Balta1701

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) I had no problem with Floyd starting the 9th. He'd only allowed 3 hits up to that point and only 1 that stayed in the stadium. He was in absolute cruise control and the Yankees really had no chance. It was getting a runner on, especially one that can still steal a base in Jeter, that pushed it over the edge. You can't let Jeter steal and then have Granderson up with a runner on 2nd and nobody out - you can't walk him to set up the DP, and he is great against righties. I think Ozzie managed his pen last night perfectly. Hopefully the Sox win by 8 today. I agree that was as good of pen management as the Sox will get. If ozzie did those moves and one of the line drives fell, you tip your cap to the Yankees and go yell at the relievers some more.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 07:38 AM) Thornton was setting up. You don't want Santos facing Granderson, and Teixeira is ever so slightly more likely to end the game against Santos than he is Thornton (not that he couldn't park one against either...18 PA/HR as a lefty, 22 PA/HR as a righty). Some of it may be command, but there is also a reason Thornton didn't give Teixeira anything good to hit. Then Ozzie played it by the book and had Santos face ARod (though it's never mattered to ARod what hand a pitcher throws with), and left him in to get Cano when if he really wanted to micromanage he could have had Sale up and ready to go to face Cano. Santos is the closer. I don't think Thornton gave Tex nothing to hit on purpose. I think Thornton can't throw a strike to a righty to save his life.

Mark!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) I know a lot of you discounted Iguchi's ridiculous catch and throw but I'm blown away by it to this day. I agree. And M-56's flip was still better.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 07:10 PM) That doesn't really address the Democrats having supermajorities in both chambers and the White House and coming to the table with a heavy compromise (from a progressive perspective) and then further compromising from there. On both of the Presidents biggest bills, the PPACA and the Stimulus...he got 60 59 and 62 votes. You can tell me he made a tactical mistake in doing things like letting the Senate Budget committee debate rather than ignoring it, but that's a tactical difference/mistake, and you guys have been saying that your reason for voting against the President is philosophical.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 07:04 PM) It was the best policy they could get through because of Blue Dogs ie other Democrats. Do I need to quote Malcolm X again? Then vote against those Democrats. That is actually a sensible tactical maneuver, especially if they are in states/districts that could swing more sharply blue if you can oust the blue dog. Depending on who the opponent is, I won't complain if you're voting against a blue dog in the Senate/House. In that case, even in a 50/50 Senate for example, one vote can only do so much damage.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 07:05 PM) Yeah seems that I should have refreshed my recollection on the US great depression instead of just going with my knowledge of Europe and assuming that the US was suffering similar problems. Remember, Hyperinflation in Germany hit in 1923. The Depression was a different beast.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 07:01 PM) BScalabrine24 Brian Scalabrine RT: @chicagobulls "Pacers coach Frank Vogel: "We feel like if we win this game tonight, we'll win the series." - Yeah...so do we #gameover lol Then the team needs to find a way to get scalabrine onto the floor in this game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:54 PM) You're not helping your cause. (The $500 billion in medicare cuts expanded coverage to 30 million people and extracts those savings by making people healthier, but it was an open invitation to successful anti-Dem campaign ads. That bill has already saved lives.) If the PPACA isn't an argument that the Dems passed the best policy they could get through and were willing to lose seats because of it, I don't know what is.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:44 PM) The US had a huge amount of capital in the Great Depression? (I really have no clue, I always thought hyperinflation was a risk in the US, but I could have been wrong.) There was a huge demand during the great depression for additional money. It was in effect a "flight to safety" just like we saw in 2008. The difference in the depression is that Hoover and the Fed failed to increase the money supply in response, so the actual money supply became constrained and decreased significantly. (Side note, I'm putting this in terms that Friedman would like so that the Republicans don't get angry with me). The Great Depression was effectively a deflationary spiral...no one wanted to spend money, causing prices to drop, causing fewer people to want to spend money. We avoided that in 2008-2009 by spending a ****ton of money. And it still hasn't been enough to overcome the flight to safety.

An entire CD of Irish drinking songs about cats.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:29 PM) Im not sure what you mean. The German hyperinflation was partially a result of massive borrowing during WWI while at the same time printing money... Also im not sure if its relevant, but wasnt the US still on the gold standard? I believe Germany went off in 1914, to print more money and then never could get their act straight. Not all massive borrowing is the same. Massive borrowing when there is huge sidelined capital is different from massive borrowing when there isnt'.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:13 PM) Instead of going down the route of Germany with hyperinflation leading to no confidence in the govt, leading to the end of the Republic, FDR kept people believing in America. Well, just like now, hyperinflation wasn't exactly possible then, because just like now, having the government print money is a method of improving things. Germany in the 1920's was a different breed, where there wasn't a liquidity trap. There was no market that would absorb the extra government debt printed in Germany, there is for the U.S. now, just like in 1941 when we started spending on blowing thing sup.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) Democrats care more about keeping power than actually exercising it to pass their agenda. Like the bill they passed containing $500 billion in medicare cuts. That was entirely to keep power.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 06:01 PM) Aren't you the same person that spent weeks if not months trying to convince the conservatives on this site that the stimulus was focusing on the wrong things, citing people like Krugman? Yes. And compared to doing nothing and a 2nd great depression (and that is, for once, not an exaggeration), I'll take the stagnant point we've reached right now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:52 PM) Signal can lag source, you know this Balta. So, any change from Obama's policies wouldn't be viewed for 5-10 years?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:50 PM) What important event happened in 1941...... Oh yeah! It's actually interesting that from his graph, the moderately progressive policies of the 1930's did nothing to level the income distribution, the only thing that did was the war.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:44 PM) Balta, the website you linked to is being proven quite silly. Do you care to respond to the people who have pointed this out? I'll grant them that one. Politifact has a more up to date version.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:41 PM) Actual progressive policies were enacted. A middle class formed. Unemployment went to 25%.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) Thanks. Just curious because if he starts hitting like he did in ST then it's going to be hard to keep him down on the farm, and the only hole emerging now might be LF. Maybe Alexi could lead off... Really, no, it won't be hard to keep him down on the farm. Not for this year anyway. Unless someone gets hurt.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) You are making a fantastic case for why I should never vote for Democrats again. If this is the best they can or will do, f*** 'em. Let Republicans win, let the system collapse because it's fatally wounded anyway. "Let the system collapse". Yeah, worked great in the 1930's. Nothing bad came of that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:30 PM) No one is arguing for no stimulus bill. We are arguing that continuing to vote for bad Democrats like Obama will ensure that the heavily compromised stimulus bill is the absolute best we can ever hope for. And your choices were a moderately compromised stimulus bill or no stimulus bill.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:24 PM) So you agree that cutting taxes for the rich is what prevented a 2nd Great Depression. No, but the other $700 billion in spending did, and the upper class tax cuts in there, although small, again didn't hurt...it's pushing in the inflationary direction. If you're going to argue that you'd rather have no stimulus bill you guys are out of your minds completely. Go read what was in that bill.

You guys seem like the type who would benefit from this site. http://tinyurl.com/2fl9gzk (Profanity in the website title so I used tiny)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:22 PM) "Do you want to eat 5 pounds of s*** or 10 pounds?" So, "preventing a 2nd great depression" = 5 pounds of s***? yeah, I'll eat that to avoid another depression.