Balta1701

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 04:17 PM) To quote Pelosi, 'You have to pass it to find out what's in it.' If it was good enough for Obamacare..... I hope you're smarter than this. 2000 pages of details vs. a nondescript line saying "the President must cut $2 trillion from Medicare and Social Security."

QUOTE (3E8 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) Domonic Brown's OPS+ is above 100, he's walking at a higher rate than league average, striking out less than league average, and his BABIP is currently at a career low. Oh and he's 23. I think if the Phils were willing to swap Brown for Q, it would've been done by now. I would of course expect an additional move to be made with the money saved from shipping guys with '11 salaries totaling nearly $20M. Aramis at 3rd appears to be the most obvious possible upgrade. That's not how the trade deadline really works. Teams never put their cards on the table until the clock is going to run out.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 04:14 PM) Well I suppose that's true, though do we know whether they wont agree to the plan more because of the timing issues? I guarantee you that if Boehner produced a clean short term increase it would pass the Senate. No one would like it but it would get through. The problem is that it has that $2 trillion in non-negotiated instant Medicare and Social Security cuts that it forces. There's no Democrat anywhere who is going to just vote for large cuts to those programs without at least a description of what the cuts are.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 04:10 PM) Alright but you're talking about two things that politicians won't drop or change much because of their personal interest in keeping the defense/health care lobbies happy. So again, without anything to force them to do it, what will? The Democrats and the Republicans have both passed health care overhaul plans over the last 8 years. One of them included substantial cuts. With Health Care costs growing at 7-9% of the economy, it's not long before they start overwhelming other priorities, like bombing people. That's what forces Congress to act again.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Well given the fact that they won't do it on their own, what's your solution? Well, the first answer is: grow the **** economy. As long as we're at 9% unemployment, we'll never close the gap. The second answer is...some still significant additional overhauls to the entire health care system. You do those 2 things, and you've eliminated 95% of the problem.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:57 PM) They're both overpaid, past their prime, possession receivers. Williams is 29? That's past his prime? Yeah, his production isn't what it was in Detroit, but is that a physical, toll of injuries, getting older issue or something else?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) OH spare your nonsensical bulls***. Please tell me you're being sarcastic here and I don't need to issue warnings.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) That version didn't appear to allow for a more generic "crisis," only militaristic threats to national security. And if you make it any economic crisis, then what you've got is toothless. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were justified because of the economic weakness following the tech bubble and 9/11, and then the wars didn't have to be paid for.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) Couldn't a 4 team deal potentially make sense. White Sox land Bourn plus prospects, Phillies land one of Pence/Quentin, Braves land the other, Astros get prospects from both teams. The Phillies and Braves will absolutely refuse to help the other out.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) The eventual acquisition of Roy Williams reminds me too much of Muhsin Muhammed but with a bad attitude. That seems like a very different scenario. One who is a veteran with a history of success, one who is being unceremoniously cut and trying to resuscitate his career.

