Balta1701

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 07:38 PM) You think that will actually happen though? That's some hardball. So is extracting concessions from the President in exchange for zero votes.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) Wouldn't that give the Dems a 60 seat majority? Yup.

Obama considering Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) as his commerce Secretary. New Hampshire has a Democratic governor.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 04:00 PM) What's Roland Burris' preference? I think the answer to that is "Roland Burris".

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 05:12 PM) So I hear Campbell Brown on CNN talking about (or about to start talking about) how Rush Limbaugh seems to be trying to lead the Republican Party somehow. That is an awesome idea if your plan is to get the Dems closer to 70 seats instead of 60. Earlier this week, Congressman Phil Gingrey defended the party leadership by saying that it was "easy" for people to "Throw Bricks" from outside of Congress where they don't have to actually deal with policy. It took him about a half a day to issue a statement absolutely bowing to Limbaugh and the other radio conservatives. He also called in to the show to apologize. Meanwhile, here's Congressman Mike Pence (R- Indiana), one of the top Republicans in the House, challenged about some of Limbaugh's more recent controversial remarks, going almost all out in praise for him. Judge for yourself who speaks for that party these days.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) Obama is on CNN talking about the 20 billion in Wall Street bonuses sounding all pissed off (well as close to pissed off as he ever sounds). Well BO, then maybe, just maybe, y'all should have thought about that before you passed the bill giving them $350 billion no-strings-attached. You were in the Senate at the time. You were the nominee at the time. (Although, on second thought, maybe having a President who actually reads the morning newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, and then actually reacts to their content, maybe there is something to be said for that).

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) He won't get in regardless. There is a lot more evidence against Bonds than there is Sosa or McGwire, and neither of them are going to get in. Now obviously Bonds had a significantly better career than those two, but they'd probably both have been first ballot hall of famers without the whispers. I dont know about that. I mean, there was a bottle of Andro found in Mac's locker. That's about as blatant as you get.

"Out! Out! A White Sox winner, and a world championship. The White Sox have won the World Series, and they're mobbing each other on the field!" Thanks Juan. Really.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) any predictions for the Senate vote on the economic stimulus bill? I believe it will pass, I just wonder if any Republicans will actually vote for this thing or if any Democrats will vote against it. Answer me this first...which vote are you counting...the cloture vote (The only one that really counts) or the up/down vote? I wouldn't be surprised to see a handful of people do the voting yes on cloture and voting no on the bill deal here in order to try to cover both sides.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) I think it would be a very good thing for them. The stock of their roster goes up. I don't think there would be too much of a difference between their would be lottery pick vs their draft pick making the playoffs. I suppose the same could be said for us. Finishing #9 would be the worst scenario obviously. There's no reason why the Knicks wouldn't want to go all out to win over the next 1.5 years. They don't hurt their cap space, they aren't playing for the draft, and most importantly, they also need to convince #23 that if he comes there, he won't be stuck in a rut like KG was in Minnesota.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) So does anyone have a clue if Blago can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Illinois? I read Article 4, Section 14 but it has no process for appeals. There is also no discussion of due process or the procedural aspects of the impeachment. Could there be an appeal based on the fact that Blago was denied due process when he could not bring in his own witnesses? His argument would rely primarily on the Illinois Constitution, specifically: Would an impeachment conviction be depriving him of life, liberty or property? Here is what the annotated Article 4, section 14 says: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/ILConstitution.pdf So perhaps the 1997 rules are what they followed. After reading through that constitution, I think it's vague enough that the legislature can pretty much set whatever rules it wants (i.e. we're not going to let Blago's hair call any witnesses in its defense) and there really is no recourse. The Illinois Legislature appears to have an awful lot of power in this regard. There doesn't appear to be any mechanism for an appeal since it is not a criminal trial, and even if there was, since there's no requirement that the Governor has to have actually done anything other than piss off enough legislators, there really is no guarantee of any sort of due process in those proceedings.

