Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) $200 million a day isn't "meaningless" That would fund my hometown school system for four years. Its that exact attitude that has put us $14 TRILLION in the hole. You're saying that the $200 million is a totally BS number? Yeah, I could buy that .

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:45 PM) I would definitely consider Jones if the price is right. He's a good 4th outfielder. What would you consider the right price? I don't think I'd pay much more for him than what we paid last year. I think we'd be better off trying to find a guy who fits as a better platoon partner with Quentin.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:41 PM) http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/...icy_101103.html TY

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) Quantitave Easing, Round II. It's also a pun...the QE2 is the "Queen Elizabeth 2" ocean liner.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:30 PM) Weren't Danks and Masset guys he found in AFL? Not that Nick worked out for us, but he has some big value. I don't know about D1, but that's definitely where Kenny decided to go after Floyd.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:24 PM) really? so when we hear about these bills they're considered bipartisan? I could have sworn we say things like "Bush's tax cuts." We'd love to have the tax cuts in the Stimulus package called the "Obama Tax cuts". That's excellent framing, it gives that guy credit.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) Total is $1 Trillion. They are also buying $35 billion/mo in mortgage bonds if I read it correctly?? Didn't see the 2nd half of that, where did you get that bit?

I think we need to start banning people for this thread too. Starting with you!

QUOTE (danman31 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) Tyler Flowers? Whoops. I'm not saying it's a bad strategy, but it hasn't been overwhelmingly positive. True...not overwhelmingly...but there's never going to be a 100% successful strategy.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) You seem to know a lot about these women. Zoos are a great place for biologists to learn these things.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) Great post about buying into the company line about our starters being the group that should not be broken up at any cost. Baumgarner??? WS hero? We need some new bats and trading Jackson or Mark would be smart. I disagree Mark has no trade value. I just don't see that being the case. He'd have to be dealt to one of the teams with money though. Yankees, Boston, Mets don't want him?? Yankees continue to throw a lot of aging ragarms out there. The Mets have essentially declared they are not adding salary this offseason.

QEII officially sets sail.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:43 PM) Two points - (1) This is why I said in the other thread that I'm 100% positive that absent 9/11, after the Clinton/Newt years, the Dems would have stonewalled the s*** out of Bush, but they couldn't because most of what he did in his first term was reaction to the attack, so the Dems voted along with them, and used the "oh see! we worked together, why can't they play nice?" angle in 2004 and 2006." I think you're totally wrong on that and it's pretty easy to back that up. Bush's 2 biggest legislative accomplishments were both passed in 2001, pre-9/11, with significant Democratic support (at least in the House)...his upper level tax cuts and No-Child Left Behind. Had he been subject to a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, particularly on those tax cuts, they probably wouldn't have gone through...or at least they'd have had to be much, much smaller. They used reconciliation rules to get through with a 51-50 win to get as large of an upper level tax cut as possible.

Oh...and 1 more point...if you have a problem with the growing power of the executive branch...a stagnant Congress that can't get anything done is the worst possible setup, because like it or not, things need to be done. Events happen that need to be reacted to, treaties need to be signed, policy needs to be made. If the Congress can't function, say because of a supermajority requirement...then what is going to happen when policy needs to be made? The executive branch is going to find a way to implement that policy without Congress's approval or disapproval. Case in point; Congress isn't going to act on climate change. In the next 2 years...the EPA will.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:27 PM) We're not arguing the same issue here. I'm saying that the drafters of the Constitution were aware of the negatives of political parties and factions, including their ability to take over government and run amok to the detriment at all, and made governing more cumbersome because of it. Justice Stevens right there says they new these groups were detrimental, and designed the Constitution to check against them. If anything I'd agree that the collusion of the branches of government and the growing authority of the executive wasn't intended. The President is the end all be all of politics today. And unless Congress follows, despite being the in same party, nothing gets done. Congress was supposed to be THE branch of government to govern, while the President was to simply enforce what they produced. It's the opposite now. Today the President mandates legislation and forces the Congress to follow. But...a key part of why that has happened is that the President also assumes the role of leader of his or her party. The President's authority over the Congress comes about in no small part because of the party system itself. Sure there have been other changes (i.e. the fact that it's no longer necessary to issue a declaration of war) but that is a key part of the problem you identify.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:13 PM) Wouldn't that be part of the government, and hence governance? You're saying that being in the Senate these days involves governing...and not conning people out of money?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) Our government wasn't set up with political parties. Tex is right to correct my statement--Washington vehemently opposed them, but they simply didn't exist when the government was formed. So, the idea of part of the checks and balances being minority party opposition doesn't fly. Party politics weren't a consideration. The stimulus, hcr and finance reform were all trimmed down versions of what they should have been. Not entirely because of republican/conservative opposition, mind you, but there's a reason a lot of liberals are dissatisfied with the last two years. You'd be correct to fix the first sentence of your second paragraph by striking out "and everything". He has a point though...the government was set up to make it difficult to get stuff done. The issue I'd take is that the rules keep changing, to the point that it could well make the country ungovernable. Not just on bills like those...but there are flat out things that we can't solve right now. We can't get enough judges confirmed to run the judiciary. We can't get normal people in the executive branch confirmed. We can't get Nobel prize winners confirmed to the Federal Reserve, and they have to operate under emergency rules because they can't make policy otherwise. We can't learn who is paying for our elections.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:05 PM) Not exactly a strong defense of her record or her potential for governance, though. Well, she was running for the Senate.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Unless you're Kenny Williams... And why does he do that? Because KW keeps finding legitimate value by stealing guys who perform well in the AFL. It has actually been a successful strategy. If he didn't have him already...Escobar is the kind of guy KW might try to steal as a throw-in in some deal because he had a good year in the AFL.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) There is a "progressive caucus" too. 79 members. Call them the Anti-Blue Dogs. Only four of them lost. 39 Democrats voted against the Affordable Care and Patient Protection act of 2010. 12 will keep their seats.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) And the cost of this travel or the contribution to greenhouse gases is probably insignificant. I get the whole message thing, but come on. Of course, if we were really worried about that, we could put a price on carbon emissions and take that legitimately into account.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:41 PM) I wonder if the oval office will eventually re-evaluate this stance and travel less or if in general the president is a figure that needs to always be flying places for pure appearance standpiont? Frankly, I think it's very much the latter. As long as that man is both the symbol of America and the most powerful single person in the world, large scale Presidential travel is an absolute must, for both strategic, diplomatic, and economic reasons.

Times change Tex. Thread titles can as well.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:26 PM) Darrell Issa can't wait. Frankly, there's probably a need for more oversight. There really ought to be a Congressional investigation into the Obama administration's response to the oil spill, and that's one of the investigations on his list. The investigations into ACORN and the Black Panther voter intimidation...that's going to be trying on the ol' brain cells.

By the way, anyone realize we're about 2 months away from "opening an exploratory committee" month?