southsider2k5

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) I went to Detroit and watching Loaisa, I think he is still injured. There is something in his motion, even when he's out playing catch in between innings with the LF that makes me think he has shoulder problems. Good catch. I recall thinking that it didn't look like his elbow was getting as high as I remembered it before, which probably means shoulder problems.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) Exactly my point! There are other factors, and they're easily swamping out the effects of the 10-20% changes in the tax rate on the upper percentile. That graph isn't ignoring anything...it's showing which ones are winning right now. So why again is taking money out of the hands of the people who create jobs going to help the poor?

QUOTE (mreye @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) I got married on Friday the 13th. Unlucky for your wife anways...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 11:20 AM) In principle your argument makes sense, but in practice, I can respond to it pretty easily with a simple graph. I ask you to accept for a moment the claim that the Clinton Administration performed one of the biggest tax increases in history early in its term and the Bush Administration performed within its first 3 years one of the biggest tax cuts in history between the 3 large cuts/stimulus packages enacted within its first few years. If you accept those points, then I present this graph: Your argument is that there is a direct connection between the tax situation and job creation. Practically and logically your trickle-down style proposal does make sense. However, just based on the last 2 years of job creation data, the prediction that your proposal makes simply is not found to be true. In a much lower tax environment, especially on the wealthiest of the wealthy, who received by far the largest chunks of the Bush tax cuts, job creation staggered along. After Bill Clinton's large tax increases, which by definition had to hit the wealthiest pretty hard otherwise they wouldn't have increased revenue and helped balance the budget...job creation surged along. This leads me to 1 of 2 conclusions. Either: 1. Your proposal is simply wrong, which is something I don't believe, or 2. You are correct that job creation is affected by the tax rates at the uppermost levels, but those effects are minimal and are swamped out by other, much larger and much more important effects and feedbacks within the economy itself. This is what I'll point to as my answer. And if other forces swamp out the signal you're pointing at so easily, then in terms of job creation, it makes far more sense to focus on encouraging the other positive forces that have the much larger impact. The tax rates on the upper classes, including your friendly wealthiest of the wealthy, certainly do play a role in job creation...and it is likely possible to make a tax increase on that group so large as to truly show a major impact. But once we're away from the 1960's style 90% highest tax rates...changes of the order of 10-20% in the tax rates on the wealthiest of the wealthy over the last 20 years have been divorced from the job creation rate, and that is a hard point to argue around. Or 3. There are other factors in the world. The commodities inflation and mortgage bubble have more to with the collapse in job creation right now than anything else. That Krugman graph totally ignores those realities. Not to mention things like the Clinton recession and 9-11 that also caused huge hits in the economy. If you want think it is prudent to increase taxes on the people who are the creators of jobs in an enviornment where we are losing jobs as it is, there isn't much I can say.

I can't wait for next season to start!

Happy Birthday

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 13, 2008 -> 08:26 AM) There is a balance though. I mean I'm all about "OMG FREE MARKET" but there has to be some form of government intervention so it doesn't get out of control (because it will), although not to the point of socialist-style price controlling etc. And it has to be done the right way or the free market will be f***ed up worse. Case in point: Health care industry It isn't about government regulation, its about how it is regulated. For example. Each individual piece of the financial markets have a governmental regulating body. None of these bodies know what the other agency is doing, and have no connections to each other. Things like futures, stocks, options, banks, bonds, etc should all be regulated in the same manner so that the related industries are in sync with each other. Now we have a mismash of contradictary rules that make doing business confusing and more expensive than it has to be. To top it off, most of the regulations regarding the financial industry were written in 1933!

stealing from wiki.... Both the number thirteen and Friday have been considered unlucky: * In numerology, the number twelve is considered the number of completeness, as reflected in the twelve months of the year, twelve recognized signs of the zodiac, the twelve tribes of Israel, the twelve Apostles of Jesus, etc., whereas the number thirteen was considered irregular, transgressing this completeness.[2] There is also a superstition, thought by some to derive from the Last Supper, that having thirteen people seated at a table will result in the death of one of the diners. * Friday, as the day on which Jesus Christ was crucified, has been viewed both positively and negatively among Christians. The actual day of Crucifixion was the 14th day of Nisan in the Hebrew Lunar calendar which does not correspond to "Friday" in the solar calendar of Rome. The 15th day of Nissan (beginning at Sundown) is celebration of Passover.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 09:43 PM) http://thebaseballcube.com/draft/teams/1990_7.shtml Alex Fernandez (1st round, 4th overall) Bob Wickman (2nd round, 61st overall) James Baldwin (4th round, 103 overall) Ray Durham (5th round, 129 overall) The only other team to produce four all-stars in one draft was the 1968 Red Sox draft. So maybe our first draft slot in the top 10 will have a repeat performance? It also tempers your expectations of what you are going to get out of a draft...

