Balta1701

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) I don't know, Fiorina moved up in ATT, took over Lucent, and did some interesting things at HP. I'd say in general she had a pretty successful life and accomplished a hell of a lot. Was she the best CEO ever, no, but you know what, she did what most of us will never do and did it against more odds as a women (especially in the mid 90's). You're about the only person I've ever heard describe her tenure at HP as anything other than a debacle.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:39 PM) He was less lumbering in his youth. Really, the only way in which Dunn's 2005 defense looks good is if you compare it to Carlos Quentin's. He was bad out there then. Dude made 12 errors in LF in 2006.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:47 PM) Wow. Too bad nobody can confirm it because that is a fine worthy or suspension worthy comment. Bah...it certainly seems like it got under the other player's skin...and isn't that half the point?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) Fiorina was terrible candidate. She ran on a business-savvy platform, which is a joke because she was so incompetent as an executive. There's a joke here about the 2000 election...

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) No it's really not. He doesn't hold a whole lot of value at the moment and a nice run in the AFL won't do much to change that. Now, he continues improving with the bat at AA next year and earns a promo to AAA then maybe he will have enough trade value to ship him off for something we need. But as it stands now, his potential value to the Sox is greater than what we could realistically expect in return for him. Strongly agree.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) Seriously, if we are spending 200 million per day, than I'd rather pay to have the other countries presidents visit us in the US. We can pick up the tab. Frankly, I don't want to fire off too many insults, so I'm going to calmly shut my mouth after saying "I strenuously disagree."

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:40 PM) Wrong candidate, that was Meg Whitman who ran for governor. Ah, correct.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:39 PM) Fiorina made serious headway against a long-term senator in Boxer in a state where democrats have a 13% advantage in registered voters versus republican. California is as blue of a state as it gets. And well, it could be construed as a microcosym of what happens when you have an entirely blue state (I'm not going to count the governator). And she spent like $150 million of her own money to do it.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:47 AM) The Sox need a reliable RF with decent defense that hits left-handed. If this was 2005, Dunn would fit this need easily. Wha? You said "RF with decent defense" and "Dunn" in the same post?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:57 AM) I think the 60 seat loss could have been a 30 seat loss had the party actually forced the GOP to hold middle class tax cuts hostage for the highest tax brackets keeping their cut. Really, I don't buy that. It might have helped in a race or two...but the 2010 blowout was decided very early on in 2009 when the nation decided it was content with unemployment leveling off around 9-10%. If the Dems wanted to prevent a blowout, they could have (in no particular order): 1. Gone harder after the banks (ridiculously politically popular), set up a program to get the foreclosure mess solved and keep people in their homes (wholescale bankruptcy cramdown would have been one option, but anything other than the foreclosure-generating HAMP program would have worked in the right direction), and 3. Pushed a much, much, much larger stimulus package through.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves. I don't know what Obama will do...but I can pretty much guarantee that if Boehner doesn't answer the way I think he's going to answer, he'll be beaten in a primary in 2012, or at least lose his speakership.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:24 AM) Tea Partier GOP Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann had a victory party last night. It wasn't in the district she represents. Bachmann is making a push for the #3 spot in the GOP House Caucus.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) Let me clarify. In saying that they were angry that their representatives "did nothing," I meant that the people sent people to office to accomplish certain tasks (i.e., create jobs, fix the economy, get us back on the right path). Those people in office did not do those things, thus, they were replaced. I tend to think the electorate is not only dumb, but also slow in reacting to bad policy. To me, this "tidal wave" of reaction surprised me. The people gave their representatives a shorter leash because they didn't feel like anything was done to solve the problems they felt most pressing (the economy). We're going to disagree on the causes...but overall I agree...the people are going to be angry and disappointed as long as there is nearly 10% unemployment. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a similar bloodbath in 2012 going the other way for exactly that reason, because I don't see any signs that we're going to get the kind of GDP growth (4-5% annual) that it would take to start eating into that number. 2-3% GDP growth = steady unemployment. Even if business investment does start to pick up, it's going to have years of drag in the housing market, eroding skills of long-term unemployed workers, and huge cuts in government employment to overcome. That's exactly where we've sat for the last 8 months or so.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) Every major recovery was the result of fed moves and housing build-ups? Seriously? I'd say that happened exactly once, not every time. Housing prices were pretty stable in growth rates until the 90's, when they started to get steeper, but the real big moves didn't start until 2000-2007. Small business investment isn't slowly picking up, look at the data - its picking up at a very high rate. Of course, they were down so far, they have a long way to go. But there is nothing slow about it. A $4T tax cut package? A tax cut package on par with the size of the entire US budget? How can you even say that with a straight face? Infrastructure spending will not end, you are being hyperbolic again. I am sure it will slow down from mid-Stimulus bill levels though. I could care less how many investigations they do, that's all a distraction really. The only thing you say here that may come true, probably will, is a ramping down of alt energy funding, which I agree is stupid. -- Your post, in general, reflects something I am seeing a lot of, and its disturbing. People are looking at things that happened recently, and assuming that all of history has been that way. But that simply isn't the case. An extreme example is the idiots who said after 2008 that the GOP was dead. Seriously? Have these people ever read any history books? Things fluctuate, politically and financially, its reality and its inevitable. Every tax cut number since 2001 has been given on a 10 year basis. If you simply extend the Bush Tax cuts, it is a $4 trillion package. The Middle class portion of it is about $800 billion-$1 trillion, the capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and upper class tax cuts are a $3 trillion/10 year package. That's simple. Infrastructure spending won't end completely, but let me put it this way...even at "stimulus" levels, it's not enough to keep up with what the nation actually needs. We're 30 years behind in infrastructure spending, to the tune of about $2 trillion, give or take your preferred estimate, and we're going to have substantial national cutbacks in that, to the point that for all practical purposes we're not spending anything. Furthermore...state level infrastructure spending is going to plummet because it won't be federally supported. Finally, on the housing market...no, it's not just the last bubble that was supported by housing market recovery...housing market recovery is usually one of the driving forces in recoveries because housing investment tends to respond quite readily to the actions of the Fed on interest rates. Significant interest rate cuts usually perk up residential investment and wind up being a driving force in recoveries. There are many volumes written on the correlation between housing investment and recoveries. Until this cycle, that has been a strong driving force in recovery. This cycle is the unique one.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) I fully expect there to be some gridlock in Washington. But you know, if this election showed us anything, it's that people don't like representatives that do nothing. So I think some things will get done and we'll be in a better position in 2 years for it. Much like in 2004 for the Dems, the GOP can't be the complaining party anymore. Ultimately they have 50% of the responsibility for whatever gets passed in the next two years, which IMO is the best scenario. WTF? They don't like when their representatives do nothing? This has been one of the most productive Congresses in terms of passing legislation in decades. You have to go back to Johnson's first term to see a Congress that did this many major bills. You can look at it 2 ways. You can either tell me that the Dems totally overreached, or you can tell me that the Dems didn't go nearly far enough, but if people don't like representatives that do nothing, then they'd have loved this Congress.

