illinilaw08

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 11, 2017 -> 01:07 PM) This is going to make for a truly entertaining film in 10 years. The lead headline on Fox News right now: "McCabe says FBI call not to prosecute Clinton angered some agents, defends Comey" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/11...ends-comey.html And we wonder how people can defend the administration...

QUOTE (steveno89 @ May 11, 2017 -> 12:59 PM) A top 25 organizational prospect? Or top 25 in the mlb prospect? Top 25 in the MLB obviously.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ May 11, 2017 -> 12:38 PM) I don't love the Mets farm as a match for us. Beyond their top couple guys there isn't anything that interesting at a glance. Gimenez is a player I like, but he is far off from the majors I think that's kind of the point with Robertson though. He's unlikely to bring back a top 25 prospect at the centerpiece. Unlike with Q, I find it hard to believe that there's any farm system in baseball that can't put together some sort of deal that would be attractive for Robertson. The more teams that are involved, the better.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ May 11, 2017 -> 08:02 AM) I'll have one Cody Sedlock please. Mountcastle is tearing up A+ right now. I mean, I like Soto as a trade piece better than anything the Os could send over, but they can put a package together that would be value for Robertson. As always, the more teams who have a need, the better.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 10, 2017 -> 03:23 PM) First point: Well, yes, but do Democrats agree on all issues with certain Democratic candidates? Your second graph is well taken. Good points. That was more in reaction to the fact that you identify as a Republican voter on the economy, but actually support the Democrats' policies on the economy.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 10, 2017 -> 02:18 PM) I was in favor of his free college education for all. College kids debt sucks especially when so many degrees assure nothing in the workplace. Tax wall street for free college was brilliant idea. I was in favor of raising the minimum wage. He basically was at war with the 1 percenters. I like that. He wanted marijuana legalized. I like that. He didn't like the way campaigns were funded. I like his theories on health care. And yes superfically I did "feel the bern." Hey not everybody is an issues person. You can "feel it" as well. As far as Republicans I've always liked the way they handle foreign policy and the economy. And I feel Reagan is god, small g. p.s. Jimmy Carter today says he voted for Bernie Sanders. Maybe greg wasn't so wrong. Hmmmmm. Ok, so this is interesting. That you for elaborating. But I am confused about the economy part of things. I'm simplifying here, but Republicans think that higher taxes on the wealthy is bad for the economy. So that means that, to a Republican, taxing Wall Street to give free college to everybody would be bad for the economy. So to would any "war with the 1 percenters." Republicans think that lower taxes on the rich creates more jobs. On the minimum wage, Republicans think that increasing the minimum wage is harmful to businesses. So, a number of the policies that you liked about Sanders would horrify a rank and file Republican on the economy. But, I challenge you Greg, if you care about those issues, then you need to look into your Representatives' policies on this stuff. The President is obviously important, but they don't make laws. That's Congress. Figure out whether your Congressman and Senators actually supports the positions that mean the most to you, and vote for the ones that align with your values. Don't vote based on "feel." There are a lot of people out there who I like getting a beer with. And most of those people would be absolutely terrible at enacting legislation and advancing policy.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 10, 2017 -> 01:57 PM) I guess I could be an Independent. Times are changing in government. Ok, I'm going to push this point a bit. What policies of Sanders do you like? What policies of the Republicans do you like? It's absolutely possible to be an independent. You don't have to be married to one of the parties or the other. But responsible voters should know what they are voting for!

