NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 08:18 AM) Why is it different based on who the initial payee is? When it comes down to it, its businesses paying the costs initially, through an unfunded mandate, and in the other case, taxpayers are paying for it, which is usually the same people in the long run. Pay-Go means you need to fund everything you pass, so that you don't incur debt. Minimum wage law does not incur debt for the government. It doesn't incur debt directly whatsoever - though it does have a financial impact on some businesses. In any case, that was a minor part of the point I was making. I agree that every law's impact on the finances of taxpaying individuals or businesses should be looked at in determining whether or not its a positive outcome overall. To me, considering the wage hasn't gone up in a decade and at 40 hr a week is well below the poverty line, I am convinced that a significant boost along with a permanent COLA has more positive impact than negative.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 06:14 AM) Exactly. Now how come no one is comparing this to an unfunded mandate? Especially when the Repubs are actually using the Dems "pay-go" theory, by requiring this to be funded? I'd really love to hear how this is different. Pay-Go is targeted at in-unit funding, which in this case, is government funding. That is different than costs to business due to legislation. I think you make a really important point though, and I agree that it should always be considered - any law or act put in place by the government has a cost to someone (with few exceptions), and those costs should always be part of the equation. Its more than just a nice principle - some might even say its a natural extension of the takings clause of the 5th amendment. If the government taketh away, they need to compensate the person from whom they took. That cannot be extended infinitely of course, but where is the line? Some people will feel that an increase in minimum wage is over that line. Others do not. That right there should be the discourse - how far is too far for unfunded mandates, and when do laws need to be passed for the betterment of society, even at the cost of the consumer or a business?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 09:42 PM) That's probably the worst place to take an impression from of a politician, I think. I like Huckabee (a lot, and for awhile) and Hagel from the Right as legitimate candidates to win the Presidency. Brownback's a good longshot. Giuliani would be an idiot to run and would never leave the primaries; McCain is going to be decimated in either the primaries or the general, but he'll be decimated. I'm not really impressed by any of them, though. A Brownback nomination makes for an automatic Democrat win in the national election. No way he gets nominated. He would have been ideal in 2000 or 2004, during the height of power for the religious conservatives. But that is on the downslope now. He may turn out to be a VP candidate though, if the P candidate is a moderate Republican.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 09:28 PM) Oh really? Who on the Republicans (at least the esteemed frontrunners) is worth a s***? I don't think any of them are. I'll say it again, the best canidate right now IMO is Bill Richardson, and he's got a pigs chance in crude oil to make it. I am not wholly offended by Mike Huckabee yet. I think McCain has his positive moments, though I think he's dead wrong on Iraq and some other things. And I keep hoping the groundswell of support recently will push Hagel into the race. I don't exactly love any of them, but compare those three to Bush, and some of the other recent primary candidates from the GOP or even the Dems. I think this race is better than any since i have been of voting age, at this point. That doesn't mean they are all great - there are just more candidates that don't entirely suck.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 07:15 PM) Out of curiousity, when everyone referrs to the Repubs holding up the minimum wage to try to get corrisponding tax breaks for affected small businesses, how come no one has asked the dems why they are trying to pass an unfunded mandate onto small businesses? All wage rules and laws on private business are unfunded mandates. Overtime, FMLA, minimum wage, etc. They are considered civil protections, which businesses bear the burden of cost for, for good or bad. Further, since the minimum wage hasn't increased in a decade while real wages have increased, here is a follow-up question - why are small businesses now complaining about the freebie they got for the last decade? If the argument works one way, it works the other. But as many here have been saying, if they can manage to attach a pegged, automatic inflationary increase to it from here out, then the cost increase is theoretically a net zero effect. Minimum wage increases with inflation and/or real wage rates, then everything is even keel. Then we don't need to keep having this discussion. That to me is the ideal solution.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 08:00 PM) It's not the "surge", it's a part of the strategy that Bush was crystal clear on... the government of Iraq needs to crack down on these assholes and there is no forgiveness. But somehow, "surge" and "escalation" and all those pretty words get entangled in the mess, and it shouldn't be separated from the fact that Bush was VERY clear that the government needs to step up NOW. There has been nothing about BushCo's tactics in this war that could ever be remotely described as crystal clear, or even for that matter, described as a strategy. There has been a complete lack thereof. Though I certainly do agree that we cannot make the peace. If there is to be a peace at all, Iraqis have to make it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 08:03 PM) I think every one of these s***bags on both sides of the aisle aren't worthy of being president. And yes, I said that in 2000 as well. In all seriousness, the best of the best don't ever run for president or government office, and it really saddens me to think that's the case. On the other hand, I think looking at the field this year for both parties, I cannot remember the last election with a better field at this stage. There are multiple candidates in both parties that I do not hate completely. Yet.

