NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:29 PM) Beause of the forced reserves of banking and the higher savings rate of the rich, there is a lot of money taken out of circulation by the upper classes. Its not like giving money to the poor who have zero savings rates. The multipliers are MUCH different in these classes. Sure - and the multipliers only help that, if I understand what you mean. It means lower tax rates on other things.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) Think about the ubber rich, they may spend the first million they will earn this year, but not the next 20. I just do not see being able to recoup that without seriously crippling those in the $15,000 to $45,000 range. Does the next $20M get stuffed in a mattress? No, it gets invested. That's why I specified that you keep taxes on cap gains, interest, etc. The more they invest, and the more EVERYONE invests, more money is put into the budget to play with (and the more the tax rates can be reduced).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:21 PM) You shouldn't. If we are indeed being talking into a recession, the LAST thing you want right now is a balanced budget. The spending cuts or tax increases to make it happen will turn a garden variety recession into a full blow depression. Only true in the short term. Deficit spending creates debt, and debt creates more debt if you never run a surplus. So we end up paying more and more out of government coffers every year to interest, which is not programmatic money from the government that can help keep the economy going. Long run, the economy will be much stronger with a balanced budget amendment, IMO.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:02 PM) thank you. This is a tax increase on the non-voting poor, to benefit the middle class. I don't think it has to be, if you structure the sales tax correctly, and ONLY remove the income tax (meaning, keep cap gains, etc.). You would need a bevelled approach of course, product groupings like you said - but that doesn't have to be overly complicated. I think it could be done, and done well, to the benefit of the country.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) yikes. I remember the Backpacker article a couple years ago that tested water around the country and found very little incidences of Giardia, bummer you found a spot. Which filter are you using? I keep thinking I should update my 6 year old Pur, but it keeps working and working. One of them, the element was old and got super-clogged, and just couldn't be cleaned enough to work well. The other, a part broke (and it was a fairly new one!). Colorado's high country is afoul with giardia - one of the worst areas for it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) I give everyone a pass on that war vote. First off, the underlaying evidence was faulty. Sorry Tex, but... B.S.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) Totally random but I just thought of two things Bill Clinton did that made a positive difference. For one I am thankful for his subtle but perhaps crucial intervention warning against Quebec's separation from Canada in the 1995 referendum, and his other words in favor of Canadian federation. Also many people seem to think Bill Clinton played a key role in the Northern Ireland peace deal. Yeah, Clinton did a number of very good things in his Presidency. Quite a lot, actually. I despise the man personally, but upon hindsight, he was a pretty good President. Bush 41 also did a few good things.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) At least in the woods, I'd have poured some boiling water onto those glasses (nalgene). Knock on wood, I've never experienced gastric problems while backpacking. We're very careful about cleaning. Imagine staying at a decent hotel and being subjected to worst. We got caught at very high altitude in Colorado one summer when the water filters both broke or clogged beyond repair. We eventually ran out of iodine, so we resorted to boiling. Except, at 13,000 feet, the boiling temp isn't high enough. 4 of us got Giardia - thankfully after we were out of the woods. Not fun, though.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 01:50 PM) A little too much DNA on that bedding? I laugh when people ask me how you stay clean while backpacking for a few days. I'll take my own DNA filled sleeping bag to hotel sheets anyday. I travel on business almost every week. I'm staying at a hotel this week in fact. I try to pretend I don't know about these things, but I do. And I agree Tex, in a way, I feel cleaning spending time in the woods than I do in hotels.

QUOTE(The Beast @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 07:33 PM) I'm sure KW could make me "cry." I would love to go at it with him in a war of words. I hope several Sox fans there ask difficult and smart questions to him just to embarass him. Yes, he made the Swisher deal, but nothing else has happened---yet. Did you miss the last few months or something? When the team got a new starting shortstop, starting LF, future 2B/CF, experienced set-up guy, and removed a whole list of dead wood (Erstad, Pods, Gonzalez, Cintron, Myers, Phillips, etc.)? And that's in addition to the Swisher deal? And the rookies that got their start in late 2007 who will be given a chance to be core guys on the team in 2008 (Fields, Owens, Richar, Wassermann)? I can understand not liking some of the moves. But you really aren't going to be taken seriously if you think "nothing else has happened". The team is dramatically different, and there will probably be multiple other moves yet to come before April 1st (like for Uribe, Crede, maybe others).

