southsider2k5

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 07:59 AM) We know that Washington want some major pitching prospects for Soriano, because the Nats system is just absolutely bare of that right now. If KW forces Detroit to have to give up the likes of Humberto Sanchez, Zach Miner and Jair Jurrjens, well then he's done his job. I would bet money that is what Kenny is trying to do to Detroit. They are already on record as saying they are going to do something big, so they are stuck behind the 8 ball.

Back on topic, having listened to the interview, Bruce Levine said something stupid about Kenny coming back on the air after having aquired three different players (I forget who they even were) and Kenny sarcastically answered, "no it will be bigger than that", Levine didn't get the joke and said wow who could be bigger than that? Then he mentioned Soriano, but KW had already hung up the phone. Remember because of tampering KW can't comment on a specific player anyways, so this rumor should have been a non-starter just by common sense. Now if you all will follow along with me at home, you will see the most obvious intent with this rumor is that Kenny is trying to get Detroit to overpay for a few months of Soriano. I really don't think we have much interest in the guy, as I don't think we are interested in bringing him in as a rental.

QUOTE(CySox @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 09:02 PM) I think Kenny and the White Sox are just using Widger as their scapegoat for their recent struggles. I agree totally with this statement. I think Kenny and company are trying to send a message to some people in the clubhouse to not get too comfortable. It was also interesting to hear Kenny on the airwaves this weekend, talking about how they were trying to get a deal done, after only a week or two ago talking about how the market was overpriced and he didn't think they would be doing anything, and besides everyone on his team was better than the guys on the market anyways... Funny how things change. Besides Widger is released, so that has to mean another WS is in the bag now!

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jul 22, 2006 -> 09:31 PM) So, on the global warming again: did anyone see the Global Warming special on Discovery this week? I caught about half of it on the first showing, and watched it again tonight. Very interesting (and scary and sad). Damn I wanted to watch it, but we took Madison to her second county fair (in two days ) How was it?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 02:21 PM) You used both "trick" and "tricks". It's not class warfare, it's accounting. Even the WH budget director acknowledges the fact that the increase in tax revenue is coming from high income taxpayers. Why are Republicans so worried about mere fact? And frankly, your "simple" argument is flat wrong. If inequality is so great for growth (as you claim it creates oodles of jobs), why didn't payroll outstrip WH projections? Why did it fall below WH projections? The WH itself has admitted that the tax cuts do not create more revenue on their own. But it's true that whatever 'revenue effect' you get from a tax cut, it will be stronger for corporations than for individuals. The volatility's sort of the point. Although corporate taxes are only about 1/5 of personal income taxes, because they are so volatile, a large increase can have a sizeable effect on overall tax revenue. It's like suggesting that GDP numbers should ignore investment, because it's small and volatile. As far as records exist, the only time aggregate corporate profits have been negative was in the Depression. I can only hope that Bush isn't that incompetent. And forget income, what happened to all those jobs that come from inequality, btw? That would push up payroll taxes, right? Hmm... Anyway, we know that there aren't too many people jumping from 90k to 180k, since the WH itself "trimmed its estimate of wage and salary income by 1%". All evidence suggests that wages are stagnant, except at the top end. I don't see any "implication" that corporate taxes are of the same size as income taxes, either. They don't compare the percentages, they just report them. As for GDP, they provide both inflation-adjusted and non-adjusted numbers, one right after the other, clearly labelled. The inflation-adjusted number is mentioned second, almost as a curio. Basically useless, I agree that it would be better left out. Everywhere else they seem to use non-adjusted numbers, which is the right thing to do. This is a simple accounting point they're making. They're not ripping the WH numbers, just the way Bush interprets them in public statements. Since those interpretations don't agree with his own administration's analysis, that does not seem difficult to justify. Ah yes, so easy to explain it all away isn't it Aren't numbers just grand. The irony is you managed to cherry pick out what you wanted, and throw in a few irrelevant things, just like the author of that story did, and like I did. Congrats we are all biased economists now.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) 10,000 people cared enough to go to another rally even after the issue has lost its luster. And you're still making threads about it so you care too! I still care, because unlike most, I still realize even if it isn't on the Daily Show, it is still important. I still believe the wrong thing was done by totally dropping this issue all of the sudden. I think it is pretty telling when the attendance drops by 98%.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) Isn't 10,000 people a lot of people for a rally? I don't get it. Considering the overkill of rallies and the lack of publicity this one got, I'd say that's a pretty good number. QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) Given a lack of urgency, and sudden lack of attention to the issue, 10,000 people is impressive. Actually you guys are making my point for me. All of the sudden no one cares. It was such a big deal that Repubs were using this as a distraction from everything, yet now the other side can't get more than 10,000 to a rally when they got 100,000 and 500,000 to their last two rallies.

