Balta1701

The MN courts previously ruled on some 1200 improperly rejected absentee ballots, saying that they would be accepted and counted if both the Coleman and Franken campaigns agreed. Surprisingly, yesterday the Coleman campaign agreed to count some 900+ of those ballots, and this increased Franken's lead to 225 votes. The elections commission is expected to certify Franken as the winner on Monday. Coleman's campaign has basically 1 legal challenge remaining, asking a court to count some 600 absentee ballots from coleman-friendly districts that were judged to be properly rejected. They continue to complain about double-counted votes, but the courts have rejected those complaints. The Republicans in the Senate have threatened to filibuster any attempt to seat Senator Franken, regardless of the actions of the elections commission tomorrow. Interestingly, they're basing the legality of that filibuster on the same tactics that Reid wants to use to deny seating Burris from IL.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 4, 2009 -> 08:26 AM) From Kyodo News: The Lotte Marines will begin talks with Tadahito Iguchi on Wednesday in Okinawa. Probably best for everyone.

Crap.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) I do not agree with this at all. The truth is the spending output during a massive world war is a cataclysmic event, wanting to spend compartively on government waste is epic in it's potential for disaster. Under such a philosophy the government should always spend at highest possible levels, as using a comparison in which the relations of spending are of no equal. By these standards we will easily be 25 trillion in debt by the end of the Obama administration if we spending to levels of GDP during WWII. This is not sustainable and a guaranteed prescription for ruin. If such levels of spending are used we will see a complete collapse in currency. During WWII spending we were not in debt, we were financially sound. Spending levels that high as compared to GDP will make the great depression look like a cake walk. Several of your points there are simply false and are proven so by my graph above. As a percentage of GDP, take a look. The starting point in 1940 pre-war is actually higher than our current public debt as a %age of GDP right now (because a chunk of the other debt is held in assets that have tangible value) Secondly, there is no economic theory at all which states that government money spent on a public project is going to be a less efficient use of money than private money spent on a private project. The thing which is less efficient is when the government spends its money on a private product, i.e. the government decides which car you're going to buy...unless the economy of scale effect winds up being larger. For example, the government spending money on things like a highway or on an improved electricity grid can provide economic benefits that are actually larger per unit money than what you get if the private sector spends a similar amount of money...but that all depends on how effective the decision makers are. On that, we'll see. 3rd...the value of the dollar is not solely affected by government spending. A key factor is also the unsustainable trade deficit. That, more than anything else, is what is driving the currency downwards.

Another last minute key environmental rule change being undertaken by the Bush Administration. This one will clearly help us solve the problem of the massive housing shortage facing the country right now. More houses = profit!

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) A lot more variables to add. The US was not in massive debt then, the US was lending money not sinking in debt, after the war the US was the only major power untouched, other countries needed to rebuild, and history shows that winners of something big like WWII are going to benefit. We are more like post-WWI Germany right now with our debt levels; their currency collapsed and the country really fell apart. Just a question here, how much is too much deficit spending? or is there no such thing. We have already thrown 3 trillion at this mess, I just think we are going to see an absolute financial disaster if we drop endless money into this. We have already surpassed the new deal spending levels, we are going to completely blow away the new deal as far as spending. here's an article stating the new deal was way too small, and this is the kind of thinking that is really dangerous. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1209/p01s03-usgn.html A couple counter-points. First of all...dramatically surpassing the New Deal in spending is the right thing to do. Keynes didn't publish his work on the relations between government spending and economic stimulus until 1936. Most of the New Deal was actually paid for as we went along, rather than paid for by borrowing, which in a crisis is the wrong way to do it. And, around the time of the '36 election, we actually cut back significantly on those programs in an effort to rebalance the budget, and the economy faltered even further as a result. It was only the government going massively in to debt to finance a program known as the 2nd world war which really involved the government increasing its debt load. In terms of the size of the new deal...it's not how much was done in the deal, it's how much of it was done as a government directed stimulus. And secondly, you ask the question...how much is too much deficit spending. There's actually a fairly simple graph out there that helps give an answer to that question...the size of the debt relative to the size of the economy. I made sure to get one that showed WWII on it, because that might give some scale as to how much the government can borrow and how much the government may need to borrow to get past a crisis like the depression.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) near subprime car loans to fix the subprime home loan crisis? oh man this could backfire After giving it some more thought (you'll note I didn't comment on it earlier, just posted) I'm not sure this isn't a pretty good use of the bailout dollars. It does a number of things that giving big checks to banks that they can sit on does not do; it actually drives increased lending using the money, it creates something so that the people using the money get something tangible in return, and it keeps people employed. Yeah, there's certainly a big downside too. But I'm at the worst conflicted on that right now. GM gets that bridge loan and suddenly starts selling their vehicles for below cost to keep their factories running. If nothing else, it's a better use for the money than a lot of the other ones we've seen.

