Balta1701

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:56 PM) or because you got food poisoning from jimmy johns I don't believe that's possible. And if it was, it's still worth it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:53 PM) The general public that doesn't serve and won't have to "deal" with the changes? Does their opinion matter in this debate? I mean, i'm fine with DADT being repealed, but at the same time I think the opinions of military personnel matter a lot more than you or I. While it's worth noting that military personnel were polled and also gave that 70% number... If the military believed in 1948 that desegregation would diminish readiness and make a lot of soldiers uncomfortable, would you say that Truman made a mistake by desegregating it?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:06 PM) The fact that this is an issue (gays in the military), shows that the typical person does think like this, be it from peer pressure or otherwise. That logic doesn't actually follow...it could be that a very small minority thinks that way but that minority is exceptionally vocal or exceptionally politically powerful.

Link

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) Tribune is wrong. $13M. Merkin/Official piece. Cowley/SunTimes piece. Any chance that $1 million is a buyout at the end? Or performance incentives?

At least in my calculation, I include the "2 years of a fairly affordable John Danks" as another benefit. If we stay in contention, the calculation is: No trade: John Danks in rotation 2 draft picks when he walks Trade: Open space in rotation, no Danks Fair number of young players, hopefully 50% of which pan out. I think my answer is...I trade him when either someone pays a ton for him, or when the Sox fall out of the race.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 03:23 PM) No matter which package you choose, you end up having a majority you never want to listen too, or never will listen too. Same as with TV, except in this case it's probably the monopoly on infrastructure that allows them to force you to pay for all the channels rather than actual law.

Since when is Rob Lowe from Norway?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) So the hundreds of billions of stimulus is unspent and sitting on the sidelines? A portion of the tax cuts in it, absolutely. The exact same thing will happen with much of the upper income tax cuts in the recently passed 3rd stimulus. You've hit upon exactly why upper income tax cuts are a poor response to the current crisis.

Queen Elizabeth likely has some relatives who are Norwegian as well.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:27 PM) Hmm... wrong thread? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 18, 2010 -> 08:15 PM) So does anyone out there have, or have had, a TrailBlazer or a Vue? Let's hear comments if you have!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) It makes no sense. Yes, it does. All of that money is sitting on the sidelines. In the event of a financial panic, everyone is going to try to accumulate as much in stable assets that won't lose value as possible. That's the normal response to a financial panic; to horde stable assets. There is no asset in the world considered to be as stable as the U.S. dollar. Banks and investors have sucked up every dollar that has become available, and it still hasn't been enough to provoke serious inflation. At some point, the desire for stable, safe assets will finally be satiated, and some of those dollars will again start moving towards riskier investments, seeking higher returns.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:03 PM) And I know you like to focus on energy, but energy is just one piece of the puzzle. The amount of cash being put into the economy, as well as other factors, all play in. That's my point though...the cash that has been pumped into the economy can be pulled out just as easily by the Fed, and in fact, that will happen automatically as people pay back the loans in the portfolio that the Fed has accumulated, even if they don't sell any of the assets they hold to take the cash back in. Prior to the announcement of QE2, the Fed announced that it was going to continue reinvesting those funds in additional securities, so as to continue pushing cash outwards. In the even that it turns around, every asset the fed purchased can be sold for some value as a method of taking that cash back off of the market.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) By the way, on inflation... while its very low now, that will not last. Give it a couple years, and we will be seeing big inflation numbers. Disagree. The main reason why that won't be even possible is that the Federal Reserve is likely to be very aggressive in preventing it...and they have an enormous amount of room to move in that direction without even raising rates, just by selling off the stuff it took onto its balance sheet. If there is an inflation spike, it won't be driven by the amount of "Money" generated during the crisis or by the size of the deficits, it's going to be generated by energy costs.

