southsider2k5

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 12:13 PM) And I'm the exact opposite. I at least feel some respect for Romney in that I think he did a decent job as governor up in MA and his record shows that, while I have essentially lost all respect I used to have for McCain in how amazingly pandering he's been over the last 7 years. Romney's core beliefs have completely changed since he was Gov. I hate that. That isn't realistic. That is pandering to the extreme as far as I am concerned.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) And they both f'ing suck. What an AWFUL election for true "get the government the hell out of my life" conservatives. McCain I at least have some respect for...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) So basically they're giving you $1200 early, with the expectation that you'll owe an additional $1200 next year when you pay your taxes? I would say it would be like buying a cellphone and getting a rebate. You pay your 07 taxes, then they send you a rebate based on their formula. I'll have to hit the newswires to be sure.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) So, I'd love for any of y'all who understand what this means could elaborate a bit on how exactly this might affect the tax bill of an average individual earing about 40k a year. Krugman's disappointed Here's the CNN version of the article. So, as far as I can tell, they're saying that every taxpayer who pays in to the system should basically be getting $600 taken off their bill for a single person and $1200 taken off for a couple. So if I'm a taxpayer, and I paid like $5000 or so last year and expect to pay a similar amount this year, I should expect that I'll receive a check for $1200 (for a couple) in June and should see my total tax bill drop by $1200 for the year. Am I understanding this correctly? It looks to me like it is just a rebate, nothing permanent.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:33 AM) Does it work the other way? Those that discount the good stuff and claim she had nothing to do with it, should those people then ignore the bad stuff and say it wasn't her? Ask her, I am not the one playing the fence. Personally I don't think he was in on any of it, but that is just me.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 11:07 AM) Another gem from the debate: Hillary attacks Obama for his "Present" votes and says you can never have an honest debate with him because he always has some explanation for why he voted the way he did. I didn't know it was a bad thing to get context instead of just looking at a voting record. It was really funny to hear John Edwards attack Obama for the samething, you know the guy who quit the Senate...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) Well, the Rudy effect is at full steam in Florida now - the state he went to 2 weeks ahead of everyone else to try to get a win. He had a substantial lead there at one point. But, just as with every other state he campaigned in, the more time he spends there, the more his numbers fall. He's really just not a likeable guy. Average position in the last 5 polls in Florida of the candidates: McCain: 22.6% Romney: 22.2% Giuliani: 19.0% Huckabee: 14.4% Paul: 5.4% Please Rudy, do us all a favor and just get the hell out of the way. Huckabee is in a world of hurt now, that not many people are talking about. he is having a helluva a time raising money, and is fading fast. This is going to be down to McCain and Romney really quick.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:14 AM) The problem is you cant directly attack HER on a lot of this stuff. It's her husband. Yes, I agree it is 100% guilt by association , but she'll spin it that "well, it wasn't me and I am the one running for president". She'll get her zing at Obama, she'll come out looking clean and the media will drop it. It doesn't work both way. She can claim experience for working on the good things in the White House, but not on the dirty underhanded stuff that was going on at the sametime. Its one way or the other. Either she was a part of what went on, or she wasn't. She doesn't get to pick and choose what benefits her. That's BS.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 08:52 AM) I'm going back and listening to the recent Democrat debate. The first question was about teh economy. Hillary's plan for the current credit problems is to freeze all foreclosures for 90 days and freeze rates for 5 years. Way to completely handcuff banks. Also, Clinton attacked Obama for defending that "slumlord." Heard some clarification on NPR last night. Turns out he billed 5 hours of work to a community group that was working with the "slumlord's" group. Is that the best she can come up with? I absolutely despise this woman. I will vote for ANY of the Republican candidates before her. Her attacking ANYONE for who they do business with it has got to take the biggest set of balls on the planet. This is woman whose experience consists of her husband (which supposedly by association means she did too if you listen to her on the good stuff) being associated with insider trading, illegal fundraising, pardons for donations, etc. After she drags Antoin Rezko into this, we need to start hearing names like Mark Rich, Hsu, Wang Jun, James Blair, etc.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 08:27 AM) I don't doubt he was using. For people to say this extortion by Canseco kills his credibility, well... I don't think it alters it. The guy's a sleezebag, but I don't think he's lying about players he implicates. OEEEEOO might have been on the juice. Say all you want about Canseco, but he has been vindicated at just about every turn. Part of me is sad that Maggs was named, but I also see how he acted with his free agency, and it was apparent then that he would do whatever it takes, no matter what.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 11:30 PM) My head isn't in the sand. But a strong win for Obama in SC changes the press narrative. And that changes the polls. The truth is, Super Tuesday polls are pretty meaningless at this point. Exactly. Which is why Obama has to kick Hillary's teeth down her throat in SC. If he wins by 15-20%, I'll bet that is good for at least a 5% swing in the national polls. If she keeps it under double digits, or better, she adds 5%.

