southsider2k5

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) Even huger, thanks in large part to wars, tax cuts, TARP, economic downturn which led to decreased revenues and increase safety net spending (duh) and partially the stimulus but that's tapering off now. But you've got to be pretty crazy to claim the Bush economy was anything close to "good" or even "not bad" since the entire thing was built on a giant bubble that collapsed four years ago and sent damn near the entire world into a recession. And nothing has fundamentally changed, plus we have all of the bad things now. That alone means it is way better than what we are looking at now no matter what terminology you want to use to describe it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) But his policies are. Which is exact what Barack Obama wants you to believe.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) How on Earth do you not understand the difference between the Federal Reserve spending and the National Debt? The Federal Reserve can print its own money. If it loses money it doesn't matter, except if it pushes the inflation button. It has the ability to write things off, effectively. The Federal Reserve doesn't operate in a vacuum, even if it accountants operate in ways that would make Arthur Andersen applaud. That is money that has to be paid back.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) I have ESPN CLassic but never really watch it. No need for it if you have MLB/NFL/NHL/Golf/Versus I have had comcast forever and never had a need to watch classic. The only reason I wanted to now was to watch Friday Night Lights.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:48 AM) Well yeah...because QE1 didn't buy treasuries, it bought Mortgage-backed securities and other securities from private firms. So in other words, all of the spending of the fed isn't known, which means it isn't included in the debt.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) You say that as though it isn't done. Which proves that number isn't all inclusive. The Fed has way more than a trillion on its books now. The QEs alone were way bigger than that.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) What system you have? DTV, U-Verse, etc? Comcast.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) Jeter and Rivera were on the team and simply decided not to show up, even with no injury excuse. ARod and Chipper were actually sitting in the hospital and couldn't show up. Guys like Verlander who made the team but couldn't go because their teams maneuvered them to throwing on Sunday still made the trip and appeared in the dugout. And then there were people like Aramis Ramirez who just didn't want to go.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) Yes there would be. Because if the Treasury had issued $15 trillion in total debt, the Fed could be holding $8 trillion or the fed could be holding $2 trillion. It's also not necessarily the Fed's purchase of treasuries that have people worried, it's the Fed's dumping of dollars onto private companies and taking Mortgage-backed securities onto its books. It would take literally minutes to subtract out other sources and be left with the Fed's numbers.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) Two? You can't be serious. Housing is certainly no bubble now, and lending is still very restrictive for any real purpose. The unregulated trade on debt, I will grant you is only partially addressed, and still represents a real danger. We have a zero national interest rate and are lending money at a ridiculous rate, way more than we have ever seen in our history.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) you mean a giant bubble and still-huge deficits? So what exactly would you term this deficit as?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) But the Treasury's are. That's what gets counted as the "national Debt". I don't care how much the Fed is holding, I really don't. The only way it matters is if they buy up so much that they wind up pushing inflation, which clearly, they have not done. If that were true, there would be no one wondering what the Fed has spent.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) I would contend that the economy "recovery" in the 2003-2006 time period was created mostly by three unsustainable forces: the housing bubble, too-free lending and the unregulated trade on debt. They created a hollow recovery that did not actually help the long term economy via industry or long term job growth. I give Bush near-zero credit for that "recovery", and in fact blame him (a little), Congress and the regulatory agencies for letting much of that get out of control, causing this much worse recession. The 2003-2006/7 economy was not at all solid, it was a ticking time bomb. The 90's run-up also bubbled, but, it had some degree of fundamental strength as well, which is why it was such a dramatic run-up. Of course, I don't necessarily credit Clinton for that either, he only played a small part. Two of those three things still exist, probably stronger than they did in the 00's.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) Yes it does. We don't know how much of the debt the Fed has bought, but the number of bonds that the Treasury department has sold off is the number that gets reported. There's no secret path for the Fed to send money to the Treasury, they do it by buying up U.S. bonds. The Feds numbers are not on the books. It is why they are controversial in the first place.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) 2.3 mil cap hit. Well this team will be deep again. I am ready for the season to start. Screw basketball and football!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) No, we're no where close to Greek levels, they're at 167% and we're still below 100%, the amount the fed has dumped in still gets counted by all the debt clocks, and furthermore, since we have our own currency whether or not we're at Greek levels matters less. It doesn't get counted. No one has any idea exactly how much it is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) The comparison isn't Boooone, the comparison I'd give is Clayton Richard. Guy who was seemingly languishing then suddenly things clicked. Hudson and McCarthy had very similar career arcs.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:19 AM) What about the original Bush tax cuts that were supposed to usher in economic golden times? You mean back when we had low unemployment and a solid economy?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:17 AM) Which, of course, argues for deficit spending at the federal level and much larger assistance to states and local governments (which was in the stimulus but was cut back a lot in the final agreement). A lot of people also saw those tax cuts, but like me, have about $3-$4 k extra sitting in the bank because there's little compelling reason to spend it right now. We are deficit spending to the tune of a trillion and a half a year. That is without the trillions that the fed has pushed into the economy and isn't on the books in the deficit. In reality our GDP vs debt is probably close to Greek levels if we actually put that fed spending on the books. It isn't like we are running a surplus here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) Oh stop it, I know you disagree with Balta on... everything... but this time you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course tax increases have an effect, as do tax cuts, as do increases or decreases in government spending. So let's put aside the silliness about none of this having any effect, or that somehow tax cuts in the stimulus failed but reverting off part of the cuts would be a disaster. The biggest problem with writing off the tax cuts as non-productive is that they were in large part counteracted by the states and municipalities increasing taxes and fees on everything under the sun. Most people haven't seen it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:00 AM) Wait, so over a trillion dollars in tax cuts over 3 years didn't stimulate the economy much, but I'm supposed to be scared about a couple hundred billion in tax increases over 10 years? Trillions in spending once you factor in everything didn't do anything, and I am supposed to believe that trillions more will?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) I don't hear you complaining about the end of unemployment benefits and the huge drag that's putting on the economy. If the stimulus hadn't failed, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-hit-li...ory?id=14075735

http://chicago.sbnation.com/chicago-white-...s-greatest-hits

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) That and the tradition going all the way back to Babe Ruth, 1933 and our own Comiskey Park. No other game comes close in terms of longevity. Heck, they used to play 2 All-Star games each year for a long time. Who cares? 16 players dropped out this year. 40 years ago people cared about the game, because the players cared about the game. Now it is a sideshow.