NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Art Vandelay @ May 17, 2011 -> 09:16 PM) Ok people, here's my scenario... I had a phone screen interview with Company A on Monday that I thought went very well. The recruiter and I really hit it off, and she is going to get back to me later this week after discussing me to the local hiring manager to let me know if they want me to come in for an in-person interview next week. Here's my problem. I have an in-person interview on Thursday this week with Company B. And I think based on a conversation that I already had with the hiring manager and HR that there is a good chance I will be getting a job offer. I would really like to interview with the Company A too though, but I don't yet know if that will even happen. If it does, it could mean more money and possibly a better position than Company B. What do you do in this situation? Is there really some way I could get Company B to give me time to think it over while I go and interview with Company A? Mind you, I have been out of work since April last year, so I really don't need to be turning down job offers right now but of course, I want to give myself the best opportunity. I also don't think it would be very wise to tell Company B that I also have an interview planned with Company A. Thoughts? Start by telling Company A (in a professional, careful way) that you do have another company you are interviewing with. Tell them you really like them (A), so you are very excited about continuing the process with them. This may help them speed up things on their end, and allow you to be in a position to have possibly two offers around the same time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 18, 2011 -> 07:40 AM) The problem is that the more often he has played, the less he has produced. IMO he has utilityman written all over him. Yeah but in his case they could only fit "utility m..."

QUOTE (WHITESOXRANDY @ May 17, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) I would offer the entire White Sox farm system for Strasburg. But, Washington isn't that stupid. Fortunately, neither is KW.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 17, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) And considering the fact that we have absolutely no time to waste to improve this team and get back into the race, the move to improve the club should be made as soon as possible. That move could've been made today with a necessary call-up. We don't have the time to screw around like we are. Still don't see the relationship. Its not like Dallas and Dayan would be sharing a ride up to Chicago or something. The roster moves have no depedency on each other.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) I'm upset about both of those things. I'd like to see all of the correct moves made. And you're simplifying it by saying that this is just about somebody taking Teahen's spot for 10 days. I don't see it that way. As I said, I would like to see this as the chance to get Viciedo onto the major league team in order to begin his replacement of Pierre. I guess I see this as a much larger opportunity than you do. For you and others, it seems to be just a little blip on the radar. For me, it was the golden opportunity to bring up our most talented minor league hitter to replace the major league's worst player. I see the same opportunity, I just think its unrelated. Dallas subbing for Teahen makes perfect sense to me. So does getting rid of Pierre and replacing with Viciedo.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) No, because this move should bring Viciedo to the starting lineup to replace Pierre. But because Ozzie refuses to do the correct thing, everyone else is an idiot because they want Viciedo up. I don't understand what you guys don't get. I see your points. Viciedo shouldn't be called up because he'd just ride the bench. That much is clear and it's been said a thousand times in 5 pages of this thread. We're (I'm) upset because the fact that Viciedo would ride the bench is the incorrect move. I agree that, at this point, its time to walk away from Pierre, call up Viciedo for OF. But that is not what we are talking about here - we are talking about what to do with Teahen's slot for 10 days, which is pretty much unrelated to Pierre/Viciedo. Do you get upset about McPherson being there but Pena not being released? No, you just get frurstrated with Pena not being released period.

This thread is LOLeriffic. Seriously... the Sox are calling a guy up who might, maybe, start once or twice over a 10 game span, and then Teahen is back. And you want a guy who plays multiple positions comfortably. Do people here really think it would be a good idea to call up Viciedo - who has a hot hand with the bat right now - take him out of his rhythm to sit on the bench for 10 days so that he can get 5 at bats, playing positions he doesn't play well? This thread is right up there near the top of SoxTalk overreactions. If Viciedo comes up, it should be to replace Pierre. This call up calls for a veteran scrub sub, which Viciedo is not. This was the only intelligent move to make.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:24 AM) Oh, ok, so it's even worse, there's no "mandatory" part left to it except for covering scheduled benefits. So we still spend $30 trillion extra to meet current obligations, but then we cut off Social Security completely for some portion of the population, and then we discover to our horror that once we made Social Security "elective", 2/3 of the people in the country didn't invest in it at all, hit retirement age with nothing, and wind up being supported by the government anyway. The reason that the program actually works is exactly what you said in your last post. It covers everyone. It's a baseline. Everyone pays the same rate and everyone is invested in the program. Individual mistakes can't screw it up. It's simple, functional, and even if you screw everything else up in your life, by the time you hit OASDI, you are not out on the street. Pretending that you can extract savings by making social security optional is just silly, because you should know exactly what will happen. People will fail to invest in it or they'll borrow against it, then the government will wind up picking up the tab for those people anyway. You keep making arguments up. I am not saying anyone gets removed from the system. When I say "elective", I mean from certain choices, and its obligatory money inbound. