NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) In theory, the House and Senate ethics committees were supposed to work that way; equal parts of members of each party, with the ability to launch outside investigations, but a few years ago the Republicans decided to completely remove the teeth of those committees by giving each party the ability to totally shut down an investigation without any input from the other party, and the Dems walked out in protest, shutting the whole process down. And for that reason, it should be an external agency, not Congress itself.

Too bad he's now in the ALC, but, I'm really happy he's not with the Sox.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) This would be awesome if they get it done. Even awesomer, if it gets through the Senate and the White House. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) I think it would be absolutely awesome if the Dems pushed anti-corruption legislation through both the House and Senate and the President vetoed it. Either way, its only awesome with that enforcement body actually checking the data. Without that, this is nothing but a farce.

Back to the 100 hour agenda... Here is something interesting. The Dems, expectedly, are promising to enact stricter laws regarding relationships between lobbyists and Congresspeople. Of course, some of the ones they suggest are just window dressing. Others may be difficult to work with. What is REALLY needed, as I've said before, is an enforcement body outside of Congress, with some real teeth. If you read the last three paragraphs of the article, you'll see I'm not alone in that suggestion. Maybe that will actually get done with this Congress. I doubt it, but, its possible.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 01:39 PM) Chuck Rangel, "who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?" Damn that New York Times and the liberal media bias. They would never splash a story like that about a Democrat on their paper. Oh wait...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 09:13 AM) And therein lies the point. If she had come out and said, I want to raise your taxes because... there is a much better case for it. But to say we are going to cut spending, not raise taxes, and institute all of these programs, including really expensive things, is the exact same kind of tactics that they campaigned against. Let's wait and see how they plan to implement these things. Its possible they are talking about shifts in spending here as well, not necessarily increasing any taxes. I know we are all so sure that she is lying and won't stick to her word, but, let's give her and the Dems a chance first. In a year, after we see what is really going on, then we'll know.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 06:17 AM) Actually from a true economic sense it would. Its simple supply and demand. Anytime you make something cheaper, more people buy it, and loans are no different. And the banks would therefore make more money, on volume - but the rate of defaults (as a percentage) would probably remain the same. Anyway, this was a side point example, not the point of the discussion.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) People will still default on loans, the difference is who pays for those defaults. Instead of being absorbed by the company doing business, the government is paying the company back for those defaulted loans. So yes the interest rate charged by the company goes down, but the government still has to pay for those defaulted loans somehow so they have to borrow the money to pay for those defaults. The cost is still there. I think you are misunderstanding me. Yes, the cost is still there. But cutting interest rates in half won't change the number of defaults, so it adds no new costs (the government ALREADY guarantees the loans). I was just trying to illustrate how cutting interest rates on student loans would be easier on the cost side for banks, than regular commercial loans.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:45 PM) Economies of scale is a HUGE consideration in the energy industry. The capital costs of starting up an industry like this is enormous, and is prohibative to anyone but companies who are already doing these things. Its nice on a chalkboard, but pretty much impossible in real life. I disagree, as it pertains to alternative energy sources. Many of the technologies that we could be using, including wind, solar, and others (yes I know they all have flaws, that's another discussion), are already established and are relatively cheap (key word: relatively) to implement on a small scale and then expand. For things like oil and gas, yes, you are correct - capital costs make it almost impossible as a startup. Also, as we are seeing, hybrid and electric technologies for vehicles can be done by existing firms quite well, and are doing so. They are hitting some roadblocks though, again, with patents (in particular with fully electric cars). QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) If the government is paying off the failed loans, that means the taxpayers are paying them off. That doesn't remove risk, it just moves risk directly to the taxpayers, instead of the business. Its the samething with either the government borrowing more money and paying more interest, or collecting more in taxes to pay for the defaults. We're talking here about changing interest rates. The loans are guaranteed now, and would be later, so the default risk change is zero. Unless you are saying that more students will default at lower interest rates, which seems counterintuitive. I was just trying to point out that student loans are able to be pushed down more easily because they are, and would be, guaranteed.