Link

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 05:35 PM) Both of the re-do Batman movies (Begins, TDK) are unabashedly Chicago. Also, when was Gotham ever supposed to be New York (in the movies)? Seems to me in the first 4 movies, it was completely unlike any city, then the last two have been clearly chicago. Nothing I minded, but I did feel like I was looking at 2 different cities between BB and TDK. I'm not sure how deliberate that was, but the city in TDK just seemed a lot more modern and vibrant than the city we saw in BB. The Sears was in the background of one shot though.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 04:46 PM) Man. Roberts is such a monster though. Gavin $-wise makes us all want him around awhile, but really how un-replaceable are those skills? We can get middle rotation starters. True leadoff guys though arent around Even as one of G's biggest backers coming in to last year...if it weren't for the Mitchell Report (yes I still hold that against people) and if the team had a semi-infinite budget like the Yankees, this trade would be a no-brainer with the current roster. It solves a number of issues in the lineup and in the field. And while Gavin had a very good season last year and will probably get better, he's not a guy we couldn't replace in the FA market if we had the money. But right now, we're cutting salary, which means that we need all of the pre-arbitration players we can find. And we have 2 holes already in our starting rotation, which means we need all the innings-eating pitchers we can get out of the other 3 spots. And that also means we wouldn't have the money to extend Roberts. And if we traded for him and we were unable to fix the starting rotation elsewhere, we'd just be lost for next year no matter who we had at leadoff. It just can't work with our salary constraints now.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) this next great derpression will be caused, if anything, by massive debt and currency failure. the spending you are suggesting is path to another depression. A few years down the road, yes, that's a major worry, it's a gift left to us by the people who built it, and a major problem. But worrying about inflation spirals when deflation is a real possibility is going to make the current mess that much worse. It didn't work when the Republicans tried it in 1930-32, it didn't work when FDR tried it in 1936, and it won't work now.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) Hmm, I have an idea, how about cutting spending as to not be that much in debt? of course thats not an option Because in the middle of a dramatic consumer and business spending downturn, a government spending downturn is another path towards a depression.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) I watched the spider-man series way out of order (3,1,2) and wasn't that impressed. The second was really good in the first half, but kinda boring in the second half. I didn't care for the hob-goblin villian in 1 and villians in 3 were randomly mixed together and it came off more as a TV show. The second movie also has weird reactions of people in New York (Whoa, he stole that guy's PIZZA!) and has a girl plucking the spider-man theme on the violin as well. One thing I never understood, what exactly is Spider-Man slinging from? When he's flying over the middle of traffic he's shooting his web at a diagonal forwards seemingly hooking onto nothing. If you're going to start going in to Spiderman continuity and production problems...that's not nearly the worst one. The worst one would be conservation of mass.

Marbury to the Celtics?

QUOTE (JoeBatterz @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) We better have a strong bullpen with that rotation. If last year is any indication...then if Linebrink and Jenks stay healthy, we do. Especially if the Richard/Poreda loser can avoid pulling a Logan.

First batch of confirmation hearings this coming week and the next week.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 1, 2009 -> 11:02 PM) There was an article somewhere(can't remember where) basically stating the Pats were considering it because of Brady and they are also thinking about doing it and then trading him. I don't know if that would be legal or not as I'm not familiar with the NFL's CBA. Franchising him and trading him is totally allowed also. But the problem again becomes the gigantic cap hit. $14 million is monstrous. Basically, that's the kind of cap hit you expect to take to sign a QB to a multi-year deal, and they'd be signing him to a 1 year deal and thus guaranteeing him a gigantic contract. More than 1/2 the league would be immediately out of the running for him because they don't have the cap space, and a good chunk of the rest already have QB's or have other needs to spend their cap space on. Give you some comparison. When Derek Anderson had that great season for the Browns, they signed him to a 3 year deal. The guaranteed money? Basically $14.5 million. But that's spread out over a couple seasons. So, to sign Cassell to a longer deal than that 1 year, you'd have to guarantee him a lot more than the $14 million guaranteed he'd get if he were franchised.

Beep...beep...beep...beep...beep...beep...beep...beep....

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 30, 2008 -> 08:44 AM) Congrats on being the last person in America to see TDK. Technically I think he was 3rd to the last. I finally joined the ranks last night (yay for $1 DVD rental machines).

Cool. Just had a B-2 fly past my window. Must be some sort of sporting event nearby.

New year's greetings from your totally non-racist friends at one of the major cable news networks. Go ahead, guess which one.

Thomas Jones goes on the record and another Jet teammate anonymously hammers Brett Favre as a teammate.

Anywho how does USC manage to find a way to blow one game a year?

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 08:47 PM) Actually, NE franchising Cassel isn't unlikely at all. They might do it just for insurance. If Brady is 100%, Cassel'll walk after next year. If not, Cassel will get franchised again or signed long term. Franchising a QB right now will cost like $14 million in cap space next year, all guaranteed $. No way the Pats do that.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 1, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) These people cannot be gone soon enough - only to be replaced by more of the same. Still can't be worse.