NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 12:21 PM) the economy isn't growing fast enough to make a dent in unemployment, but it is definitely improved from where we were. Yeah, this. Its been a slow, gradual improvement, which unfortunately means that businesses were hesitant to hire and expand. The most encouraging thing I've seen recently is the fact that small businesses have so heavily ramped up spending and investment the past couple months. If that continues, that could be the first seed in getting more substantial growth. I think the opportunists and long range thinkers see how cheap lending is right now, and all the targeted tax credits out there, and realize that this is probably the ideal time to take a shot at something new.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) Partly. The report also cites "local government" job losses. Even if there's a small net gain in October, we're still talking about a small numbers of jobs. Talk about a drop in the bucket. 50k job increase out of the what, 15 million unemployed? Oh things definitely still suck. I was just providing some color to the discussion of whether it sucks, sucks a lot, or really majorly sucks a lot.

QUOTE (TomPickle @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) The Harball Times released their top 10 prospects for the White Sox. They're less than enthused. I sort of question their research. First, this about Flowers: Apparently they haven't seen what we've heard from scouts and other people, that his defense is vastly improved, and that coaches named him best defensive catcher in the league. Then Phegley: Are they not aware of the reason for his absence? Because that reason pretty much keeps him out of any potential to be a Top 10 guy, even in this system.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:53 AM) 20k more jobless claims this last week. I think in October there was a net loss of 95k in both public/private sector. The situation is not getting any better. Edit: oops, sorry, i was reading the october 8, 2010 report for SEPTEMBER job results. Not sure about October, other than the 20k jobless claims that was reported today. October monthly number to be announced tomorrow. Expected to see small net increase. September was growth in private sector, but big drop in public sector due (I think) to census or some such thing.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) That means larger security. I have a hard time believing that large number is all security. And I'm well aware of what went on in Mumbai, I got back from there a week ago. Security being 2500 people doesn't even make sense, that would actually make them more vulnerable. I am somewhat skeptical of the 3000 number. If its bloated by business people, and if they aren't paying their own way for the most part, then I think it should be addressed. I outright do not believe the $200M a day number, that's just ridiculous.

QUOTE (MuckFinnesota @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:08 AM) What are your thoughts on what Obama said today? Is it possible for the two parties to work together or are we as Americans just going to see nothing get done over the next two years? As I said in another thread, Obama, Reid and Boehner have a choice. They can choose to be Gingrich/Clinton and get some things done, or they can choose to make it a fight. Its ultimately in all their best interests, and ours, if they work together.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:08 PM) Emotion has nothing to do with baseball. This empty argument again? Players are human beings. Of course emotions effect them. That said, AJ understands the game at a level most players don't, and finds the edge in every situation. That talent is what makes him skilled with the pitching staff handling and game calling. That has a lot of value at the catching position. And it seemed like his work against base stealers in 2010 improved, from what I saw. But he's still struggling with that. Offensively, he's below average. I too hope they can get him for 1 year $3-4M, with a team option for a 2nd year. I think they might actually be able to pull that off.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) I'll admit upfront that I don't know that much regarding the situation, but that I have seen the HBO series. Is that reaction accurate, and does it give the whole picture, or is it the Americanized, sensationalized-for-TV version? Certainly, there were many people who had issues with the Crown, but there was still a lot of Tory support. You'd be hard-pressed to find similar levels of support for AQ. By the way, the book that the series was based on about John Adams is a fantastic read.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) I heard a blurb yesterday that a bunch of business people will be on the trip so as to be present when India announces a boatload of contracts for a variety of items. These contracts,for all intents and purposes, are already signed save for the p.r., pictures and other b.s. If so the businesses should be reimbursing for some portion of the trip..FWIW.. If that is the case, then yes, they should. And maybe they are, I don't know.

Counteracting pollution by adding another, different pollution seems on its face to be exactly the wrong-headed mindset that got us here. They key should be conservation - use less energy, and create less pollution. The earth acts like a living thing, and it reacts to changes in ways that cannot even be calculated. The one sure thing is that you will have many unintended consequences, and each of those changes costs people money and health.

I would love to see Congress deal with the tax cut question by submitting two bills - one for extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets, and a seperate one for extension or modification for the top tiers. The lower one will pass in a hurry from both sides, and that will allow those to continue, while the higher tier ones are debated. Seems like a win for everyone, since everyone can point to tax cuts for 99% of the country.

