NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) So a poll that says a majority of Americans favor healthcare reform = people are not happy with their insurance. I would be a seller of that statement. How about someone who is happy with their insurance but wants tort reform so they do not have to subsidize the scum bag lawyers.? Definitely a person unhappy with their insurance. I would be in that category. I'd be a seller too, since that isn't what I said.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:58 AM) I simply do not like polls. I don't think they're an accurate representation of a whole no matter which side they agree with. Let's move past that and get the conversation of Healthcare reform back on track. My eyes are open, and I can see the things around me, and I don't need a poll to show me that there are facets of Healthcare that need reform. The discussion was meant to be about Healthcare, something closer to me than most, since I work in the industry and have an insiders perspective none of you have. And that I'd love to hear more of.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:52 AM) I never praise polls I do like. They're crap, regardless of whos side they agree with. I've stated that many times. Now I've stated it again, you will ignore it again, but that's ok...that's what the network does on Soxtalk. You don't disagree - you just outright dismiss any and all data, laying waste to the foundation for discussion. That is the problem. And LOL at "the network" - not sure if you noticed, but people who post back here often disagree on a LOT of things. There is no SoxTalk Filibuster Mafia. Hell, even the mods and admins go at it in here pretty vehemently with each other at times.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:38 AM) Don't care enough about polls to do so, to be honest. You know how I feel about them. I don't think people know what they want when it comes to Healthcare, and no poll will show that. You care enough about them to use them as a support for your argument (even if the support is unrelated and unfounded), but you don't care enough about them to see what questions were asked? I give. This is pointless.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:36 AM) I mean, thats like... "Are you happy with your healthcare?!" Slim Majority : YES "Do you want to reform the heathcare system?!" Same Slim Majority : YES WTF?! No, its not. That is not at all what they are asking. Read the polls that you linked, read the questions that were asked.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:34 AM) I know what the polls were about. But if the majority are happy with things as is, however slim that majority may be, HOW are polls also showing a majority wanting to reform a system that they're happy with? It doesn't add up. They aren't. Again, that is not what these polls asked. Read the questions they asked. These polls are about specific, granular pieces of the puzzle. You are extrapolating that to something at a much higher level. This is like polling people to see if they like Paul Konerko at first, and if they say yes, assuming they are happy with the Sox roster as-is. The poll may be accurate about Paulie, but its about PAULIE.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:32 AM) Americans want a lot of things, because newer always = better. I favor some sort of reform, too...just not this overhaul which takes a working system and completely breaks it, building an entire new system with new problems. The reform I'd support is fixing what is broken, not throwing the entire engine out because a few components aren't working as intended. I'm afraid to ask for reforms, because I don't know what that entails. Especially when they toss the word comprehensive onto it...which as become more of a political buzz word than anything meaningful. Now this is a cohesive set of points here that I agree with. When you aren't abjectly dismissing all data because any data can be biased, you make some very good points.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:27 AM) Since you asked... http://www.gallup.com/poll/122663/Private-...aspx?CSTS=alert oh...and... http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority...healthcare.aspx Don't tell me...Gallup lies because they showed what you asked to be showed. Oh, and IMO, these polls are crap, too. Did you read what these polls are? They are asking about two very specific things - quality of care (public versus private), and cost of healthcare. They aren't asking if they want changes, or if they are happy with the system, or if they want reform, or if they are happy with their current health care situation. The polls actually look pretty solid to me, and Gallup is fairly reliable - so I believe they are probably accurate. You just need to understand what they are accurately telling you. Neither of them are telling you that Americans are happy with the health care system as-is. They are telling you that: 1. Apparently, quality of care among Medicare insured is similar to that received by privately insured 2. A slim majority of people are satisfied with their cost structure for health care