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:28 AM) With an elasticity of 15 to 20, almost the entire price hike would be handed to the consumers. It really is that simple. I completely disagree. They only do that in order to be a whining child. Its not enough money that it should have that sort of impact. And even if they do decide to change the price punitively, the backlash would backfire on them, as the public would scream louder for non-oil energy. Not going to happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:16 AM) No it doesn't. It increases it some. You get a decent amount, enough to cover the long term OASDI shortfall, because the U.S. income distribution skews so heavily to the top. However, that's no where near enough to cover any sort of phaseout, especially if you intend to cover current scheduled benefits. It's not a silly illustration to point out that putting money in any sort of private account while paying out scheduled benefits means you need 2x as much money coming into the program. I must not be making this clear. NO PRIVATE ACCOUNTS. Did you not see the part where I said over and over again, maintain the pooling aspect?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) With the elasticity of gasoline and the type of industry we are talking about, it absolutely means lower prices, both in real terms, and in supply terms. No way. First, the amount of money we are talking about is a meager percentage of their income, so its not going to have any noticeable effect on overall levels of production and procurement. Second, the money is tied to specific actions it must be used for, and those actions are prompted by high gas prices anyway - so it will happen regardless. If the subsidies were removed, what you will see is a lot of complaining by big oil, a brief and small spike in the futures that quickly dissipates, and then nothing. The subsidies are a hand out, pure and simple, and no they would not have an effect on gas prices at the pump unless they did something purely punitive and acted like children (which would then get a government response and investigation, everyone loses, etc., so won't happen in any big way).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:02 AM) But, again, it's not a individual retirement account. How does this scheme handle all of the disability claims? Well ideally, I think they should have been seperate programs. One is retirement insurance, the other is disability insurance. But in the current world, as I said, I am not saying you remove the pooling aspect, because you can't escape that without... QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 08:04 AM) And doing so entirely means raising taxes by $20-30 trillion over those 50 years. Maybe more. You need to have an entire generation pay double their social security taxes for their entire life. Even a partial phaseout like Bush was trying to talk people into back in 2005 means you need $15-$20 trillion. And then, of course, as I keep noting, 2008 hits, 10 million people try to retire and realize they have no retirement savings left, and the government comes racing to the rescue since those retirees actually vote. ...but this is a silly illustration. First, removing the cap causes the amount of money flowing in to go up enormously. Second, the money you "need" is still coming into the system, as what I am suggesting is NOT a Bush-like plan. Third, this is the key part here - if we are going to have a social security system, then we all need to be in it together. We all need to pay the same rate, and we all need to keep our money in the country's economy, if we want to succeed. Long term, assuming the country is pretty successful, we all win big. If the country falls apart, then really, none of this even matters, because the money is gone in either case.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ May 16, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) chicagotribune.com A strike against economic sanity Boeing gets hijacked: A strike against economic rationality Steve Chapman May 15, 2011 Click link above for rest of the story This is where I see issues with unions. Its actually not the unions that are even the problem in these instances. As far as I am concerned, they can strike all they want to. But the flip side has to be that the corporations also have the right to fire them or move the jobs elsewhere. The power of unions is significant, as it should be, but it can be that in a natural way. Unions have a hold on workers with a certain skill set, which the company needs, and the company has the jobs, which the laborers need. Its a natural check and balance. No need for adding extra bulls*** to it in the form of government rules like this - and ALSO no need for governments (like WI) to go specifically making striking illegal in some form. Both of these ideas are patently stupid.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 17, 2011 -> 07:06 AM) From Newt Gingrich last week: aka oil subsidies as identity politics. this means i think that won't happen. also yglesias's response was pretty funny: LOL, he actually has the impression that oil production subsidies means lower gas prices. Wait, check that... he knows that is a lie, but he's playing it anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) Where are you going to get the $15 trillion you're going to take out of current obligations? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) aka, how are you going to continue to prop up the pyramid. To be clear, I am not saying you end social security, which I feel like I have to keep reiterating. It is indeed a pyramid scheme, but I wouldn't want to pull the rug out either. Getting out of it takes two steps, and both will take a long time. First step, new money going in is put into market investment vehicles. As time goes on, the obligations are slowly replaced - owed government funds go down, invested positions go up. Once the tables are significantly turned, in a few decades, then you can take the next step and remove the pooling aspect. This will literally take 50+ years to accomplish, by the way. And any gaps, in the meantime, are filled by removing the SS cap as I mentioned earlier.

