NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 11:56 PM) I'm only saying yes because it's you. Hell, I got s*** from people in high school and I had a black '98 Mustang. I've had a black '99 Mustang and a baby blue '07 Mustang since. Funny thing about Stangs... up north, they are definitely men's cars. But I lived in Tennessee for a few years, and I noticed that almost everyone who drove a Mustang was a woman.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 30, 2010 -> 05:49 PM) I can. Dude is a god damn idiot. You can still be holier than thou and make that paper. Or...

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) yes his administration did You guys are amazing. First, I was pointing out that a statement was false - and it was. Second, this is STILL false. Some budget person said their guess was 8 to 9% UE, with the potential for up to 11%. So let's all be honest, and see what REALLY happened here - ONE budget person projected a range that was too low, when they were GUESSING. if you can't see how that's different than claiming that Obama said UE wouldn't go above 8%, then really, there's no point in discussing it. I should have just left it alone and let the poster go on posting falsehoods as facts.

Discussion on this in the "worst farm system" thread.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 04:44 PM) Won't federal drugs laws still be an issue for Californians? The federal stamp tax still exists, as do federal laws that make certain drug activity federal offenses.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 01:29 PM) Year - Projected/Actual (Performance over Projected) 2004 - 79 wins/83 (+4) 2005 - 80 wins/99 (+19) 2006 - 82 wins/90 (+8) 2007 - 73 wins/73 (0) 2008 - 77 wins/89 (+12) 2009 - 73 wins/79 (+6) So, if they predict every year that we'll do worse than we actually do... are there other teams that get the same treatment? They can't predict every team will do worse than they actually do. Somewhere their predictions have to break even. Is there another team that they are too optimistic on every year I wonder? Wow, PECOTA underestimated the Sox every single year for 6 years straight? By an average of 8+ wins? That would put us at 87 wins in 2010, if we add the average underestimate. I suppose some of that credit should go to Oz, the coaching staff and KW.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:38 AM) Personal consumption was up only 1.44% so the consumer remains a weak spender, not surprising considering the unemployment rate. State and local gov't spending was slightly negative despite the fact that much of the stimulus bill went to them. As the stimulus winds down we will see more pressure on local govt's as tax revenue continues to be a problem. This GDP is very misleading. The increased GDP being heavy in retail and wholesale inventory buildups, seems to be in line with the NABE reading we saw a few days ago. It seems like businesses are anticipating growth, this is another sign of that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically your argument is that costs should be controlled better in the case of private insurance, but that actually doesn't happen. Thus, we wind up with the situation where we currently are in; costs aren't controlled and health outcomes aren't improved. Actually, I think they DO control costs pretty well in some ways, but not in others. And yes, government regulations are part of the problem - but certainly not all of it, or even most of it, IMO. Plus, some of those regulations cost money but are still good to have.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) Yes he did. Google and my memory say no, he didn't - but feel free to point it out if I am missing it. I obviously can't know everything he said, but that is a pretty stupid thing to say, and I'd be surprised if he went and said we wouldn't go above some specific number that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:04 AM) Let me rephrase that more simply. Whether BO said it or not, they based their entire key economic policy of their first year on the belief that UE would not go higher than that number. You guys are missing the point I was making. I was pointing out that Y2HH attributed a quote to Obama which was apparently false. That is all I was saying.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) Actually they did. Their economists used something in the 8-9% range as the number to gauge how big the stimulus should be to fill the output gap (and the Congressional republicans cut it downwards from there). That is not nearly the same thing. Saying they have a target to gauge need for stimulus, or making a guessed projection, is NOT the same as saying "the UE rate will not go above 8%", which would be a stupid thing to say. And he never said it, that I have seen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) In all seriousness. What benefit do they bring? Do they increase efficiency or improve the quality of care at any point in the system? Having non-government insurance companies means that the insurance value is increased, theoretically, because costs are controlled better, and private business tends to innovate and implement business better than government agencies (in general - not 100% of the time). The PROBLEM they cause is, quite simply, you wreck the capitalist equation. This can be seen in many facets of the business, but there is a core business problem, and a resulting economic problem. The core business problem is that profitable insurance companies do not marry well with providing great health care - they work in opposition, at times. The economic problem is that consumer choice, and consumer behavior, are non-normal in an insured space.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:17 AM) Relax, the unemployment rate wont go above 8%, Obama said so. Oh, wait... Oh wait... he never said that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 07:58 AM) Is that negative 5.7% or dash 5.7%? Sorry it was a dash: positive 5.7%. Should have used a semi-colon. ; ; ; ;

