southsider2k5

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 08:58 AM) You are neglecting the fact that qualification of federally subsidized student loans is based on a family's household income. The amount of loans secured per person won't necessarily go up. The number of people going to college might. And as an American, I'm willing to pay a little bit more in my taxes to see that more of us get the college education we need to be successful. And therein lies the point. If she had come out and said, I want to raise your taxes because... there is a much better case for it. But to say we are going to cut spending, not raise taxes, and institute all of these programs, including really expensive things, is the exact same kind of tactics that they campaigned against.

I think we need to tell Moises to piss off.

Now can you imagine what the US is tracking? http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/10...r.ap/index.html

To a fellow Beatlehead

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) I think you are misunderstanding me. Yes, the cost is still there. But cutting interest rates in half won't change the number of defaults, so it adds no new costs (the government ALREADY guarantees the loans). I was just trying to illustrate how cutting interest rates on student loans would be easier on the cost side for banks, than regular commercial loans. Actually from a true economic sense it would. Its simple supply and demand. Anytime you make something cheaper, more people buy it, and loans are no different.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) I remember folks around here saying that they were told by their reps that the renewal rate was running at 97% or so. Which means the waiting list filled in that last 3%, and there you go, the season tickets are soldout again.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 08:39 PM) The opening scene was pretty histerical. I know it's not the more subtle humor, but Jim's pranks on Dwight usually have me laughing my ass off. There is poison in the coffee...

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:51 PM) Are the exact revenue numbers out for 2006 yet or not? If they were, I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to see roughly how much the Sox have to spend. The Forbes numbers don't come out until right before opening day.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) We're talking here about changing interest rates. The loans are guaranteed now, and would be later, so the default risk change is zero. Unless you are saying that more students will default at lower interest rates, which seems counterintuitive. I was just trying to point out that student loans are able to be pushed down more easily because they are, and would be, guaranteed. People will still default on loans, the difference is who pays for those defaults. Instead of being absorbed by the company doing business, the government is paying the company back for those defaulted loans. So yes the interest rate charged by the company goes down, but the government still has to pay for those defaulted loans somehow so they have to borrow the money to pay for those defaults. The cost is still there.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:31 PM) There are multiple. For one, the government could slowly phase its way out of the SS business entirely. For another, they can privatize parts of the funds, in relatively low-risk equities like corporate bonds. Raising the FICA cap (not the rate) just makes the tax less regressive anyway, so that's the option I'd prefer. That is the only thing like a tax increase I'd want to see. One problem with that is profit incentive. No one is going to go into the FICA business if they can't make money doing that, and they sure aren't going to take over a structure that is headed for a crash, without having the ability to either raise more revenues or cut costs in order to stay profitable. Also, Nancy is the one quoted as saying raising taxes is a "last resort". If she is already talking about raising FICA cap in the first 100 hours, it sure sounds like a first option to me. Economies of scale is a HUGE consideration in the energy industry. The capital costs of starting up an industry like this is enormous, and is prohibative to anyone but companies who are already doing these things. Its nice on a chalkboard, but pretty much impossible in real life. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) There is another factor - default guarantees. The interest rate charged by banks on loans has not only profit built in, as well as cost of borrowing and inflation, but also risk of default. Since the government guarantees the loans, regardless of interest rate, the default risk is removed from the equation. That of course doesn't necessarily mean that it will make it easy to cut the rates in half, but, there are other tactics too. Some financial institutions, like credit unions, will still scoop up loans even at very low profits. They may even take them at zero profit for one reason or another, just as long as it isn't losing money. If the government is paying off the failed loans, that means the taxpayers are paying them off. That doesn't remove risk, it just moves risk directly to the taxpayers, instead of the business. Its the samething with either the government borrowing more money and paying more interest, or collecting more in taxes to pay for the defaults.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) Actually she said that she wanted to make healthcare affordable for all Americans but wanted to start with that. The Federally subsidised student loans I got were handled by Sallie Mae, isn't that a quasi private company - like the Post Office? And those loans are set at market value, not half of market value, which means there is a profit incentive for the company in there. If you set it up as a guarenteed money loser, someone has to make up that difference. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) If the subsidies are for R&D, I think we have a right to expect a specific amount to be spent on specific types of R&D. If we're providing subsidies, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the companies who benefit to perform some action in return for the good of the country. Subsidies don't have to be cut across the board, and I'm sure they aren't applied uniformly. Yet the price of gas from corporation to corporation does not vary significantly. Putting conditions on subsidies, or scaling them back for some corporations shouldn't cause a significant price increase across the board. If it does, maybe it is time for regulation to return to the energy market. Let me put it this way, the Democrats aren't stupid. They know if they take drastic actions like has been bantered about, gas will go to $5 a gallon faster than you would be in line for Bea Arthur stripshow. The quickest way to get run out of Washington DC is to kick the average American in the pocketbook. Now I know the oil companies have a nice big target on their backs, but there can only be so much done without slitting their own throats. Pelosi knows that the Repubs won't allow anything to get through in this respect, so all of this is just window dressing for 2008. Its a game of Washington DC chicken. Heck, in reality market fundimentals should have the price of crude back down into the middle $40s to low $50 a barrel right now, but the worlds favorite cartel has decided that they like the idea of $60 a barrel and they are forcing the price to stay right there. I must have missed the Congressional investigations calls in this case though, because I am sure people want to do something about real live price fixing, right?

