NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 07:26 PM) I have respect for tax and spend politicians and respect for don't spend and cut taxes politicians. The spend and don't tax is our ruin. We have lost the connection of why we pay taxes, and that is to pay for our government. Sadly, if anyone in media would report that, they would be labeled as liberally biased, and if a judge somehow showed it was unconstutional to spend more than the revenue, they would be labeled as activist judges. I think this is right on - I can respect the economic policies of people up and down the spectrum (as far as amount of government spending), as long as they balance the budget. The current Congress has overspent, although they have made strides to reign it in recently (thanks in part to pressure from Bush). Deficit spending contributes positively to GDP in a vacuum, but of course there is a backlash. The money spent that isn't earned, is debt. That debt has cost - interest expenses, and further, opportunity cost. And contributing to the national debt has a negative effect on the strength of our international economic power, which just furthers the trade deficit. Ultimately, that means fewer jobs and less revenue in international trade for the U.S. Deficit spending is not free.

To see why we leapt out of the 2001-2003 recession so quickly, you have to look at many factors. Taxes is one part of the picture. The housing boom, as discussed earlier, also played a part. So did interest rates, and a drive by American companies to profits by outsourcing, etc. But honestly, I cannot see how anyone can point to any ONE of those factors and say it was THE reason for economic upturn, or even THE reason for increase in tax receipts. The relationship Nuke tried to illustrate is a correlation - not necessarily causation. And besides, amounts collected via tax receipts is not a reliable measure of economic strength, since it involves such a complex set of rules and variables to derive the end result. From what I have seen, I feel that the housing market was the single biggest factor, followed by monetary policy (interest rates), then tax changes, then a smattering of smaller effects. And one other thing to note - all those factors that caused the upturn also have a negative side to them. Housing boom caused a bubble (at least in some locales)... lowering of interest rates caused a rise in dangerous high-risk mortgaging strategies... changes to the tax structure caused a further split between haves and have-nots. There are always reactions to these things, not all positive. No economic trend is 100% positive - ever.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Budget deficits are a problem caused by government spending too much. To say that the tax cuts are causing the deficit is a discredited argument. One of my biggest issues with the Republican leadership in Congress is that they have made no effort whatsoever to rein in spending. The only reason the deficit is falling is that the increase in tax revenues are outpacing the increases in spending. Despite this you still have backwards idiots like Pelosi and Rangel running off at the mouth at how evil the tax cuts are. The only reason these 2 have any credibility is because their partisan class warfare bulls*** resonates well with their core constituencies ( socialists, poor people and anyone else who produces nothing and has their hand out ). The Bush economy has proven for the 3d time ( Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush ) that tax cuts work, yet the left still clings to their marxist, wealth redistribution rhetoric. When will they ever learn? Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the top marginal tax rate north of 75% still when Carter was in office? Also, if Im not mistaken, the Clinton tax hikes in 1993 only raised the top rate to something like 35%, if memory serves that was a mere 5% hike. 1. Budget deficits occur when spending outpaces tax income. Therefore, by definition, it is neither caused by tax cuts nor overspending - it is the combination of the two. How can one discredit logic? 2. I am not sure where this supposed Marxist rhetoric is coming from... Pelosi just said the other day she wants pay-as-go. I am not sure I believe it will happen, but, the only person spewing rhetoric about wealth redistribution seems to be you.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) And that is my problem with this whole thing in a nutshell. Kim Jong Il sets off what he calls a nuclear device, and we are the ones who have to do something about it, without further antagonizing the situation. That is just insane. The guy threatens the his neighbors, shoots missles over other countries, and then threatens war when that same country doesn't want to trade with him anymore... Yet we are the ones who have to not make it any worse. Geesh. To be fair, his neighbors ARE doing something about it. A lot, actually. Japan has changed policy, is doing their own embargo and trade sanctions independently, and are talking about military changes. South Korea, of course, is doing all sorts of things. China called for penalties and has volunteered to cut off certain supplies... although they have been less aggresive in that vein than other regional nations. Ultimately, being their biggest neighbor and being on the security council, I am sure China will have as much input in the UN process as anyone.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) Not volunteering, actually collecting a check. Um... honestly, I didn't even realize that was an option.