NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) How is inflation being below their targeted 2% in neutral? I'd place it in the bad but you'd probably place that in the good. If they target 2% and get 1.8%, that's effectively neutral. Same with 2.2%. The difference at that level is just not that important. Now, if it was below 1%, that starts to get bad. Same with above 3%.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) Social Security has been running a surplus for decades, and it is really giving no problems to the general budget right now. It needs no additional funding for at least 25 years under current law, it will pay out more money in benefits after its trust fund goes bankrupt than it currently does, and its deficit on the infinite horizon is smaller than the Medicare deficit over just a couple of years. In the "Entitlements" part, Social Security is 2% of the problem, Medicare is 98%, and Social Security is actually helping now. Secondly...the cost of servicing the debt in 2006-2007 was larger than the cost of servicing the debt right now, because interest rates have gone through the floor. The debt is 50% bigger, but we're paying less on interest right now. Third...right now a significant chunk of that debt is held by the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the largest holder of U.S. treasuries (along with the Social Security trust fund). The funds that are paid out in interest on Federal Reserve holdings go back to the Federal Reserve, which then returns them to the Treasury Department. Last year, the amount the Fed transferred to the Treasury totaled $80 billion dollars, a sum more than double the previous year's value. The Federal Reserve has done this to try to push the inflation/growth button. Therefore, the amount actually paid out in interest has shrunk even more substantially over the past year, because we're paying the interest to the U.S. government. (Note; this money is actually money paid back in interest; the money the Fed is earning on its investments in the Housing market, it re-investing in housing securities so that its portfolio will not shrink). Now, don't get me wrong here...there are plenty of programs I could list even outside of defense/security that I'd be willing to part with (Farm subsidies). However...there are 2 key issues. First...you can not solve the budget problem using them, they're just too small. Second...even if you solve every single one, you still have a massive budget problem because of Health Care cost growth. If you think something is a waste of money, and you can convince the rest of the small states/Congress that you're right, then you might get a little bit of savings, but it's ignoring the forest for the trees. I'll use the Balta method here. So, what you are saying is... 1. Social Security is OK now but will break later, so who cares of we are borrowing from it and not fixing it. 2. Because interest rates are low now, that means the doubling of debt is no problem. 3. Small stuff isn't worth doing, and the big stuff is impossible. Did I get that right? QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) I believe the Postal Service already does the first and 3rd of those. Priority mail doesn't lose the USPS money. And it provides the everyday services. The problem is...it cannot charge what it actually costs, or provide services at the level that it is allowed to charge, because of Congressional rules. If I wanted to build the postal service from scratch as a private enterprise, there would be areas of the country I would go to once a month, or perhaps once a week. Personally, there's no reason why I need mail more than 1-2 times a week, maybe even less. I could easily charge people for delivery more often than that, or for rural delivery, or for Saturday delivery. Here is the question...you have to pick one (or all 3); Which option do you prefer; significant increases in everyday mail costs, significant cutbacks in everyday service, or significant cutbacks in rural service. The Postal service works like a lot of things in this country; it makes its money delivering mail in high-profit areas (cities and suburbs on weekdays) and that goes to subsidize rural delivery and weekend delivery. Either the people in the cities need to pay higher rates to reflect the fact that they're subsidizing the other types of delivery, or they need to be allowed to cut back on rural delivery. None of those options have proven politically palatable. Point of the thread: what would you do? I told you what I'd do, and you are telling me its not that way right now. Well, that's kind of my point. I'm saying what I'd want to change. And where are your actual suggestions? So far, I've seen you rip apart other ideas, but other than leaving Iraq and Afghanistan (which is happening anyway), I haven't seen you suggest any action.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) I thought Alexei is signed through 2011 and that's it? Yes, but he's also arb-eligible for 2 more years after that, so he's under team control.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) An element of this idea made it into Rand Paul's list also, he saves $50 million a year by cutting back on the "Essential air service", which spends government funds ensuring that rural areas are able to maintain access to air service. It's worth understanding though why these sorts of things happen. There's been good discussion on this topic out in the world over the last few days as a consequence. Let's be clear on what you're arguing. The reason why the postal service isn't competitive with the others is that the postal service has its rates and its requirements fixed by Congress. If the Postal Service had no public mandates, then a large chunk of its postal offices can and would be shut down for not being profitable, and they'd have large rural areas that would only see delivery once or twice a week, things like that. Just as the Essential Air Service is providing a benefit to rural areas, the postal service is as well. If you want to make the argument that the U.S. spends too much providing infrastructure to rural areas, then make that argument; comparing those services to Fedex is making the wrong case. No, you are misinterpereting me. I am saying that the Postal Service should do these things: --Provide that which private business will not and cannot - basic mail --Charge for that service the amount of money it actually costs --Elect to compete in related services if and only if it can compete on at least an even budget