QUOTE (OilCan @ May 16, 2011 -> 06:58 PM) Some interesting streaks going on for the month of May: Dayan Viciedo: .418 BA, 23-55, 7 doubles, 2 HR, 19 RBI, 6/10 BB/K, .468 OBP, .655 SLG, 1.122 OPS Justin Greene in AA: .364, 16-44, 7 doubles, 9/10 R/RBI; but...2/11 b/k. Still, the k/ab ratio has improved. Josh Phegley in AA: .333 BA, 15-45, 4 doubles, 2 triples (!), no HRs though, 10/7 R/RBI, only has K'd 8 times, which is an improvement too. Christian Marrero: .364 for the month of May. Dallas McPherson is hitting .321 for May too, but...19Ks in 53 ABs. Some things never change. Jim Gallagher...his OBP continues to climb, so far it's .391 for May. If Phegley has gotten past his health issues, he's really worth keeping an eye on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) I had the impression he had some other kind of motion. I think you just assume he does, ala Wassermann, since I was a fan of his. No, his motion is a little funky, but his delivery point is pretty much in the standard overhand location. Since he has that high leg kick and a big motion, the fastball tends to "look faster" coming out of his hand.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) Eliminating Social Security should NEVER get that response from anyone. Because anyone who thinks about it for a second will realize that as soon as a generation starts going through that doesn't have Social Security, where the whole generation is suddenly in poverty, we'll be right back to figuring out how to recreate Social Security again, and it will cost a ton more to end it then restart it than to just keep it going. Same thing with any giveaway to wall street private investment scheme...as soon as a large investment shock hits, the government will have no option but to step in to make up for the gap in people's retirements. And anyway, it has nothing to do with the current deficit anyway. I didn't say get rid of social security. I said make it an elective investment vehicle. The tax would still be in place, though ideally it would be WITHOUT a regressive cap (which should make you happy), and at a lower overall rate as a result. You then give people options on what they want to invest in: US gov't debt, fixed income, a few different options, all of which would need to be conservative. And it absolutely has to do with the current deficit, since we are borrowing from it to pay the bills.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) The fact that he challenged the party under another party's flag makes it exceptionally difficult since he'd have changed his party registration to do so. No worries. All these GOP'ers lately are labeling themselves Tea Partiers. Names can be changed easily for this purpose.

Lower discretionary spending, but not as much as the screamers on the right are saying. Embark on a real, actual study of how every agency does business and what value comes from that spending, and make business-like adjustments based on the findings. This can include shutting down some entirely, re-tooling others, and may even mean increasing funding in yet others. Get out of our three wars as expiditiously as possible. Get the government of the business of supporting social security in any way, shape or form, but making it an elective investment vehicle instead of a giant ponzi scheme. Take yet another look at Medicare and health care in general, and see what can be changed there in a way that is financially responsible. Whatever cuts, as a general percentage, are made to discretionary spending... force the Pentagon to make cuts in the same percentage, and force them to make the choices of what to cut. In terms of revenue... stop funding oil with subsidies... close more of the overseas investment tax shelter holes... Require people whose primary income over a base level is from investments to pay their taxes as income instead of cap gains... remove the carried interest and investment management tax tricks... stop all block grants and direct funding of state and local governments... and temporarily, until you can fully re-tool Soc Sec, lift the SS tax cap entirely and make it a flat rate to all, instead of only to the poor. Whatever percentage gain comes from discretionary spending, that money goes to the debt as direct payments. Whatever percentage gains you get from everything else, subtract the running deficit, and all other money beyond that goes to alt energy needs (which I consider to be the current day moon shot type project). Going forward the federal government needs to slowly pull themselves out of the zillion different things it tries to do, and focus only on core national-by-necessity and/or Constitutionally required areas. This would mean things like defense and security, federal justice system, national and regional level infrastructure, foreign affairs, and maybe a dozen other things. All else, force the states and localities to make the adjustment to the reality that they need to deal with them. -- Do all of that, and you will only need to raise it once.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 16, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) My school filter blocks searching for the difference, could you share? I am not about to go Google that from work. But homicide is an act, and murder is a violation of law. Homicide may or may not be illegal, murder always is, in the US legal sense of the terms. Or at least, that is my understanding. But I hear people use them interchangeably. Killing UBL was obviously homicide. Murder is in the eye of the beholder, though I certainly am in the "no" camp.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2011 -> 12:33 PM) He was last seen running for the Colorado governorship under the flag of the Constitution party. And lost, so now he's available for the job.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) Like I said, she said exactly what she meant to say. http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/201105...lafteroblmurder You mean how she says it was a victory? Technically, it was a homicide. Some people interchange that with murder, though they really have different connotations. I really think this is a non-issue.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 16, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) Trump has dropped out of the race. Thank the lord. So, among the GOP field, who do the most vapid vote for now? Is Tom Tancredo running again?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 14, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) Bill Maher's final "new rule" last night was fantastic. Wish there was a way to post the video of it. By "final", does that mean he is going away? That would be nice.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) There aren't many words to describe how much I don't like Schakowsky http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5675 I am 99.999% sure this was a misstatement, trying to make an analogy. I highly, highly doubt she thinks this is a crime. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich might though.