NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) Kucinich was holding out on voting for health care reform (he voted no the first bill, a much more liberal bill, which he said wasn't far enough), and then today at 10 am he declared he'd vote yes. It still boggles my mind that the house has had such trouble passing a more conservative bill than the one they ALREADY PASSED. ridiculous My impression is that the reasons include these: --The Senate bill has some particularly expensive "incentives" for specific Senators, and voting for that would not only make them look like they are complicit with the B.S., it also doesn't benefit themselves in anyway. --Its the Senate - and there is a rivalry of sorts, and the House likes to feel like the big kid sometimes. --The wave of angst against the bill has strengthened recently, so the populist types are more likely to now want to say no.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) Dennis voting yes. Thanks dude. Who is Dennis, and voting on what? What's up with the unexplained posts lately?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:18 PM) Really? I think people will remember. This isn't some random name a post office bill on some stupid procedural vote. BIG difference. With all the crap said here, my bottom line is, I hope there's either enough votes for this to pass or it dies. We don't need this bulls*** from Congress. But, the mere fact that they are talking about doing this makes it CLEAR that they will do whatever it takes, constitutional issue be damned. And again you seem to forget that various versions of the bill DID have enough votes to pass, but were blocked by some OTHER political sleight of hand, namely the 60-vote block in the Senate. The Dems want to use this Slaughter solution, the GOP uses the procedural filibuster. Neither really make sense on their face, but they are both part of the game. Do you accept both, or neither?

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) 8 cuts today. Down to 44. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/press...sp&c_id=cws I believe this means that Hynick, and possibly Armstrong, are now free to explore other teams if they so desire. Correct me if I am wrong.