We got Carlos Pena and can offer him arbitration? Great, that 1b/DH problem is solved!

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:26 AM) Let's be honest, its not a slim majority. It's a pretty robust one when its done. The biggest casualties tonight btw? Blue Dogs. 28 of the 54 members of the blue dog caucus lost.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) If you look at my list, you will see it is mostly Obama caving. And if you read between the lines of the words coming from the GOP establishment (not the Rand Paul's of the world), you will see they are all but signalling that they won't entirely block ACA funding the way you think. There is every reason to invest right now, if you can. For those businesses and people with the money, they already are investing, because debt is so damn cheap and exports are working better in the currency view. Look at the manufacturing data, and the small business data, over recent months. Its all right there. And for those that can't, well, many of them have already failed, leaving opportunities open for the survivors. This is how pretty much every modern recovery has started. And I don't know what government supports you think are going to be yanked. The GOP is not a bunch of Sharron Angles, despite your characterization. Most of the GOP'ers in Congress are not stupid, and you are not going to get a majority in the house voting for huge, crippling cuts, in the midst of a delicate recovery. Just won't happen. Suffice to say I disagree with pretty much all of this except for the Obama caving part? Pretty much every modern recovery has been promoted by a substantial rate cut by the Fed to the point that housing investment begins to pick up. That's not going to happen this time. Small business investment is slowly picking up, but that will be substantially hurt if the deficit is cut and the dollar begins to strengthen in response. The Fed thinks that things are going the wrong way enough that QE2 is basically ready to be announced; dumping another $500 or so billion out there. I think you're right that the Republicans wont' care much about debt...but that's because I'd expect that we'll see a $4 trillion or so tax cut package moving by January. That's the one thing that might be enough to push the other way and make large investors stop sitting on their hands. What we will see pretty quick is an end to infrastructure spending, significant cutbacks on unemployment benefits, and much more rapid deterioration of public sector employment (i.e. a lot more teachers, police, and firefighter cutbacks). Oh, and about 3 dozen investigations into the Black Panthers. Edit: This is also the end for a whole lot of clean energy companies and investment, because their tax credits will dry up and they won't be able to compete with the tax credits given to dirty energy.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) Only if it has an escape clause Perhaps you're misunderstanding the concept of contracts signed in blood.

Maybe we need a stronger set of commitments to keep this thread going. Who wants to sign a contract in blood?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:44 AM) Also, just my view, but I'll bet the economy starts significant improvement (faster pace than current) in 2011. And that ultimately will lead to Obama being re-elected, as long as he also accomplishes some things as noted above with Congress. I think we're going to yank out the government supports rapidly, and I think employment is going to follow. It won't skyrocket, but there's still no reason for anyone to invest instead of sitting on funds. What's going to be interesting to see is if the Republicans take the same beating in the House in 2012 if the economy does just sputter along.

The Republicans will not pass a budget that does anything other than defund the ACA entirely, and Obama will not undo his most significant legislative accomplishment and will not remove health insurance for millions of people. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is the one who caves, honestly.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:54 AM) Guy can't stay off the DL as a DH... Niether could Pat Burrell.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:33 AM) However, wouldn't it be so much nicer, if we're gonna trade some prospects, to try to get Ethier's LH bat in RF instead? Just wishful thinking... Yes it would. However...we're at a point where, outside of Beckham, I don't think we have anything that we could trade that would bring us back Ethier. The reason Kemp might be on the list is that the Dodgers might be interested in taking "whatever they can get" for him. They're not dumping Ethier.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:52 AM) Castro is a good backup. He won't repeat that home run rate, period. I see Viciedo's ceiling at as a 1B to be like Billy Butler, which would be fine with me. But I don't think it comes next year. Why Billy Butler? Billy Butler is a solid doubles hitter with occasional HR power. That sounds nothing like Viciedo to me.