financial regulation reform, investigation and prosecution. If you poll on the trade deficit, significant majorities of Americans think that the trade deficit is a bad thing. However, the debt ceiling vote is basically a vote to maintain a high trade deficit, since that's a net result of strong dollar/low interest rate policies and the lack of investment in alternative energy.