Balta1701

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Feb 19, 2011 -> 08:03 AM) I don't think he should get a 2 year contract from the Sox. He's at the age where he's bound to start a deep decline. Another team will probably outbid the Sox for his services, and he'll go elsewhere, and the Sox will IMO be better off with the cost savings. Mark Buehrle isn't the sort of pitcher that is coming out there with dominant stuff that he needs to worry about losing though. Mark's real fans have always used a guy like Jamie Moyer as a comparison; he's beating people by changing speeds and being ahead of them.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 06:57 PM) True, but the next question becomes whether or not you actually need sale for a full season in the bullpen to accomplish that. Personally, I'm fine with the decision, and you list some very good reasons to be for it as well. I just think that maybe people should remember that this "all in" philosophy is kind of what made this season make or break to begin with instead of immediately snapping at somebody who suggests maybe we should think about the future at least a little. Honestly...when I look at the Sox's bullpen, and I look at the kind of money guys like Soriano got, Benoit got...Sale in the bullpen is a better option than signing someone. It isn't necessarily the best option...but spending a ton of money to fill that hole would have hamstrung us even more.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) I dont care if you care or not. I cared enough to say it was stupid, if you dont care about the subject, that is definitely your choice. The reason I say things like that...the "Someone stupid said something stupid" game isn't one that gets very far. You can have legitimate complaints...the entire Glenn Beck show, for example, is a different phenomenon. But if you get bent out of shape every time some random person who appears on cable a few times a year says something horrifically morally repugnant, you're never going to do anything else, and you'll wander in debates between "This person said something horrible about Ms. Logan" and "Eric Alterman posted something calling a black man a monkey". Frankly, giving time to a person who doesn't matter because they said something stupid and offensive is just as likely to improve that person's standing because it gets them more publicity. If the head of a party or a major, major figure said that...that's a different story.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 06:26 PM) And yes, they did hide from their responsibility. I thought Walker made an excellent point when he said show up and voice your displeasure, show the people who voted for you where you stand. Instead the did literally hide in Rockford to evade the state troopers. Absolutely comical is what it was. I have a hard time believing that you'd be ok with the Congressional GOP simply walking out of any Senate vote they're opposed to just to make a point. I see. You're in favor of up or down votes on everything. Socialized medicine, here we come! There are a couple answers here, none of which you're going to like. First, a lot of these corporate profits are coming about because they're holding these large sums of cash that they're not investing...thus, they have reduced expenditures. They are able to do this because there is zero inflation; the value of their holdings is not declining with time. Sitting on cash is a smart business move right now. How do you end that? Spend at the federal level like a ************, and also increase the Fed's inflation target from 2-3% to 3-4%. Make it abundantly clear that holding cash is a bad investment. The sub-5% interest rate on the 30 year bond is telling you all you need to know about that story. Another way to do it? Tax the bleep out of it. If businesses are sitting there on cash that they won't spend, and wealthy individuals are sitting on money that they're just investing in T-bills...tax it and redistribute it. Create your own demand that way. Your boss can't expand in part because his tax bill just went up...but if his business surged, that would overcome the effect. A third way...create a new bubble. Establish something that business wants to invest in heavily, where they think they are going to realize larger long-term gains than are possible by sitting on funds. This is where my volcano monitoring bubble and my green energy bubble come in., I'm open to suggestions on others.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2011/02/18/t...-training-2011/ Spectacular ending

Anyway, it's what, one blogger/I assume Fox News contributor? Why should I care? If I was the victim, I'd make sure never to speak to that person again. If I owned a news network I'd never have that person on again. I promise not to go to their blog. Otherwise, what interest do I have?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 05:47 PM) Can't the second graph be explained by a lowered corporate tax rate? I assume since the upper personal income tax bracket in the 40's was like 90% that corporate tax rates were also a lot higher in those days as well, but that's just a guess. And the first graph shows corporate greed, no doubt about that. But that's why the government should be offering incentives to corporate investment moreso than just straight up revenue. Pretty sure I've been calling for massive corporate tax credits for companies that higher new employees/invest in green energy, etc for a long time. Yes, the nominal corporate tax rate has been cut over the years. The most recent large cut was at the end of the Reagan years. (this is an easy one to find because the anti-tax groups love showing how our nominal corporate tax rate is so stiflingly high) However, as I noted previously...no one pays the nominal corporate tax rate. Everyone pays a lower rate. Everyone takes some deductions or moves money around to avoid paying the nominal rate. The nominal rate itself is a joke. Your actual tax rate is much more strongly tied to the quality of lobbyist you own than it is tied to the nominal rate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 05:37 PM) Democrats in Wisconsin didn't run away to "hide from responsibility." That's a terrible mis-characterization. They are doing this to force a discussion before the vote in response to large public protests. If the WI public winds up deciding this gambit is an inappropriate move, they have every right to throw these Democrats out next election. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the multiple states trying to do this (Ohio and Indiana are next) had candidates campaign on the concept of banning the existence of public-employee unions. Also...if leaving the state to deny quorum is a legal procedural gamble (and it is, at this time in WI law), I really don't think any Republicans get to complain. If it wasn't for another legal procedural move, this walkout never would have happened because the federal government would have had a much stronger health care bill and that would have saved WI so much money that the Gov couldn't even have used that as an excuse.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 05:22 PM) If it wasn't for A LOT more than $200M, it was a low-ball offer. If years are the issue, I would've offered him 8/250. I think even 2k5 is getting on board with the idea that the Cardinals were low-balling him.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) He just turned 50 in November, and its not like he was some huge, roided up lineman. Besides, when you're about to turn 46, you're allowed to be shocked by a sudden death in that range. Whether he's a huge roided up lineman or not...he was a football player. That's kind of the point of the safety issues the NFL keeps bringing up. Playing football normally is an activity that can significantly shorten one's life.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) Hey, that wasn't you wearing the White Sox hat and red jacket on campus today, was it? Don't see too many Sox hats around here, though I guess it could have been the same guy you saw in the TRECs that day you asked me about it, haha. Nope. And I see a surprising number of Sox hats around.