Unless you could have gotten a 60% vote in Congress, that would have required nearly $1 trillion in cuts/tax increases happen between mid-2008 and mid-2009 due to the financial collapse and expansion of unemployment.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) I do want to nitpick this much, and since I'm in the nitpicking mood... That someone working that desk job at the FBI benefits from the government funding that new highway because when the inevitable nationwide manhunt that the FBI conducts, to find you for financial fraud and multiple counts of insider trading, they will send that very desk agent out on field duty to capture you...and this is not a coincidence, but that agent catches you by using that very highway to solve the case! This leads to a huge book deal/movie deal, and therefore he/she DID benefit from that new highway! Oh, and you end up in prison for life. Sorry. And the person in the private sector benefits from the smaller government because he can come up with models saying that Housing prices never go down and convince all sorts of fools to invest trillions based on those models then walk away with a severance package worth millions while never having to worry about being investigated for financial fraud. Oh, and the economy is screwed for a decade. Sorry. I'm enjoying this.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Sure there is. In 2030, when China owns 50+% of the US debt, and begins playing fiscal games with that leverage, congress can threaten to force a default and give them the finger...so they can get their phone call. If china has invested that much currency in U.S. debt and starts massively selling it off...the value of the rest of their holdings will drop precipitously, and the value of their own currency will appreciate, killing manufacturing jobs in china. It massively damages China to do that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) Nothing in our 230+ year history supports the idea that this would ever actually happen. When your job depends on making people happy, and making people happy entails bringing some money back to your district/state, there's zero incentive to not spend as much as you can grab. This flows quite well both ways though. Remember...hypothetically, let's say we balance the budget tomorrow. However we do it, don't care. That still doesn't mean that in next year's election, the Republican candidate won't propose $1.6 trillion in tax cuts, get the Dems to agree to $1.3 trillion, and destroy any semblance of a balanced budget. You can't hamstring a future Congress just by passing certain tax laws now.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) Means nothing in regard to my point. Government can be smaller while taxes are higher...so back to my original point, just because a government is smaller, doesn't necessarily mean the private sector gains from tax breaks or anything of the sort. And if you want to nitpick this much, then someone working a desk job at the FBI doesn't benefit all that much if the government funds a new highway...and therefore, the original statement that government employees shouldn't have their opinion counted on the size of the government is rendered bunk. As I was doing anywayl

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:09 PM) We are basically the same team as last year, but worse on the O-line. I am still not optimistic until we bring in two legit starting o-linemen, and a real WR. How in the world is this O-line worse? You think Carimi

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:09 PM) Maybe you should remember that in 1998, the government was smaller -- yet taxes were higher. OMG HOW'D THAT HAPPEN?! We were running a much smaller deficit.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) It makes no sense in forcing the whole issue to come up again 1.5 years down the road, either. This is politics at play. If it's 1.5 years down the road, it's AFTER the general election (how convenient for them), if it's just 6 months, and then another 6 months, it's BEFORE said election (how convenient for the republicans). Either fix it long term, or don't quibble about 6 months vs 1 year vs 1.5 years. Because I have some news for you, those are ALL SHORT TERM FIXES. Then get rid of the debt limit permanently. There's no good reason for it to exist any more.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) One benefits financially from a larger government through job stability/availability, the other gains nothing financially from the smaller government. Apples to Oranges. So, there's no benefit to the private sector from smaller government or lower taxes? Well, I'll make sure to remember that.

It's not a blog, so 2k5 is compelled to believe it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) The Democrats didn't take over the Senate or the WH until January 2009, though you can say that the House Democrats voted for short-term increases when it was a non-issue. It's been the same for the AMT, the "doc fix" and I'm sure plenty of other policies and agencies. The Democrats didn't have the Senate in 2007? That doesn't seem right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) Well unless you were one of the millions of governmental employees... If one is employed by the public sector and thinks the government should be bigger, we shouldn't count their opinion. If one is employed by the private sector and thinks the government should be smaller, therefore, we similarly should discount their opinion.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) When I made my post, I wasn't even thinking about D1. I think he has improved this year, he should get another 100++ AB's, ST next year. He should be a solid 4th outfielder in 2012. better than Lillibridge, and cheap. Let's put it this way. If D2 is never going to be anything but a backup OF, then there's no harm in using him as a backup OF next year. If there's any hope of him developing into a starter, then he needs to start the season at AAA playing everyday.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:42 PM) I do not know enough about Medicare to comment, yes to the other two. I was referring to the very large gap between mine and ss2k5's vision of the proper size and scope of government. That's the thing, if you look at his last post, you and I would probably both agree with everything in it. The government should be no larger than is necessary for appropriate regulation, maintenance, and defense of the nation and its population. We disagree on the things the government should do, but I don't think anyone here would sensibly argue that government should be larger for the sake of having a larger government, rather than government should be a tool to accomplish a certain goal

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:33 PM) Sorry for the lack of clarity (again), we disagree on the necessity of cuts going forward once the economy has recovered. Medicare still needs to be improved/overhauled somewhat although the PPACA helped the projections significantly, the defense department needs to be cut back significantly, the wars need to end. Those are cuts you'd agree to, right?