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) I believe you're supposed to claim those winnings, it's just that most people don't. Exactly, and if you report it (which the law says you have to), its taxed as income. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) First of all...there is no crisis in the federal budget. There is no federal budgetary crisis right now. Interest rates on U.S. federal debt remain near historic lows. If there were a crisis, interest rates would be spiking to convince people to continue buying that debt. There is a major long-term issue with Medicare. There is a major, major crisis in unemployment. That is the real crisis. Anyway, here's the way to interpret the current deficit. This chart is 2 years old, created just after the stimulus. It underestimates the 2011 deficit because of the tax plan that was just passed. The "Economic downturn" portion is composed of 3 things; people who were taxpayers and are no longer paying taxes because they're unemployed, people who are being paid lower wages and therefore are paying less in taxes, and people who are now on government benefits such as unemployment and Medicaid because they no longer have jobs. If your policy pushes unemployment down, it makes a very large dent in the deficit. However, if your deficit reduction policy pushes up unemployment, you do not improve the deficit situation, because all you do is take taxpayers and turn them into unemployed folks. If you end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, then you have another huge chunk. Finally, if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, you eliminate another large slice. The long-term deficit is still something worth discussing. Medicare remains the overwhelming majority of that problem. The PPACA helped delay the problem somewhat, but it will still be there. All of the other changes...eliminating earmarks, cutting back programs your side doesn't like, changing the tax code, those are all small tweaks that people use to mask real issues. Interesting stuff, but I disagree with the idea that there isn't a crisis. Servicing the debt is a large chunk of the budget and will only get larger, SS/Medicare are huge drains, the economy sucks... this is what I'd call a crisis. Now, it could be a WORSE crisis... but when you are looking at the idea that the federal budget will be less than 10% discretionary outside of debt/SS/Medicare/Defense in the next decade, that's a huge problem in my eyes. Some of what you suggest: ending wars, ending at least some of the Bush tax cuts, I agree with. But what you are obviously trying to lean towards here is that more spending by the government will be what lifts us out of the doldrums. Noted. Your last point, that "all the other changes" are small tweaks used to mask the problem, is a stinking pile of it. You cannot sit there and say you shouldn't touch those things, just because other things (which I also addressed) are bigger.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) - legalize online gambling. Auction off the licenses (say 5) to the highest, responsible bidders. Require any/all jobs associated with the operations (sales, marketing, IT support, payouts, etc) to be headquartered in the US. Tax any individual with winnings over $600 at 15%. - do a sale-leaseback on current government owned properties. I'm pretty sure gambling winnings are already taxed at your regular differential rate, so you are proposing a tax cut. Is that what you intended? And do you mean the government SELLS property and leases it from owners, or BUYS property and leases it to others?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) Anyone know the story behind this waiver/exemption situation? Why does it exist? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-...cized-should-be Those are pure political bulls***, and I hope Congress overturns them.

I'll add more... As Obama brought up in the SOTU address, the government agency org chart needs re-thinking. For example, law enforcement. There is no good reason for the FBI, DEA, ICE, USSS, Marshalls, ATF, NPS LER's, BLM/FWS cops, etc., to be in different agencies all over the government. There should be a single, cabinet level department that focuses on crime and law enforcement, with all those agencies underneath. Get rid of the Homeland Security bulls*** entirely. Put NSA and CIA in a single area, together. You then have one law enforcement department, and one department housing intelligence. This will decrease overhead, increase communications, and make all of them more agile. There are other examples of this sort of thing. National Park Service, BLM, USFS, FWS - should all be in Interior, and share some common overhead.