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) Hey, that's my job. Have you thought about working for the Boy Scouts? I have. I was sort of thinking I'd do that when I had kids. Maybe coach little league as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 08:06 PM) BS. I don't beleive that, but I think they wanted people to think that. As many are suggesting, why would Bush INTENTIONALLY let NK do what they are doing? He wouldn't - anymore than Clinton did. This is both the key difference and the reason for my previous post. Its true that Bush and Clinton took different tacks on the situation - and neither were successful. Also, neither were individually responsible for the situation at hand. If I had to say which was more to blame between those two... I'd go with Clinton. If someone asked. But instead of asking, you immediately labeled the article Bush-bashing and made it sound like everyone here was blaming Bush for this mess. No one here did such a thing. The article simply tried to refute McCain's insinuation that it was Clinton's fault. That was the reason for my post. I really hope that one of the candidates or President in 2008 has the courage to stand up and do something OTHER than take one gutter or the other on the Iraq debate. Blindly supporting the failed policies under Bush is as mindless as screaming "we must leave now!" in the face of all logic. Yeah, the U.S. screwed the pooch royally in Iraq. No, we cannot leave, unless we want utter chaos in the Middle East. We're in it now for the long haul.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 04:21 PM) Holy crap, republican incumbent Jim Leach trails by a point in Iowa's second. A seat that was expected to be safely republican... Where did you find that poll?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) In the 1970's, India was seen as allying with the Soviet Union generally. Pakistan was vascillating between east and west, depending on who was in power. I'm not sure I agree with that. The U.S. was pulling Pakistan towards the west because they figured out that India wasn't going to side one way OR the other. They were going to use their strategic position to get as much technology, military and otherwise, from both sides as possible. And they did it. In fact, I've read at least one book that made a pretty good case that this exact tactic resulted in helping their 2-decade tech boom along greatly. The U.S. relationship with India and Pakistan was sort of a specialty of mine in the foreign policy portions of my undergraduate studies.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) If you want to say that the NK test is a failure on Bush's part, that is fine. John McCain is saying there is plenty of history to go around, along with plenty of blame. If you are going to blame the Bush administration for that, I guess you are willing to call Clinton's policies a failure because both Pakistan and India managed to go nuclear on his watch, right? No a nuclear NK isn't in our, nor anyone elses, interests. But neither is propping up a murderous regime, which you can damned well bet that Bush would get blamed for if he built them a light water reactor, that was converted under the next President's administration and used to go nuclear at that time instead. It would be his fault for appeasement is exactly what we would hear. I happen to believe this history in NK of not negotiating in good faith is a pretty damned good thing to remember when people are wanting us to give them stuff in exchange for not blowing up the world. I truely believe even if we had bribed them, they would have still found a reason to go nuclear. They have a history of trying to join the nuclear club, why would we believe them now, or ever, when they say otherwise? Just to clarify... India joined the nuclear club in the 1970's. And frankly, I don't think we cared enough about India one way or the other then to have done much about it. India was too busy straddling the East/West line during the Cold War to be pushed away from the Nuclear table.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) It's ALWAYS George W. Bush's fault. And anytime anyone dares criticize Bush, his administration or anyone in the GOP, even if its an op ed writer, its liberal media bias. This righteous indignance s*** is getting on my nerves. The article is bringing up specific counterpoints in a quote by John McCain... and your response is to instantly dismiss the entire article by turning Bush into a victim. I call B.S. If the GOP is so interested in personal responsibility, and if they really want to make some political ground, then I wish they'd quit the with the victim mentality. Screaming "liberal bias" every time something critical comes up only works for so long. Find a new line. EDIT: Oh yeah, and before I hear it... the Dems need to find something better to do than vilify Bush. He's pretty much dead and buried now anyway, and will be an unpopular lame duck in 2 months (and probably facing a split Congress). Time to move on to policy, and setting up themes for 2008. Quit with the "we were in the dark about Iraq" B.S. too - the writing was on the wall before the shooting started.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) When do they let the ST holders do it? I'm not sure. Someone actually posted a link to the story here though, I think, last year some time.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) The rights that police have were given to them, through our legislative process. I don't see a reason to treat cameras the same as a police officer. While I accept that a live person can be there and observe, I draw the line at being recorded on camera in a public place. So you are OK with a cop on the corner, but not a camera? I don't get that. And again, when it comes to standing there observing things, a police officer has no more authority or right to that action than any other citizen - by design.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:56 AM) Ive never heard that. Would be fun. Brewers do it. Not sure who else, but I think there are others.

