Balta1701

Our next Press Secretary is a Carney! (/rimshot)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 05:16 PM) Increasing taxes on people making 35k or less is f***ing retarded. Dude, the Republicans agreed to the plan. That's what is supposed to happen.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 05:13 PM) So nothings really changed, just shifted? I saw no difference in federal taxes on my checks since the changes, just state. If you make between $0 and about $35k, you should have seen a slight tax increase. If you make above that, you should see a slight to moderate tax decrease, with the amount of the decrease growing the more you make.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) two good running games, and two great defenses. I'm not really sure that these are comparable, especially the running games.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 05:10 PM) It's not slightly larger, it's the same. They extended tax cuts we already had. Actually, unless you make well over $250k a year (or under $20 k a year), that's not true, the upper crust tax cuts were extended, but the tax cut from the stimulus was replaced by a payroll tax cut.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:30 PM) No, you are misinterpereting me. I am saying that the Postal Service should do these things: --Provide that which private business will not and cannot - basic mail --Charge for that service the amount of money it actually costs --Elect to compete in related services if and only if it can compete on at least an even budget I believe the Postal Service already does the first and 3rd of those. Priority mail doesn't lose the USPS money. And it provides the everyday services. The problem is...it cannot charge what it actually costs, or provide services at the level that it is allowed to charge, because of Congressional rules. If I wanted to build the postal service from scratch as a private enterprise, there would be areas of the country I would go to once a month, or perhaps once a week. Personally, there's no reason why I need mail more than 1-2 times a week, maybe even less. I could easily charge people for delivery more often than that, or for rural delivery, or for Saturday delivery. Here is the question...you have to pick one (or all 3); Which option do you prefer; significant increases in everyday mail costs, significant cutbacks in everyday service, or significant cutbacks in rural service. The Postal service works like a lot of things in this country; it makes its money delivering mail in high-profit areas (cities and suburbs on weekdays) and that goes to subsidize rural delivery and weekend delivery. Either the people in the cities need to pay higher rates to reflect the fact that they're subsidizing the other types of delivery, or they need to be allowed to cut back on rural delivery. None of those options have proven politically palatable.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) Interesting stuff, but I disagree with the idea that there isn't a crisis. Servicing the debt is a large chunk of the budget and will only get larger, SS/Medicare are huge drains, the economy sucks... this is what I'd call a crisis. Now, it could be a WORSE crisis... but when you are looking at the idea that the federal budget will be less than 10% discretionary outside of debt/SS/Medicare/Defense in the next decade, that's a huge problem in my eyes. Some of what you suggest: ending wars, ending at least some of the Bush tax cuts, I agree with. But what you are obviously trying to lean towards here is that more spending by the government will be what lifts us out of the doldrums. Noted. Your last point, that "all the other changes" are small tweaks used to mask the problem, is a stinking pile of it. You cannot sit there and say you shouldn't touch those things, just because other things (which I also addressed) are bigger. Social Security has been running a surplus for decades, and it is really giving no problems to the general budget right now. It needs no additional funding for at least 25 years under current law, it will pay out more money in benefits after its trust fund goes bankrupt than it currently does, and its deficit on the infinite horizon is smaller than the Medicare deficit over just a couple of years. In the "Entitlements" part, Social Security is 2% of the problem, Medicare is 98%, and Social Security is actually helping now. Secondly...the cost of servicing the debt in 2006-2007 was larger than the cost of servicing the debt right now, because interest rates have gone through the floor. The debt is 50% bigger, but we're paying less on interest right now. Third...right now a significant chunk of that debt is held by the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the largest holder of U.S. treasuries (along with the Social Security trust fund). The funds that are paid out in interest on Federal Reserve holdings go back to the Federal Reserve, which then returns them to the Treasury Department. Last year, the amount the Fed transferred to the Treasury totaled $80 billion dollars, a sum more than double the previous year's value. The Federal Reserve has done this to try to push the inflation/growth button. Therefore, the amount actually paid out in interest has shrunk even more substantially over the past year, because we're paying the interest to the U.S. government. (Note; this money is actually money paid back in interest; the money the Fed is earning on its investments in the Housing market, it re-investing in housing securities so that its portfolio will not shrink). Now, don't get me wrong here...there are plenty of programs I could list even outside of defense/security that I'd be willing to part with (Farm subsidies). However...there are 2 key issues. First...you can not solve the budget problem using them, they're just too small. Second...even if you solve every single one, you still have a massive budget problem because of Health Care cost growth. If you think something is a waste of money, and you can convince the rest of the small states/Congress that you're right, then you might get a little bit of savings, but it's ignoring the forest for the trees.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) EFFICIENCY --No government agency should be running deficits or getting any government money to conduct any business that is already handled by private business just fine. The Postal Service can try to compete with UPS, FedEx and DHL if they want to, but on their own dime. An element of this idea made it into Rand Paul's list also, he saves $50 million a year by cutting back on the "Essential air service", which spends government funds ensuring that rural areas are able to maintain access to air service. It's worth understanding though why these sorts of things happen. There's been good discussion on this topic out in the world over the last few days as a consequence. Let's be clear on what you're arguing. The reason why the postal service isn't competitive with the others is that the postal service has its rates and its requirements fixed by Congress. If the Postal Service had no public mandates, then a large chunk of its postal offices can and would be shut down for not being profitable, and they'd have large rural areas that would only see delivery once or twice a week, things like that. Just as the Essential Air Service is providing a benefit to rural areas, the postal service is as well. If you want to make the argument that the U.S. spends too much providing infrastructure to rural areas, then make that argument; comparing those services to Fedex is making the wrong case.