OK, here is the NSS Plan (at least the beginnings of it)... TAXATION --Close the carried interest and professional investment income loopholes --Remove the regressive cap on SS Tax --Get rid of a good chunk of the targeted and silly tax protections for specific companies and industries that don't need protection - and then lower the overall corporate tax rate --Allow income tax levels for the top two tiers to revert back to pre-Bush cuts --More use of use taxes and fees for agencies' specific areas of service SPENDING --No more subsidies for fossil fuel energy production, of any kind --Defense spending has incresed by 45% in less than a decade, NOT INCLUDING the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They need to revert back to an inflation-adjusted number around the year 2000 --Discretionary spending capped at inflationary gains, reverting back to equivalent 2008 dollars --Earmarks banned, period --Medicare needs a complete re-work - I'll admit I am not sure exactly what that would involve, I'd need to learn more --Small increases in SS retirement age levels --All government agencies subject to periodic efficiency audits done NOT by Congressional committees, but by private, business-focused consulting firms, with eyes towards waste, prevailing wage differential, cost of service and cost passed on to users. Some agencies can be outright shut down if their administative costs are too high and can't be fixed. Others will see cuts, but yet others may see increases in funding. --Out of Iraq, and then Afghanistan --Foreign aid needs to be cut massively EFFICIENCY --No government agency should be running deficits or getting any government money to conduct any business that is already handled by private business just fine. The Postal Service can try to compete with UPS, FedEx and DHL if they want to, but on their own dime. DEBT --No more borrowing from the SS Fund JOBS --Any government contact to a private firm needs to give first shot to any firm that produces the product or servce domestically, with US jobs. Scaling points in the decision matrix for varying degrees. --All energy department dollars for research, tax credits and write-offs, development and direct purchase (when possible on the last one) should go to alternative, renewable energy sources OTHER POLICY --Legalize and tax MJ, re-focus DEA efforts on other drugs (will cut DEA costs substantially, and add new revenue stream) --Dept of Education should be gutted, but not fully removed - they need to set policy and standards, and force the states and localities to fund and implement their own ways to achieve those goals (cuts budget of department) --Constitutional Amendment specifying single subject on all legislation (prevents bulls*** spending)

This has been discussed in other threads a bit, but I wanted to throw it out for general discussion. The US is running a $1.5T deficit (give or take), and has trillions in debt. We will soon hit the debt ceiling. We have clearly done a poor job - Dems and Republicans, Presidents and Congress, States and localities - of balancing our budgets. On this no one disagrees. But I challenge you, the Busterites, to offer YOUR SOLUTIONS. Not just "spend less" or "tax more", but real, actual plans. I'd love to see what people come up with. Raise taxes? If so, which ones and to what degree? Cut discretionary spending? Which parts or all, and how much? Social Security? Medicare? Defense? I'll add mine a bit later today I think.

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) If she does run, though I'm thinking that is less likely as each week passes, she can likely win the nomination. Her grassroots following will carry in the Iowa Caucus, she losses New Hampshire, her popularity in South Carolina will carry her to victory there. Nevada probably goes to Romney, but whichever GOP candidate has won the SC Primary has won the nomination since 1980. No guarantees in '12, but a clear path exists. She has a chance to win the GOP nom, but she has zero chance in the general, so I tend to think the GOP establishment will work hard to keep her away from that nomination.

Also of note, the AP survey of economists finds that the outlook for 2011 is getting brighter than it looked 3 months ago. Good news: Forecasted 3.2% growth (vs 2.7% predicted in October), 2.2 million jobs will be added (was 1.6M in Oct), consumers will spend 3.2% more (vs 2.5% previously predicted) Neutral: Inflation predicted at 1.8% (vs 1.7% they thought before). This is probably where it should be, though I feel its likely to be higher than this. Bad news: UE-simple will probably stay near 9% even by year end, even with the recovery underway. They center around 2016 for the point where they feel it will be back around the "normal" 5% mark. Under 9% is sort of good news, but still a pretty ugly number. Story

Already coming in... Weekly jobless claims jumped way more than expected, to 454k. Expectations were 405k. Weird though, Labor Department said this was distorted by weather, and apparently economists agree. Not sure how snow and ice would increase claims, but, there it is. Durable Goods orders decline 2.5% in December, versus expectations for a 1.4% gain. So that's a big disappointment. Midwest Manufacturing Index increased 0.3 in December to 81.5.