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 10, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) You didn't ask me what policies of Bernie I supported. Hey, it's tough when you despise one candidate and can't vote for her. Hey, I still can be in favor of the Senate rejecting the deal and be a Hillary hater and Bernie lover and Republican. Why do you consider yourself a Republican? Why do you like Bernie Sanders? The policies of the Republican party, and the policies of Bernie Sanders are pretty much the exact opposite of one another.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 10, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) Who they hell did you want me to vote for? Hillary? Cmon. Trump? Cmon. So I wrote somebody in. That's my right as an American too if they give me these kind of candidates. My selection would have a good health care plan. I will take a lie detector test to prove myself if that's what you all want. You pay for the test and I get 1,000 dollars if I pass the test. Greg, the point Balta is making is that the Republicans and the Democrats have very different policies, particularly on healthcare. If you want the government to mandate that insurance companies cover more and not less (preexisting conditions, no lifetime out of pocket max), then the Democrats are more likely to pass, or maintain, legislation that does that. If you ultimately want universal healthcare, the Democrats are the party that is the closest to that. By voting for Republican candidates, or not voting for either, you are making it more likely that the Republicans will be the party in power. The Republicans have made their stance on healthcare (and taxes for the wealthy) abundantly clear. They think that cutting taxes to the wealthy will create more jobs. They think that government should be out of healthcare entirely. Based on your comments in this thread, you are against both of those policies! But the election was more about personality for you than it was about policy. That is your right as an American! You are right! But when you complain about the policies that the Republicans are pushing (and the policies that have already failed in Kansas) while at the same time attacking Hillary Clinton and parroting Rush Limbaugh - well those things just don't line up.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 10, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) “Do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked California Sen. Dianne Feinstein during an interview on Wednesday. “Not at this time,” she responded. “Well, that’s a pretty precise answer,” Blitzer said. (this was end of April) With her being on the intelligence committee, if there is something there, she would have seen it. They can WANT to see it all day long. They will continue to assert that there is somethign there to keep it in the news. At some point you have to move on. That's not a definitive statement about whether there was in fact collusion. And it's abundantly clear that the FBI is investigating, and the Senate has subpoenaed documents from Stone, and Page at a minimum. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/r...as-trump-238173 Now, the investigation may not ultimately turn up anything. And if it DOES turn up something, it might not implicate the President at all. But to say that any conclusions can be drawn because the Senate committee lacked evidence in April is... a reach.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2017 -> 09:12 AM) I get that people want "change" for "changes sake" sometimes. But not holding their congressman accountable for at least waiting for the CBO score is insanity. It would be like me letting my client buy their house without doing an inspection, or getting financing on a car without asking what the APR is. I mean its their choice, but has "information" become the enemy now? This. So much this.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 3, 2017 -> 10:43 AM) How many TOR starters will be available though? I think Q's should be pretty safe as long as he keeps pitching well. To your point though, we should be aggressive with the back-end guys like Gonzalez & Holland. I'd start seriously marketing these guys as soon as June. The market #4 starters could be saturated by July 31st. To me, the question is what teams have the prospects to meet the Sox asking price. I mean, Texas might want a TOR starter at the deadline, but there's no way they have the pieces to get a deal done. As of today, the teams are still the teams we spent all offseason talking about: the Yankees, the Cubs, the Astros, the Pirates, and the Rockies. And if the Sox would trade Q within the division, add Cleveland to that. I might be missing a couple teams in there, but it's a pretty limited pool of teams that would be willing to get in on Q and have the resources to pull it off. That's the issue on moving Q more than anything else, IMO.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2017 -> 09:32 AM) Even if only one of them pitch well, it gives the Sox an option in the not excessively expensive part of the deadline market to offer to teams. This is exactly right. I think one of the barriers to trading Q is that there are a very limited number of teams with the prospects to meet the Sox asking price there. Adding another starter might move the needle enough to get a team to cough up that package. In the alternative, the Sox also need to start adding depth to the system on the position player side. If you can't get a team to bite on the Q asking price, even with Gonzalez or Holland added to the deal, you still potentially have a piece or two that should be very movable for value at the deadline.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 2, 2017 -> 12:30 PM) Also highlights the perils of trying to build solely around young pitching, or at least primarily. The Sox for their part have usually done a good job of balancing out youth with proven vets at the MLB level and also having enough depth in the minors to weather injury storms. That said, what can the Mets offer for Q? If Rosario is off limits, not much. Dominic Smith would look good in the Sox system, but I'm sure the Sox can get better offers than Smith ++.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2017 -> 11:24 AM) That could potentially explain why say the bottom quintile or two saw their share of economic gains drop, maybe. That doesn't explain, at all, why 95% of the gains went to the top 1%. Late to the party on this, but it is a lot harder for the middle class and down to accumulate wealth when interest rates are so low. Savings accounts pay pennies in interest, so there's not a lot of financial benefit to saving. Most gains from the recovery have been in the market. People who can't afford to be in the market, or don't have the same ability to be in the market haven't been able to accumulate wealth through savings.