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) At first glance, nothing offends me terribly in Rand Paul's budget except gutting TSA. You may dislike them now, but once another airport-related attack occurs, they will come back bigger, more expensive, and likely more "annoying" than ever. I can go through Rand Paul's list and find 50 different cuts I can make the same case about though, that you cut them and the costs will come back 10 times over. He eliminates the Consumer Product Safety Commission. These are the people whose job it is to actively find out if your chinese toys are painted with lead or if your baby's crib will kill it. You may dislike spending money on it...until your child brushes its teeth with leaden-toothpaste. You cut back on the EPA, and you're amazed at this new spike in asthma attacks. You cut back on the Corps of Engineers and then a Hurricane hits NOLA and you have $100 billion in rebuilding costs. You kill off Amtrak and then suddenly you're faced with massive new demands for road use. You cut the NIH, hell...biological research, who needs that?

Perhaps they will get a super bowl mention.

First of all...there is no crisis in the federal budget. There is no federal budgetary crisis right now. Interest rates on U.S. federal debt remain near historic lows. If there were a crisis, interest rates would be spiking to convince people to continue buying that debt. There is a major long-term issue with Medicare. There is a major, major crisis in unemployment. That is the real crisis. Anyway, here's the way to interpret the current deficit. This chart is 2 years old, created just after the stimulus. It underestimates the 2011 deficit because of the tax plan that was just passed. The "Economic downturn" portion is composed of 3 things; people who were taxpayers and are no longer paying taxes because they're unemployed, people who are being paid lower wages and therefore are paying less in taxes, and people who are now on government benefits such as unemployment and Medicaid because they no longer have jobs. If your policy pushes unemployment down, it makes a very large dent in the deficit. However, if your deficit reduction policy pushes up unemployment, you do not improve the deficit situation, because all you do is take taxpayers and turn them into unemployed folks. If you end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, then you have another huge chunk. Finally, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, you eliminate another large slice. The long-term deficit is still something worth discussing. Medicare remains the overwhelming majority of that problem. The PPACA helped delay the problem somewhat, but it will still be there. All of the other changes...eliminating earmarks, cutting back programs your side doesn't like, changing the tax code, those are all small tweaks that people use to mask real issues.

Too good not to share.