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:23 AM) That's my point. Now, whether this was meant to be very sarcastic or not...I don't run around searching for polls. But, are you actually trying to say that the majority of Americans are NOT happy with their healthcare? I'm not going to bother proving you right or wrong. You can do that for yourself. That wasn't my point, however, yes, I'd say that's a true statement. Every poll I have seen says this, in one slightly different way or another. "Happy" is of course a subjective terms. But I have seen polls over and over again showing the majority of Americans favor some sort of major health care reform. Those polls come from all over the place. If it wasn't true, someone would have at least come out with a poll using strong methodology to show that - and yet, they haven't. What does that tell you? Really though, my point was the same as its been when discussing this with you. Your method of reasoning on polls is such that you have decided to bury your head in the sand, so that you can believe whatever you want, because you don't have to be bothered with actual data that may show your beliefs to be inaccurate.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 07:12 AM) There was nothing to miss other than the typical, let's take snippits of someones entire post, therefore breaking its context completely, and make a really bad Soxtalkism strawman point about it. To be perfectly clear, since it appears you have to be around here lest someone will take snippits of a whole to make a really stupid point, you can easily get a poll showing whatever outcome you're looking for when it comes to the subject of health care and people wanting a government run public option. Again, it comes down to the whens, the wheres and the hows...and it's my belief that in order for them to show that a "majority of Americans" want such an option, they HAD to ask a certain subsection of "America" while ignoring everyone else. I'm sure they didn't poll Blue Cross employees. Or young healthy adults who are covered by any number of plans. Or my parents, who in their 60's but have insurance. Are those people not Americans? Oh, wait, that's right...they may be Americans, but for this poll...they aren't necessary, because that would...well, mess up their intended outcome. I think my point was made pretty clearly. If this was all true, then I suppose you could show us a poll that someone did using acceptable methodology that showed that the majority of Americans are happy with things as-is. I mean, after all, if most Americans are happy with it as you say, plus with so many businesses wanting to keep it as is, surely there must be believable polls showing this. So where are they?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 1, 2009 -> 06:16 PM) if CIT goes bankrupt the whole economy will collapse!!! I know you are being sarcastic, but, no one ever said that about CIT. They may have said it about C, aka Citibank, which is entirely different.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2009 -> 05:30 PM) In more interesting news, down goes Citi. U.S. taxpayers could lose several billion in TARP funds. I think you misunderstood the story - CIT is not CITI. Two different organizations.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 1, 2009 -> 08:24 AM) They both did it the same exact way. The same way every leader across the globe does it....the same way every President in the past did it. Although in the Bush era media was forbidden. What are you talking about? No, they didn't do it the same way - they did it different ways, as has been illustrated here. Visits to Iraq, letters, calls to families, visiting coffins, etc... all different ways done at different times by different leaders. What are you getting at here?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 08:03 PM) The article claims they will make use of the current White Sox lots. Yeah but, the way the article describes it, they are building this stuff on top of what are already existing lots for the park. This would reduce parking while increasing demand.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 31, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) NSS, Obama doing it his way? What does that even mean? What was unclear? Obama did it his way. This was one way he chose to honor these slain soldiers. Bush also did it his own way. This whole discussion is packed with textbook manufactured outrage. Bush and Obama may not be much alike on the political spectrum, but I can't believe people actually think that neither of them give a s*** about the soldiers they order to their deaths. Everything I've read about both suggests otherwise.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 31, 2009 -> 08:14 PM) Not really, we've been down this road before. If you dismiss everything as untrustworthy and accept absolutely nothing at face value, well then you may as well just live in a bubble and never go outside. Thank you. Y2HH, I appreciate your policy views on some things and your background in health care, but when you elevate your paranoia to the point you do on this topic, you ruin any chance for any discussion whatsoever. You are basically saying, all data, facts, evidence and science are B.S. if you didn't see them come into existence personally. Conveniently, this allows you to believe whatever makes you most comfortable, facts be damned. The ostrich act is old.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Link I just read part one. If parts two through four are equally weak, then this is a pointless piece of journalism. What he is accusing GS of doing - selling debt instruments it feels are riskier than their rating suggests - is not only not illegal, its exactly what an IB should do. This is one of the most basic fundamentals of investing. If you hold an instrument, and receive data that suggests its risk level is going up without a priced-in premium for that risk - you sell it. How is this illegal? Do you expect investors to go to market every time they want to sell and say "I'm sorry but, this dog is a loser, I'm just warning you in advance"? That's absurd.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 05:41 PM) Very cool. My only question is going to be how well it will do in the off-season. With the removal of the Robert Taylor homes, the replacement with condos, retail and a hotel, just east of the park... as well as improvements to IIT's campus area, a new Metra stop in 2010 at 35th, and some nice newer residential development in Bridgeport in recent years... I'd say its a lot more sustainable now than if they'd tried this 10 years ago.

