Balta1701

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) We would have to do this now, with the current entitlements we have (that we won't be cutting), in order to even *start* getting back to sanity when it comes to public finances. Make no mistake, there will be NO entitlement cuts in this country anytime soon, to even pretend there will be is what is insane, especially in turbulent economic times such as now. Cutting entitlements at this point is equivalent to punching your ticket out of office, so it's not happening, not now, and not in the near term future. We are expanding entitlements at record pace in addition to adding new ones, if anything. In order for these moderate tax increases to make even a small dent, we'd have to stop expanding anything and everything, let alone adding healthcare entitlements/subsidies to the equation (which we just did). Oh come on, this joke again. Let me state this as clearly as I can. You can not complain about our unwillingness to make "Entitlement" cuts, when you opposed any and all efforts to improve the health care system. The future budget deficit is entirely about health care. It was that way before the economic crisis, it was that way after it. When we tried to do anything about it, the money-saving public option was scrapped, things like end-of-life counseling became "death panels!" and the chorus of "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" was the common chant. This graph from a couple years ago has 1 extra bump on it because of the economic collapse, but it's really all you need to know about entitlement cuts. When something the government is paying for is growing at 10% a year every year, it is going to swamp the government out in every projection.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 10:54 PM) You can say that with a straight face? And if more Americans are "conservative" than ever before... then surely you can understand that health care, cap and tax, stimulus (aka, the black hole of Democrat coffers), TARP, immigration, etc. are NOT what "more Americans" want. And yes, that goes back to the last president, who I have several issues with on these issues. LOL, it's nice to be able to protect BP and GS and all your other friends at the banks on one hand while railing at the Democrats and then state on the other that you're not really saying anything to defend them. I can say the same thing if I try to demagogue. You know what other things America doesn't like? 10% unemployment, paying 2x more than everyone else in the world for health care, deporting people for looking Mexican, and having hteir cities drown in combinations of water an oil.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 10:51 PM) Fine. Cut health care before it starts. Because you know what's been doing a dynamite job at saving money? The health care system we currently have.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 05:56 PM) Ozzie will receive the Barack Obama leadership during crisis award. Link. Snicker.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 05:52 PM) I meant the second part. Agreed, that's certainly also not universally true...but you can't tell me it doesn't happen, and you're never going to convince me that it's a coincidence that so many anti-abortion restrictions are set up in a way so as to allow people with a lot of money a way around them, even if it is "going to another state" or something like that.

This week, we've been honored by BP and Bank of America. Next week, Paul Konerko will be named the White Sox's first annual Blackwater/Xe representative to the All Star game, Gordon Beckham will be declared to be "Smokin'!" by Altria, and Ozzie Guillen will start doing Toyota commercials.

