southsider2k5

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:38 AM) You honestly believe that giving money to the wealthy is the best means of helping the poor? I believe it is more efficient for sure. Not only are people getting the subsides on demand, instead of being weekly, month, or even annually as a tax return, but they are also getting it without paying billions for the same service.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:42 AM) You've also eschewed significant investment in alternatives as pipe dreams, even though you're now arguing that we're completely at the whim of monopolistic suppliers of a limited energy source. Hmm. No I haven't. I have eschewed GOVERNMENT investment in alternatives. I have always argued private investment.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) What are you missing about "use an existing program like energy assistance?" Also like the question-begging of "massive increase." But it's a question of efficiency, right? If corporate tax subsidies that let corporations drop prices while maintaining or increasing profit margins is more efficient than government programs directly subsidizing the cost of necessities for the poor, shouldn't you be driving to replace food stamps with corporate tax cuts as well? What's the efficiency of giving corporations tax breaks? What percentage is simply kept as additional profits versus actually lowering the price? How is this more efficient than direct subsidization? If demand is so inelastic, why aren't they simply charging the higher no-subsidies price now if demand will support it? Why does the threat of shrinking profits suddenly make it possible for the market to support higher prices? The part where they are ready to register, track, and distribute funds for 40 to 60% of the country. And all you have to do is look at supply and demand graphs to understand the pricing of monopolistic markets. I would argue that food subsidies are more efficient than food stamps for sure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) Why must oil companies receive subsidies to make fuel affordable for the poor but we can give the poor money directly for food? There is a staffed governmental agency that does it already, complete with billions of dollars in budgets to do it. To change things you pretty much have to create a whole other group to do this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) We'll pick one, energy assistance, which is already being cut. Which will help the poor more, cutting oil subsidies to maintain or increase energy assistance, or cutting energy assistance to maintain or increase corporate profits? Go. So tell me in detail how that program is enabled to distribute funds to the 120 to 180 million people you are talking about, with a massive increase in size of our biggest business in the country? Go.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) Matt has earned it. Which is why I would rather have him around to use in the 6th, 7th, or 8th innings as games dictate, instead of just the 9th.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) How we already do, the Energy Assistance program? Or something similar to EBT/food stamps? Or should we also give billionaire agribusiness tycoons billions in subsidies so that the poor can eat? Increase the EIT? Any of those options are better than "give the incredibly wealthy even more money and eat the crumbs that fall to their feet" Good lord. You have no interest in getting past your religions talking points here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) In this thread, we learn that the solution to poverty is to give the wealthy more money. Sorry for the snark, but this is what you're arguing here. We must continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy so that they can sustain their record profits. If we don't, they'll simply raise prices because demand is inelastic (so why not raise prices now?!). This will hurt the poor not through direct fuel prices since they don't have cars but indirect price increases of goods which they can barely afford now. It's unconscionable to think of simply subsidizing the poor and doing something to fix the wealth gap. All the snark tells me is that you have no idea what I am saying here. Like I said earlier, I feel like you felt the other day with evolution and the like.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) I don't. I also think part of the problem is that there are so many families making low wages, and I don't think the answer is to continue to widen the wealth chasm that's grown in this country over the last several decades by shoveling more money at the wealthy in hopes that they'll drop some change we can pick up off the ground. $100 is going to hurt that family? Give them $100. Don't give the billionaire $1,000,000 and hope enough trickles down to the poor family. So tell me how exactly you are going give 60 to 90 million people to give that $100 a month, or whatever it works out to?

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) Sure you can see that, but I when I say "change," I am referring to his offensive game in general, which I believe can't be truly discerned from his small sample size. He just is not very good, IMO. Slow, bad defense at catcher, not enough power for the a DH, horrible contact skills, etc. And the only thing that will change my opinion of him will be seeing him produce in AAA in more than 11 at-bats. Those kind of things are what makes up your offensive game. With Flowers the Sox have been after him to make some changes they feel would make him a better hitter. If he has made them, that gives them a good indication of whether he should be better or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) I find it odd that Republicans use "help the poor!" mantra to protect multinational corporate subsidies but also turn around and gut programs that are actually designed specifically to help the poor. The stereotyping is so productive here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:10 AM) Marginally. It helps the wealthy much, much more. Why do we need subsidies that benefit the top 1/5 more than the bottom 3/5's in order to help the bottom 3/5's? Why not just give subsidies to the bottom 3/5's? When your income is small, it doesn't take much of a change to put you out on the street. You understand that right? Don't let the propaganda of total dollars make you lose sight of what even something like $100 a month would mean to a family making less than $20k a year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:08 AM) I'm not arguing that environmental subsidies are necessary expenses because otherwise it would be too expensive for the poor. Oil subsidies primarily benefit the wealthy by a large margin. They subsidize corporations that have record profits. They are unnecessary, and you've yet to present anything for why giving money to the wealthy is more effective at helping the poor than just giving money to the poor. At the end of the day keep energy prices down benefits the poor. Creating a whole new governmental agency, and paying all of those extra billions of dollars, to do what is already being done, it just stupid in my opinion. Why shift the money from billions dollar corporations to trillions dollar government who would waste a significant chunk of the money anyway? That isn't a compelling argument to me. Spending more to achieve the exact same thing is just a waste. You have found all of the high end stuff, but have done zero actual research into what the effect of five dollar gas would have on a family of four in poverty. There is nothing you pulled up that showed what doubling the price of electricity would do for a middle class family.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) Come on, his spring is akin to a solid three-game span, no adjustments in the world can ostensibly visible in three games and some cage work. If he were to get everyday at-bats, he probably would suck. Why not? You can't tell if someone has changed their trigger mechanism, stance, finish etc in weeks worth of time?