It used to actually be the case that y'all were correct...there was, for decades, a very strong correlation between corporate profits and corporate investment. If there was cause-effect relationship there, then increasing corporate profits would directly lead to more investment. However, this nearly linear relationship is flat out gone. It began deviating, with elevated corporate profits not matched by spending, in the late 90's. There was a brief bit of confusion following the 2001 recession...but since then, reported corporate profits have skyrocketed, while investment has lagged well behind. We are currently at similar "investment" levels to those in the late 90s, while corporate profitability is setting a new record each quarter. In this case, additional tax cuts for corporations clearly will do jack squat to increase investment; it'll just increase the spread between the 2 lines. Meanwhile, the effective corporate tax rate, the taxes collected as a percentage of GDP, have been marching downwards for decades.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) You may be right. I don't see why he wouldn't want to be the face of a brand new Brooklyn team. He'd only have to wait a year. The answer to this question is...what good is it to be the face of a team if they're not good enough to make the playoffs?

The other way to look at that problem is... If the White Sox fail to win the AL Central this year, they are likely to lose money. They might still remain profitable if they can stay in it to the end, but they literally are banking on a combination of extra butts in the seats from being in the race and playoff revenue in order to break even/turn a profit this year. It's a reasonable gamble with this roster. If you're looking at 2012...Sale will probably be a better starter if he starts at least some this year. BUT...if the White Sox do not win the AL Central this year, there is likely to be a non-trivial payroll cut going into 2012 as well. Possibly at the level of 3 of the 5 names in our starting rotation being gone. If putting Chris Sale on the roster this year winds up being a major factor in the Sox winning the central, the added ticket sales/revenue will make the White Sox a better team in 2012, even if Sale struggles some transitioning back to starting.

At least they'd die limber.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) I would personally take Harris and Favors long-term over Anthony and Billups, I think this deal is absurd. Then again I never have cared much for Anthony. He will certainly sell tickets, but I just don't see many more wins coming their way. I'd assume there has to be a "we're moving to brooklyn and perhaps a FA like Chris Paul will want to play here" addendum to the thinking.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 02:36 PM) Also, The Great Savior is so lost on what to do anymore, even HE is proposing cutting corporate tax rates. Why would he consider such a thing if it wouldn't help? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02...-base-tax-works The National corporate tax rate is another issue entirely. Even you ought to be honest enough to admit the current system is a joke. 2/3 of U.S. companies pay nothing in corporate taxes. If you actually got the majority of corporate entities paying 1% in taxes, you could substantially cut the "nominal" tax rate.

Here's at least 1 version of a person re-stating it. (Piece originally from AP)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) In trying to stimulate growth, something Illinois and Chicago specifically will see a huge loss from in the coming years. When people actually run the numbers on which businesses or high income individuals move into/out of states because of tax rates, the impact tends to wind up very small. Service industries can't move. Industries that require a lot of infrastructure, like manufacturing or transportation, can't move. Banking centers can move, but rather than chasing corporate tax rates, they tend to chase lax regulations. In terms of building new facilities, the availability of space, cost of energy, cost of transportation, education of workforce, and most importantly health care costs wind up winning as well. That doesn't mean if you immediately increased your tax rate to 2x New Jerseys you wouldn't sustain losses, but really, people don't get up and move, or really decide where they're putting facilities, based on 1-2% differences in corporate tax rates between states. Wealthy people don't move out of NYC or Chicago because of high tax rates, at least not in the aggregate. In addition, since you're taxed on income earned in the state, even if you move your headquarters out of a state, it doesn't matter; you still pay IL taxes on things built or sold in IL.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) What are the terms? Where did you here this? Link

Rangers will give Neftali Feliz a chance to work at being a starter in training camp. At least we'll have one comp for Sale :-). Also, Jim Edmonds is retiring.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) WI had one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. I have no problem with him trying to make tax cuts there, and then trying to offset them. I just would have chosen different places and ways to cut, and not added in this union nonsense. I also would have happily taken the free $1.2B worth of high speed rail jobs, thank you very much. You and I differ in our definitions of "one of the highest". Top 40% yes, but...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) He's trying to make cuts and bust unions based on his personal politics to cover a budget gap he created. This doesn't seem like a difficult choice for him. That's my point. Those difficult cuts have to happen because he chose to cut the corporate tax rate.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Oddly enough, SOME of Walker's tactics would be more beneficial here than in Wisconsin. I think Walker is acting like an ass, but he's trying to make deep and difficult cuts, which Illinois needs. Quinn is raising taxes but making only small and insufficient cuts, which is more what Wisconsin needs. Really? Where did you get that from?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Feb 18, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) That's pretty shocking. A former NFL player in their 50's? Honestly, it shouldn't be shocking any more.