southsider2k5

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) OK, but there have been increases in inventories in gasoline and distillate fuels. Where is the lower inventories coming from? Is it coming from the refiners themselves - seeing slackening demand? Or is it because refining production shrank over the last month marginally? Or is it because of genuine usage increases and less supply? Crude is the big number they go off of, because that is where the distillates come from. Inventories in general have been shrinking for a while now, not to mention the secondary factors like demand not slacking off as much as has been expected, especially in the far east.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/06/10/dirty-...-climate-taxes/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 01:11 PM) I think that's true to an extent. But look at what has been going on. This governor has refused to work with the legislature at all, and has numerous times asked them to pass expensive legislation but not raise taxes. That leaves one option - deficits - which the legislature, wisely, refuses to do. Plus Blago's obvious corruption in the office, and the fact that his entire approach to governance is to pout like a baby when his useless ideas don't go anywhere. If I had been running the legislature for 20-something years and done well with it, and a governor came in and pissed all over the government, I'd be pissed too. In Chicago it makes you a five term Mayor.

So I am not the only one who got the connection between Johnson and the mortgage crisis. It was bad enough where Howard Dean had to accuse John McCain of PLANTING him in the Obama campaign, DISPITE his past work with other Democratic Presidential candidates. As has become the case with Obama lately, too busy worrying about meeting with enemies, he threw a friend under the bus. I await the quote from Barack that "this isn't the Johnson that I knew..." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...cle-jim-johnson

Not to mention, Freddie? seriuslie?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) Madigan, a democrat, managed to work quite well with multiple Republican governors. Heck, under Thompson and Edgar, it used to be noted how incredibly well the governor and the legislature worked together, despite being from different parties. The fact that Madigan wants to impeach a governor from his own party should tell you just how awful Blago is. If you didn't know already. This has always been Madigan's state anyway. Its totally personal. It has nothing to do with party.

Trying awful hard to remake this team, aren't you?

QUOTE (29andPoplar @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) Is his velocity really that low? I thought I read in one of the game threads when Loaiza pitched his fastball was sitting at 88 or so. ?? The first game he pitched in, this is what the TV radar gun readings were showing. 88mph that is...

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 09:20 AM) Dumb question: why is a decline in crude oil inventories causing the price of crude to jump up? Would the decline in inventories reflect slackening demand in crude oil purchase? Especially given that there have been increases in gasoline and distillate fuel inventories? Decline in demand is usually shown by a rise in inventories.

Nice dealing by Kenny. Saved us two million dollars.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 07:54 AM) Fixed. D'oh

What is the reason that this shouldn't be like any other commodity where people who use more, pay more? I don't understand what the big deal is.