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) I just have a very basic understanding of finance, so I am going to ask what will likely come off as a very insensitive question considering the timing, but it is something that truly puzzles me. When I first woke up and saw all the devastation that took place in Japan in the last 6 or so hours I expected to put on cnn.com and see the dow, nasdaq and S&P to be down a big number like 200, 50 and 10 or 20 respectively. However, when I checked they weren't down that much, as I type about 30, 3 and 1. Japan is a big economy, I don't get how it couldn't effect it more, does it have to do with the fact that Japan economy was already weakened some, so it's not like it was an economy that was thriving at this point got hit with a major disaster? Again, this is a very dry question considering what is going on there and I apologize if it offends somebody, not my intention. Japan is one of the most seismically ready countries in the world. The belief is that this won't slow them down much at all, and that their basic infrastructure is just fine.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) Then why does the IMF disagree with pretty much everything in your post? I'm not looking to punish energy companies. I'm simply looking to stop subsidizing their record profits. Most of the subsidy benefits goes to the top quintile. The bottom three combined barely eclipse their share. And, if you're truly concerned about the poor and middle class, we can shift the subsidies to them instead of relying on the completely broken idea of trickle-down economics. No amount of apologia changes that the data do no support any of your claims here. Even logically, it makes no sense. Because if taking subsidies away from the wealthy doesn't hurt them, well, it must not be helping them. So why are they necessary? Because it helps the poor. That is my whole point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:41 AM) That doesn't fly. You are arguing that we need to keep shoveling money at the rich to help the poor. That doesn't analogize to environmental impact. If the end goal is affordable fuel prices for, say, the bottom 3/5's of the economy, why do we need to funnel that money to the top 1/5 first? Why not go directly to the problem? Why not? The vast majority of money for environmental everything is going to people who are ultra-rich to just plain rich.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) Again, this isn't about total dollars. This is about per capita income. Jesus, I feel like a Democrat in an evolution thread. Let me try it this way... Are you opposed to environmental policy because almost all of the dollars for it go directly to corporations?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/.../06/picture.htm Hmmm.... But I guess you're right ss2k5, the only way for the poor to continue to scrape by is for billionaires to get billions in tax subsidies. Again, this isn't about total dollars. This is about per capita income. Jesus, I feel like a Democrat in an evolution thread.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) Well, s***, then I guess we just need to keep subsidizing their profits forever. Why not even bigger subsidies! If we give the corporation enough money, they'll give us free gas eventually! They'd never just pocket the money for themselves! They are making record profits. There's no reason they need any subsidies at all. Holding the country hostage with threats of "we'll raise your gas prices if you don't continue to redistribute billions of dollars to us!" is even more reason to end the subsidies immediately. I'll try this again. The inelasticity of energy pretty well states that you can't punish the energy companies by taking away subsidies. I get the whole demonization going on here, but the emotion here loses the reality of it. They aren't going to come out and say that, but that sure as heck is the reality. You will only punish the poor and middle class. No amount of anger or reaction changes that.

Anyone else watch Kemba Walker and think Ben Gordon?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 10, 2011 -> 06:53 PM) Going to have to side with thxfrthmmrs on this. Everyone already knows he's a great defender, so no issues there, and while he's not a great shooter he's decent. He isn't half the creator that Rose is but he can move with the ball, and is a threat to score, especially with defenses preoccupied with Rose. He would get some wide open looks at threes, too. He'd fit into the 2 guard spot perfectly (he was never really a PG...). I understand why they gave him away, and I'm not bitter about it or anything, but I wish he was on this team right now. Couldn't have said it any better. I'm not saying Kirk was a god or anything, but he would be a huge help to this team as it is set up right now.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 03:13 AM) Heineken! heineken? F**k that s**t! Pabst blue ribbon!!!!!!! freakin legendary man :headbang :headbang You beat me to it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) Supposedly more than 100 bodies have washed up on shore... this is terrible. Did I hear reports right of an entire ship of about 100 people being taken under?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:34 AM) Even if it would require a new department within the DOE, so what? Is someone actually going to try to argue that this new agency and giving the necessary fuel subsidies directly to the poor and middle class would somehow be more expensive than subsidizing profits enough to reduce fuel prices? It's not like these corporations are just passing through these tax breaks to the consumer. It would be a bet I would make.