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) And those loans are set at market value, not half of market value, which means there is a profit incentive for the company in there. If you set it up as a guarenteed money loser, someone has to make up that difference. There is another factor - default guarantees. The interest rate charged by banks on loans has not only profit built in, as well as cost of borrowing and inflation, but also risk of default. Since the government guarantees the loans, regardless of interest rate, the default risk is removed from the equation. That of course doesn't necessarily mean that it will make it easy to cut the rates in half, but, there are other tactics too. Some financial institutions, like credit unions, will still scoop up loans even at very low profits. They may even take them at zero profit for one reason or another, just as long as it isn't losing money.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) There are two ways to "fix" SSI. Raise FICA or cut benefits. If there is some other solution, I would love to hear it. There are multiple. For one, the government could slowly phase its way out of the SS business entirely. For another, they can privatize parts of the funds, in relatively low-risk equities like corporate bonds. Raising the FICA cap (not the rate) just makes the tax less regressive anyway, so that's the option I'd prefer. That is the only thing like a tax increase I'd want to see. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) Just realize when you are talking about energy, you are talking about a completely inelastic commodity. Any price increases for the company are passed on to the consumers, pretty much dollar for dollar. If you look at the whole package that has been talked about; windfall profits taxes, cutting subsidies, forcing companies to invest in alternative energy, not allowing drilling in new areas while old ones are depleted, additional oversight costs, etc, those will all reverberate right back to the consumer. And that is precisely why I brought up competition. If multiple firms are competing over new technologies, and there are multiple different technologies available as well, you have two axes of price competition going on. That can help mitigate cost increases from the research being passed on to the consumer.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) From New Mexico??? I'd throw up at the idea of him in office. Why? The guy has been wildly successful. Improved one of the poorest states in the union in education and income, and did it without going into major debt like other states. He's socially moderate, and a keen business guy. He's got foreign policy background, and, he was Clinton's energy secretary. He's also brokered a lot of good deals regarding land use in NM, a big issue in the west. And brought a lot of new business to the state. I realize you wouldn't like any Dem, but, I'd think you'd prefer a fiscal conservative, business-minded guy over the alternatives.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 10:47 AM) Or adjust the subsidies and provide subsidies to the oil companies that go out of there way to invest in finding alternative energy sources. That way you encourage it, while still keeping oil costs down. I understand where you are coming Northside...in that sake that if we let the prices get out of hand, people will stop buying, demand will lessen and naturally we'll basically force the issue for American's to use less energy as well as force people into developing new energy. I just don't think its that simple because the rich would be able to afford to fill up their Escalades (sure some would be hurting) but the poor and lower middle class may not be able to afford to fill there car up to get to work or anything along those lines (I know in cities thats less of an issue due to public transportation). Plus that plan could force major companies that rely on oil/energy to produce things to either increase the costs on there products or to cut costs somewhere (meaning layoffs). Overall I think messing too much with the oil prices could have a major effect on the economy. In this case the best thing to do is find ways to help encourage the development of a 3rd party source while still fighting to keep oil prices down. Using positive reinforcement instead of negative seems on its face to be the way to go. But the problem here is goal alignment. Oil companies, like any other companies, want to make the highest profit possible. They can do that by using existing technologies and infrastructure, for as long as oil is there. Investing in new tech for alternative energies will be more costly, especially at first. Its simply not in their best interests to do it. Normally, the business force that would hold this in check is that other companies would leap at the opportunity to take that chance on alternative energies, and accept the short-run cost and risk. But the oil companies hold the patents. So, that check in the system is nullified in this case. Your answer is to subsidize the oil companies' research. For me, I have two problems with that. One, even if we give them money to research, they will STILL be in no hurry to actually implement anything - because they STILL have no motivation to do so. It would eat into their existing market. So why would they do that? Two, I don't believe its the government's place to be paining profitable private businesses to do anything. Instead, the government's role should be to set a level playing field and allow competition - because that is the one thing that would drive the oil companies to develop these technologies. Create a business environment where competition is allowed, and that competition will result in the best outcome for the consumers. That's a basic GOP principle in regards to business, and I 100% agree with it. So do the same here - level the playing field. Give the oil companies first crack, sure - but if they balk, then open the flood gates.