I have a few websites I'm a member at that pay me for doing ordinary tasks like using their toolbar/search engine and clicking on links. Right now I'm averaging about $100 a year I pull in between them. They're all also pyramid schemes, so I'd be happy to refer anyone if they were interested.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) I have brought it up a few times in different threads plus mentioned it in the Will Ohman signing. The fact that KW signed Ohman with 2 lefties already in the pen, and now is looking at Freddy, adheres to the theory that Peavy wont just be out 5 or 6 starts, it could be more like 10-15 starts. Thats why I brought up the threads on Capuano and Galarraga, becuase most of what I have read (not from the sox themselves), had Peavy's starts made, his over/under, pegged at about 16. I disagree on this one...if either Sale or Thornton are going to be the primary closer, then the Sox still needed another lefty even if Peavy started from day 1.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) Sign me up as well, I'll gladly take Freddy in the long relief role when Jake is back ala Carrasco in 08. EDIT: or was it 09? At least our doctor friend Ptatc has suggested that Freddo might really struggle in the long relief role, because he needs a while to warm up, especially after his injury. I think all of us can remember in 2005/2006 how terrible Freddy was before he warmed up. For example, 2005, his ERA in the first inning was 6.55, and it was 2.45 in the 2nd inning. Last year the difference was smaller but still there. Coming out of the bullpen in long relief, you're trying to stop the bleeding first, you're trying to get a number of innings second. And you're often doing trying to stop the bleeding on a limited warmup, because the pitcher fell apart.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 06:57 PM) I could post-pad and jam up the board all day if I wanted. And so far, you've gotten 3 posts out of this thread.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 06:13 PM) Then maybe we need to change our philosophy? I agree with your post for the most part. But you kinda made an argument without really meaning to in favor of people like myself that hates our overall drafting/development philosophy. Jared Mitchell received a $1.2 million signing bonus. Mike Trout received a $1.215 million signing bonus.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 06:49 PM) I bet Pujols at 37, out hits Fielder at 32.5. FWIW, Cecil Fielder's last solid season was when he was 32 (.834 OPS over a full year).

You're missing the other big money streams...and there's a lot of them at this point. Revenue Sharing dollars (i.e. DirecTV extra innings, merch sales) totaled over $13 million a team last year, and has been skyrocketing. Another big one is the TV and radio contracts...which by some reports run upwards of $400k a game, to the point that they'd total >$50 million a year. Then you have the advertising contracts...which are worth on the order of $5 million a year just for the naming rights, plus all the ads around the facilities.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) I think Jesse "The Body/Mind" Ventura launched pretty public lawsuit against the TSA recently, should be making headlines. 17 posts ahead of you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 05:28 PM) You're still physically present in Chicago for "most of the year." Again, i'm talking about this particular statute, which requires being a "resident in" the state of Illinois one year prior to the election. If Rahm worked in DC for 8 months and lived in chicago for 4 months, he should still be considered a resident for candidacy purposes So, what about 3 months in Chicago? 2 months? 1.5 months? 0.75 months? 0.15 months? Please tell me where the black and white line that everyone here would agree upon sits.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) I think in tax law, wherever you reside longer, is where you reside...the other is just a place you own property. I recall this from the 1980's when the then president of Commodore Computer lived in Canada exactly 1/2 year + 1 day per year, and lived here the remainder of the year...to dodge a huge portion of taxes legally. There were stories that he was nearly out of "days" left to live in the US and would plan when he could "vacation" here from his "home" in Canada... Wait, so there are different definitions of "Residency" depending on the type of law we're discussing? I thought "We all know what a resident is".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) Well, I disagree, simply because we all know what resides means. If I tell you I reside in Illinois, I'm not talking about an income property I own in California. The question is what does it mean within the statute. I agree it's not defined, but as soon as the SC "decides" what it means then the law will be changed, for better or for worse, without legislation. Your example here has zero meaning and you know better than that...this isn't an income property we're talking about, this is a property he kept while working a temporary position out of state. Saying "we all know what resides means" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Link

Thank you Tex for admitting you feel the need to pay reparations.