Balta1701

US Senator Jim Bunning predicts the death of Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg.

Garret Anderson inks with the Braves.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 03:49 PM) at the same time you want to give away a trillion in bailout cash to homeowners, you suggest raising property taxes. Since you keep repeating this trillion dollar number, I assume you have a source to back it up? (And quite frankly, especially in California, there is certainly an argument for altering and in fact raising the property tax structure. The simple reality is, some people shouldn't be homeowners, and people shouldn't be locked in to homes because they can't deal with the alterations in property taxes if they move. The remarkable thing about California's screwed up Prop. 13 is, if you reform it, you might actually help the housing market, because you actually make it more affordable for people to move out of a house that they've held for a long time)

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) What are the odds California is the first state to become insolvent, if they are not already considered insolvent, or file for bankruptcy? This budget is hilarious. I never thought a state could be worse than Illinois, but I fear California is a harbinger of the entire country in a few years. Although you could say the country is already there. Why can't these politicians just be honest and say we blew it, we spent too much money for too long and never thought the gravy train would end. California increased spending by some $40 billion over the last several years. Highest state income taxes? Ding Ding Ding Highest state sales tax? Ding Ding DIng Highest state gas tax? Ding Ding Ding Why is it that the states with the highest tax rates also have the largest deficits? Florida Illinois and North Carolina notwithstanding. Of course, you also manage to leave out the data that totally undermines your point. California has really high income taxes, sales taxes, etc. But is there any tax, any tax that is typically a major fundraiser in other states, that California is totally out of whack low on? Yes, there is. Property taxes. Thanks to the ridiculous Prop 13, California's property tax base, especially on certain groups, is ridiculously low. Rewriting even a part of prop 13 to bring property taxes in line with the rest of the country would generate tens of billions of dollars per year. The reason every other tax in California is so high is that the cities are unable to collect normal amounts of property tax from most of the inhabitants. The state government has then put itself on the line to make up for the difference. Because of this one alteration, when you compile lists of the total individual tax burdens on residents, California is usually in the top half, but is no where near the top (link to data from 2005 that sat at the top of google search), because that one gigantic subsidy to homeowners exists. And when you factor in that California's going to be in the upper half of tax receipts anyway simply because of the high cost of living in so much of this state, the only reason it's out of the ordinary on so many taxes is that Warren Buffet pays significantly more in property taxes on his $500k home in Omaha than he does on the several million worth of homes he owns in California.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 05:28 AM) And if someone in your position got laid off, you'd be right there with the others having trouble making payments. You should have known better than to get a job with a company that might lay you off or to buy a house when the value could go down and you could lose the job. You should be cowering in a cave somewhere. I promise, the bankers will take care of you.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) Yeah I expect some communcation issues and an occasional discombobulated appearance from the Bulls the next handful of games until the new guys can blend in, but today is still a TERRIBLE loss. Indiana isn't a good team as is, and to lose to them without Granger is awful. Indiana is actually the only team that has beat all 3 of Boston, Cleveland, and LA this season.

"Oh! Way back! He looks up and you can put it on the board, Y-ES! Joe Crede, his 2nd home run of the game, and the Sox win it in extra innings 7 to 6. JOOOOOOOE CREDE!"

QUOTE (The Critic @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 06:46 PM) This is entirely possible. They have some spots that can easily trouble them (Kevin Gregg jumps out at me, losing DeRosa is going to hurt them, and their bench seems weaker, especially at catcher), and if another division team gets hot early it could be an "off year" for the Cubs. That said, I still like their chances. Their rotation is strong and their division is still relatively weak. Problem is, I can point to at least 3 guys in their rotation and say "This guy worries me". Dempster is simply not as good as he was last year. It'll take 5 years of that level of performance before I believe he's going to repeat that season. Harden might give you 20 starts if you're lucky And Zambrano keeps having these weird sort of injury things that suggest arm trouble is in the offing. If that rotation is healthy it can dominate. Especially with Harden though, the odds of it giving them a healthy season are really low.

Oh God I love this country.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 05:08 PM) The Kings main reason for obtaining him is his expiring contract. So his injury issues shouldn't be a concern. Yeah, jerome James won't exactly be passing his physical for us.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) bah...miller and salmons not playing tonight....sacramento is still awaiting physicals from the guys the bulls sent Nocioni forces the Bulls to the small lineup, one last time...

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) Could this not also happen with Lillibridge at second? Owens at 2nd and Lillibridge in CF is more likely than Anderson in CF.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 04:15 PM) Rogers also stated that Getz is way in the driver's seat to be the starting 2nd baseman. I like how he stated that if Getz can leadoff, then Anderson would be the starter and hit 9th. I think that's the scenario we all would like to see the most. Will never happen. Not Getz winning 2nd, that's pretty likely. Anderson in CF.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) Wow, that was an interesting article, I've always been fascinated by Atlantis, too bad it wasn't the real thing. Am I the only person that think it's possible that Atlantis is now completely under ice and is currently what we now know as Antarctica? I've always suspected that Atlantis was shifted because of the tectonic plates and ended up at the south pole. Unfortunately, things don't work that fast. Antarctica has been glaciated in nearly its present volume for at least the last couple million years, and has possibly been glaciated in some fashion for several tens of millions of years. The continents move at most at a few centimeters per year, basically at roughly the rate your fingernails grow at. Humanity has been around and building civilizations for only 10k years or less.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) wow, theyre going to give him the moeny. good luck with that lol Hard to be worse than some of the other money they've thrown at that spot (Batista anyone?)