Viciedo won't be playing 3B in Charlotte - he'll be starting at 1B. OF will be Danks, Gartrell and Kroeger, with Botts and Bohn sharing DH and bench OF duties. I'd bet on that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:55 AM) Basically, both the House and Senate will have voted on 2 bills, the Senate Health Care bill and the reconciliation bill. But because the House doesn't want to vote straight-up for the Senate Bill and have ads against them saying "Person X voted to give Nebraska a huge subsidy in exchange for Ben Nelson's vote", the House is going to combine those 2 votes into 1 and only vote once. The Senate has already voted on the Senate bill, so the Senate will then only have to pass the reconciliation bill. The procedure in the House is done entirely for political ass-covering, but there's no reason why its against any standing rule. OK, I think I have a better understanding of this now. Sneaky, but, still basically follows the rules of reconciliation, so its legal. Ultimately, I'm not sure I even agree with the Reconciliation process, but that's a seperate discussion.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:27 AM) Here is a take from the left: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=...IBG1qSS-GLTGCKA I don't know what the deal is here. Interesting that it seems to have been done many times before. I'm still unclear on the end result. Will the house and senate have both voted on the same bill at some point? Or, will they have voted on slightly different bills, but go through the generally accepted practice of Reconciliation? Or does this solution mean the House never votes on a similar bill at all?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) So do you think the "Slaughter Solution" is constitutional? They will not have voted on the same bill as the Senate, right? Tell me if I am missing something else? Well let's break this down. Tell me what you think the Slaughter Solution actually is - because honestly, I've seen like four or more different interperetations so far, just in the press. My impression is that it is basically a back door reconciliation, sort of a reverse bill method. In which case, both chambers have voted on the same measure. How is that unconstitutional?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) No I don't scoff at it...I scoff at this right here, what you just did. "We can be better." Sure, and that's easy to say. We seem to say that a lot, only it's NOT getting better, not on any front, and I'm talking all fronts ASIDE from the topic of this debate. Good jobs are harder to find because they're being shipped off for 3rd world labor. Take Textile for instance...a DEAD American industry...gone...and the people who did those jobs have no other useful skills at this age. So, what exactly can we do better in this regard? How? Let's see some REAL solution that companies will ACTUALLY implement. Otherwise it's a bunch of nothing...talk, talk, and more talk...with very little in the way of action that will actually be taken. I've suggested all kinds of solutions on here before. I proposed what I'd do if I had to write a health care overhaul. I've said before this country's future is not in manufacturing textiles or machinery - its in getting to the front edge of things, as we did in the 90's. So we need education, training, and R&D funding to follow that path. Trying to hold a grip on the past is just not going to work. These things can be implemented, and in some cases ARE being implemented.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) I'm not crying at all. You are. You brought it up that life is basically unfair. There isn't ANYTHING WE, OR THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO ABOUT THIS...YOU CAN KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT, AND IT'S ALL f***ING NONSENSE. Companies will not pay more if they don't have too pay more...that's the nature of profits. If businesses aren't making profits, there is no point in being IN business in the first place, so then there are no jobs. Some of you really need to get out more and realize there is no USA like there once was. People have the means to get the same products elsewhere, for less...so they WILL. Actually, there are lots of things we can do about it. Not sure why you think we are somehow helpless in this as a nation. No one here, other than you, is saying that we can reach Utopia. We're saying it can be better, which you seem to scoff at for no apparent reason.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:14 AM) And where is Enron now? Private companies should be allowed to fail, just like Enron failed. I'm not for bailing out private companies. Let them die, someone else will rise up and take the business. The Government, however, cannot die...or the country folds. The Government can run in the red for an indefinite amount of time until a revolution overthrows them and uproots everything the country was. A regular company can operate in the red until they can't continue to operate, then someone else takes the business. While I generally agree, I think its not always that simple. You can't let the big banks, as they stand now, fail - at least not in a disorderly fashion. They'd have to be brought down carefully. And any really large company, like GM, I do think can and maybe should fail - but again, not without some assistance.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:25 AM) For non emergency medical care, yes. Why not? It's the ONLY industry on the planet that performs services BEFORE they tell you how much said services cost...and they can NEVER quote how much a service costs. Take eye exams for example, they will tell you EXACTLY how much a eye checkup costs BEFORE it's performed. Now take a yearly physical exam...they have no idea...it's some arbitrary amount and you don't have to worry about it, they'll tell your insurance company how much it was AFTER it's performed. That's what I am getting at. Obviously emergency care is a different thing, there's not really going to be any shopping around.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:11 AM) Actually, the Senate Bill (I'm focusing on that because I don't know yet where to find the actual reconciliation deal) includes quite a few points which would make Medicare do exactly what you're asking for, which is why the CBO keeps saying it will produce significant long-term savings. Funding comparative effectiveness research, to figure out whether or not the surgery that costs 100x more is actually better or worse for you than the cheaper treatment is a good start, and that is in both versions. Beyond that, there are significant competitive incentives built into the bill to actually have Medicare begin paying better for better outcomes, rather than just sheer number of procedures done, which is the current format. That also neglects to mention the creation of the "insurance exchanges", which should give many more people a legitimate option to shop around for an effective plan, and should also give people much more information on how to make those choices by making that info available. These items themselves could be positive, but no, they aren't giving me exactly what I am asking for. Consumer choice is still a non-player here.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:02 AM) He could have meant many things by saying this -- I agree with his point that it does nothing to control costs from the source...the doctors and hospitals are still allowed to continue charging any arbitrary amount they want, such as they do now. Which solves nothing except who pays for it and who can pay for it. And that more granular point I agree with as well. This plan, and others Congress have toyed with, try to artificially reduce costs charged by insurers, but do nothing to change the bizarre billing methods of doctors and hospitals. I've said many times before... the fundamental flaw here is that the presence of insurance companies, whose rates are basically flat per service, removes the normal capitalistic controls in place in other consumer-provider relationships. You have to find a way to get that consumer CHOICE back into play, or you will never be able to properly control costs.

As a great example of how psychotic the discussions of this topic have gotten, even among those voting on it, here's a great moment... So... it doesn't go far enough... and it tries to do too much... too soon. Buh? I could see his latter point, if he hadn't oddly combined it with the former.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 06:50 PM) If the "Slaughter Rule" is implemented, it should end up there. And it should be a 9-0 unanimous decision against the bill. You want to talk about a constitutional crisis... if they do that the filibuster is a pimple on an elephant's ass in scale of sleazability. Let's all hope that doesn't happen, because that would be devastating to our rule of law. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 11:56 PM) Because they don't live in the Obama fantasy land that you do? Sounds pretty simple to me. You all want your health care at all costs, and don't care that the MAJORITY of the people DO NOT WANT THIS BILL. That's crystal f***ing clear for you, although I know you can't understand English like this. Without the political crap it will start, the Slaughter rule is being pushed so that the senate bill will be "deemed to already be voted upon and passed" by the House so that it can go to the president's desk for signing. It is against Article I Section 7 CLEARLY where it says both houses of congress must vote on the same bill before it can get signed. The argument is that since reconciliation is going to happen after the "slaughter rule" occurs, that there's no harm in it. The political crowd (like me) now comes in and says that if you monkeyf***s can't pass it the right way, then don't pass it. Get the f***ing message that people DO NOT WANT THIS BILL. Health industry reform? Yep. All about that. This bill? f*** no. Kap, you really have gone off the deep end here. Not with being frustrated with this particular bill, which some people indeed don't want. But with this absurd idea that the Dems are somehow being less than legal or somehow worse than the GOP, when various versions of this bill have already had majority support that was knocked down by GOP Filibusters. Here it is Kap. One, you are a huge supporter of the Republicans, so stop acting like you are not. Two, you are in complete denial of the fact that they TRIED to pass this health care bill "the right way", and couldn't. Three, your first post above is Rush Limbaugh territory - its THAT over the top ridiculous. I don't even like this particular health care solution, as I've said before - but you have personally laid waste to any sort of reasonable discussion on the matter with these kids of posts.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) 1. Jayson Nix 2. CJ Retherford 3. Brent Lillibridge 4. Alejandro De Aza 5. Jordan Danks (but not really) That's about what I was thinking, though 2 and 3 might be pretty much tied at this point. The next week of play will tell us more.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) Here is Cowleys take on things, come 25th/utility and bullpen spot. http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2010/03...r_rankings.html Danks at #3, CJ at #5? Really?