Lots of news slated for today, so... 7:30am: weekly jobless claims 7:30am: Midwest Manufacturing Index 7:30am: Durable Goods for December 9am: Home Sales Index for Nov, also Pending Home Sales for Nov Lots of big earnings too: AMZN, T, MSFT, MOT, CAT

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 06:02 PM) If I'm missing any players, let me know. Unfortunately the site is blocked for me at work, so I can't see it. I do now have one of my own as well, with some help from the FS crew, but I can't figure out how to post a spreadsheet/table in here.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 10:14 PM) Sorry Heads. Texas Tech finally showed up this year. QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 10:17 PM) Any momentum Ia St had from their good start is gone, and they're on their way to a 3 or 4 win Big 12 conference season. Yeah, I was thinking all the way until this game, they were still a 6-10 IC team (which would be 19-12 overall), good enough for an NIT berth. But if they can't beat TT at home, the post-season isn't happening.

I'll be there, but before ST begins in earnest (Feb 10-14). I plan to check out the facility, haven't been to the new one yet. I know the mini-camp crowd will be there at that time... but has anyone here ever gone prior to P&C reporting? Anything to see?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) That line "resides" wherever *I* say it resides. You are now under my dictatorship. So whatever I say, everyone here agrees. The answer is: 42 ...and thanks for all the fish.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) The question is what does it mean within the statute. I agree it's not defined, but as soon as the SC "decides" what it means then the law will be changed, for better or for worse, without legislation. So then what do you expect the SC to do? You don't want them to intereperet, and there is no solid definition, so... what then? What do they do in this case?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) I guess this fits here: The Appellate Court is on a roll, striking down Gov. Quinn's 31 billion dollar construction bill for having too many unrelated subjects in the bill: http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/01...r-tax-hike.html For the record, I would LOVE to see a US Constitutional Amendment like this one that IL has (leaving out omnibus budgets).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 08:02 AM) You realize that by this point in 2007, everyone other than Fred Thompson had basically declared that they were running in the Presidential primaries? This year, no one has actively announced they're a candidate yet. Anyway, Tim Pawlenty is going to save the world. That's some slick production work for a campaign ad.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) I don't think it's THAT broken. You're talking about a minority of people that don't vote anyway. My issue is that we've set up rules for our political candidates and after the fact we want it changed for a particular candidate. Worse, we want the Supreme Court to read into the law and guess at what the legislators intended. Bolded is patently false. As Soxbadger has pointed out, there was not set-aside, per se rule on what "reside" means in this context. Therefore, there is no solid law to work from in that definition, which interperetation and prior jurisprudence are required. No one changed anything.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 05:38 PM) http://www.cnbc.com/id/41249093 Not really a surprise. No job = no money to buy a house or pay mortgage. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41252294 Dan Rather investigates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-rather/h...e_b_813086.html The jobs situation is definitely worrisome. But the idea that the housing market is looking to double-dip is silly on its face. For one thing, in order to "double dip", there has to be a rise in the middle. What rise? The housing market has been stabilizing nicely, but that's it - no rise or real momentum, just a slow track towards stable. Second, all the data points are saying that, for the last 6 months or so (since the tax credit expired, roughly), the housing market is doing exactly what you want it to at this point... --Prices are declining still as more foreclosures hit the market, but only small declines. 1-2% when considering the high number of distressed properties is actually a good number, but not so great that you worry about a second bubble starting. --Sales levels of existing homes have been on a continuous rise, which is also what you want. --New foreclosure filiings and deliquencies have been slowly sinking, also good. --New home sales and new construction starts remain very low, which is what you want, for the short term. All the fundamental data shows that the market is healing and stabilizing. And whomever wrote that article for CNBC needs to go look up the term "double dip" because they clearly don't understand what it means. Of course, long term, the biggest factor is still the jobs. Without a significant drop in UE (and so far, the drops have been there but somewhat lame), the housing market will probably just keep drifting sideways from here.

Usually they go out in March, I'd be shocked if they were coming out now. QUOTE (Realfan @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 08:17 AM) Did anyone get their seats upgraded? Welcome to the Board!

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 11:12 PM) Christian Marrero's more likely to start out in B'ham. If one or both of Daryle Ward and Dallas McPherson don't make the cut for Charlotte, then Marrero will start there. Jose Martinez is not beginning the year in B'ham. Drew Lee won't jump Daniel Wagner, Lee will most likely begin in Kanny. I agree with the projection for Nevin Griffith. I agree with you mostly, but I do think Marrero will be in Charlotte.