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 01:13 PM) LINK I'm not sure how seriously to take a writer who things that Nevada is a "next-door state" to New Mexico. They are hundreds of miles apart, and they have very different cultures (though they do share a large hispanic population).

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) You'd think we live in Communist Russia by looking at some of the comments in here. Seriously. I have some major problems with things going on and people in the system, but, the position that everything is awful in here sometimes rivals the negativity in PHT.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 11:05 AM) So Kerry didn't get elected and he had a candidate for vp that he wanted nothing to do with. I think I'll vote for a Democrat this time. Kerry ran a lousy campaign in '04 - with Bush as weak as he was, Kerry could have won that election if his campaign had been halfway competent. I wouldn't put Kerry's blunders on the whole party any more than I put Bush's blunders on the whole Republican party. And I've said before, though others disagree... I think this is the best field of candidates either party has put up in some time. That isn't saying a lot, but... as an example, this field of Dems was much better than the field in '04, or 2000, etc.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) Kerry threw his former running mate under the bus. If Edwards isn't worthy of being president, how the hell do you choose him for vice-president? I wonder if this will be a trend of sorts... will Richardson shun the Clintons who gave him a cabinet post, and endorse Obama?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) Kerry threw his former running mate under the bus. If Edwards isn't worthy of being president, how the hell do you choose him for vice-president? I've read some things about Kerry's selection of Edwards in '04. Kerry received a lot of pressure from within the Democratic Party to choose Edwards, who they saw as making Kerry more electable. And from what I have read, Kerry actually like Edwards at first... until he got to know him better. Then he wanted nothing to do with him.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 10:34 AM) I will play devils advocate here for a second. If we do go to Universal Health care, and we are paying for insurance through taxes. Then should smoking and other choice vices be outlawed. Everyone knows the medical issues with certain choice vices, so why should the community as a whole have to pay for a choice that someone made on their own. In fact, lets take it further. Should you be forced to keep in some sort of shape. I mean why should the community pay for you because you decide that the hearattack menu at McDonalds and sitting on your couch is the best way to go then come in at Age 45 needing a quad bypass. How about when you are born, we do a genetic map of you to pre-determine what your diseases and tendancies will be so we can dictate a program. See where this is going. Of course, the scenario you mention here, and that slippery slope, could just as easily happen in private insurance as public.

So, which party would Bloomberg get more votes from? I think it may be pretty close to even.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 08:42 AM) Its pretty telling when a guy who worked for Camp Clinton for all of those years, first of all ran against Hillary, and then won't drop out of the race, nor endorse her for President, dispite his miserably failing campaign. I'd love to hear his reasons why Clinton isn't fit for office. All the articles out there seem to now be back to him dropping out for sure. Expect an announcement today. I still think he'll endorse Hillary out of loyalty, I'd imagine. But I think it will be very telling if he chooses to endorse no one at all, or someone else. If he wants to use his small amount of leverage (his 5%), he needs to do it soon - if he waits a month or two, his endorsement won't mean much to anyone.

