Balta1701

Of course, she could just seriously be tired of the national spotlight on her and her family and decided to get out of the way rather than continue to be a punchline.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) Oh and I'm joining the "this is really f***ing odd" crowd. There are 2 ways it makes sense to me. She's facing some sort of investigation for something she actually did and she's ducking and covering first so that others take the blame, or she's going to declare for the Alaskan Senate Seat primary. Otherwise, this is very odd.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 02:53 PM) Um, unfunded mandates? And again, spending in 2010 is doing NOTHING to stem the recession today. If the money had been done the right way, you might not have needed the spending in 2012. And if you did, you would have had the option to tailor it around what you needed. Instead you are locked into Obama's plan, for better or for worse. It's also really trite to blame the minority party for everything, when they have zero control over anything. They got the blame when they were in power, and now they get the blame if they were out of power. If they had that much ability to control everything, why did we end up with the plan the Democrats largely wanted? GMAB. Zero control over anything? Seriously? Am I the only one who has paid any attention to the Senate? The new 60 vote supermajority requirement for all votes? Saying "Unfunded mandates" doesn't exactly provide direct evidence that they all exist.

IF someone offers something legit for him, jump at it. Don't know why any other team would. There'd have to be someone out there just salivating over him like Cooper was with Thornton.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) No Alexei again... interesting. The post yesterday said Ozzie wasn't sure if he could play today or not. Usually when we hear something like that the player gets an extra day. I wouldn't be surprised if he was out tomorrow too, Ozzie does tend to be cautious.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 02:30 PM) Stimulus II anyone? Another stimulus package adding in the stuff that was stripped out of the first one would be a solid idea.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Its two different things. They rushed the package through, even thought the majority of the spending wasn't for a long time. A true stimulus would have been geared towards now, not later. And it wouldn't have handicapped the government into having no ability to do anything again, because of a ginormous expansion of permanent spending, which by definition is not a stimulus plan, it is a spending plan. A long time? Most of it is out the door in the 2nd half of 2009 and 2010. Why might that be a good thing? You think job losses are going to stop before then? The only things that could get out the door by now are: the tax cuts and aid to states. The tax cuts have already taken effect (the largest tax cut in history actually...would be several times the size of the Bush tax cuts if they lasted 10 years). The problem with tax cuts is; they're crappy stimulus. Which is why they're having only a limited impact. Exactly as predicted. The part that could be out the door right now that would have been a more effective stimulus...significant aid to state governments, was hacked by the Senate in favor of this year's AMT reform, which would have been passed anyway...because we needed to get the stimulus in under the arbitrary $800 billion figure to get the 3 Republicans to vote for it. The construction/rebuilding dollars are starting to hit right now. There should have been more of them, but clearly I'm not allowed to blame the people who wanted the stimulus shrunk for some reason. It'll make some difference later this year, but as a few of us said back then, there should have been a lot more of it. And permanent spending increase? Seriously, by the CBO numbers, 80% is out the door by 2010. Virtually all of the rest is out the door by 2012, and that part is spent on upgrades to the electricity grid. Care to back up your point with something harder than a talking point?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) This is not overly complicated, it seems to me. Palin's popularity in Alaska has been plummeting. The last thing she wants is to lose an election, or look unpopular. Cutting her losses to protect her image. I suppose there is a chance there is something brewing we don't know of, but, I think the above is more obvious and simple. When does her term as Governor normally end? 2010? Edit, yup, 2006-2010. I could see her not running for a 2nd term as a political strategy (it's what Pawlenty is doing). But leaving now to further her political career is odd unless she has designs on that senate seat.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) Reports indicte that Rick Hahn himself indicated that the Sox have Rameriz and Viciedo for 6 years. It was discussed in at least two threads, the only one I can find right now with a google search is from Viciedo's AAP page. EDIT: See Post #7. The specific difference is that some international guys, like Matsui, Contreras, Matsuzaka, Iguchi have clauses in their contracts which state that at the end of their contract, they will be granted their outright release. Teams do not have to insert that clause. Without that clause, the player goes through the normal arbitration process and can not become a FA until the normal time.. With that clause, the team is forbidden from offering the player arbitration. If some team offers him a contract with that clause, it may be hard to beat. With Alexei, we were the only ones offering him a contract, so it was pretty easy to avoid putting it in. With Viciedo, no one was going to offer him that clause because then he could be a full free agent at age 23.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) This is going to be a big problem around professional sports for the near future. People may slam the Sox for being cheap, but they are going to be in a position to take advantage of teams who need to dump money in a hurry. Even more so in the NBA.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) Seems like a trial balloon. I wonder how many will be launched before any of this becomes an official recommendation or *gasps* we see it in black and white on a proposal. Quite frankly, there should be penalties for people who don't join in the system. That's the whole point of universality. You can't have people opting out when they're young and then opting in when they're old. It breaks the system.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) Yet again, Republicans bad on all things. THEY MADE THE DEMS f*** UP THE STIMULUS! The stimulus doesn't spend the money until next year, mainly. Why? Because that's election time. And because the money that would have been spent this year, the aid to the states, was stripped out. Another $100 billion in aid to state governments would directly translate to jobs saved right now everywhere except Indiana.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) Was it the Republicans who wanted most of the stimulus to be spent years into the future, because I sure don't remember it like that. Was it the GOP who wanted most of the money to get into programs that required continued funding, or did they want something temporary and short term? No we would be able to do something if we didn't turn this into the second biggest expansion of government in our history (though working on being the biggest after some of these other programs get rammed through.) We have no bullets left because people insisted that "stimulus" package that had to be RUSHED THROUGH NOW, meant that most of the money was going to be spent in 2010 and 2011 instead of 2009 when things were going to be at their worst. As a matter of a fact I remember you arguing that we needed it to be done that way, so I know that was the official party line. So wait, it's a bad thing that the stimulus wasn't fast enough, and it's a bad thing that the stimulus had to be rushed through?