QUOTE(soxwon @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) I was just wondering from Democrats only- Who out of the Republicans do you think would pose the greatest threat to a Obama-Hillary-Edwards in the race for the White House? As a Republican, im really flustered as no Republican candidate comes close to all my views. I was just Curious to see who The Democrats, think would be a tough candidate? Can I answer as an independent? Giuliani has the best chance to take votes from left of center, but I think his corruption and slime factor will come through and break him pretty quick. McCain could be a big threat. The further right ones, like Gingrich or Brownback, are unlikely to win a national election (though I could see Gingrich winning a GOP nomination, potentially). Part of it depends on who the Dem front-runner ends up being. I think that is still a wide open question. Here is a name that hasn't thrown the hat in yet, but who would have a real shot to win - Chuck Hagel. I don't like some of his views (environment, government oversight), but he does have that GOP but anti-Iraq thing going on.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 10:47 AM) OK, what if you don't have any equity (or very little)? Are there any options? If you have little or no equity, you should not even consider taking on any other debt unless you have other property or something to secure it with (Car vs car loan, etc.). If you get upside down in a mortgage or other secured debt instrument, that can be BIG trouble. In fact, anything above 90% LTV (loan to value) is high-risk.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 07:16 PM) I know Denny Hastert received major press in Virginia as I heard from an ex-Illinois buddy of mine who now resides out there after the bogus land-highway stuff came up who heard it on the news. Dennis Hastert was the SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE. That is, I think, a wee bit different than some state senator in South Dakota. Also, Senator Reid's land deals are all OVER the news, if you want a good analog to Hastert. Your example is poorly analagous.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 01:06 PM) How are you seeing the primary going on the Dem side? I'm thinking there will be some early knockouts with Hillary and one or two people battling deep. But it will get to 2 or 3 before Super Tuesday. I honestly don't know. At this point, I can say I see 4 candidates for the Dems that have a reasonable chance. I think with those four (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson), its possible we'll see something unusual - that all 4 of them might still be drawing significant votes even up until Super Tuesday. That would be something amazing. Notice something interesting in that group of four? Only one is a caucasian male.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 12:25 PM) Link Good. There is no room for him in that field anyway, he'd get slaughtered.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 09:27 AM) I dont buy it. how in the world did they sign a guy ............ then discover hes hurt? A: They were in such a rush to sign him cheap, because of that stupid Soriano signing. Kenny point blank said that "seeing the market" behave the way it was, he wasnt going to play the $$$ game and said Pods made "sense". It was right after if you remember, that Phil Rogers THE HERETIC filed his story about the SOX not playing the $$$ game and were about to peddle every pitcher worth something Just stop. This had zero to do with your favorite team from the north side. If Pods is healthy, then the cheap signing they got him for made perfect sense, whether or not you planned on trading him later.

As long as we don't get Erstad playing more than 20% in CF, then this is a solid deal. He's what the team needs as insurance for Pods' groin and Anderson's whiffle bat. If Pods ends up healthy and Anderson stays above .240, then its all good. But if Pods isn't healthy, or Anderson sucks with the bat again, or if Ozzie plays Erstad way too often in CF like he did with Mack... then this could screw the team in the end. Hopefully if any of those things happen, we see Sweeney come up. In other words, I agree with wite and the others saying this COULD be a good signing, but may not be, if Ozzie, Pods or Anderson (first half) sucks like they did last year.

