NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) Regulations can also create job and small business opportunities. Not when they are still half-baked. As I've said before, the worst case scenario is not over-regulation or under-regulation... it is under-regulation with a whole s***load of apparently over-regulation waiting to go in, and no one really knows what it will mean. And that is the current scenario.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) Of course they aren't... They are exempt from most of the big ones. I agree, the idea that regulatory uncertainty or overhead is killing small business has always been garbage. There are specific industries, like finance and energy, that certainly do have a LOT of large scale regulatory overhauls underway that are half-baked, and those definitely have an effect... but small businesses don't generally do much in those industries.

QUOTE (TitoMB @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) Yes, because the Tribune is a completely accurate representation of the Sox fanbase. Well, a sampling of Trib readers is a lot more broad, and probably a lot more accurate as a representation of the fan base, than the relatively few posters on SoxTalk. I have no problem believing that Sox fans in general are close to 50/50 on Ozzie nowadays.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) Solyndra, a solar-cell maker in California and recipient of over $500m in federally guaranteed loans as well as $1b in private funding, closed its doors an filed for Chapter 11. I realize there will always be a bunch of these startups that fall out, but... this will happen more often now because this country elected to go to war in Iraq instead of getting out in FRONT of these technologies. Now, China and other countries are already producing technology that is better and cheaper. Seems like Solyndra was trying to innovate by promoting a different type of solar cell, but it appears it never presented any technological advantage over existing ones.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 08:01 AM) As a league MVP he almost has to start in Birmingham next year. Is he going to block, or be blocking, anyone? The sox don't have much anywhere in the system as far as 1B prospects, so I don't think blocking is an issue. Unless he goes to another org, he's probably the starting 1B in B-Ham next year, or maybe they even put him in Charlotte.

People have to understand that the typical SoxTalker is not the typical Sox fan. In here, 95% (including me) want Ozzie gone. Out there in Sox Fandom generally, I'd bet it's more like 50/50, and he's more liked the less avid a fan they are. The fans that aren't as into it as this crowd is, they still feel that WS ring from 2005, and they see a team that has been more competitive since then than the Cubs and Sox history before KW, so they are somewhat content. Not saying it makes sense, it just is.