Alaska does have a 2010 Senate Seat up for reelection (Currently held by a Republican, so it would have to be a competitive primary)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) I forgot what thread it was in where someone mentioned 10% unemployment, but it sounds like the only reason it isn't there officially is because so many people have dropped out of even looking for work that the statistics have skewed down. The effective rate is just astronomical right now. So wages are crashing, and the amount of people out of work are still skyrocketing, but things are getting better? That is the kind of stuff that McCain got laughed at for during the election cycle. Its too bad we didn't do the stimulus plan correctly so we still had some bullets left, and not have to wait until 2010 for the majority of the money to be spent. So let's see...we shrink the stimulus because we need to get the Republicans on board, weaken it by switching a good chunk of it to poorly stimulative tax cuts, cut out the aid to the states (which is among the most effective parts), and it's too bad we didn't do it correctly so that we had some bullets left? The only reason we don't have any bullets left and that we cut out the effective part is that we tried to get a couple of the "Hoover was right!" crowd on board...and we'd have a good number of bullets left if we didn't have to listen to that crowd too. Bond yields are still very low, the Fed interest rate is still at zero and the Fed is still attempting its "Quantitative Easing" policy of trying to push us back the other way by buying up those bonds. And I've been screaming for years that the unemployment rates as presented are garbage and have been for years. Y'all didn't listen to me when it was just the media trying to make Bush look bad by saying the wonderful economy was worse than it really was (look at the increase in people's total wealth thanks to real estate appreciation! The economy is great!) The number of people not counted by U3 has been going up steadily since the early 1980's as the government finds more reasons to exclude people from the numbers to make them look better. U6, the measure counting unemployed, out of the labor force, and underemployed is closing in on 17%.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) I'd be scared they make the DH in both leagues. I'm a big fan of the more traditional play the NL uses, and I'd be sad to see that go. I like the difference in style between the leagues as well. I'd be sad to see either style go.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 07:04 AM) I read Sullivan's blog daily and it's been entertaining, to say the least, to witness his barrage on Sarah Palin. And the only reason people like him are not letting it go is because she is still considered one of the 2012 front runners. Here's the latest entry on Palin. I love it when random things I post supplies other people with their avatars.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) Yea... this is becoming a big problem. Was that Kaperbole? Were you actually agreeing with me and Krugman? I can't tell.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) To be honest I hate divisional games sometimes. I was going to start a thread/poll about this a month ago and for some reason I didn't. I get sick of seeing the same teams 18 or 19 times a year. I mean, in the NFL, the Bears don't play the Packers 3x a year, etc. You know what? I don't. Usually we're in a pennant race with 50-75% of the teams in our division. Sometimes I get a little tired of the Royals, but really, the when you're in a race with Cleveland, Minny, or Detroit, those 18 games against them are usually good games that I actually like paying attention to. If the Royals ever get out of the doghouse, ditto them. The only thing that annoys me a bit is how a team like the Cubs gets to convince itself that it's really good by fattening up on the Pirates. And that's just because I don't like seeing the Cubs win.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 09:41 AM) I'm sure it won't. I just hate the idea of some completely undeserving film having "Nominated for Best Picture" in their commercials to try to sway people to see it. The s***ty part is that it will actually get more people to waste their money on movies that don't deserve the attention they will get. I think another part of the idea though is that people may watch the oscars if a movie they like is nominated...i.e. last year...the Dark Knight had to be right on the cusp of being a best picture nominee. You jump up to 10 films on the list and it's certainly one of the 10.

You even get a Geoff Blum 3 run home run highlight.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 07:01 AM) Any love for Wilco (the Band), (the Album) or (the Song) here? Ever since I heard their music described as "dad rock," I've been hesitant to confess my complete adoration. I think the new album is solid, in that it rocks out more than Sky Blue Sky. Favorite tracks after a couple spins: Wilco (the Song), Bull Black Nova, You Never Know, I'll Fight. Also just picked up their new concert DVD, "Ashes of American Flags." Looking forward to watching it this weekend. Sky Blue Sky had a couple of great moment (Impossible Germany) but overall it was a fairly mundane album to me. I listened to Wilco (The album) a few times online when they released it there, thought it was a good step up, about on par with A Ghost is Born, but still not ridiculously amazing like Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was. Good listen, will be getting it at some point (either X-Mas or when I don't have to worry about missing my rent check next month to take my wife to the doctor).

Sweet, Matt Taibi's screed on Goldman Sachs and how they're basically this patronage machine where people walk between them and the government and use those connections to enrich Goldman at the expense of everyone else is finally online. Have to read this today.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jul 3, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) Oh, and lol about those lights. I've got them in every room in my house and they last bloody forever. I switched to CFL's about 1 year after moving in to my own place after I got a couple decent coupons. I saw my electricity bills decline 50% in 1 month (at this point, that probably adds up to over a thousand dollars in savings). I think I've had to change 1 bulb out of the bunch (took the old bulb to an e-waste recycler). That was 5 years ago.

So...last year's nobel prize winning economist yesterday gave us this figure from the bad BLS numbers, showing that not only is the job market shrinking, but wages are stagnating and could soon start trending downwards. That's how one gets in to a deflation spiral. Wages go down, forces prices down, forces wages down.