I am, curious what people think of this bill that is getting introduced here in Indiana? http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../801210305/1008

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:45 PM) http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2007 -237,477,000,000 is the deficit with China. any talks of a trade deficit needs to address that. As far as the second point, the economic realities of were you are talking about had a lot to do with the WTO and the China trade deals. Both the currency issue and manufacturing production increases are a direct result. so in your opinion this is a large trade deficit that, in your opinion, coincidentally sky rocked after the WTO and Chinese trade deals. I think I need to just end my hijacking of this thread Quit buying Chinese s***, and start paying twice as much to buy American. Problem solved.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:21 PM) between 1989 and 2003 the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion because of oil? please explain how that works, northside72. You do realize that NAFTA only included the USA, Mexico and Canada right? China is a whole different story. We have had trade agreements with them back to Rich Nixon.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 07:43 PM) Not sure I have a horse in this debate race, but couldn't one respond to that claim that one of the reasons Americans keep buying so many products made overseas is that these trade pacts made it possible for Americans to load up on incredibly cheap goods from all those standard-less factories overseas and their hard working 8 year old employees? I.e. is it fair to say that the trade pacts pushed the price of goods produced overseas downwards, thus actively encouraging importing of goods? Oh, and at some point you do have to count oil in that chart btw. Sure, its our biggest import, and it has tripled in price over a short period of time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 06:23 PM) Latest poll says 19 point Obama lead. Clinton hasn't closed any gaps in SC, unless its happened since the debate. With the racial breakdown in SC, I think it is going to be a BIG number. They aren't going to take kindly to Barack being savaged by the Vast Clinton Conspiracy Team.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 06:34 PM) I'd go with that. I won't. The trade deficit is almost all due to American consumers. Trade pacts really don't make that big of a difference in my eyes. If we quit buying Toyotas, Sony's and everything else made everywhere but here, the trade deficit would be gone, and the dollar would go back up, NAFTA or no NAFTA.

Anything is possible, but I am guessing upon closer examination it will end up being more like the man on the moon.

1. Chicago (nothing else is close) 2. Galveston, TX 3. Toronto, Canada 4. Dallas, TX Worst 1. Detroit, MI 2. Indianapolis, IN

Don't look now, but the dead cat is bouncing. We are looking at a 500 point swing intraday on the futures.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 01:04 PM) Yip, which is why we've been hearing nothing but the spat between Hillary and Obama, and not much with the actual meat of the debates. It's sad, but thats what happens when entertainment value trumps newsworthiness (in terms of viewership). Anyone interested in this exact issue should check out the last season of The Wire. It pretty much sums up the state of the news and journalism business these days. Anyone else notice the complete drop-off of Edwards? I mean I never thought he had a chance, but the debate the other night cracked me up, where he said something like, "Hello guys, there is a third candidate in this race." My response was "No, there isn't."

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) We had it right here. Listen to Iowa more. What is "Things you will never hear anyone say" for $1000 Alex!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:21 AM) Sounds to me like KW is shopping MacD - which I think is a good idea. I am torn. Part of me knows that they way relievers go up and down, this might be the bounceback year. His arm hasn't changed at all, and if they could fix him, he is closer material. If he comes back and pitches like last year, he couldn't middle relieve at Great Falls.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 11:03 AM) Funny thing about that poll by Field... it used 377 LV - a smaller number than most other state polls we see, and in a much larger state. Tough to make 377 people statistically representative with a state as gigantic in population and geography as CA. On the other hand, a poll with 897 LV was conducted during the same period, showing Clinton's lead to be only 5 points. That is less than one pollee for every 100,000 people. Geesh. I wonder what the chi squared is for that?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 11:22 AM) Of course they received a phone call, and I'd have been shocked if the old Clinton donors all haven't had a dozen meetings and phone calls from Bill. But I think the issue is that there's a fundamental difference between behind-the-scenes work on building the infrastructure of a campaign and out-in-front work as an attack dog. That's the key question. Its the difference between campaigning for someone, or against someone.