NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) Well, AirTran just added a flight that I needed. That will save me at least $100, provided it doesn't go down further/another cheaper flight pops up. Memphis (my current location, getting tix from MEM to CHI) has the highest traffic airport in the USA yet no passenger air options. The fact that there aren't nonstops from Memphis to Chicago seems asinine. Rumor has it Southwest will be expanding here at some point, which should really help. Lots of Memphians drive to Little Rock to fly, but that won't be an option for my girlfriend. Thanks for the tips guys, it looks like just waiting for the weekend to end before looking has already helped. By what measure is Memphis the highest traffic airport? Certainly not for passenger flights. It is a busy airport primarily because of the FedEx hub, so... unless you want to ship yourself via FedEx, that doesn't help you much. I lived in Memphis for a few years. Back then, there were three airlines running non-stops to Chicago: American, United and Northwest (which is now part of Delta). Northwest had a hub in Memphis. Are you saying no one does that route non-stop now? That would be really hard to believe. EDIT: I just looked. At least three airlines run it non-stop now; American, Delta and United. So I am not sure where you are getting the idea no one does that non-stop. The Southwest rumors have been around for at least a decade. Maybe now that Northwest is no longer, it will actually happen.

QUOTE (kevo880 @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) Where are Nestor Molina and Simon Castro sitting these days? Between 10-15? Molina was disappointing in 2012, not just in basic results but he also had health issues, and his peripherals indicated some issues. That's not to say it is time to write him off, but, I wouldn't put him top 10 either. 10-20 somewhere, probably above 15. Castro is a guy I think could make a case to crack that top 10 list, just as easily as a couple of the last guys on it.

I think people might be overstating what kind of money he's going to get. Everyone in baseball knows the risks with a guy like this, not to mention his body is effectively a lot older than 32. I'd be surprised if he got more than 3 or 4 years, and I'd bet on 3 over 4. The money might be pretty big, but I'm thinking more like $15M per.

QUOTE (southside_hitman @ Nov 12, 2012 -> 05:32 AM) Chase Headley solves the third base dilemma and provides the Left Hand power that could be lost when Dunn gets moved. I would offer to trade Peavey back to SD and package Thornton and Beckham with him. On another front I would try to trade Dunn to some National league ball club with the goal of dumping most of his salary. Thorton must be traded on principle alone. Too many blown saves and his refusal to adjust his pitching style, And one shocker I would offer up for trade - Addison Reed. I think Nate Jones has better stuff and Reed may bring the trade value that other pitchers we have won't. Welcome to the board! I actually somewhat agree with you on Reed. I'd trade him for the right price, and I could see Jones being just as good as Reed if not better.

First, when you do your initial search, use a good comparison engine like kayak.com. But then also check Southwest seperately, because they don't use the Sabre system that the others do, so they won't show up in ths searches. Once you have those two searched, that is your baseline. Next thing you can do too, is set email alerts for your search - so it can tell you when the price goes down. Kayak does this, so do other sites. Priceline is a good last-ditch option, but bear in mind you won't be able to have much choice about times or connections. You have to be willing to fly any time on that given day, in order to place a bid. And you can specify whether or not you want 1 connection, or allow more than one... but you cannot specify none. I used Priceline once, a long time ago... was trying to get a flight from Chicago to Seattle. Well, I got it, for a really cheap price... with a connection if frigging Atlanta. Chicago-Atlanta-SeaTac. I was flying aaaaaaalllllll day. Just be aware, that can happen. And make sure you consider the fees too. Southwest doesn't charge for baggage (up to two checked bags, and the usual 1.5 caarry-ons). All major network airlines charge for checked bags, unless you are in an elite status with them. And then there are airlines like Spirit who charge fees for carry-ons, checked bags, all food and drink, showing up to the gate late, and breathing too loudly.

QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 10, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) Whoever found out that this woman might have access to his email. Apparently affairs for the CIA is serious s***. For so many reasons.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) If there a large increase in taxes, individuals should be the best financial decisions for them and their family, which would be to sell their holdings and lock in their gains in the 2012 calendar year. Plus they will probably be able to buy back their holdings later at a cheaper rate. They should absolutely do it. The fall and rise would be their own then, and therefore flatten everything gains-wise as a group. They will do the only smart thing. If they have gains to lock in, stuff they think they were only going to hold another few days/weeks/months anyway, then they will sell before EOY. They will not sell massively and then try to play the game if buying right back in, because they know there is a significant chance they lose money trying. That is what is best for them, and that is what most will do. Furthermore, the money they get from selling the select securities early, they will reinvest in 2013 pretty quickly, not because they are trying to time the dip, but because they don't want the money to do nothing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:41 AM) It is the economic right to do what they want with their money. I know in your world that doesn't exist, but in mine it does. THere is a difference between their right (which they have), and you saying earlier that they SHOULD do it. I can do lots of things that are sleazy. But none of this matters, because they won't, not in the long run. And not over a relatively small increase.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) They should crash it. They shouldn't be held hostage to someone who wants to take their money. Held hostage? Seriously, let's get with reality. The cap gains rate that it would revert to is 30%, which was the same tax rate that was in place during the huge 90's run-ups. These guys aren't going to take their ball and go home. They will book some gains late this year, then reinvest in the new year when the fiscal situation is addressed more long term. Now, I don't want that to happen, by the way - I would rather they get something done quickly to avoid the cliff. Something easier in the lame duck session - say, 3 months or same tax rates, with a few further cuts, but let the Bush cuts expire on top income, or somethign like that. Then re-do the whole thing in the first few months of the new year, in a cleaner way. And I am OK with a small increase in cap gains and/or dividend rates being part of the long term picture, especially for larger incomes. BUT, even if we hit 30% on cap gains and dividends, this will not result in some sort of meltdown. Actually, the thing that most bothers me about Obama's apparent proposal on these rates, is making cap gains so much lower than dividends. I think that ends up pusing companies to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, and it discourages investing in dividend-producing stocks, which furthers the problem of stock bubbles.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:17 AM) It doesn't have to pass. All that has to happen is the tax cuts expire. And you also seem to be missing that because of where wealth is concentrated, it will affect a much larger percentage of people who hold assets in the market. The large investors will be the ones who are selling. These are the same investors who have the ability to move the market. The same people who have already moved the market down about 5% in two days. Tax cuts expiring makes all Cap Gains at the Bush-era levels. Not 40%. Of course there is larger concentration at the top. But what I think you are missing is, those investors will sell short term, and re-buy long term, because those people still make their money from the markets. The money will go somewhere, and not in their mattresses. The very people that tax would hit, are the very people who most need the markets to rise for their income. Now at some level, sure, that tax gets silly. If you make it 75%, or even 50%, it starts to get much more tempting for those folks to use money in non-standard avenues, often overseas. But going, say, back to the 25% rate it was a while back, or 30% more recently? Not going to be a giant impact at all, in the long run.