Odd, Tex, I didn't know you were Norwegian.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) Those budget balancing pledges from the republicans are a load of crap, too. They seemed to have no problem overspending while in power, but now it's a big deal and they're gonna fix everything. Yea, right. I believe they are crap as well, but I also have a strong inkling that they're going to use it as a means to set up a bipartisan slashing of OASDI. The President's "Deficit commission" set it up where the President has political cover for pushing for cuts, the Republicans would love to do so.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) They can create charts and fudge numbers all they want. I know that the costs of everything I do have gone up. That's inflation. And it's > 0%. We can shut our eyes and pretend prices have not gone up...but they have, across the board. I don't care what some bulls*** chart says, either. I have no need to say anything else.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 12:20 PM) Everyone dislikes something about it, but it was really a decent compromise. By the way, NSS...if we're talking about how the tax deal was a decent compromise and using the fact that we can now pass legislation as a reason why... Then I think it's important to withhold judgment slightly, until we see how the next fight that this tax deal will provoke plays out...how the spring budget cuts go, and we know that's going to happen. The entire non-defense discretionary budget is still smaller than the current budget deficit, so if the Republicans want to keep their budget-balancing pledges to the tea party, there's going to have to be either defense cuts, OASDI cuts, or Medicare cuts.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:02 PM) You lost me at inflation is basically zero. Red line is Core CPI, blue line is CPI including energy and food. The Federal Reserve's official core CPI target is 2-3 %, and currently that number sits below 1%.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) And the long term? There are 3 long term deficit problems. #1, and really, 80% of the problem: Health Care costs growing at 8-9% per year (while inflation is basically zero). If you project anything growing at >10% more than inflation out infinitely, it's going to go to infinity as well. That has to change, otherwise both the private and public sector go bankrupt (The private sector can't afford that rate of increase either). #2. There really isn't enough revenue coming in to cover the government's obligations. This is a second-order effect right now, and can be solved with honestly small tweaks to the overall tax rates, ending a war or two, etc. This section however gets much of the focus as it's easy to rail against without having to cite specifics. #3. Social Security has an inherent flaw; the benefits going out climb at a rate slightly higher than the rate of inflation. In the past, this gap has been made up for by productivity growth in the economy, but we've lost enough in the past couple years due to deterioration of skills that it's going to be hard for productivity to catch back up. If productivity were to resume it's past growth rates, OASDI is solvent forever. If it never does, then a small tweak to the payout rates starting around 2030 coupled with indexing the cap on taxable income to inflation does away with that gap. The long-term Health Care costs issue is the real problem. Solve that and everything else winds up seeming miniscule. However, there is 1 more long-term problem that this nation has to deal with; deteriorating infrastructure, which I'd rank as #2 in importance on that list. Edit: and oh yeah, the climate crisis fits in there too.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 12:26 PM) And just curious, which side of this deficit issue are you on? Because I seem to recall you calling for like $3T in direct stimulus spending. I don't give 2 s***s about the short-term deficit.

Must stop shooting full propane tanks with rifles...but its so fun...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 12:20 PM) Everyone dislikes something about it, but it was really a decent compromise. IF you don't give 2 s***s about the deficit.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) The big hot topic right now is the possibility of removing the mortgage interest deduction on taxes. Seems to me that's a pretty stupid move, I'd rather they got away from the deduction on other things first that wouldn't do as much direct damage to the economy. For example, the health care cost deductions - the demand curve is nearly inflexible anyway, and you don't necessarily want to encourage its use. Technically the catfood commission proposed getting rid of both of those deductions. You kinda have to if you want to cut the top tax rate to 20% and still balance the budget. On the policy, I think it'd actually be a reasonably good one overall, but it's bomb-throwing if you do it rapidly. A $700k mortgage at 5% pays $650k in interest over the lifetime of the loan. At 15% tax rates, that means that the government is picking up over $100k of the tab of that mortgage, which is kinda silly for the government to do if you can already afford a big home. A $300k home, with a 15% tax rate, the government only pays about $45,000 of the price, so there's a fairly sizeable distortion towards bigger homes at the top end of the tax rate in that proposal. But yeah, you get rid of it instantly, you put another knock into housing prices and housing sales right now, and push a fair number of additional folks into foreclosure, etc.

I'd tap that.