QUOTE(spiderman @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 01:07 PM) If we finished last season right around $100 million, I have to assume we'll increase it, given the attendance from last season, and expected goals for this season, ticket price increases, possibly increased $$$ from the new CBA (is this true ?) and the 7/11 deal....Why do you say that number ? I'm kind of frustrated that we're not far from the off-season starting, and we've seen Williams in the papers over the past week or so, and we haven't even seen a quote from him not answering the budget question. 20% increase in attendance+ highest ever ratings on their own cable network+more marketing deals+an extra $5 million from the new luxury seats in the former press box mixed in with the fact that the Sox always have added the previous years profits to the next years payroll.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 01:13 PM) Allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to provide its patients with lower cost medication. Other insurance companies already do this. She mentioned this as a separate item from the negotiations, it makes it seem like there is something else there. If they are offering loans at half of the going rate, someone is paying for them. The US isn't a bank and doesn't lend money. It sells its own bonds to get money, and if it is lending out money cheaper than it is borrowing it, someone is making up the difference. Either it is being subsidized through higher taxes, subtraction of money from another program, or more borrowing to make up the difference on the interest payments. There are two ways to "fix" SSI. Raise FICA or cut benefits. If there is some other solution, I would love to hear it. Just realize when you are talking about energy, you are talking about a completely inelastic commodity. Any price increases for the company are passed on to the consumers, pretty much dollar for dollar. If you look at the whole package that has been talked about; windfall profits taxes, cutting subsidies, forcing companies to invest in alternative energy, not allowing drilling in new areas while old ones are depleted, additional oversight costs, etc, those will all reverberate right back to the consumer.

If history is any guide we should see something around the $120 million mark.

so -what exactly is "fixing the medicare drug benefit?" -Who is paying for cut in student loan interest rates? -I thought Nancy wasn't talking about raising taxes, if so, what other option is there to "guarantee a dignified retirement"? I am guessing that statement means not cutting benefits, so how else is it going to be done? And before you ask, yes, raising the cap on FICA is a tax increase. -What are the Dems going to do when their plans for dealing with the oil companies end up resulting in much higher gas/heating oil/natural gas prices? Remember transportation/heating costs, disproportionally have a much harder effect on the poorest in the country, as they have the least disposable income to be able to weather a loss of income.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 08:55 PM) Well, we've got Brown's contract, a boat load of 2nd round picks, a full 15 player rotation, Duhon, and if necessary, the Knickerbockers pick...so the Bulls do have a ton of assets to deal. It would be pretty silly of Pax not to at least be in the discussion come trade deadline, as many people/assets as the Bulls have. He'll be listening, but odds are he won't make a move, because it would hit the salary cap considerations hard with all of the players we have coming up for extentions. We might aquire an expiring contract, but we'll see.

I enjoyed the episode, especially the surgery scene. It kept you wondering how Jack would try to take advantage of the situation, and there you go. I am just wondering why Kate or Sawyer didn't tell Jack that there was no escaping from the island? Also it will be interesting if it is the saying on the prayerstick that leads Locke to the rest of the crew.

I liked the old ones better just for the fact that they were different. I agree that they are a rip of of Washingtons jersies.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 07:54 AM) lol, me too... I can just see after the TV ratings for the series this year that Ol' Bud thinks it's in the best interest for only the NYY or Red Sox to have this guy... When will the announcement be made who had the highest bid? I'll go out on a limb and say the Rangers won. Good question. I wonder who and when we will know. A team like Texas is interesting because they need pitching BAD. Really they need it worse than either Boston or the Yankees. The one thing is that Texas after getting burned by the Park and ARod signings, might be a little timid to put up that kind of cash.

Back to the "someone no one has ever heard of" theory being right

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 06:26 AM) Interesting Kap. If I understand your opinion, the snarky, rude, dickhead, veiled comments should stop because the GOP lost both houses and Rumsfeld resigned. I see two problems with that 1. Perhaps the election results and the aftermath are vindication that Bush is actually all those things? and 2. When will the GOP stop bringing up good ol' number 42, William Jefferson Clinton? You are asking the Dems to stop in a day, when the GOP hasn't stopped in 14 years? Comparing this to past elections, we had those pretty maps that showed a huge landslide for Bush, who received 51% of the vote and the flip flop comments continued. Not mentioning this as justification, just showing these remarks are inevitable. The winners will gloat and try to make more of the election it is. The losers will try and mitigate the loss. Some people will have their pride hurt. The spinning will make everyone dizzy until we puke. Um I think you missed the point. I think he is sick of it being one-sided, and then getting yelled at for responding in kind.

Maybe there are reasons for Voter IDs at the polls afterall...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines

Hastert is apparently saying he will not seek a leadership position in the next Congress.

There is a Billy Beane joke in there somewhere...