QUOTE(bmags @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) the dems did need a candi with exec experience. I'm rooting for Richardson on that note.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 10:17 AM) wow vilsak's a moron... i mean yeah he was my governor but... he seriously thinks he'll beat edwards/obama/clinton? the only thing this will do will make it much harder for one of those 3 above to take iowa in the primaries... f***in s*** up... He is a successful governor, in the straw poll state, who is a moderate. That is three big pluses right there. I don't think he'll win the nomination, but I'd say he has a shot at VP.

I agree on raising the FICA cap. As it currently stands, it regressive taxation. Any other raising of taxes should be avoided ike the plague. If the Dems are smart, they'll do that. As for the oil companies, with the profits they are making, I could care less what the subsidies are for. They aren't doing anything serious on alternative energies anyway. If you really want to make the oil companies serious about getting us off some of the non-renewable energy, then you use the federal government's authority to release patent protections in the national interest. Those companies are sitting on patents for many of the most useful alternative energy technologies. Tell them they either get to work producing them, or we'll remove the patent protections and let others do it. QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) I wonder what happens if we remove subsidies. Will the price everyone pay at the pump go up exponentially??? I hope so.

Well, ignoring the fluff around it, and cutting right to the "We.."'s, I like all of them except for fighting privatization of Soc Sec. If they can actually achieve all those things (other than SS), in the next two years, I'll be pretty happy.

International reaction to the elections, for those who care. I'm sure this would only make some people more angry, and others more happy.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) great. lets see an expose on 60 minutes. You might, now that he won.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) many should, it's a legit new story. but i doubt they will, which shows the pathetic state of the news media in the US. Journalists want a juicy story. People will question it, if they haven't already. If you do a search on "Keith Ellison Nation of Islam", you will see that nearly every headline article makes mention of it. And, lo and behold, his ties were explored in more detail in the mainstream press as well.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) But I don't think anything would have done that country good without getting rid of Saddam. That said had I been told they had no weapons of mass destruction I don't think I would have went into Iraq. But we did and now it would be absolutely irrisponsible to cut and run. I still think Saddam had to go though, but if they had no WOMD there probably would have been other ways to do it without going to war. WMD was never, ever the primary reason for going to Iraq. WMD was a public-facing excuse for it, just like the other "reasons" they tried to market after the war went badly (like ousting Saddam, or doing it to somehow save the Iraqis, or because of some non-existent 9/11 connection). They went into Iraq because they wanted to spread Americanism throughout the Middle East, and further, because the hawks like Rummy felt that they needed to have a base for the war on terror. They needed an anchorhead in the Mid-East to do that. Iraq, lead by a maniac and militarily crumbling, was the best possible target for that. Sounds a lot like Imperialism, doesn't it? QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) How were we supposed to know our intelligence was bloody awful? We went in and at that point were comitted, imo. We run and we make a big failure bigger. I'd say differently if I thought the vast majority of the people were against what we've done in Iraq but the vast majority (imo) is glad we are there to help and that country is going in the right direction. Actually, the survey I heard yesterday on the radio (sorry, no link) indicates that the vast majority of Iraqis want the Americans out. So, I'm thinking they aren't too happy.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) I have quite a few good friends that served in Iraq (a couple being West Point Grads) and than a couple being Army guys (out of high school) and the stories I've heard are all resoundingly positive of how much the people appreciate our army and us. I'm sorry but I refuse to let a vast majority ruin my perception of helping out a country. Albeit its still got a long ways to go and we need to find a way to get Iraq far more involved in there own mess, but stuff doesn't happen over night. We also have some family friends that are from Iraq (they had to flea and lost everything at one point during Saddam's reign) and obviously they are biased but they still have some family over there and they've been back to visit and talk about how much better the country is and how so many people are happy. I gotta tell ya, that stands in complete opposition to my experiences. I happen to be close with a journalist for a major paper, who has been there three times now for long periods. My former partner and field-training officer is over there now in his second stint as an MP of sorts. And another friend who flies hornets. The resounding opinion of all involved, and frankly of every non-military piece of journalism I've read from there as well, is that the place is an absolute mess. Way, way worse off than under Saddam.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) We've done a lot of good there and it would be a travesty to just walk away and let it all go for not. I'd like to know, other than putting one man (Saddam) to justice of a sort, what good we have done over there? Considering we've managed to kill off a few percentage points of the population in Iraq (more innocent than not), create civil strife, make the whole region hate us more, kill 3k of our own soldiers, make our country less safe and generally make life for Iraqis worse than it was under Saddam... what is the good news? Mind you, I don't agree with leaving Iraq either, now that we've made such a mess of the place. I just can't see how anything other than Saddam's trial has gone on over there that is remotely positive.

QUOTE(mreye @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) And another thing... a much better organized Democratic party with a clear goal would have won 5 more Senate seats and maybe 15-20 more House seats, IMO. We (Republicans) should be thankful the Democratic party is such a mess right now. I mean look at a lot of the Dems that won - they're more Conservative than their GOP opponents. OK, you lost me on those two points. I'd have to disagree. They weren't going to win many other seats this cycle, in the current environment, and I'd like you to point out a Dem for me that is more conservative than the Republican they beat.

History was made Tuesday... Keith Ellison (D) won Minnesota 05 for the U.S. House. He is the first Muslim ever elected to ANY national office in the U.S. Minnesota certainly has a knack for bringing us some interesting politicians.