southsider2k5

The fall out has begun... What does this mean you ask? It means less money available for lending in the end. You can bet if an industry leader like GS is going to do this, that you will see a lot more banks pulling out, and instead sacrificing lending while they try to raise more capital. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) Plus Faraday's comment to Miles about if he was sure how long he's been on the island... Yep, its not Miles. I am wondering why Danny Boy isn't getting the bleeds, as it seems he has been doing this stuff longer than anyone.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 08:33 AM) FWIW, I was reading this morning that Medvedev came out and said Russia was willing to help America with Afghanistan. Some welcome news I guess, although actions do speak louder than words. I thought it was only with non-military supplies though?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 07:18 PM) what changed between the first time they voted (and if failed).. and now? How much more pork got stuffed into the bill?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 04:10 PM) Actually, a lot of transit projects fall into this category. Proposed, planned, approved and even some money ready to go, just waiting for enough funding to proceed. Those could get going pretty quickly. Interesingly enough, judging from my municipalities perspective, most of the projects I have seen proposed for stimulus spending, where things we were planning on doing anyway, but might not have been able to do because of cutbacks. Most of these things were going to happen anyway though. Has anyone else seen this happen on a local level?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 08:11 AM) So, for the first time in a while, I am looking to write a letter to the President's administration. Specifically, I am writing to suggest a policy idea. Some of you may be familiar with it, because I started a Facebook group as a sort of petition for it. The idea, in short, is to suggest to Obama, and SecInt Salazar, to take all the land currently in Wilderness Study Area status, and based on the BLM's proposals, promote them to full Wilderness areas (those that the BLM studies have said should be). Its really a low cost win. The land is already in federal hands, and since it is a proposed WSA, that means no mining or drilling is happening now anyway, and also that the BLM already decided the natural resource capabilites of the area aren't particularly great (otherwise, the WSA wouldn't have been proposed). But you get a big win with environmentalists without taking any more land out of circulation, and you protect more green space for the long haul to help keep the air cleaner as well. Plus some limited recreational opportunities (hikers, campers), which could be used for revenue for BLM or other agencies who own the land, to help pay for maintenance (as a WSA, its pretty much 100% cost, there is no permit system for use). I was also considering some secondary ideas to throw in there - like handing over management of the wilderness areas to private non-profits (like Nature Conservancy) to reduce costs. And using this low point in the real estate market as an opportunity to buy up ecologically important land that is already for sale, on the cheap, to help prop up the market a bit and get the government a good deal. I am not sure I will be mentioning these other ideas though. Anyway, here is my dilemma... should I send a letter to Obama, or to Salazar (Sec Interior)? Or both? Do I send a typed and signed letter, or submit it electronically? Do I mention the Facebook petition, or no? I stand open to the advice of the Busterites. If you go electronic, you are limited to 500 characters, including spaces. I would for sure send a typed letter. Personally I would send it to both, and would mention the petition, because it will show that you are taking active steps to try to achieve your goal. It shows that you are serious about it, IMO.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 09:47 PM) Absolutely. I much prefer the scenes on the island. I think that's why I loved last week's episode so much. In fact, I was a bit let down by tonight, except for knowing Jin is alive, which I've suspected all along. Everything else was predictable, which I don't like as much b/c I like being surprised. e.g. that "holy s***" moment Everytime that happens with this show, this means the "Oh HELL NO" moment is even bigger than you expect. I am wondering who the big hold out will be in trying to get back to the island. They are setting it up as Kate, but it is never that easy.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 06:29 AM) So you also feel that if Brian Anderson played last year full time he would've hit .275 hit 25 homers? No and maybe yes. I think the average would have been in the .200 to .220 range, but I think the power would have been in the low 20's HR range.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) The DRays were never really considered for contraction thanks to their lease on Tropicana Field (I think they are "supposed" to stay there for like 25 more years unless they can get another stadium made for them). The thought process the entire time was to bring the totals in both leagues down to 14 to make an even number of teams in both leagues and thus never having problems with interleague. Having an odd number of teams in baseball will never work, as schedule setting would forever be messed up. It would have been really weird to see the DBacks in the AL West and the Rangers in the AL Central though. For us old timers, it has been weird not having the Rangers in our division for so long now...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) But there's one point you're missing in saying that the vocabulary choice is inappropriate here. We may not yet bet at March of 33 panic levels, but the longer time passes, the larger the gap that the stimulus package needs to fill is. That's one big reason why the size of the stimulus people have been proposing has rapidly increased over the last 6 months or so. Prior to Lehman bros.'s failure, people were talking a few hundred billion more. After the stock calamities through October and TARP, people were already up to talking about $600 billion. After the November job losses and the XMas season, people were talking $800 billion or more. After the continued job losses through January, its entirely reasonable to think that well over a Trillion might be required for the government to fill the output gap and turn this around. This is a case where a snowball rolling down a hill is an accurate metaphor. The more job losses the country suffers, the more a pounding the consumer spending market takes, the more effort it's going to take from the government to stop that snowball. And you don't want to let the snowball hit the cabin below. Come on. We all know the reason it keeps getting added to is that each Sen/Rep is adding their pet projects to it because they know it "has" to pass.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/500k-s...2009-02-03.html