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 30, 2017 -> 12:18 PM) I wish people would not lie, not you, but the writer. That just doesn't seem right. I know tons of little people complaining about their parent died and all this money got taxed heavily, even though the person who died paid taxes on that money his/her whole life. I know some families in which the one remaining parent has given his/her kids say, 30,000 bucks at a time, so as to get them that money before they die and it won't be taxed as you can jump dump it in the bank. I feel like the little guy is affected by estate tax even in cases where the estate is well below 5.5 mill. WTF? The estate tax has a $5.5M exemption. That's not a lie. There are investment vehicles wherein your beneficiary will ultimately get taxed on the money. And if your parent passes while owing $$ and a probate estate gets opened, some of that inherited $$ might go to pay creditors. On the first, a good example of this is an inherited IRA. Beneficiaries of an inherited IRA will pay tax on the distributions as income when they are taken. Rabbit, I was away for a couple days, but to get back to our discussion of using trusts to shield yourself from the estate tax, when you transfer real estate (for example) into a trust, the trust, not you individually, own the asset. So if I have a $10M estate, and $6M is real estate, before I die I can put that real estate into a trust. My estate is now $4M and below the estate tax threshold. My $6M in real estate is owned by the trust which controls what happens to the real estate in the event that I die. Here's an article describing how the Clintons are using estate planning to avoid the estate tax. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/201...e-tax-they-back

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 03:45 PM) 1.) Estates don't allow you to avoid tax they allow the beneficiaries to face a lesser tax burden.. Beneficiaries are taxed on the distributable net income. 2.) The annual gift exception is $14,000 not $10,000. 3.) Source? 4.) "wouldn't have been able to accumulate that money anywhere else in the world if not for the unique conditions created by the United States of America (such as military/defense spending/safety and protections from regulation in the banking industry.) Capitalism. 5.) Source? Where are you getting #1 from? I'm not an estate and trusts lawyer, but my understanding is that you can move assets into certain types of trusts to avoid the estate tax. Basically, you don't own the asset anymore, the trust does and therefore the asset isn't subject to the estate tax. Now, you are right that beneficiaries under the trust might have to tax distributions as income, but that doesn't account for real estate or other assets that aren't liquid. Simple example. If I have a $10M estate, and $6M is comprised of real estate, if I transfer ownership of the $6M in real estate into a trust, the remaining $4M in assets in my estate will be exempt from the estate tax. The beneficiaries under the trust will have to pay taxes on the gain on the real estate when it sells, but they would have to do that under any transaction anyway, estate tax or no.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 02:51 PM) We've been through a tough recession and then several years of barely ok growth that was accelerating only gradually and almost exclusively benefiting people with college degrees. If you don't have a degree, the recession never ended. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/amer...vided-recovery/ I couldn't tell from that, but I would be curious to see the extent to which that is a reflection of the labor pool generally requiring a college degree for basically any entry level job, and the extent to which this is just an impact of the recession.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) The country wouldn't have aging infrastructure if it invested in infrastructure instead of war. The lower class wouldn't be so enormous if the business environment wasn't so hard to compete in in recent years. These are questions that should have been asked when prior policy got us in this position. I don't see why you would perpetuate bad policy for the sake of keeping a bad system going. Past that, I think the country would benefit as a whole if they reallocated military money to infrastructure but for some reason, both sides of the aisle love war though. Well, no disagreement from my end that the defense budget should be cut to pay for infrastructure. But this tax cut proposal is especially absurd when combined with the massive increases in military spending that the Trump administration is proposing. You have to fix infrastructure before you gut the federal revenues... As to the business environment point, I do think that the tax code needs to be simplified, particularly for small business owners who are taking salaries of $30k-$50k. But if you remove government regulation of business, we're back to the 1920s - those glory days for labor. The fact of the matter is that the '08 crash caused some pretty huge damage to the labor market, and the majority of the recovery flowed upstream, beyond the labor market. So I'm not sure what you mean by the business environment being so difficult to compete in.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 09:30 AM) When you make a main street v. wall street argument and pretend that you're going to help the little guy and stop the rich from benefiting at the expense of everyone else (all while pretending that you're not in that rich group) you're effectively calling them an enemy. They argue that because of "them" you aren't getting what you should be getting. They might not have explicitly said the word "enemy" before, but that's clearly the intent. Umm... can you provide examples of ways in which the Democrats have "pretended" to help the little guy? Because the ACA and Dodd-Frank both were pretty "little guy" friendly pieces of legislation just off the top of my head. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that discussing the wage gap means you are anti-wealth, and that by fundraising from the wealthy, you are explicitly refusing to help the poor. I really do not understand that logic. I mean, I think that Trump actually did what you are suggesting - telling the little guy he was going to help them and bring back all the jobs while not pushing policies that actually accomplish that. But I fail to see where the Obama administration, and then the Clinton campaign didn't propose policies to help the little guy. You can both help the little guy and not destroy the free market!