Yeah its hard not to like Axelrod's results, and I always like a pitcher in the minors who gets stronger as the year goes on. Shows a good potential for being able to pitch major league starter innings. Axel's last 4 starts: 26.2 IP, 15 H, 3 ER, 5 BB, 23 K (1.01 ERA, 0.75 WHIP). Also, Kevan Smith with another multi-hit game, dude is still on fire. .472/.548/.889/1.437 in last 10 games.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 10:02 PM) We've been through this before. Who was the last guy to win Carolina League MVP for Winston-Salem? Leo Daigle. Remember David Cook? Generally, they're not prospects, no question. I'm still of the theory of pushing them a bit to give them another shot. What's the harm? Exactly. He's probably Micah Schnurstein, but you never know, so why not push him and see what happens?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 06:57 AM) Republicans doing it in a manner that disparately affects black voters who primarily vote Democrat is a huge problem--why only block it on Sundays which just happens to be when black churches have organized voting drives in the past?. Why the sudden push-back against early voting which just happens to have been a large part of Obama's success in 2008? You misunderstand my statement. Nowhere did I say this wasn't clearly a political game - it is. That's why I feel there should be federal standards. But I also think it is true that reducing early voting days/hours isn't any type of true disenfranchisement, since there are still PLENTY of opportunities to vote, for everyone. Now what does happen, that I would call material disenfranchisement, if things like what happened in Ohio in 2004 when there were clearly far more machines per registered voter in rich districts than poor districts, resulting in people waiting hours in lines or not being able to vote at all. That was material, and awful.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 2, 2011 -> 06:53 AM) Trickle-down economics doesn't actually result in wealth trickling down, it results in wealth accumulation for the very top. Record profits, historically low tax rates, record income and record wealth disparity and the "job creators" still aren't creating jobs. I don't see how cutting their taxes further is going to really have a positive effect for everyone else who will have raised taxes and/or slashed services. And, as Balta and my earlier link pointed out, 40% of Americans don't have a 401k or other investments, and the bottom 60% only see direct benefits of 3% of the tax cut. There's really no way to paint this as anything but a huge tax break for the rich and a tax hike on everyone else. You keep saying this, and yet, you don't know that. Neither do I. You have decided that the math isn't worth doing, and made a sweeping set of assumptions. Now, you may be right on this. But I think you are vastly oversimplifying, and also ignoring some basic realities. And trickle-down economics forhe purpose of income tax doesn't work... but that is not what the cap gain and dividend tax breaks, which is what I was referring to there, are. That is different.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) Easy there NSS, don't get over excited about another NDFA. Just because Remenowsky let you down in AAA doesn't mean you need to replace him yet. Ha ha ha, I knew someone would say something like that. You make me sound like a serial dater of some kind. And I'm in no way down on Rem yet anyway, let's see how he does in AAA in 2012. He may also show up in AFL. But I do always have a soft spot for against-the-odds guys.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 05:44 PM) If he could rake as you say he would not be 26 in A ball still, lets get real here. Probably. You have to think about prospects in percentages, there are no absolutes. He may have, MAY have, figured it out. The test is to put him in AA or even AAA in 2012 and see what happens. If he continues to put up numbers like that, and if he shows some plate discipline, then it may be time to take him seriously.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) The Republican War on (Certain Kinds of) Voting To me, national elections and making sure everyone gets reasonably easy access to voting is a clearly and inherently national/federal issue. So I'd be in favor of national standards for how elections are held, more so than are currently present. That all said, I am not sure that curtailing the number of days and hours of early voting - a practice that nary existed not that long ago - is some huge problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) The tax policy center scored several of the thought exercises in Simpson-Bowles, which is where most of these proposals appear to be lifted from. On eliminating cap and dividend taxes the breaks go almost exclusively to the top quintile and then overwhelmingly to the top 1%. How much of this plan being "revenue-neutral" is based on really bad Laffer Curve assumptions that 'tax cuts always pay for themselves'? Not that I necessarily agree with it, I don't know yet, but keep in mind that the cap gains and dividend breaks predominantly help the wealthy only in the most direct sense. I don't know a number, but I am 100% sure that anyone looking for a job and anyone with a 401k or other investments would be helped at least SOMEWHAT by the positive effect that would have on corporate sheets and equity markets. No doubt in my mind. I just don't know how MUCH effect it would be.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 05:39 PM) I have a real hard time blaming KW for the production of Dunn and the injury to Peavy. I agree. But Rios was a risk and he is paying the price, and the Jackson/Hudson deal was bad from the start. I definitely blame him for that. And the Teahen extension. And the poor situation on the farm, though there are outside factors there. I personally feel its pretty clear that Ozzie is more at fault here than KW, but that doesn't mean Kenny doesn't share some of the blame.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) I don't even know what the point of your post was. I even posted an article explaining exactly how people come to have a zero or negative federal income tax burden a few posts before. We were discussing Huntsman's plan and its impact. It would eliminate those credits that allow for zero or negative FIT burdens while cutting upper brackets, capital gains, dividends and corporate taxes heavily. I posted data showing that those last three cuts will go almost entirely to the wealthy and not at all to the bottom 40%, and explained how the whole plan would result in a massive tax increase for low and middle income America and a giant tax break for the very top. What, exactly, did pointing out that the bottom 40% have a negative FIT rate accomplish? As my reading has so far revealed, this is at least not entirely true. Nor is it true that EIC is the only thing to give lower incomes a zero or negative tax rate. More later.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) That "zero line" exists because of the EITC. The lowest marginal rate is 10%. This would essentially result in a huge tax hike on 90% of Americans while giving huge tax cuts to the top 10%. Hm, perhaps I am misunderstanding that aspect of the tax code. And Huntsmann's plan. I'll have to take a look.