I'd pay to take BP on the field. Some teams do that as a benny for season ticket holders.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Under current lawsyou do not. I do not wish to live in a society where we are under constant 24/7 survelience. I have not committed a crime and do not wish to be treated like a criminal. I think it is creepy that the government wants to watch me anytime I am in public. That was my point. I don't want on on every corner either. But you also cannot force warrants for targeted, plain sight surveillance because its already legally acceptable - in the form of police officers. The reason for that, by the way, is that police have the same legal ability to observe things in plain view that any other citizen can. You cannot take that away from the police and not regular citizens. Police officers and other citizens are intended to be on an even playing field in that sense.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) I dont see why this is a big deal. The minute you walk into any establishment you are under constant survelliance. Go to Europe, where they already have some of this type of survelliance up already. If it can save lives and help solve crimes go for it. Someone else's establishment is a private business, and they can do whatever they want. That is different than public spaces. I think most people are OK with it in general... its just a question of how far is too far. To me, one on "every corner" is way, way too far. Continuing the police analogy... having a cop on every corner would probably reduce crime, but it also means we live in a police state (i.e. Israel), and I am not sure I'm comfortable with that.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) That's the first time I have hearg that analogy, and I like it. I've never been a fan of any cameras, but that has me thinking that in a specific place, for a specific reason, based on a specific need, with a specific time frame, and perhaps appoved like a search warrant, I could see agreeing it is a good thing. If its a public space, you don't need a search warrant. Police don't need a warrant to patrol and observe what goes on in plain sight. But otherwise, yes, I agree - specific use of cameras for targeted observation and enforcement are OK by me.

I think its getting excessive. I am OK with targeted enforcement with a camera, because its no different than cops on patrol in terms of intrusion (targeted meaning specific high crime areas, or intersections with a lot of accidents and school zones for traffic enforcement). But to attempt to blanket the city in cameras is no longer analogous to police patrol - its too far.

500k is not exactly a "drop in the bucket", even for the White Sox. Half a percent of payroll for 3 years is a worth a lot more to any business than "spitting in Lake Michigan". Its a significant marketing deal. Think about it as a business decision... someone will pay you .5% of your firm's payroll in exchange for something that has essentially zero downside or negative impact. No extra work to be done, no change to your revenue streams, no differential cost. Why would you not do that?

QUOTE(mreye @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) I'm just pointing out that you and NS have a comment about almost everything posted in here and it's usually a counterpoint. Maybe that's how the "Dems Only" thread goes too. I don't know. I don't go in there. I just think it's counter to what this thread was originally intended to be. Again, maybe I misunderstood. My post before the one you replied to was actually a favorable response, not a counterpoint. But, you are correct, I am not a Republican. Of course, I'm not really a Democrat either. I guess I'll go swim around by myself in the Indie thread. Except that one seems to have disappeared!

POTUS. Or play ML baseball (duh). If those don't work out, and money was no concern... I'd start or run a business bringing urban or disadvantaged youth out into the wilderness. Or something along those lines.

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 03:14 PM) This is so retarded.... White Sox.com Link Because...

I'm actually going to counterpoint myself here... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15215574/ Estimating the actual death toll in Iraq is of course difficult. The numbers used from reliable media reports is more like 50k. But then, only a fraction of the deaths will actually be reported. But what fraction? This study used other methods, which may also have material bias. So, just to be clear... the number may not be 655k. It may be 200k, or 400k, or 800k. Hard to tell. But logic, and looking at the way the various stats are derived, put it into the hundreds of thousands in any case. My reason for posting the article wasn't the specific number - it was the generally large amounts of human destruction. Just to be clear.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) So are we going to send more over to help out? Nuke, would you be in line to go back? And that right there is the crux, and what makes me sad when I think of the monstrous mistake we made in Iraq. The realities are that it will take 10 years, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, tens of thousands of American and British soldiers' lives, and trillions upon trillions of dollars to build a stable Iraq. And this was all done because the hawks in the current Administration decided it was worth that toll to set up that anchorhead. There is just one problem - the American public has caught on to the fact that they were sold a false bill of goods (saying this was about terrorists or 9/11 or WMD or Saddam, or that it would be no long term commitment). And their reaction is becoming more and more that they do not have the will to put in that price for what it turned out to be. So what happens when the public overwhelmingly says, its time to go? Even though all indications are that leaving will create a power vacuum and leave the region much worse off than before this all started? There is no happy ending to this.