southsider2k5

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) We are assuming, and probably correctly, that this is coming out of the fixing the stadium fund and not a we invest $2,000,000 and make $4,500,000 fund. It is also interesting that seemingly if they make a change to the stadium that increases profits, they can't use those profits to help the team on the field. Seems like a bad deal for the fans. The profits from the ticket sales goes to the team and to payroll... Any money made from a sponsorship of the area would go to the Stadium Authority, unless they and the Sox have have a secondary agreement worked out for these specific kinds of moneys. Don't forget, the more fans the Sox bring in, the more money the SA makes because their revenues are also based on a part of attendance. That is why they are willing to make those investments in things such as the stadium remodel. Its a win-win for both sides.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) Hey, as soon as you guys stop following that stupid Reid-obsessed AP reporter and actually looking at the couple of things Reid has done that actually look wrong, like the gigantic land deal he helped procure for a friendly lobbyist who just happens to employ 2 of Reid's sons, we'll get somewhere. Instead, you just keep reading this Soloman guy and he just keeps making you guys look like fools. Wouldn't that qualify more as attacking the messenger?

Ah there we go. I knew I wouldn't be let down

Another good one here... it turns out whoever is putting up stories for the democratic party can't tell the different between an American soldier and a Canadian one. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008234.php

Kinda going back to this discussion of tax cuts vs housing boom.... Its an op-ed from WSJ, so it is a little biased, but makes some excellent points. Bold emphasis is mine.

I want to know how Tex got the spotted Dick picture for his avy. Do you think he actually put "spotted dick" into google image search? If so, how many other links did he have to go through to find the one that actually was it?

FYI, with the projected budget deficit of $247.7 billion, Bush delivered on his promise to cut the deficit in half, except he did it 3 years quicker than he promised in 2006 instead of 2009.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) I couldn't find a more recent Iraq thread, so... Update: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061011/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc_2 Total deaths in Iraq pegged at 655,000 since the start of the war. That is 2.3% of the country's entire population. I realize that some of those deaths were probably deserved. Many, however, were not. Let's not forget that it isn't just American soldiers and Islamic extremists/terrorists/insurgents dying over there. And before you say it Nuke... yeah, that is the toll of war. Innocent lives. But that is exactly my point. Was Saddam worth this? Did Saddam kill even a small fraction of that number? And is BushCo's real mission, to set up an anchorhead (military, political and economic) in the Middle East, really worth this much death? Will the American public think so in 5 years, when Iraq still isn't stable? Because rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq is at least a 10 year effort. I hope everyone realizes that, and realizes the continuing cost in lives and money and political capital that we face. Its a shame we were dragged into this nightmare - and sadly, we still need to see it through. We cannot leave now. Interesting thing I just read said that if the 655,000 dead number is to be believed, that is about 512 people a day. Even the civilian dead numbers that shocked everyone from last month said 2600 dead, which works out to about 89 a day, so where are the other 420ish people a day coming from? I haven't looked at the numbers that closely myself, it was just something I heard.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/12/war...t.ap/index.html

Its snowing like crazy downtown in the financial district.

The Dow is now trading over 11900 for the first time ever... DJ12K is in the crosshairs.

So how do people feel about this? To me this is pretty similar to giving the government the ability to spy on people all of the time. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/92811,C...bside12.article

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/s...2p-386332c.html

I don't know if this is true or not... but it made me LOL. I know I am going to hell. http://forums.go.com/abc/primetime/lost/th...mp;forumStart=0 Also that was Russeau's kid Alex... Something else interesting... lost eastereggs

for all of those touched by this tragedy.

France calls NK Nuke test a failure

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/92793,...treas12.article

No one talking about the episode? I guess I'll go first... -So who killed Jae (Suns affair)? Did he committ suicide, did Sun kill him, or did Sun's daddy clean up Jin's mess? -We now know Henry Gale's real name, Benjamin Linus. We also know the Others have some kind of live connects to the real world, as evidenced by the World Series video. Also with Ben, why doesn't he want the people from flight 815 to have anyway of getting off of the island? -Good old brilliant Sawyer didn't stop to think that they might be listening to him? D'oh.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) Noe let me be clear... I don't care that Reid did this: BUT... If he had an ® behind his name, he would be front page fodder for the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the mainstream media for DAYS. But since he has a D behind his name, the blognation is in full effect defending it, just like they all got pissed when Hastert did... But of course, its different...

What's good for Hastert...

NORAD has just announced they believe this was just an accident. Also they are reports that the plane was doing acrobatic tricks (whatever that means) before hitting the building. They also said this play was on a visual flight plan, and wasn't required to check in with the radar towers.