Advanced Q4 GDP reading announced - 5.7% growth, Q/Q. 4.7% was the concensus expectation. Futures markets indicate a big open in response.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 07:30 AM) I couldn't care less about him hiring them. I care about the fact that the paid ones are still the dominant force shaping policy (see: healthcare, banking regulation) and he's unwilling to publicly confront that fact. You couldn't care less that he has been, and continues to be, patently dishonest about something he made a major campaign point? I mean, I realize campaign promises are often unfulfilled, but that doesn't mean I am OK with the fact that a President goes beyond just not meeting a promise, and actually lies to say he did.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 08:15 PM) It's possible, if Buerhle looks as bad as he did toward the end of the season, Garcia/Hudson don't work out, and our bullpen is, as mentioned, not necessarily as good as last year, I guess with the loss of Dotel and Carrasco. Of course its POSSIBLE the team will give up 80 more runs than last year - but the projections should be what is most likely. You think its most likely that this pitching staff is 80 runs (half a run per game) worse than last year's Opening Day roster? I think the starting staff is better, the bullpen is likely to be similar, and the defense will probably be a little better. Giving up 80 more runs would require all that you mentioned bad to happen, and then some.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 07:53 PM) Sigh This is one of his worst areas so far, and one where he has been nothing short of dishonest. He said no lobbyists in the White House, and hired a bunch. He is truly speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this topic.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 05:20 PM) Weaker bullpen? Looks stronger to me, but at least AS good. You think its worse by 80 runs? Plus the fact that the starting staff is better, the bullpen would have to be worse by like 100 runs or more.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 04:44 PM) Weird, they have us allowing 80 more runs despite a healthy Jake Peavy? The idea that we'd give up 15% more runs this year than last as a projection is laughable.

Amazing how one technical problem can do so much damage to such an iconic company.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 12:00 PM) His White Sox top 10: Chicago White Sox 1. Tyler Flowers, C 2. Jared Mitchell, CF/RF 3. Dan Hudson, RHP 4. Jordan Danks, OF 5. Trayce Thompson, OF 6. Brent Morel, 3B 7. Dayan Viciedo, 3B/1B/DH 8. David Holmberg, LHP 9. Miguel Gonzalez, C 10. Nathan Jones, RHP That isn't a bad list, when he's focused on the Sox specifically. I'd have Hudson above Mitchell and probably Flowers, Holmberg lower... but this list is certainly reasonable. Hudson not being in the Top 100 is bizarre.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 11:59 AM) Which one of these represents the Joint Chiefs response to: Obama's statement on DADT Obama's statement on Iran. No one is under the illusion that the military LIKES the idea of removing DADT. Even the ones that support it, realize it will cause problems short term. Did you expect them to be ecstatic? I agree its the right thing to do, but I wouldn't expect the military to have a party to celebrate it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 12:01 PM) Isn't this the one recession though where housing has driven unemployment? The housing bubble burst and that started going up way before unemployment shot upwards. Housing has not driven unemployment any more than usual - which is to say, no more than the usual effect of unemployment IN that industry. What the housing bubble did was destroy asset wealth, and turn a certain percentage of people upside down in their mortgages. That doesn't cause unemployment directly, again, outside that sector. But is sure does have a material effect on mortgage failures.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 11:52 AM) For all the talk of a housing recovery, or at least a slowdown in the housing crash, one thing that hasn't slowed down is the rate of loans going bad. Here's the deliquency rate from FDMC, including Dec.'s numbers. Zero turnaround. Housing follows employment, so its a late trailing indicator. Pretty much everyone has been saying this rate isn't likely to even level out until late 2010. So no surprise there.