37-37 +6.5 games

They had a poll on MSNBC last night that said even now, 22% of Hillary supporters plan on voting for McCain, and only 62% currently plan on voting for Obama.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25496 Obama Spend-O-Rama by Ross Kaminsky Posted: 03/14/2008 Late Wednesday afternoon, Sen.Wayne Allard (R-Co.) introduced Amendment 4246 into the Senate budget debate. The amendment, which Allard calls “The Obama Spend-o-Rama” proposes funding 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign. (These were the proposals which Allard’s staff had time to analyze before the GOP leadership asked him to offer the amendment on the floor.) According to Allard, “There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.” (Click here to read Senator Allard’s Fiscal Responsibility Floor Statement.) Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other Senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, “Let’s see how many Senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for his budget.” Some of the numbers around the federal budget are incomprehensibly large. How do you wrap your mind around a 5-year cost of $1.4 trillion? • This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget. • This $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures). • It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net). • It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever. An initial draft of the Amendment which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS shows its purpose of “raisi(ng) taxes by an unprecedented $1.4 trillion for the purpose of fully funding 111 new or expanded federal spending programs” and, referencing S. Con. Res. 70, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal, lists 111 items in the format of “On page 11, line 4, increase the amount by $5,120,000,000.” According to Senator Allard’s communications director, Steve Wymer, “This amendment is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But if leaders in the Democratic Party are going to propose billions…or trillions…of dollars of new spending, at least let’s be honest about it.” Of course, the problem with government spending is that government only has the money it takes from taxpayers. Senator Allard therefore laid out the tax consequences of Obama’s budget-busting proposals: “According to CBO, President Clinton’s 1993 tax increase raised taxes $240.6 billion over five years. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) called it the ‘largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.’ But this proposal will increase spending $300 billion in a single-year.” Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who spoke immediately after Allard, re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama’s proposed spending increase “is bigger than the 5-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer.” Burr argued that Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame. If Obama wanted to raise taxes on only the top 1% (earning over $365,000) to fund his plans, those citizens’ tax bills would have to rise by over $40,000 annually, an increase of 57%. Given the impossibility of that scenario, even under complete Democratic control of government, the tax hikes would have to trickle down to the American middle class. “So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more. “To translate this point into language everyone can understand: if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year; if you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy.” (emphasis added) Obama claims to want to “balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security Surplus.” Combining that laudable goal with Obama’s massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise $5,300, or 61%. For taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be over $12,000, or 74%, and for the top 1%, earning over $365,000, “their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500 (132%)!” It is not only individuals would suffer under the Obama Spend-o-rama: “If you want economic growth in this country, it comes out of the small business sector. And when you raise their taxes markedly, it’s going to markedly have an adverse effect on the economy.” This is on top of the $4,100 tax increase which small businesses will face when the Democratic congress refuses to renew the Bush tax cuts. In his closing, Senator Allard noted that this is not simply a hypothetical discussion; the current debate is about the 2009 budget, the first year of the next president’s administration. It is therefore important (and good politics) to show the American public the ugly details of Obama’s pretty talk. As Senator Burr pointedly warned, Congress must not “fictitiously propose that the federal government can increase spending and in fact balance it on the backs of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase — we will balance it on the backs of every American who can’t afford any more taxes.” Even John McCain, who admits not to be an expert on economics, should be able to tear apart Obama’s proposed spending spree. He could take Obama to task gently, saying “If I can see that my opponent’s plans are a recipe for national bankruptcy, any American can.” That leaves Obama either having to defend the indefensible, or backing away from the “progressive” agenda which is much of the basis of his support from naïve liberals, primarily young or rich. Senator Allard has put Barack Obama in an uncomfortable position. As Allard staffer Steve Wymer put it, the Obama Spend-o-Rama Amendment is “just one step in trying to bring some truth to the budgeting process.” The Allard amendment went down to a 97-0 defeat late Thursday afternoon, to nobody’s surprise. Although the measure was hastily prepared, simply getting into the public record the scale of Obama’s spending proposals and the tax hikes required to fund them was a worthwhile endeavor. Reached for comment after the vote, Senator Allard’s communications director Steve Wymer noted that "(Allard) voted against it with everyone else. But still, the point was made.”

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 04:06 PM) It's not a horribly bad idea in and of itself, but where in the hell is the money going to come from? He has proposed a ton of tax increases already... windfall profits tax, millionaires tax, social security tax cap lift, rolling back the Bush tax cuts... and even so it sounds like he is coming up short, at least based on his latest proposal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213132766...=googlenews_wsj

QUOTE (tommy @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) Anyone watching AROUND THE HORN on ESPN? They were discussing Bulls and Vinny Del Negro, all of a sudden Mariotti says something about not ripping on the team too much, because Chicago writers might get mad, or something along those lines. I don't think he gets it at all. Its not about being negative. Sam Smith was one of the most negative writers you would ever see, hell he was always trying to trade everyone. But the guy had a mind for his sport, and he didn't contradict himself from minute to minute. Its called intregity.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 01:14 PM) I disagree. The wholesale destruction of the Chinese economy, which is something that a war with the US would cause, would force a near instant topple of the government IMO. Chinese government stability has more to do with keeping its burgeoning middle class fat and happy. Without the relative wealth they enjoy, there would be a rapid and serious disillusionment about what the Chinese government actually provides for them. Without food and/or energy, the Chinese economy collapses.

It would be nice if we could make it throught the Crosstown series's before we started talking about this?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) What you forget is that there is a lot more money to protect this time around. Actually that is the whole point. The Chinese economy is WAY bigger than it ever was, and the communist government on top of it is on a more precarious position than anytime since Tianamen Sq. If the very existance of the Chinese economy was threatened, they would have no choice but to go to war, if for nothing else than to preserve themselves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 09:52 AM) So, I'm one of the left-leaning homo abortion pot and commie people here, and when I was in the Chicago Area, I always subscribed to the Tribune. Didn't really care about the bias, but it was just a vastly better paper. ^^ I don't even care about bias or preceived bias. I read Drudge, just like I read MSNBC or CNN. I won't read fox because it bothers me. The tabloid reporting is what always has bothered me, and the Sun-Times is Chicago's king. I don't know know why people pay to read that crap. If anything I pick it up on the train after someone else has dumped it, and read the couple of columns that don't completely suck.

Divisional standings as of this morning... Sox 37-26 Twins 31-33 -6.5 Indians 29-35 -8.5 Tigers 26-37 -11 Royals 25-39 -12.5

Awesome. Good for a guy who really deserves it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 07:20 AM) On WSI you get suspended/banned for even thinking about saying things like that. On Soxtalk they make you an admin!

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 07:03 AM) Very classy! Great job the White Sox to do that... Note to self: Next time it rains out at a Sox game, where a Sailor outfit Must.resist.joke.