Just to play devil's advocate... what happens to the existing providers of broadband? Will they be the ones playing in this sandbox, much like the privitization of phone companies ended up?

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Wouldn't mind De Aza winning the DH job, giving Oz more flexibility in the OF position and more speed, but I highly doubt we do that plus he has his lineup set already. What makes you think De Aza would be a good DH choice? I'm honestly curious, I don't know a lot about the guy.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) I don't think it's over yet. By no means is it over. There is still a possible foreclosure bulge, which is looming out there but fortunately being slowly aired out by the banks and various other factors. But it could still get ugly. Worse, the money we did spend in jobs creation had low effectivity, and it was temporary s*** - not sustainable industry.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) Because the unemployment rate has stabilized, we've avoided deflation (temporarily at least) and the economy is actually threatening to show signs of being declared to be growing again. I'll be the first to admit it could have been done better. Fewer tax cuts, more directed spending, 1.5 to 2 times as large. But it did pretty much exactly what it was supposed to do given its size; avoid a second "Great Contraction" and give the Fed ammunition to keep pushing the effective interest rate down. You are making a huge leap in assumption here - that the Stim bill is why the economy has stabilized. Everything I've see tells me we swung a huge hammer to kill a few gnats - the pay back was small for the cost. The economy has stabilized for lots of reasons, and no, we have not avoided deflation or depression because of the Stimulus Bill. Deflation was staved off partially by the massive amount of paper we are printing, and partially because of the stabilization itself. The stabilization of housing is due partialy to ground effect from demand levels of a growing and still largely employed population, mostly (and an assortment of other factors as well). The stabilization of employment is due partially to ground effect of Americans who are employed still being big spenders, as well as an assortment of other factors (SOME of which come from the Stim Bill).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) Just a remarkable statement for so many reasons. Do you find fault in my statement? Let's look at this from a really basic point of view... TARP: $700B authorized (give or take), $300B actually used, $200B returned so far with interest, ~$50B to be returned with interest in near term, leainvg ~$50B as true cost, minus whatever interest is received (which is well above opp cost in this case). STIM: $787B authorized, all to be spent, to give us what? Temporary construction jobs, and other stuff not sustainable? How can you not see the STIM bill as a much greater failure than TARP? And again, I am not talking about the abject regulatory failure that is going on now, which I completely agree on. I am talking about TARP.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) What about the opportunity cost, which damages the non-entitlement portion of the population. Hundreds of billions in loans, given to an entitled few, is an explicit advantage at any time. I will gladly take 52 billion from the government and will pay it back with interest within a year. What about all those toxic assets we had to buy? Those paid back? I hope so, I doubt they are. The bailout just rewarded risky investment behavior and it encourages more. How big will the next meltdown be? I agree with your last point about this not avoiding future risk the way it should - the follow-on work that had to happen after TARP has been slow and incomplete at best, and negligent at worst. But that isn't about TARP, its about the regulatory environment and the rules as they currently stand, which still need serious overhaul. I think the overall impact of TARP was very positive in terms of what it avoided, and the return is going to be basically flat. To me, that is nothing to be concerned about - I am much more upset with the debacle that was the Stim bill, which is paying very little in the way of returns, certainly not to the level of its cost.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 12:35 PM) 0% chance that would have happened. You really think Chase, for example, was going under. There is no way. Far too much money was given out, most was not needed. And most was paid back with interest. Of the originally tagged $700B or so, all but about $100B has already come back. And they think half that remaining about will come back as well, if not more. The interest earned will probably make up part or all of the true loss amount (~$50B), and then they plan on these fines (which is a whole different discussion) to pay for that. I was not happy with TARP at first either, and certainly it wasn't executed all that well... but considering the time pressure they were under, I'd say breaking even is a pretty damn good outcome.