Balta1701

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 01:47 PM) I'd rather see a portrayal of how Tony LaRussa goes about his business.

Neon Edit in response to next post.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 01:56 PM) On a similiar note, is this the Do Nothing Congress Part Duex? It's been over 3 years now, what exactly have they accomplished (that wasn't reactionary)? Yup, that's what happens when you go from needing a cloture vote on 1/3 of your Senate votes to on every vote that doesn't benefit the banks.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) has the new senator been sworn in yet? i'm guessing its like the Nov elections. Just because someone wins on Nov 4th, doesn't mean that they get to participate on Nov 5th. Normally you have to wait until Jan. The full election results have to be 100% certified and signed by everyone in the state. That's the Al Franken standard, if you'll recall. It takes time to count up absentee ballots, to get all of the signatures, etc.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 11:07 AM) Why is this? Hint: it's not about "profits". I'm sure you're going to blame the government, but I'll bite, what's your answer?

So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically your argument is that costs should be controlled better in the case of private insurance, but that actually doesn't happen. Thus, we wind up with the situation where we currently are in; costs aren't controlled and health outcomes aren't improved.

Let me rephrase that more simply. Whether BO said it or not, they based their entire key economic policy of their first year on the belief that UE would not go higher than that number.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) That is not nearly the same thing. Saying they have a target to gauge need for stimulus, or making a guessed projection, is NOT the same as saying "the UE rate will not go above 8%", which would be a stupid thing to say. And he never said it, that I have seen. Making a lowball estimate for the unemployment you're basing your stimulus on when your interest rates are up against the zero bound and there is essentially zero risk in doing too large of a stimulus and large risk in doing too small of a stimulus is just as stupid, if not more so.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) Oh wait... he never said that. Actually they did. Their economists used something in the 8-9% range as the number to gauge how big the stimulus should be to fill the output gap (and the Congressional republicans cut it downwards from there).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:34 AM) Yes. Balta is known to scream quite often. F***ing AT&T

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) We can invest in them and hope they have a great bottom line. In all seriousness. What benefit do they bring? Do they increase efficiency or improve the quality of care at any point in the system?

Two egg

One question for you folks...what benefit does it bring us to have private insurance companies?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:26 AM) AT&T is actually looking to get out of the landline business. Smart move on their part. They need to dedicate to getting Fiber to the home or Comcast (DOCSIS 3) and Verizon Fios are going to blow them out of the water and out of business. After this month, I'd have absolutely no confidence in purchasing that service from AT&T.

Oil Trough

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:23 AM) Steroids did as much for moneyball as Billy Beane did. I know that, regarding Beane. I found the data on stolen bases and BB/PA quite intriguing.

Did the moneyball plan have a statistically significant impact on the way the game was played?

Thomas Jones...Fred Tarkenton. Mr. Tarkenton, meet Mr. Jones.

Slickpoo

My God AT&T, this is incredible. I've had your service at home for a month now and today's the 3rd time my home phone service has gone out. And I had to put in an angry phone call just now just to try to get them to fix it before next Tuesday. ARGH. I'm so switching to cell phones.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 09:49 AM) And they're just as stupid as the democrats, what's your point? I don't like the GOP as much as I don't like the Liberal Dems. So you'd be supportive of a much larger stimulus with fewer tax cuts and more job creation work?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) You mean a spending freeze on less than 0.5% of the total budget? Yea, ok. Also, let's not pretend they didn't know that the senate would strike down the so called freeze, so it's the very point/suggestion by Obama was moot from the start. That's been the Republican alternative to the Stimulus since last January.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) Relax, the unemployment rate wont go above 8%, Obama said so. Oh, wait... The solution to this problem is a spending freeze.

Here's at least an interesting rejoinder from the Sox.