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) That's not possible either because global warming is going to burn up our crops. We're just a moneyless, hopeless society. You know, if I tried posting in Kaperbole for a week, I feel like I'd wind up suspended...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 10:05 AM) World renowned climate expert George Will gets his weekend global warming column debunked. The Washington Post finally issued a response after days of complaints. It's actually fairly remarkable. If you read their statement and the thing they're linking through, it turns out that Will's statement was accurate...in such a bizarre sense that it's one of the worst deceptions you could ever imagine. It seems that the original statement in some fashion compared sea ice levels in the latter part of summer, 1979, essentially when the sea ice area is at its yearly minimum, to sea ice coverage on or about January 1 of this year. Turns out that summer sea ice levels in '79 are actually fairly similar to winter sea ice levels now, because so much sea ice has been lost. Will took this statement and distorted it to say that clearly no sea ice has been lost since 1979. When in reality, the statement was comparing winter and summer. In the anthropogenic climate change discussion, therefore, one can now conclude that climate change deniers also can't tell the difference between winter and summer.

The WH Press Secretary hits back at CNBC's Santelli for his rant yesterday. P.S. I really like how seemingly every website is now allowing you to embed video. Additional commentary:

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) Wait, was I dreaming or did I not see a scroll Wednesday that Burris resigned??? You were dreaming. Or drunk.

"Squeak squeak splash squeak splash splash splash".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) As I have said a million times before, this stuff just destroys the capital ratios of the banks. Taking a loss now, and getting it off of the books allows them to clear the bad assets off of their books. It puts money back onto their balance sheets and allows them to lend again. This plan not only locks them into a loss, but it keeps the bad assets on their books. Its exactly why the banks keep wanting the "bad asset bank" more than any of the other plans that are being kicked around. The rest of these plans are just going to exaserbate the problems. This plan is also just going to artificially stop the housing market from finally hitting bottom and actually starting to recover. So basically you're saying that it allows the zombie bank to get some collateral back for the terrible loan it wrote and therefore it can stay quasi-alive as a zombie bank longer because of how long the foreclosure process takes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) I literally cannot see a single valid argument FOR it, over gas taxes or taxes at vehicle purchase. Can anyone think of one? ETA: The one argument I have heard is that as we get away (slowly) from gasoline, we'll lose those taxes. Well, duh, that is part of the idea. And if we were actually to get to where we were purchasing a lot less gas, everyone's cost of living would be lower for multiple reasons. If you need that revenue for roads, then use tolls or vehicle purchasing taxes or license fees or whatever. The argument for it is entirely political. It goes like this: Raising the gas tax has proven politically impossible. However, given the cost to our society of roads, energy imports, and greenhouse gas emissions, it makes sense to provide additional incentive to not drive. Therefore, we're going to find some sort of highly expensive, highly complicated, highly impractical way to increase the cost of driving without taking the politically unpopular step of increasing the gas tax. Raise the d*mn gas tax.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) You'd need your protractor for that one. (-1)^(1/2) know.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 10:59 AM) You guys start talking about sine and cosine you're really going to piss me off! How the Hell did we get off on this tangent?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) The plan is actually worse for the banks. First of all is forces another write down of assets, and it means they will never see that money, thus hurting their capital ratios, and making less money for them to lend. The person walking away from the house at least gives them a chance to sell the house, and get the loan off of their books for good. Instead now it will sit and fester, and it will carry that loss forward. It might be a good plan for people who aren't paying their mortages, but it is terrible for banks. All you have to do is look at what bank stocks have done since that plan was announced to understand what sort of affect this is going to have on the financial industry. We are probably days away from one of the largest banks in the world being shutdown or sold for pennies. Their stock has lost over half of its value since the plan was announced. So basically your argument is that somehow the more expensive and bad for pretty much everyone foreclosure process is cheaper for banks because they can write down the loss all at once? Here's the obvious problem with that...the inter-connectedness of the housing market. Where if people keep going in to foreclosure, it continues to push the value of the neighboring housing down and thus drives them closer to that same point, making even more loans go bad. I would like to ask you this in response...how exactly is taking a partial loss on a loan more expensive for a bank than going through the whole foreclosure process? If the loan is rewritten in a fashion where the people are able to pay, isn't that going to be significantly cheaper for the bank than having to go through the whole foreclosure process and selling the house off for even less value because it's a foreclosure sale? Can you explain to me how exactly having these loans go bad and have the houses go through the foreclosure process and thus having the house sold off for less than what the loan would be re-written for is a better situation for the banks?