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:43 AM) What bothers me about being content is that once again he has not filled the lead off or CF position we have needed for 2 years. He talks like he believes in Owens, and that we should, but has ANYONE heard anybody ask for Owens as part of a trade? I havent which says he's considered a mediocre prospect that others dont think can play, so why should we? What the other teams view a person's trade value to be is not necessarily indicative of his value to the team holding him. For a team to have the same type of value of Owens as we might, they'd have to have an outfield hole and really need to inject some speed in to their lineup. And given Owens's age, they'd probably be a team that would be looking to compete this year, not rebuilding like the Pirates or Royals or anyone like that. There aren't many competitive teams with OF openings who need speed right now.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) Im curious why most people feel that the prosecution is weak, and they really have nothing substantial as evidence, yet still feel that he will be impeached? (thats the general feeling Im getting reading the last 3 pages of this thread, Im not directing it at anyone in specific) From what I can tell, the requirement for impeachment in the Illinois Constitution is much more lenient than the requirements of a criminal court. There really doesn't seem to be a specific definition of what is required before a governor is impeached given to the Illinois Legislature by that document. It appears that the governor can be impeached because the Legislature wants him impeached, and there's very little that can be done about it.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:35 AM) I would care if I was giving them a long term deal. Injury factor increases. It also shows a lack of discipline. If they are hitting people would look the other way. However you can't deny that he would be a more effective player with less weight. Just ask Sosa or Juan Gonzalez who were effective CFer's early in their career and lost their athletcsim later and they weren't even fat. Ask Manny how effective of an outfielder he is. Um, i'm not sure either of those guys would be the best examples. They may have had other reasons to um, lose their athleticism in favor of additional muscle growth.

Couple interviews with Nouriel "Right about everything" Roubini.

IMO, the best part about these sorts of articles is that they lay the foundation for actually attracting reclamation projects in the future. These guys want to be successful as much as the teams want to be successful - it's the only way they can score a big time contract. If a team has a reputation of turning guys around, then it's likely to wind up being a destination for guys who need to turn their careers around. And thus, it becomes a way for us to stockpile a little bit of extra talent by bringing in minor league FA's who didn't work out with their previous teams. JVB, Nix are examples this season.

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:34 AM) I don't doubt Fields can be a very good player. My concerns, as with most people, lies within his ability to hit for average (too many k's) and his defense. I was a Crede supporter because we knew we would get great defense and a bat with a lot of upside. If Fields is playing great defense, I think we all have seen his bat has a lot of upside. Maybe more then Crede's. So I am all for giving Fields a chance with Crede gone and giving Viciedo a chance to develop. I just see Viciedo on the team because theyll want to make his transition easier, which is where Contreras and Alexi would come in. Maybe I am wrong on that? For the reason you state, it makes sense to have Viciedo up sooner rather than later. His contract also gives another reason for that to happen as well, since we only have him until he's 23. But if nothing else, he has to earn it. He's never seen major league pitching before, and no offense to Cuba, but a lot of these guys (not all) are a few steps above what he's been facing before. Alexei was able to adapt ridiculously quickly, but even he struggled for the first month and a half of the regular season (albeit in limited playing time).

I didn't read through in detail every single clause, but I can't find any phrase in the Illinois State Constitution that lays out exactly what level of malfeasance (a-la high crimes and misdemeanors) is required for impeachment. It seems very vague. Article 4, Section 14:

Raided his mother in law? LOL, that's probably as close as you can get to bullying. Anywho...random question. I've heard a number of people say that Bonds deserves to go in to the HOF based on what he did before he started taking steroids. I've always responded that we can't really know when he started; he may have started some all the way back in the 80's for all we know, and just switched products when his body exploded. If there's steroids other than the ones we've heard about him taking so far (THG and possibly Winstrol) in his urine, then does that call in to question any of his pre-1998 numbers in anyone else's eyes?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:17 AM) Ok, so I watched the Bulls game last night to determine for myself where the real issue is. I came away with a few different thoughts. The best lineup on the floor when I was watching was: Heinrich, Thabo, Rose, Deng and Tyrus with an occasional sub by Gordon. The reason I was impressed by this lineup was the passing first and foremost, the defense and also the speed that they played. I was reminded of a time when a 6'8" Magic Johnson was the tallest man on the floor for the 1979 Lakers. I am not trying to compare the two teams, but this was the first time I think I actually grasped VDN's system. DRose is VERY good on the break, and in the secondary break. He runs a half court well, but obviously is good in space when matched up 1v1. Deng was much more aggressive in the game because I think he does better when running down the wing given an option to drive or pass instead of being a pull up player. Gordone and Heinrich are better spotting up for kickouts and Thabo looked fantasic making plays, passing and playing great defense. it was the first time I actually thought the team was running an actual offense with a purpose. COULD we run a smaller team and run and gun? I am not sure, but I think Rose is a pretty good player to build around if you want to play that way. The backcourt trio of Thabo, Kirk and Rose was fairly long, defended well and was unselfish. They were also playing the Clippers.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:11 AM) Watching Blago now. I'm convinced that Blago believes that if he's allowed to defend himself, there is not evidence to impeach him. Gut feeling, but I bet he's right. What exactly does the Illinois Constitution require for an individual's impeachment?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 05:14 AM) As a percentage of this bill, it sure is. Actually, as a percentage of what is needed to get the infrastructure upgraded enough to get substantially more people to use it... it is as well. Didn't really care about what %age of the bill it was. Would have liked to see it be a factor of 3-4 larger in order to actually have a big enough impact on the infrastructure.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 05:21 AM) Because they don't count a job saved as a change in GDP, because technically it isn't a "change". It keeps the status quo. The change actually occurs when there is no change, and they have to layoff employees to keep the company afloat. You don't count no change, as a change, that's why these numbers are so low. Its a statistical anomaly that is fairly clear and understood. People take these numbers out of context and have no idea what the actually mean. That's why the whole liberal myth of taxcuts not working keeps getting proliferated. I still say you are wrong there because you're defining your baseline improperly. A job saved due to a change in a particular tax is a change in the GDP relative to where GDP would have been had the tax cut not happened. You're trying to insist that it's relative to current GDP and that's just not what any of the numbers say. The multiplier effect is defined as the impact on the GDP of a specific government action relative to if that action had not occurred. In other words, if it saves a job, it would still be counted. A more technical way of putting it is: The multiplier effect is a derivative, it doesn't matter where you start from, the only thing that matters is the rate and direction of the change due to the spending. Let me explain in another way why corporate tax cuts have such a ridiculously low multiplier. Simple question to start off...how much in taxes is Bank of America going to pay on their earnings this year? Answer? Essentially zero. Ditto the next few years, and probably the last few years too. Why? Because we've structured our tax system such that it is loaded with exemptions for businesses. One of those exemptions is that you are allowed to deduct losses and spread those deductions out over a number of years. Now, which businesses are going to be actually paying taxes this year? The few that will are going to be the ones that are actually still profitable. Now, which businesses are going to be the ones cutting the most jobs? The ones that are still profitable or the ones that are hemorrhaging money? If you're giving money out in the form of a business tax cut, you're not giving it to the ones that are cutting the most jobs. You're giving it to the ones that are by and large still profitable. It's going to the wrong place. The Obama team actually realized this, and a few weeks ago when they were setting up this package they floated the idea of having their business tax cut be done in the form of "money given out for jobs saved or jobs created" but they rapidly realized there was just no way to actually figure out which jobs would have been saved without the plan, so they junked it. Some fraction of jobs will be saved by a business tax cut, yes. But with the multiplier effect, the question is basically what fraction of the money you send out actually winds up spent? That's why the multiplication for actual projects is so much higher than for tax cuts. If you give someone who doesn't need a tax cut some portion of your money, they're not likely to spend all of it. The same goes for businesses. If they're hemorrhaging money as it is, then a tax credit would make their balance sheet look better, but it wouldn't change the fact that their business model has moved in to unprofitable territory, and hence it wouldn't directly translate to 100% job savings. Some may well save jobs, but it isn't nearly all going that way. Alternatively, if you hire a person for a project, you are guaranteed to create a job relative to the baseline of the government doing nothing, and therefore you're taking a person out of unemployment and giving them the ability to resume as a consumer. They will therefore actually spend the money. As far as I can tell, you are both simply wrong on the definition of a multiplier effect. Hell, you saw last year how weak of a multiplier a tax credit produced; everyone in the country got a $600 rebate last year, but only a fraction of that moved its way in to the economy because a lot of it was saved.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) The GOP SHOULD be pushing back against the stimulus, or at least getting alternate ideas out there. The Dems don't really have to try because if they wanted to, they could pass it easily. Then why couldn't the Democrats get that kind of air time for the last 8 years?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 06:54 PM) This whole thing is a clusterf*** of epic proportions, but as long as Obama gets what he wants, it's the best thing for "AmeriKKKa" ever. I'm so nauseated at this whole thing already - I don't care WHAT party you are, this thing is terrible legislation. Given the circumstances, overall, I'd say it looks like a decent bill. Could have been better, could still get worse if the Senate includes the AMT stuff they're talking about and that costs some of the spending package, but compared to dumping out more as tax cuts and getting a boost as weak or weaker than the one we got in the summer of last year, it's a decent move.