More silly outrage, but from both sides on this. Bush spent a LOT of time contacting families of slain soldiers - I have zero doubt about how much he cared about that. but getting on Obama for doing it his way is equally silly.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 04:04 PM) Consumer spending is down recently and way way down from before this long term recession, the US just lost a s*** load of jobs last week alone, housing sales dropped. There hasn't been a turnaround yet. The GDP boost was a mirage, mortgaged on the countries future. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel yet. Projections of a U6 rate of around 18% until at least 2014 seem like they might come true. Could even be worse. Not to be a jerk, but the house of cards is still yet to collapse. Actually, consumer spending was just announced as up 0.5% on non-durables - durables went down 7%, because of the expiration of cash for clunkers. So in reality, spending continues to do what I said it would - reseting a little bit higher (not a lot), because Americans had retrenched more than was realistic for their habits. I've been right on, on this, for a few months. Not sure it will continue this way, though. NEW housing sales dropped, a lot, but frankly I find that to be a positive sign in the long run, since new housing STARTS have also been in free-fall. As they should be. Waaaaaaay to much capacity in the market. This will help the overall market later. Employment though, I'm right with you, that is the huge negative right now. That's why I said its my primary concern in the short run. Most data I am seeing shows we won't see significant job growth until 2011 or 2012. So what we're really hoping for is a stable 2010. The foreclosure rate is worrisome too, and I don't think there is a lot of upward play left in consumer spending unless the employment picture gets better. so there are still plenty of things to worry about. I just think you folks talking about a house of cards are a little late to the game. I think we're past that now, AS LONG AS the UE rates (whichever you choose) climb significantly in the next few months. If that happens, then yeah, we're in deep doo-doo and in for a second dip.

...invade Poland.

Take some advice from an avid backpacker... you want happy feet. Buy some really comfy, nice shoes, that you break in ahead of time (and replace along the way when the break down). Buy well-padded, breathable socks, and replace them when they get holes, immediately. Treat blisters and hot spots immediately. If you do not do these things, and your feet hurt, you will be absolutely miserable. You will be walking mostly on pavement I'd guess, which is tough on your joints. Obey your feet.

There was a time, not that many years ago, that I'd say that the SEC-Big 10 debate was silly because the Big 12 was better than both anyway. Not true nowadays, though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 10:59 AM) You are misinformed. This is new: Homeowners who buy a new principal residence after living in their current home for at least the last five years can claim up to $6,500. Before, it was just first-timers. That probably is why it costs more. We'll see if this passes.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) With the Fed done purchasing MBS's mortgage rates should start their climb. This in turn, imo, will crimp the next round of gov't stimulus, i.e., the home buyer credit extension. Why can't they let housing find its own bottom naturally? It is going to anyway, and they can save a lot of people a lot of money if they let the market find equilibrium. I get the impression they won't be doing an extension on the credit. If they do one, I'd be its at a lower dollar amount. That would be smart in any case. Rates climbing a little is OK anyway, they probably should, and a small climb won't materially hurt the market.