I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence... 1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here. 2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder. 3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective. 4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose). I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) The census agency estimates that 50 out of 1000 black women ends up having abortions, or about three and a half times the rate of white kids. If the parties stances were reversed in this case, it would be presented very differently. You're off in la-la land here. And I don't think I've ever said anything like that to you before. Seriously, this is absurd.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) The top dividend rate would go to almost 44%. Capital gains on the top end would be near 24%. Both of those numbers come from the Presidents proposed numbers, plus the new taxes coming into effect from the healthcare plan. OK, did some Googling... from what I can see, there is a proposal being floated to tie dividend income to the regular income scale. So, if I'm right in my analysis of this... the rate would stay 15% for DIVIDENDS up to a level of about $37k, then start rising through a 25% to 39% scale beyond that. So this tax would only occur if your dividends are more than $37,000 per year. It only effects a tiny percentage of investors, in other words. And an even tinier percentage would actually have any significant amount be above that point. That said... as I said earlier, that won't pass, at least not as written. It is a starting point, just as Boehner saying no rate increases, is really a starting point. The idea here, of course, is to avoid having people who live off investments getting to pay much lower rates than those who make much less money. And in general I agree with that, though you have to be careful how you execute it. And even if something LIKE this got passed, because it effects so few people, and because those investors will still invest, it won't have a huge long term impact on the markets.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) It depends on where they put long term dividends and stock profits at. If they push them to near 40% as has been talked about, you will see a massive amount of selling before the plan goes into place. You'll see the money trickle back in, but it will be over years, and not days/weeks, like you will see it leave. 40%? Well yeah, that would of course first-of-all cause a massive short term sell-off to lock in gains. And it would do significant damage long term in the markets. But no one is talking about that, at all. I don't know where you are getting that number. I think it is likely that we will see some sort of an income-tested raise in the gains tax... something like, stays at 15% up to a certain amount of realized gains from non-retirement funds, but goes to 20% above some amount. There is zero chance anyone in the White House, Senate or US House is going to even consider making it 40%.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:36 AM) I've always felt that if the parties were reversed on this issue, it would be called genocide with how much more abortion is used by minorities. what? I can't figure out the connections you are trying to make here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 08:14 AM) They can go over the "cliff" and then fix things the next day (or week or month) without catastrophic results. The CBO's estimated impact is assuming that the issue isn't addressed at all next year. It's a gradual slide, not a cliff. And again, you are missing the point. First, he was asking about the MARKETS, which would have tumbled many days before the actual deadline if nothing is done. And may not recover for a while, depending on what is done when. Second, if they trip overthemselves during the early stages, they won't have much confidence in how they would handle the bigger changes, which would do even more damage in the markets long term.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 07:56 AM) He's not a very good fielder, he's fragile and he's not young. Obviously you don't move him without a replacement, but he's not very good either, to be honest. Wait... is this post about De Aza? Seriously? He's 28, just entering his peak years... he's got a number of Arb years left... he played a good (not great) CF, which is something hard to find, especially for the Sox... he put up a .349 OBP despite having some back issues near the end of the season... he's got speed... and he showed a little power, almost reaching double digits in HR. What else do you want from your CF? The injuries are a concern, I don't disagree there. Other than that, I don't see anything that makes sense in your post.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 06:45 AM) I moved my TSP money out of the markets a few months ago and now I need to figure out when to move it back in. How long does everybody think the post-election swoon goes before things correct? Talking with folks doing the trading, while there is some fear about higher taxes being a drag, the biggest factor is still the fiscal cliff. Until Congress and the President do something material to avoid it, the markets will stay down a bit. If you are a long term investor, I wouldn't pull any money out of the markets at all right now. They've already corrected down anyway, and where they go from here in the short run is a big guessing game. Long run, they'll make some fixes because they have to, so you'll end up back up again. Therefore, again if you are a long term investor, pulling out now is probably not smart. Most people don't win that guessing game. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 07:39 AM) Until the tax situation gets fixed long term. And without it being a huge hit to people's bottom line. I think that certainly is a factor, but I don't get the impression that targeted tax increases are going to cause any serious problems for the markets. If they can just come up with SOME type of plan to avoid the cliff, that will help things a fair amount. Then do the big work early next year. The two big problematic factors would be if... 1. They go over the cliff or 2. They kick the can down the road too far - like a year or something. That will constrict the markets and continue to add to the uncertainty.

1. Abortions very late as was used illustratively earlier, are illegal everywhere. 2. The current timeframe used where abortion is legal, is typically determined by the very outside of the range of ability to survive outside the womb. About 4-5 months, as I recall. The laws are not generally based on measures of how "human" it is. 3. There is a problematic piece of that puzzle. As medical science advances, it may eventually reach a point where a fetus can be kept alive outside of the mother at a very early age. That may complicate things down the road. Continue.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) There are reports that Clinton, Holder and Geithner will be leaving Obama cabinet.. Really? reports where?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) You don't get it. At all. I u

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 10:50 AM) I know much hubbub has been made about lack of attendance for this team, but I would imagine in just about any other city, a team that sat in first for 120+ games in a year where "Appreciate the Game" was the marketing campaign, prices would stay put or even increase. I wonder how much the Red Line closure contributed to the price reductions. Brooks Boyer mentioned in the blogger call that the Red Line closure was indeed a factor in their decision. But I got the impression it wasn't the primary factor.

The reactions to the election from the far-right, such as the Tea Party groups and Christian Coalition hardliners, are hilarious. They actually think Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Complete denial of reality. It is almost sad to watch. I can fully understand people's policy positions, even if they are further right than mine (by a little or a lot). But at some point, if the GOP wants to make changes, they need to deal with the obvious schism occurring in their party. They need to deal with the fact that the Tea Party types - who initially started as libertarian-like but quickly became just extra-angry right wingers - is falling back from being a party base to being an interest group. They can't have that be their platform keys anymore.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) I see where Tekotte is on the 40 man roster, can't remember if Kloess was or not. I believe Kloess was not, but he probably would have needed to be in 2013.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) unlikely. after Clinton won his second term it was supposed to be 30 years of Democrats controlling the house, senate, and oval office. didn't work out that way. if the GOP plays it right, they can win again. sure they can, that was kind of my point. They have to change - so they will. QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:29 PM) I believe after a weak recovery we're in for another recession in '13-'14. I would have preferred not to have a lame-duck President in office over the next four years. And your reasoning for this is... Only thing I see likely to cause that is if we go over the fiscal cliff.