southsider2k5

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) Well they can be used for murder as well. And IMO that's a very outdated line of thinking. I'll end it at that. I realize I'm severely outnumbered in this forum. The thing is that same arguement can be applied to all of the amendments. The forefathers never imagined things like big business, abortion, terrorists without governments, transportation that rendered state-lines pointless, etc. Arguments could be made that domestic spying should be legal based on the same style of arguement that the absolute freedom of speech is outdated in a day where we have to worry about terrorism around every corner. You could pick any of the bill of rights amendments and make arguements that parts of it are outdated based on the changes over the last 230 years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) Another intraday high in crude oil.... $139.95. We'll see if there is time for it to run back at $140 or not. Scratch that, we printed $140.05.

Another intraday high in crude oil.... $139.95. We'll see if there is time for it to run back at $140 or not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:51 AM) That may be their plan as well. Or one of the plans. It makes sense. It takes all power away from the unions, and it would pretty much mean Ford could do the samething.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) And because of that, as well as debt and value considerations, I think the more likely path is that GM will sell off a lot of bits, try to thin down, and re-invent itself. Of course, that won't succeed as long as they have those labor contracts hanging over them. That's where merger or sale to a Japanese firm would help out. Pretty much if they look at bankruptcy, those contracts are done for anyway.

You think the Congress went protectionist over the Ports, wait until they try that...

QUOTE (robinventura23 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) Clayton Kershaw + Lefthanded + Sox have not seen him + on the road = :uhoh Big difference between last night and today... fastball pitcher versus change up pitcher. I think the Sox O has a good game today.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 10:39 AM) Is that reflective of splits? Yes.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 10:40 AM) Wade makes about $14 mil, so money isn't a terribly big issue. Hinrich or Hughes make up the bulk of it, and Nocioni or Gooden can take up a pretty big chunk as well. The bigger issue is talent, I have a hard time seeming them do it with out getting at least 2 more key pieces besides #1. So Hinrich and Tyrus Thomas maybe?

Anyone know what it would take to make a Wade & #2 pick for #1 pick and [insert players here] work under the salary cap?

In the midst of today's selloff, here is the stat of the day, GM is trading at prices not seen since 1955. Let that sink in for a minute.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/

Anyone really think this is all a ploy by the Heat to try to get someone to overpay for the #2 pick and they will end up taking Beasley if they can't trade the pick?

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 06:30 PM) Yeah, he's a beast. Good to see him mashing the ball. It took him a while to adjust to pro ball, but he's doing ok. He looks just like Willie Harris in the face. Thank god he hits the ball a little harder!

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 10:19 PM) So in your view, they should just close up shop and give up. Does that mean the end of manufactured CDs, etc.? Two words Government.Bailout.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) I am not sure, but SS should be one of them. More than any other program, it is a trust, and should function as such. Most programs should be transparent and pay for themselves. But then again most programs don't have the AARP voting block lobbying for them either. Social Security is the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind.

MONORAIL!

Don't hate the thread, hate the Gage.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) Like I said, it doesn't have to be complicated. AMT is complicated. Doing two very simple things - removing the SS cap and banning use of SS funds for general purposes - would be a clean, complete way to address the problem (at least for the next 75 years). It also provides something that this government is allergic to - SUNLIGHT. The deficit numbers will be closer to reality, if Congress isn't allowed to raid SS. How many other programs actually operate completely separate from the general fund?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:03 PM) Yes they do...because it makes a hell of a lot of money for some specific, important people, and because it is the first, obvious step towards dismantling the program. Increasing the taxes on the plan will only increase the desire of the taxpayers to see it dismantled. To me that is shooting yourself in the foot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) Honestly, no it won't. The Social Security program is so close to solvency anyway that the country can wait until 2025 or 2030 and make a small tweak if necessary to the rate of growth of payouts and that's all it will take. The real crisis is in the general fund, specifically associated with Health Care's expenditures. By the time Social Security becomes a concern, medicare will be the entire U.S. economy. Also if the plan is that close to solvent, why does Obama want to increase taxes in the first place?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) The system is solvent for 75 years anyway if you use slightly more reasonable estimates of growth and productivity than the Social Security trustees administration uses (basically, you assume that somehow we either figure out the energy issue or it destroys our nation to the point that Social Security is the last thing on people's mind anyway). Raising the SS Tax right now does 2 things. First, it prevents the Republicans from being able to destroy the program with a privatization plan, and second, it helps balance out the general fund in 2020 or so if no steps have been taken to control the vastly greater than inflation growth in health care spending. If the plan is solvent, they have no reason for privatization in the first place.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) I'll give you a reason - to stop Congress from borrowing from the SS fund. Those calculations on solvency assume access to the full fund. Unfortunately, the government has been dipping in there for a number of years now, for other spending. so really, its not as solvent as that math makes it seem. The smart thing to do, IMO, is to remove the SS cap, and at the same time, put a permanent stop on borrowing SS funds for other purposes. Long run, I'd like to see some privitization of SS anyway. But for now, you need to at least but some protections in place to guarantee its financial stability. Giving them more money isn't going to stop them from borrowing anything. It will only encourage it because the budget deficit will look better, and it wouldn't look as bad to spend that money elsewhere.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) I'll give you a reason - to stop Congress from borrowing from the SS fund. Those calculations on solvency assume access to the full fund. Unfortunately, the government has been dipping in there for a number of years now, for other spending. so really, its not as solvent as that math makes it seem. The smart thing to do, IMO, is to remove the SS cap, and at the same time, put a permanent stop on borrowing SS funds for other purposes. Long run, I'd like to see some privitization of SS anyway. But for now, you need to at least but some protections in place to guarantee its financial stability. Giving them more money isn't going to stop them from borrowing anything. It will only encourage it because the budget deficit will look better, and it wouldn't look as bad to spend that money elsewhere.

What a surprise, this turd sandwich of a bill is about to pass, dispite all of the conflicts of interest leading the way. Funny how they have changed their tunes about subsizing big business when it subsidizes their mortgages... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080625/D91H2TT80.html