If Obama's mindset right now is "defeat Boehner", then is is going to lose in 2012. His only and best path to success right now is to work with him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) It sure seems self-evident to me that you're going to need a much larger security contingent in Mumbai than in the UK. Sure, just not 10 times over. In fact, you want fewer people that aren't security or military, so that you can get out more quickly. And I doubt that 2500 of those people are USSS, because I'm not sure the USSS even has that many agents. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:48 PM) I thought you guys already knew it was 3,000 people? That is why I was talking about the ridiculously large entourage. I wasn't making that up guys. I thought you all had read a couple of the articles talking about how many people and planes he was taking? Well, what you said was that Obama was taking much larger contingents overseas. Except, as was illustrated, his trip to London was in the more reasonable 200-500 category. Its this trip specifically that, apparently, is larger (if that number is even accurate, which we don't know, though I'd say the chances of Dude India being right on that are far higher than having clue one about the cost). So really, this is not about Obama - its about what Presidents do, and then seperately, about this particular trip.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) Well if De Aza is going to be our injury replacement, we'd better make sure we have an injury replacement ready for the injury replacement. Just sayin Gartrell.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 04:07 PM) Here's a Guardian piece summarizing the amount of stuff Obama took with him while making his first visit to the UK. 200 security, 500-ish total. 200-500 is more the scale I was assuming here. So now the question shifts a bit... why do they need 10 times as many for India? This angle isn't Obama versus Bush, its UK vs India. Did Bush take a lot more people to India than he did other places too? I really don't know, and I am not sure why it would be that way.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) Lets see, a pattern of overspending. I'd find that pretty damn relevant. Evidence is out there. Does anyone have enough answers at this point, no, but I don't pretend to bury my hand in the sand and just throw stuff out and act as if nothing is there. At the very least hearing the White House plausibly deny it or state it is true and that it is consistent with historic travel costs at the very least. Either way it begs the question why won't the administration address it and if it is true, how important is it to bring the president and his family, entourage, etc to India for 5 days and visit all these marvelous places. Its very important IMO, but, I am now focused on the 3,000 people number. That might be easier to prove out, at least on scale. If that's true, then I have a hard time understanding how that many people are needed. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that. Could make the discussion a lot more interesting than the monetary number from a guy who couldn't possibly have a clue.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments. s*** adds up. US President Barack Obama's trip to India next month is set to be the biggest ever by any US president in terms of the protocol and logistics. Headlines Today accessed the details of elaborate arrangements that will be in place to guard Obama during his three-day trip beginning on November 6. He will be accompanied by US first lady Micehlle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha. Earlier, Obama's daughters Sasha and Malia were not to be part of the trip. But sources revealed that Michelle's opinion prevailed and now the girls would accompany the first American couple to India. The US president will make a historic trip to the Taj Mahal along with his family on November 7. His visit is historic in terms of logistics which is the largest ever for a visiting US president. Elaborate security arrangements The presidential entourage will have 40 aircraft, including the Air Force One that will ferry the president. There will be six armoured cars, including the Barack Mobile, a Cadillac. The Cadillac limousine is equipped with a mini communication centre to enable Obama to be in touch with the White House, US vice president and the US strategic command. It also has the US nuke launch codes and the nuclear switch for the president. It can also withstand a chemical or germ warfare or even a bomb attack. The secret service will set up two command posts in Delhi and Mumbai which will act as the communication nerve centres. These centres will keep an eye on each movement by the president with real time satellite monitoring. Three Marine One choppers will be reassembled in India to ferry Obama and his family. These helicopters will also assist in evacuation in case of an emergency. Moreover, 30 sniffer dogs will be put on service to boost the security arrangements during Obama's visit. Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people. Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:44 PM) Really? None of those planes have a $50 million price tag. If you're including the actual, total costs of the equipment, then the pricetag is going to go through the roof. What the figures in the Air Force's n umbers probably refer to is some combination of the incremental costs and the depreciation of the equipment. Of course...if one wanted to, one could argue that usage of that equipment by policiticians requires the air force to have much more of it in their inventory than they otherwise would, since you don't want a presidential trip to affect actual military readiness. That said...I still couldn't care less. The only way that those planes are a variable cost is if you want to say the President should never travel by air, and should never have the ability to quickly get airborne.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:39 PM) And for those of you telling me and Mike that we are making up s***, I ask, since it made public print media and evidently came from someone with at least some authority in India (whether that is very little or a lot, I'm not getting into that), don't we as citizens deserve to hear and get a straight answer? Personally, until I get a straight answer I will only have to assume that there could potentially be some truth to this. 1. You honestly think that some regional government hack in India has ANY idea what this costs, when you said yourself that even government commissions couldn't get that number? Seriously? If you do, then really, there is no chance of reasonable discussion on this, because I could tell you that I think the next lottery number in Finland's jackpot is 1234, and I'd have an equal chance of getting it right. 