bozzie- Read carefully. We don't start new threads every time you want to bash Ozzie, or Kenny, when there are already a myriad of threads on those topics to choose from. So I have yet again merged some. Stop making a new thread every time you have a new post. Check first to see if there is a thread already there on-topic, and use it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) For those who still think he's a moderate, Ambassador Huntsman released his tax policy document yesterday. Basically, it takes a lot of the "Deficit commission" disaster recommendations from last year. Some of the highlights: 3 tax rates, 23, 14, and 8%. The highest tier is 23%, amounting to an income tax cut of ~1/3 on the highest bracket. Elimination of capital gains taxes and taxes on income from dividends. Pays for that by getting rid of "Tax expenditures". Pretty much all of them. The employer healthcare deduction, the earned income tax credit, tax credits for education and child care are gone, all Social Security income becomes taxable, Veterans and disability benefits are taxed, etc. Also, what is your definition of a moderate? I think there are two "ways" one can be a moderate, and they are sometimes used interchangeably. One is a person who is in the "middle" on issues, which is to say a moderate on each and every issue. Another is that some of their views are right-leaning, others left-leaning. That latter description fits me, and I think a lot of people, whereas the former becomes more rare the more issues you include. Huntsmann is middle-ish on some issues, but really he is an amalgam of right and left leaning views, more right than left.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) Since the only rates that are being cut are the top tier rates, the removal of all the tax credits hits everyone who isnt' a high earner, while the drop in the rates passes the buck to anyone who used to be in the 35% tax class. And since Dividend income is no longer taxed at all, the effective rate on heavy investors would be much lower. Edit: Eliminating the EITC, for example, would be a substantial tax increase on families who earn under 50k per year, with the increase in taxes getting larger as income decreases. Increase of literally $2k in a lot of cases. Clearly the effective impact of cap gains and dividend taxes is biggest on high earners, no argument there. But I am not sure you are right about the effective increases on low earners either. You eliminate the EITC, but the brackets that use that (low to middle income) are either already in a zero bracket (and still would be), or have a lower overall rate. The devil is in the details here. For zero fed income tax payers, this is a non-event. But above that zero line (or if the zero line has moved), what was the effective rate after various levels of special deductions and credits, versus the gain in the overall rate being lowered. This cannot be anwered in any sweeping way, it would take time and math to put together some sample slices.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) For those who still think he's a moderate, Ambassador Huntsman released his tax policy document yesterday. Basically, it takes a lot of the "Deficit commission" disaster recommendations from last year. Some of the highlights: 3 tax rates, 23, 14, and 8%. The highest tier is 23%, amounting to an income tax cut of ~1/3 on the highest bracket. Elimination of capital gains taxes and taxes on income from dividends. Pays for that by getting rid of "Tax expenditures". Pretty much all of them. The employer healthcare deduction, the earned income tax credit, tax credits for education and child care are gone, all Social Security income becomes taxable, Veterans and disability benefits are taxed, etc. So he is favoring getting rid of individual tax breaks, in exchange for lowering overall rates and simplifying the system. I don't think that's the worst idea ever. But I am only OK with it if the effective tax reductions for lower and middle incomes are at least on par with those at the higher levels in the new scheme.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) For the love of god, let our next GM pick his own manager. If Reinsdorf hires LaRussa and promotes Hahn, then there's a high probability of organizational dysfunction in the near future. After all the KW/Ozzie bulls***, isn't this something we'd like to avoid? You mean like when KW hired Ozzie? Because that's what happened.

QUOTE (SoIL @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) Did you ever see Ozzie play as a White Sox? Apparently not often. The one thing Ozzie was always well above average at was defense at SS. Pre-knee injury, he was among the best at his position on defense. But most everything else he said is spot-on, he was a below average hitter, and despite some speed was a below average base stealer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) Really, you want to tell me that spending money on a tank is better for the economy than spending money on 100 teachers? Or on a road? Rail line, whatever? I've pointed out before... We have spent about $1T on the Iraq war, but itself. $1T that also killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with zero payoff. We could have spent that same $1T, over a 10 year span, and according to at least one study I've read, be very close to energy independent as a nation. Someone want to try to tell me, with a straight face, that the Iraq War was a better use of a trillion dollars than making the US energy independent (and largely on sustainable energy sources)?

Who is this Jason Van Skike? Looks a 22-year-old NDFA, put up some flashy peripherals in Bristol, then was promoted all the way to W-S. What's really interesting to me is, aside from striking out a lot of guys and walking few, he also had a very high GO/AO rate. Most of the time the high-K guys don't get as many ground balls.