Congrats Rex!!!

As much as I don't like it, they are free to teach whatever they want.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 01:17 PM) The Tax policy center (supposedly non-partisan but I really don't buy it, they're sort of half non partisan in that they're a joint venture of the center-left Brookings institution and the non-partisan Urban Institute) has an analysis up of what the 2 candidates tax plans, if enacted as proposed, would do to the incoming income of different economic groups of americans. The money graph: Thank you for posting that. This is EXACTLY what I want John McCain to bring to the debates and here is why. When Jimmy Carter the second starts in about the economy, John McCain can put a torpedo right into his hull by mentioning the damage that this tax plan will do to our economy. Who hires people in this country? Its the rich people. What happens when rich people lose money? They cut costs. What is the #1 cost in a company? Employees. So is the rich guy going to take a paycut, or fire the poor guy? Bye, bye, poor guy. Don't believe me? I really, really hope this comes up. Here is some info on history when income taxes are raised. http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html Here is some perspective on who would get hit in a FICA cap removal, interesting to note that Barack would be hitting some of the most heavily Democratic territory in the country with CA, NY, and IL getting hit the most. http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA01-07.cfm Some research on corporate taxes http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2785.../pub_detail.asp

37-29 + 5.5 games

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 10:06 PM) Well, he was also a Free Agent at the end of the year he was traded, and he'd clearly lost something if you paid attention to the first half games at all. There was plenty of reason to trade him at that point, especially if you didn't think you'd be able to sign him or if you didn't want to (and man, what a move not signing him was). There are a couple of other little things that bugged me too, and they sort of hinted towards the samething. After the Dodgers released him, he said he didn't throw off of a mound at all. Seriously? He is looking for a major league job and he couldn't call the local high school once a week just to keep his arm fresh? The Sox would have known his velocity was down when they brought him in for a tryout, so I don't buy that excuse. The knock on E-Lo all through his career was that he didn't work hard and didn't really care. Tie this all together and I really believe they brought him in to see if he was willing to do the work to get back to his old self, he wasn't and now he gawn.

This doesn't surprise me at all. A lefty OF bat with speed, who can grind at the top of the order? This is what the Sox have been looking for.

Call it a guess, but I think it had nothing to do with lack of velocity. I think it was a lack of work ethic that got him traded in the first place.. Seriously, how many twenty game winning, Cy Young runners up get traded the next season? We brought him in to see if he was willing to work like 03, he wasn't, so they cut him. Maybe I am wrong, but there is something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. The Sox just don't dump people THAT quickly unless there is an alterior motive.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 05:51 PM) Ron Paul reportedly to finally exit the race. In other news Walter Mondale has conceded to Ronald Reagan...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 01:55 PM) Basically, yes. And because Lisa Madigan can't chase down Blago for it (being the daughter of Michael), they will punt to the feds. And I wouldn't be surprised if Blago is indicted, either before or after the next election. From the sounds of it, he needs to be. Hopefully Fitz takes him down.

THIS THREAD ISN'T OVER UNTIL WE SAY IT IS!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) And as I understand it, the influence and jobs went through Blago. Exactly. Which means Rezko admitted that he did illegal work for Blago.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) I would guess that prosecutors do this sort of thing whenever anyone is connected to a major political figure. It doesn't mean they're out to get Obama, it's just that bringing down any crooked politician has got to be one hell of a colorful feather in a prosecutor's cap. Patrick Fitzgerald has chased after the criminals no matter what letter is behind their name. He buried George Ryan too, so the idea that he is partisian is a joke. He is after criminals, and for once it doesn't seem to matter who they are. It would be irresponsible for them to know all of the Rezko connections and not explore them to see if other top officials were corrupt as well. Those kind of investigations don't start at the top. They start at the bottom.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) I thought he was found guilty, yes. But I don't think he admitted it. The Obama stuff was always a side show, nothing going there, other than that real estate deal (which was dicey but not illegal). I thought he admitted to shaking down people for "donations" in exchange for favors such as jobs and influence.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) Keep in mind, they ARE investing in it. Companies are growing all over the place doing solar cells, wind power, electric cars, etc. Its happening. But they are small fish, with little capital, so it takes longer. The large energy/oil firms could do it quicker, but have little motivation to do so... yet. I'm not talking about the two bit players. I am talking about the huge eight to nine figure worth PE's.

Umm didn't he admit to doing illegal activities for Blago?