2. I would not expect Bush, Obama, or any other President to "answer" to something so obviously ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:37 PM) I was googling this yesterday when y 'all first brought it up. I believe that was JUST the Air Force's portion; the planes, the people in the air force, etc. is The Secret Service part is probably a Presidential Secrets issue. It's not just air force one that goes on these, it's dozens of planes carrying equipment, security, additional personnel needed to operate the white house, trade personnel, economic personnel, probably corporate donors, people with economic interests in the trip, etc. I find the $200 million figure entirely reasonable. And I couldn't possibly care less. You are actually missing the point here. Most of those costs you mention are fixed costs, that the government has to take on regardless of whether or not he makes 1 or 5 or 10 trips a year overseas. The incremental cost cannot possibly be on that scale.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) Actually a government commission as well as a reporter tried looking into this very thing earlier in Obama's administration but were unable to get very far because the secret service would not release figures as to how much they have been spending. They felt it would be a threat to the presidents security. And you think Joe Schmo in India knows? This is the USSS, they are in my experience the most competent and precise of the federal LE branches. They don't f*** around and they don't change their security schemes based on Presidential desires. They follow protocols. There is basically no chance that Obama has changed any of their procedures or costs in any material way. Now, is it possible that the Obamas are bringing a few more friends along for the ride? Maybe, I have no idea. But they would not be getting Presidential security protection on their own. The added costs would be mircoscopic on this scale. If you told me, Obama brings 50% more buddies with on his 5-6 int'l trips a year, costing the taxpayers a million extra dollars, I'd believe it. And it would annoy me, and set a bad example. It would not, could not possibly, cost a 9 figure number per day more.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) I remember someone on this exact page, maybe in this exact forum ask me when the Republicians were going to quit blaming Clinton. I'd like to hear when the Dems will stop using Bush as a crutch. No matter what gets brought up about Obama, Bush gets brought up to excuse it. Why do I bother posting if you aren't actually reading my posts? I am saying, clear as a bell, that the cost is THE SAME for each. How on any planet is that me saying its a crutch? My whole point here is that this is not an Obama issue, whatsoever, except when its convenient for Republicans. This is a reality of modern Presidential travel. Clinton was probably lower only because security probably got bigger after 9/11, so Bush is the best comparison. Seriously, you guys are so far out in left field on this its ridiculous. You aren't functioning in reality. You are taking a number from a guy who clearly cannot possibly know, and which if you take even a minute to think about would realize is patently impossible... and then not only taking it on faith, but then applying it to Obama who has virtually no control over it!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) I must admit that this is a vital issue at most American's hearts. Hopefully lots of time and money is spent in Congress over the next 3 years to get to the bottom of this fiasco. Consider this priority #1. Ya know, if it really does cost $200M a day, I'd have no problem with someone looking into it. But the very idea is absurd. I mean, do the math. The President travels probably 20% of the time, so that's about 70 days a year. Are you telling me it costs $14B a year for the President to travel? Do the math. The USSS Presidential detail, the ENTIRE detail, probably has 100-200 people in it, and that number can't magically be reduced because the President travels less often. So its a sunk cost. Same with AF1, it has to be there and in working order under any circumstances. So what are the variable costs? --Fuel and basic service on AF1 --Personnel specifically attached to AF1 and other travel vehicles --Accomodations on location for said staff Look at those three bullet points and tell me, with a straight face, how that could possibly cost $200M per day. Come on, some of you guys work in the real business world, you have some idea what things cost. The very idea that the number is accurate is ridiculous on its face.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) There is also nothing to prove that it isn't, except your speculation. Dude, seriously? This is like a 4th grade debate class. A guy who is some low level schmo in the Maharastra regional (think county) government throws out a number for the cost per day for a Presidential visit. This isn't some GAO guy, or someone who might actually... you know... know something. The only speculation here is from that dude, and there is not one iota of evidence presented here to suggest that Obama's costs are any higher than the guy before him.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) Think about it, people talk about how much of her personal fortune Meg Whitman pissed away during her campaign (between 160 and 170 million). And that is still less than going to India will cost in one day. That blows me away. Don't you guys realize just what a great deal of money we are talking about when we say 200 million per day? I swear, I'm starting to think caufield makes some sense with cut back government programs and see which ones we need and don't need. Obviously that is a huge extreme but man, I really am not a proponent of the government having the ability to do this sort of stuff and in general the mass inefficiencies that go on blow my mind. I'd love to see a kaizen-burst down on the government. I realize it is typically something done for manufacturing companies, but man, it would be interesting to see how much waste really exists. The problem is our government is the largest conglomerates in the world so fixing it over night is impossible. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) So is someone going to show any proof it isn't real, or is this one of those things where it just keeps getting repeated until everyone takes it as gospel? QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:07 PM) What unsubstantiated claim am I making? Why don't you please enlighten me. I didn't write the article stating the 200 million and I haven't seen you get off your ass and show me something to prove it wrong. Did you guys just intentionally ignore both the article and my post? The quote comes from a guy who clearly would have no idea of such things. And there is absolutely no reason to believe this cost is significantly greater than when Bush went to India. I mean, let's deal in some basic logic here. What would have changed? The basic needs are basically identical. Besides, the President himself has little to do with decisions of how security is handled - the USSS does that independently, and for good reason. I can understand being upset that it costs $200M... if it actually did. But we have no reason to believe that is true, nor do we have any reason to believe its any higher than it was for the previous President.