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 08:18 AM) This is not the biggest issue that the Democrats have made since 2000. On one hand, I actually do sincerely like that you are making this argument. I think in a vacuum it is right. You can take the handouts from orgs with a plush speaking budget and a desire to seem influential and give a stump speech. It is the "I'll take any mother f******s money if they are givin it away" of politics. I made this argument for Clinton, and I still thin it is theoretically right. But there are two things: 1) I think it is a losing argument and it is not the sacrifice Caulfield is making it out to be. It is not banning all speaking engagements, just the closed door, elite org/business ones. 2) I find these speaking engagements to specifically be unseemly. As a whole, it seems to be a "I'm paying you a lot of money to consider my viewpoints!", moreso than the speaker angle "maybe I will convince you about progressive policies". You are criticizing this line being drawn but I think you probably have a line drawn too. If Obama had gone into a law firm with the implicit benefit of having an "insider" they could rely upon for connections on the hill, that would be pretty awful. It wouldn't matter if he also continued on progressive policies. He would also probably never do this. But I also thought he would not so eagerly jump to these types of gigs. My favorite part of him since being a candidate was his very disciplined optics and campaigns that reduced distractions. And that's all this is, it's a distraction. It doesn't mean he's insincere. It doesn't mean he can't advocate for progressive future. But it is a "well why do you have to do that then?" thing. And, contrary to caulfield that this is the most inherently American thing he can do (which come to think of it, generationally rich people taking gobs of money for no reason except they are already rich MAY be the most American thing possible), I don't think this is a particularly big sacrifice. I think it's tiny. Again, it's not all speeches. Fair points, and I see that argument.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 06:16 PM) This took 3 seconds to find. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/mo...unds/index.html I'm sure there are hundreds of examples from both that I can find, but I'm not going to waste the time. You've been living in a bubble if you don't think Dems have railed against the rich and Wall Street while the Repubs tend to protect them. Hell, basic fiscal policy positions tell that story. And yes, ALL politicians do well from Wall Street, which is why it's a joke when Dem candidates pretend like they aren't financially connected. None of those quotes say what you said earlier though. Yes, Dems have railed against income inequality and have hammered at some of the issues on Wall Street to push that argument. But if you specifically argued that the Dems have made people with money the enemy. And that is very much not what either Clinton the candidate or Obama the President have done or said.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 04:20 PM) But that's not how Obama and Hillary campaigned. They made people with money the enemy. They made Wall Street the enemy. The claimed (falsely) that only the GOP had connections to Wall Street. Oh, Romney's just a rich guy, he can't help the everyday American. Same with Trump. It's been a party line for decades. And now he's playing nice with them? Now he's schmoozing with them for $400k for a day's work? That message of being the party that helps the little guy gets deflated. Cite for some of this? I mean, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Obama did very well in '08 and '12 fundraising from Wall Street. He also was President when some of the tougher regulations of Wall Street were passed! If we are being very general on the policies of the respective political parties, it's that the Democrats are in favor of greater regulation of industry, blaming corporate greed for things like the '08 financial crisis. The Republicans, by contrast, think that government should get out of the way of business as the job creation engine. The Democrats believe in government safety nets and want to fund that by raising taxes on top earners. The Republicans believe that cutting taxes to the top tax brackets stimulates the economy. At no point did the Obama administration make "people with money the enemy." The Clinton campaign and the Obama administration pitched a narrative of government as a check on corporate greed, and on raising taxes on the wealthy. And (gets on soapbox) this is the absolute worst part of political discourse. Nothing above is actual policy. It's broad generalizations that one side of the political aisle made people with money the enemy, and that accepting money from Wall Street makes the Democrats anti-protections for the little guy...

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 02:52 PM) Symbolism matters. The government to absurdly paid speaking gig pipeline is rich, and for many it is a symbol of elites paying for access. It would be meaningful to specifically not entertain these. That isn't to say he can't do any paid speaking gigs, but the 250-400k ones are frankly absurd. He obviously can still stay involved, but for those he is trying to reach out there will be a stigma of "you are saying this to my face but then you go yuck it up with a bunch of bankers at night, and they pay your bills". And please, this isn't a struggling kid going to the nba and earning those millions. He isn't destitute, he'll have 200k pension for life and a 60 mill book deal which he can spin into revenue generating public book tour. This is, to me, the biggest issue that the Democrats have had since '00. Barack Obama uses his wealth and celebrity to push progressive policies, but people reject his voice because he also gives speeches to bankers? It's that type of idea that siphoned votes from Gore to Nader in '00. That's what led the Sanders wing of the Democratic party to rail so hard against Clinton after she won the nomination this year. I reserve the right to come back here and say that I'm wrong if Obama stays out of the fray and sits on his wealth. But if he uses his wealth and celebrity to stay engaged and fight for progressive causes, no one should judge him taking money from speaking to bankers...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 03:38 PM) Doesn't it look bad for a guy that tried to be the "every man" and pretend like he was for Main Street, not Wall Street? At least he's doing it AFTER his political career, but still. He'll be endorsing people in the future. Hillary got knocked for this big time and through political osmosis Dems will be hurt by it too. Tough to trumpet the BS line that only the GOP is in the pockets of Wall Street when two of the biggest names in the party do the same thing (this obviously assumes that Obama will continue with a speaking tour ala the Clintons). Why does being for "Main Street" mean you can't also work with Wall Street? I mean, when the stock market does well, that's good for millions of American's retirements, not just for hedge fund managers. Can Obama not bring up progressive policies when he's giving a $400k speech to Goldman Sachs? I thought it was dumb that Hillary Clinton got dinged for this, and I think it's silly if this hurts Obama's message in the future. I'll be disappointed in Obama if come 2018 he's still doing the vacation/book deal/speaking tour to the detriment of using his wealth and celebrity for good.