The guy has some points, and some BS. My big problem is that he rips someone for the technique they use to prove something, and then use the exact same technique. That bothers me. To be honest, you could take that set of numbers, and prove that the martians inhabited Atlantis if you really worked at it. Numbers lie all of the time, but it is pretty lowbrow for a WSJ columnist of all people, who knows how numbers get manipulated, to call this administration on it, and then do the samething himself. I don't have a lot of time to give my full take on this, but I am sure it would have the same mix of fact, interpretation, and BS as anyone else's.

BEST.SKIN.EVA.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:03 AM) Mind telling me what the trick is? TrickS. First is the played out class warfare card. Let me make this simple, if rich people are making money, poor people have jobs. If rich people are losing money, poor people lose jobs. Its the same with corporate profits... If coroporations lose money, people lose jobs, see also the airline and auto industries of today. Guess what. Corporations are making money, and since August of 2003, 5.4 million new jobs have been created. Guess what else, corporations are paying lower rates, but paying more money in taxes, which is exactly what conservatives said would happen. How about showing the increase in corporate profits as a percentage, and then comparing it to income tax collections for a comparison? For #1, corporate profits are HUGELY volitile, and a prone to large swings. #2, you can actually have negative coporate profits, while you can't have negative income tax collections. The lowest you can have is zero. #3 income tax collections are a much bigger piece of tax revenues than corporate profits, but the implication in the article is that they are somehow equal. #4, because of the size difference in between the two it takes a much smaller dollar figure move in profits to make a larger percentage difference than it does the other way around. #5, payroll taxes are incredibly stable because of the fact that there has been a nearly stable unemployement rate in this country for the past year, which means the group has not grown at all, and the simple fact remains that there can't be huge growth because the growth potential is capped by the income limit. If a guy doubles his salary from 90000 to 180000 his taxes paid rise a ton, but the amount he pays for payroll taxes only goes up 7.75% X $4200. It makes liars out of the percentages because they don't tell the whole story. Another cute little trick is using whole numbers in some sections, while using percentages in others, and comparing percentages to percentages in other areas. Just because the percentages don't match up, doesn't mean there is something sinister going on. I really like the part where they adjusted for inflation in one section, and didn't in another, and then used that to make it look even more outlandish when comparing the two percentage changes. I guess total tax revenues aren't effected by inflation, just econmic output? Come on.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...ws/8589438.html

Great work guys. Excellent series and research.

I am glad to hear that it was good news here. Birmingham seems to be a great stop for our kids.

I believe the only real limit is the amount of money you are willing to put out for a minor league system. If you want to have a bunch of teams, I don't think there is anything to stop you from it.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) not everyone ............. I didn't say everyone either Those of us who feel that those 10 games could be important probably didn't want to be referred to as "fluffy clouds", unless you would prefer some cutesy derrogatory nickname in clear violation of the rules here...

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 08:34 AM) Fluffy Clouds ... I quit reading there when you decided to label a whole group of people...

And an interesting and misleading trick this is as well. I love fun with numbers. Its funny for the author to accuse the President and his group of accounting and math tricks, but then to do the samething in his own writings. *sigh*

I guess since the Repubs dropped the issue, it isn't an issue for the people here illegally anymore? i don't get it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...ocalchicago-hed

QUOTE(tealeafreaderii @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 10:16 PM) This site is ridiculas... The sox string together 9 wins and all the suddens they are the repeating word series champions... Lose 7 of 9 and Ozzie is a terrible manager... and this team is going nowhere but down... I think we all need to temper our enthusiasm... and our depression. That or start taking xanax. QUOTE(T R U @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 03:54 AM) Theres too much baseball to be played for so many people here to call for the end of the world.. Sure, were playing bad.. but it wont keep up the entire second half. Eventually were gonna get our spiff together and look more and more like the team we really are than this team that is out there struggling right now. I still think the pitching overall will improve, and the hitting really shouldnt be a question. They are gonna produce. The funny thing of it all is as "bad" as the Sox played, they were two pitches away from sweeping this series.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) But really, to me, its just a silly waste of time for Congress to be mucking around with it anyway. Sooooooo many better things for them to be doing. And if they really want to acheive cost savings for Americans they could try looking at smaller government, less layers of bureaucracy, less duplicate functions, more private sector activity...etc etc...

QUOTE(Felix @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) I don't think so. First pitch is delayed until 1:25 though because the tarp was on the field. Thanks for the info

Is it raining in Detroit???

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) There are two or three Hot N Nows left in the world. The closest one to you would be Big Rapids, Michigan. Are you kidding me? I was totally addicted, we used to go there almost everyday for lunch in HS, right there on Franklin, south of the tracks there.

I wish we had Jack in the Box up here, plus the chain I really miss is Hot and Now.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 19, 2006 -> 02:46 PM) I suspect Mariotti has a different definition of "censorship" than his editors do, and therein lies the problem. Columnists are subject to the editorial red pen much the same as staff writers. None of the other Sun Times columnists seem to be complaining about censorship. That, to me, speaks volumes, especially since the Sun Times employs several long term, veteran columnists. And if you throw in their seeming market as the "tabloid" newspaper of Chicago complete with the blaring/misleading headlines, and prominantly placed gossip columnists, it makes it all that much more amazing.