I was at a business dinner/drinks thing, so I missed it. But my wife was cool enough to DVR it for me. I can't really comment until I've watched it over lunch today.

QUOTE(G&T @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) And that Pods is having groin surgery. We just signed the guy!!! What the heck happened?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 07:07 AM) Let me tell you from first hand experience, that is A LOT of people! Or Jeff Bajenaru I saw a guy in a Baj jersey last season, on more than one occasion. I remember thinking that was pretty unusual. Was that you?!

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 09:51 PM) Ozzie Award (best in-game analyst) KW Award (best arm chair GM) Hawk Award (biggest Sox homer) Half-empty Award (most pessimistic Sox fan) Half-full Award (most optimistic Sox fan) Padilla/Merkin/Rogers/Cowley Award (best Soxtalk writer) others could be thought of too, cuz those were just off the top of my head. I like all of those ideas. Although, I am hoping that last one is NOT called the Cowley award.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 07:30 AM) I call this the Spitzer factor... http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/new-...AAD364C74F54%7D Funny that they don't mention Chicago, who seem to be pushing NY's derivatives markets to the brink (aside from oil and gas).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 07:32 PM) Update on a "Long-ago" story that I'm not sure where to put but want to put it somewhere. Last year, CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) received copies of the Mark Foley emails. CREW immediately forwarded these emails to the FBI upon receiving them. CREW then later became on of the groups alleged to have set up the Republicans wiht an "October Surprise" by having had possession of the naughty emails before they came out right before the election. CREW responded by filing a complaint with the Inspector General's office. Today, the IG announced that in fact, CREW had done everything they were supposed to do, and the FBI was negligent in not having done anything when they were given those emails. Press release link. FBI showing again how messed up they are. That agency was in bad shape on 9/11, and amazingly has gotten worse.

Happy B-Day my scientific friend!!!

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) Tex, if his voting record shows that he toes the party line, how does that NOT give you insight into his character? I was merely pointing out that people say that he is a refreshing change. Well, other than being sober, what difference is there between him and kennedy? While voting may not shed light on his citizenship, etc, it does shed light on his political leanings and how he would tend to lead on issue based items, such as taxes, defense, etc. That IS important. Further on this subject, check out his index ratings from various interest groups. Obama is, for better or worse, pretty darn blue. In pretty much every category, he votes heavily or entirely with the typical Democratic party positions. What Obama chooses to emphasize in terms of issues, we'll have to wait and see. But based on his admitedly short voting record, he seems to be pretty much right in line with the bulk of the Democratic party.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/36605.html Richardson gives me the creeps. That was the linked article, out of the ones Balta posted, that I referred to earlier.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 08:13 AM) less than presidential behaviors.... you mean like DUI's on your record, being an Alcoholic until 40 and snorting coke??? Actually, I wasn't talking about that sort of thing. I was referring more to demeanor, affect, etc. Richardson appears to be the kind of guy who may occasionally do things in public that, while basically harmless, make people cringe when considering him as the next President. Like, for example, putting a high school kid in a headlock wrestling around with him at some sort of award presentation. Just for fun I am sure, but, will ultimately scare off some people. The sort of thing you are referring to, actual illegal or immoral behaviors in their past, doesn't appear to be an issue with Richardson (at least, that we have yet seen). These things he has done are, if ONLY in his past, likely to fade away like so much babble. He just needs to not do those things from here forward.

Go freakin' Bears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ah, brings back fond memories of singing Super Bowl Shuffle in junior high. And this just a season after the World Series. Yes!!! Grossman still scares the bejeezus out of me. He has serious Mike Tomczak disease - telegraphs his passes pretty badly, and doesn't know how to check down. That's why he has been so hot or cold, depending on whether or not the opposing defense is good enough to see him do it. But, he's got a good arm and some talented receivers, and he sure as heck got it done yesterday. Maybe he's finding his way past his problem.