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 12:15 PM) I couldn't even name two other speakers, so I guess at least she's been memorable and quote worthy. No Newt Gingrich or Tip O'Neill?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:13 AM) 4. The people nominated did not know of their personal issues. 5. The people nominated did not disclose all of their personal issues. Let's not let off these people scott free. That is what the vetting process is for.

I think a fairer question would be what does it say about the Obama/Biden group that they have repeated nominated people with major legal issues. There are only a few possibilities here which I can think of... 1. They didn't know, and the vetting process was a failure 2. They knew and didn't think the public would care, so they tried to fly them through 3. They knew and didn't think that even if there was a public notice of the problems, that the political capital of their win in November would be enough for their nominees to get in anyway. All three of these sound like things the Bush administration was ragged on for eight years.

QUOTE (juddling @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) yeah...i noticed that too but how bad can it be when Ted and his band sing "Don't fear the Reaper!!" And wanting to do it for the childrens ward. lol.

This will go over about as well as the plan to disclose CEO salaries did to bring them down...

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 01:02 AM) I'm thinking we should go see a movie after dinner, any suggestions? Pfft. Forget a movie! Its Vday. If you take her out, you better get some out of it! I suggest going and finding some lingere for her to wear, you know to set the mood, but make sure to get it a couple of sizes too big, that way she will be comfortable in it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) Marty Havlat is really, really hitting his stride right now. I knock on wood as I say this, but if he can stay healthy and we can lock him up, we've got ourselves a bargain. He's a classic second fiddle. He can't be "the guy" but playing in the shadows behind some guys, he is very solid.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) It happened once when I was a kid. It lasted for about 3 minuted and it was glorious. [insert virgin joke here]

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:09 PM) Well the Sox are responsible for $98,125,000 for the 2009 season at this time and that's only 16 players, 14 of which will be ready for opening day so you can add on another 11 players at a total of about $4.75M to make that number $102,875,000 heading into opening day. I can't imagine they have much more money to spend at this time, I wouldn't get my hopes up. And that does not include the $5 million they spent to get out of their spring training lease, correct? Thanks for difinatively busting the "$30 million less than last year" myth BTW.

LMAO! I needed a good laugh this morning...

Claws

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 07:39 AM) Have to disagree with you here. Its not just revenue. More importantly, its the removal of costs. You go from MJ being a big money drain, to it being on the revenue side. Overall contribution to the government coffers is a huge net positive. The taxes on cigarettes bring in something like 7 billion dollars a year in revenues. Granted I am not in law enforcement, but it really doesn't seem like we spend a whole lot of money on dope law enforcement, and when you add to it the fraction of revenues that it would bring in, I don't see it being worth nearly as much as it is being made out to be. Seriously what are we talking about, $10 billion tops in savings and added revenues? Don't forget you would still need to subtract out the added revenues being made from fines for posession, and added death rates from cancer and the like. Sure its something, but once you factor in the lawsuits, and everything else under the sun, I don't see it being worth it.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 06:06 PM) Legalize 'it" and collect the tax dollars. Complete waste of time for the revenue it would bring in.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 12:42 AM) There's no need for any regulations on business at all! Just let the market self-regulate! nationalize everything!!! let the government decide for us!!!