Wow, West Virginia's succession laws are a mucking fess.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 05:29 PM) True enough, but it's not all that hard to make a case that the handgun ban didn't do anything for safety in Chicago. Whether or not it's effective should have no bearing on the constitutionality.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 05:01 PM) That is not universally true. Of course none of it is "universally" true. But the difference with that issue is...if you overturn Roe v. Wade, you simultaneously pacify 25% of the regular voters, and you suddenly wake up a chunk of the non-voters while at the same time motivating 25% of the regular voters.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 04:17 PM) The idea is that a large portion of people who would otherwise line up fairly well with Democratic platforms vote Republican because they're one-issue (abortion) voters. Furthermore...it's a motivating issue. It fires up the base. The Republicans always raise money particularly well off of Supreme Court nominations, in no small part because of that one single issue. If Roe V. Wade were overturned, then all of that momentum would switch to the other side. Furthermore, whether this country ever wants to admit it or not, there is an enormous amount of "it's ok for me but not for thee" in the abortion debate. Even the most vehement anti-abortion arguer will suddenly become a lot quieter on the issue if his or her 15 year old daughter winds up pregnant.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 01:19 PM) the problem, i think, is then there wouldnt be enough room to fill the rest of the roster. I am not a cap statistician guy, so I dont know the numbers on this. But I THOUGHT i read that those 3 would take up so much money it would negate having other players sign with the team. Yes, those 3 would take up so much money that the Heat woudln't have room to sign other FA's, but they'd still have options; I believe they could use some combination of draftees, D-league players, etc., to fill out the roster...but they'd have the key option of using the bird rights of all the players they have who just hit FA and either re-signing them or using them in sign-and-trade deals to acquire pieces.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 10:27 AM) I'm sure it has more to do with them being worried about the potential increase in taxes they'll have to contend with in the coming years. I guess that explains the banking industry. They were worried about having to pay higher taxes if they were more profitable, so they decided that they all needed to go bankrupt.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 12:06 PM) lol, and there's the problem right there. Black and white people using the same bathrooms?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 11:32 AM) oh and as pointed out by ESPN Radio, Miami doesnt have enough cap space for 3 max deals. So, someone would have to take a discount. I don't see anyone having responded to this yet, so I'll take a stab at it. If Wade is the 3rd one to sign, it doesn't matter, because the Heat hold Wade's Bird rights, and as such, I think they have the ability to go over the cap to resign him. If they signed Bosh and Lebron first and then Wade last, they could still offer max deals to all 3. Wade would actually wind up with the largest contract of the 3.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) This is in the hands of KW right now. If anything, it seems like his job is in more jeopardy then Ozzie's (if any of those reports about JR's loyalty to Ozzie are even half true). I don't think KW will be afraid to add a big bat, regardless of what Ozzie says, especially if this ball club loses more than a couple games in a row and loses ground in the race now that we are facing the AL again. If we revert back to the first 1/3 of the season Sox and fall out of the race, which is still possible considering the main reason we have won is because of superb pitching, the offense still is extremely inconsistent, there is gonna be a ton of heat on Kenny. At this point, we've suddenly made the season exciting and at least partially vindicated KW's plan by putting us realistically in the race. How does that not take his job out of jeopardy?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) Even at $2M a year, no thanks. He's a worse pitcher (attitude aside) right now than any of our starting staff, and he's only better than Williams and Linebrink in the pen. So the only place he'd be of use is basically to take Linebrink's spot, and be a long and mop-up reliever. And while that has value, it doesn't have enough value to outweigh all the baggage he brings. So, really, I'm just sticking with No Thank You. On the off chance that working with Ozzie/Cooper could rehabilitate him, if I had Ozzie's word that he'd stay under control, I'd do it, because if you could get him back to at least solid setup man form, worst case scenario you've got trade bait, and if you're moving Linebrink to get him, then basically you're at equal numbers on salary, such that if h e did melt down your not taking a hit you wouldn't be taking anyway. That's my limit though. I'd take him when risking essentially nothing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) There are like a dozen reasons not to do this. The only reason TO do it that I can think of is that he's Ozzie's buddy. And now that I type that, I'm not sure that's a good reason either. No thank you. If he was costing us $2 million a year, and it didn't cost us anything I cared about to get him, I'd do it. Nothing more. I wouldn't care about that buyout if he melted down again.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 08:31 AM) I read something last night that the Bulls, and we know they sent some money to the Wizards, sent $6 million. JR has been in Chicago sports for 30 years, we know how he operates. There is no way he trades a pretty productive player, $6 million and a #1 pick for nothing if he doesn't know its all going to pay off in the end. To be fair, since they can't submit that deal yet, it is still slightly plausible that it could fall apart if there's some grand plan here.

If the Cubs paid 75% of his contract, he'd still be being paid like Linebrink.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 08:52 PM) Why would they? They f***ing suck. Because it's NYC and even on a sucky team that's some serious endorsement money.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 08:53 PM) I can think independently, unlike drones of Obama. Obama could be a Republican and if he were doing the same s***, I would be just as opposed. In fact, probably moreso. Unlike you all, who have to insult by party affiliation, I care about what happens without regard to party. Yup, you're better than all of us. Congrats!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 05:47 PM) I like my America, you know, the one where I can have the freedom to be told what to do by a Republican ... not yours, where I get told what to do by a Democrat.

Robert Byrd Seriously Ill.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 07:25 PM) http://www.gallup.com/poll/128036/New-Norm...s-Pro-Life.aspx And polls aside, I don't see why Roe v Wade won't be overturned eventually. Because the Republican Party would end.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 04:10 PM) affordable housing is a good thing. the overpriced housing market correction was inevitable. there are some realities here; all those jobs are gone to modernization or outsourcing. the cost of living in the United States probably needs to be reduced. you aren't against globalization are you? if you are against globalization, how could you be such a cruel protectionist? How exactly do you think that the cost of living in the U.S. is actually going to go down? Are you arguing that deflation would be a good thing?