So, the next primary is in Michigan on the 15th, for the GOP (the Dems have theirs too, but it doesn't count for anything). The race looks tight there, and the results could be very important with such a wide field still in it. There have been two polls in January... Strategic Vision (1/4-6): McCain: 29% Romney: 20% Huckabee: 18% Giuliani: 13% Thompson: 5% Paul: 5% Rossman (1/6-7): Huckabee: 23% Romney: 22% McCain: 18% Giuliani: 8% Thompson: 4% Paul: 3% I'm a little skeptical of the Rossman one, as they are a PR firm who works for the RNC, and they used a relatively small pool of 300 LV. In any case, its interesting that Romney, despite being from Michigan, doesn't lead in either poll. If he fails to win there, one wonders if he can effectively go on - he isn't likely to do well in SC. Though he may do well in NV, where there is a significant Mormon population in the more rural areas of the state.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 09:09 PM) IMO Bill was the best of the bunch. I hope he either (a) continues as govenor until 2010 when term limits kick in (B) gets a VP slot or © after the term limit, he enters the US Senate from NM. He's too good to waste. He may end up someone's VP or, more likely, SecState or SecEnergy. If not, then yeah, I'd bet he goes for a Senate seat.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 04:15 PM) OK so, a couple hundred Superdelegates have already committed. I assume the rest are waiting to decide, based on their state or something else. Weird. How many superdelegates are there, versus state results-based delegates? And who are these Superdelegates that get to make this kind of call? Local politicians or something? Well, found some info... For the Dems, there are 3,253 pledged delegates (results-based) and 796 Superdelegates, making a total of 4,049. So, Superdelegates make up 19.6% or so of the total. Found this about Superdelegates... So, these Superdelegates can do what they want to. But as of now, only 266 Superdelegates have pledged, leaving the rest to decide after their states' primaries. I'd guess that they'd tend to align based on results and/or electability. That does add a twist. If a candidate is dominant enough in the contests, the Supers won't matter (unless the pledged delegates pull a weird one). But if its close, they definitely matter. As an Obama supporter at this point, I am glad to see that the Superdelegates are DNC folks who want the party to win. Obama has the best head-to-head stats of any candidate, making him look a lot more electable. Oh also, there are already 34 pledged to Edwards, 19 pledged to Richardson and 1 to Kucinich. Those numbers will rise (at least Edwards' anyway), so they can come into play later.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) Yes. These superdelegates have pledged to vote for one candidate or the other, they are not beholden to what happens in their state. In fact, in many states - like the Electoral College, delegates are not bound to the results of a state primary. OK so, a couple hundred Superdelegates have already committed. I assume the rest are waiting to decide, based on their state or something else. Weird. How many superdelegates are there, versus state results-based delegates? And who are these Superdelegates that get to make this kind of call? Local politicians or something?

OK, I get where these come from... QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) The Delegate Count: Iowa % vote Delegates Super Total Obama: 38 16 2 18 Edwards: 30 14 3 17 Clinton: 29 15 2 17 New Hampshire % vote Delegates Super Total Clinton: 39 9 2 11 Obama: 37 9 3 12 Edwards: 17 4 0 4 But you lose me when the numbers somehow mysteriously jump here... QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) Total Count: Super Total Clinton: 159 183 Obama: 53 78 Edwards: 34 52 Are you saying that some super-delegates in states other than IA and NH have already committed? And is that binding, or can they change based on what happens in their states?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) If you cut taxes in the right manner, you actually increase overall tax revenue because the economy is going stronger (I believe the government has record tax revenues right now thanks in part to Bush's tax cuts). It's like cutting prices; you're making less on each transaction, but you sell more volume so make more in the end. If you cut too much, though, you'll hurt yourself. That is a THEORY, and it is not an absolute, even according to its proponents. Not all tax decreases, or increases, have the same effect. I actually agree it can do something like that - but its SOMETIMES, with the right cuts in the right situations.

QUOTE(dasox24 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) I guess it's cool that she's standing by her terms (one being no alcohol), but come on lady, your son is 19 years old. If you don't think he should be allowed to drink alcohol, well, that's just ridiculous. Once a person becomes of college age, it should really be up to him to decide. It's not like she found heroine or cocaine in his car. Now, if the kid was 16 years old and still in high school and under the supervision of his parents, I'd be fine with this. But, he's obviously not. He is considered an "adult" by law and is his own man at this point. Don't sell his car to prove a point that is dumb. I'm guaran-damn-tee you she was drinking alcohol or smoking weed or some s*** when she was 19. And if she wasn't, well, good for her. But she is not her son. Are you serious? He's not of legal drinking age, and the booze was IN THE CAR. Open alcolhol is not legal in the car. So not only did he break multiple laws, he also basically took a car his Mom paid for, broke one of the two friggin rules she set, and probably drove drunk. How is he is "own man" doing this in a car his parents bought for him? And did you miss the part where this isn't about having alcohol - its about having alcohol IN THE CAR?