Most of the news stations are showing footage... no link yet.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) You are still not addressing the financial lag that I was referring to (and I think Balta was as well). It isn't about taxes. The lag is in the fact that if people took out cash or lowered their payments, then the positive net cash going into the economy from those people is spread out over a few years. As the money fades and cannot be replaced like salaries can, then the economy begins to fizzle. Further added to that is the 2 to 5 year window for people falling out of ARM mortgages and selling their homes on the quick, as mentioned before. Those lag factors are just now starting to become relevant, and will increase in their effect in the coming 5 to 10 years. By the way, this timing will be coincidental with the baby boomers selling their family homes at a higher rate, as they enter retirement. Not a great combination for the housing market. It is about taxes, to a large extent, and in a few different ways. Americans have a negative savings rate, which means every dime they take in, goes out the door and then some. This money comes back to the government time and time again in the form of taxes on all sorts of stuff. Whether it is income taxes through jobs created (or lack of revenue because of jobs lost), or sales taxes, income taxes as people make money on home speculation, inheritance taxes as people die rich because of the spiked value of their home, or anything else... the affect on taxes is there. If people are proping up the American economy through home spending to that extent, the economists would not be adding to revenue expectations right now, because even with the slowdown already underway, there would be an effect (ie loss of revenues, not gains) felt now, and even if you want to assume a lag effect, they would reducing revenue expectation, and not expanding them.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:01 PM) Its been discussed a few times as of late by MLB and the Players Union. I think we'll start to see more talks of an international draft, but logistically it could be a very difficult thing to agree to and do. The NHL and NBA seem to do just fine at it... Its only difficult because the players union doesn't want to see it happen.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) #1) I would hardly call the federal reserve a government program. Institutionally, it has practically nothing to do with the government at all. Its decisions cannot controled by Congress or by the President. #2) You conclusion is eroneous. Government deficits are not a good measuring stick of economic performance. If the government spends less, then the budget will shrink even if tax revenues are the same. In 2005, spending by the Federal government did not grow as much as incoming revenue.... So the deficit shrank. Furthermore (and maybe more imporantly) remember that there is a lag in tax revenue. How the Housing market was in Jan 2005 is not indicative of how it is in December... and certainly not indiciative of how it is now. GDP is a much better indication of an economy's performance. And by all accounts GDP is going to be affected by the housing slump. Don't believe me, then just check this out: Bernanke says that we will see a 1% decline in GDP... which sounds minor, but isit has a massive effect on the US (and world) economcy. http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/04/news/econo...on=money_latest #2 wasn't claiming to be an indication of economic conditions. Supposedly all of the record revenues coming in are because of the housing boom, which isn't happening anymore, yet revenues are still even exceeding these record expectations. Also I realize that taxes are a lag of up to a fiscal year... if this is the case, why are they still raising expectations for tax revenues in the future, if the still pending impact of the housing market is totally yet to be felt. If we were looking at this impact on the deficit (which is what we were talking about in the first place) we would need to look at total deficit and tax revenues, which is exactly what I did. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) You know as well as I do that the housing market is a totally different beast from the normal economy, in that the economy in many parts can react vastly more rapidly than the housing market. First, the new housing construction market is always going to be a lagging indicator of the state of the housing market, because housing units do not just pop up overnight. It takes months or years for houses that begin to be constructed to hit the market, and it's not exactly a logical move to begin construction on a house and then stop halfway just because there's a downturn in the market, so the jobs in the construction of housing created during the boom won't just all vanish this month because prices started to go down. Secondly, the housing market can take years to adapt to a downturn in housing prices, because not everyone is interested in selling their house simultaneously. Because of the fact that downturns in the housing market only effect a limited number of people at any given time, the duration of the downturn is going to play a very large role in how big of an impact is has on the economy as a whole. A short correction or a soft-landing will have a much more reduced impact than a long period of stagnation in the housing market, because it would only effect the people who were selling at that specific time. Third, at least thus far, the real estate and housing companies have been taking extraordinary steps to try to make sure they are able to sell the houses they currently have, steps which do not show up in housing prices and which have in fact served to provide some measure of economic stimulus on their own. Things like giving away timeshares and new cars to go along with the purchase of a house at a particular price. In other words, its entirely possible that the economy will weather a temporary downturn in housing prices. But the longer and more extreme it is, the more effect it will have on the economy as a whole. #1. Housing starts are down. There is less construction going on right now. We don't even have to look at a lag, because the numbers tell us it is happening right now. #2. Exsisting home sales are down. Prices are flat at best in most areas, and falling in areas which experienced the biggest booms for the most part. Houses are also taking longer to sell. There is no longer a lag here either. Homes that don't sell, don't realize revenues, which don't generate new sales, which don't generate home improvements etc... It is happening right now... or I guess not happening as the case may be. #3. The situation you are speaking of here is for just new home sales, and only those within preestablished subdivisions. This is a niche market, as the vast majority of home sales are exsisting homes, not brand new construction. Something like this isn't going to serve to artificially hold up home prices to much of an extent. QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) I could really go on and on cause I'm in the vast minority that feels these programs are amazing. If you want to know why real estate has appreciated so much it is in large part due to the fact that loans are much easier to get now than they were 25 years ago. And currently we can say that now far more than ever. Invest in tulip bulbs lately?