StrangeSox

LOL. Lockout imminent, then.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) Honestly I don't think it matters. Chances of survival will be near-zero in either case with a wall of 50 mph water/mud/debris slamming into you, and churning you downstream for however long. Well, yeah.

Eh I'm going to blame the massive bubble generated and then inflated by terrible derivatives and insurance tools invented by people who still walked away much, much richer after the whole mess. Without Wall Street creating those, those 'stupid' home buyers wouldn't have been approved for loans in the first place. Either way it's naive to blame public workers unions for state budget shortfalls.

I'd say get out and float with your feet pointing down-stream. At least that's how you go through rapids if you fall out of your boat/kayak. The floatsam complicates that a bit, but I'd just imagine it'd be way to easy for you to get trapped in the car as it became submerged or rolled.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) Correct me if im wrong, but no one made the govt agree to those deals, the govt voluntarily contracted them. Now I agree that the govt may have been stupid to make the deals, and that it may be wise for the Union to voluntarily amend those deals so that it doesnt force the state into BK, but that doesnt mean its okay for the govt to completely take away the unions rights, just because the govt screwed up. Unions have agreed plenty of times to defer compensation to help cover budget shortfalls. They've certainly done that in Wisconsin, but Walker wanted absolutely nothing to do with negotiating. He, like the new governor down in Florida, seems to think being governor means being King of the State and allows you to run the state like you'd run a business. The problems are governors and legislators never actually making long-term plans to pay for anything and, of course, the massive recession caused by Wall Street, not public employees' unions.

What you should see on that graph is a line with a positive slope if the idea that unions are causing the deficits is true. Instead, we see a wavy line that would be pretty much a flat line if you removed NV as the extreme outlier sacked by a bad housing market (unless public unions are to blame for that?) .

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2011/02/the_r...ween_union.html

No, they haven't. Plenty of states with little or no workers' rights have just as bad or worse fiscal problems as Wisconsin, plus they get the benefit of having some of the worst educational systems in the country. You're acting like public workers are lavishly compensated, and that's a joke. Walker's trying to crush unions, sell off state assets for cheap and gut the public education systems because he's ideologically opposed to those things.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) If they really couldnt see it coming and it was moving that fast, yea I could totally see myself getting blindsided like those in the video did. But looking at that much debris in the water it looks like riding it out would not really be a survivable. yeah you should definitely get out of the car ASAP before it rolls or you get pinned.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) I remember it starting with a pretty large majority against it, especially once the insurance mandate came into play. But if you're going to go that route then I'm sure the increase in support against Walker in Wisconsin can be correlated to the increase in the "OMG! They're making us slaves with no rights!" fear mongoring from the left. If the polling asked "do you support the HC bill?" it was probably less than majority support. If the polling asked "would you support a bill with [all major components of the bill]," it was strongly yes. There's a very big difference in that Obama campaigned on this for months, it was a large part of the Dem primaries, and Congress debated it for a year before finally passing. That's not at all like what happened in Wisconsin, where this anti-union bill (with plenty of other ridiculously bad provisions thrown in!) came out of nowhere and was going to pass with zero debate or negotiation if the Democrats had stayed.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) You aren't familiar with the standard insulting names used on other Midwestern states? As I recall... WI: Cheeseheads IL: FIB's LP MI: Trolls UP MI: Youppers (sp?) IA: Iweejans (and no, I don't know what that name comes from) MN: Puddle Jumpers I can't remember the Indiana one. "You are from Indiana"

Also, Tokyo Electric is confirming rising pressure inside of Unit 1. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110311-711801.html

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/03/m...hits_japan.html for Balta: giant whirlpool:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) Oh, and you're on here during the day as much as me...do you work?!@#$#@! Sometimes! VEry project-driven, a little slow this week but busy for a while after that. Also, ADD.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) I believe we are like #3 in the world as oil production goes. I think it's Russia #1, Saudi Arabia #2, USA #3. That said you are probably right...the short term reaction would be bad, but over the long haul, you are probably right, it wouldn't do much. But they'd still tack on a new 'hidden' refining fee for gasoline, I'm sure of it. This keeps playing right into my "let's not continue to have stockholm syndrome with the plutocracy" thing, here. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._oil_production russia SA USA!USA!USA! Iran China are the top 5. We're about 9%. I'm assuming that's trending downward over the past several decades, though.

Maybe in Detroit.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) Well, in a real world of sanity, not much. But this isn't a sane world when it comes to oil prices. When any little thing happens, oil prices rocket...hell, a tiny newspaper in the middle of nowhere can print a false story about oil inventories being down, and if it leaks to the Internet, oil prices would spike on 'inventory shortages'. After the story is refuted, it would take DAYS for oil prices to return to where they were before the story broke. I'm talking longer-term, not day-to-day typical market schizophrenic behavior. Really, if we took away $70B in domestic exploration subsidies today, what impact would that have on the spot price of oil on July 1st? We're hardly the largest producer in the world, and those subsidies aren't for short-term operations.

How much impact can subsidization of domestic oil production have on world oil prices, anyway? That'll at least give some hint to the level of impact it could have on gas prices I would think.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) Links? We aren't playing golf. A game for the bourgeois!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) Yes he has, you just aren't accepting it. links? I've seen nothing but question begging.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) Compassionate conservatism at its finest. This is more "insane-old-manism" than anything to do with conservatism.

You've still yet to explain how these subsidies are passed on to consumers without shareholders/exec's taking multiple cuts on the way through such that it remains the most efficient way to subsidize fuel costs for the poor. Or how they'll just be able to raise prices without effecting demand (or destroying the economy) to keep profits up if subsidies are removed. Or how it will cost billions in administration to simply give this money directly to those who you are ostensibly trying to help. Or why continuing tens of billions of subsidies in fossil fuels controlled by monopolistic forces is good, but why subsidies for alternatives to this completely inelastic, limited-supply fuel are bad.

MM just needs to go away.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:07 PM) Yeah I am done. This is just stupid that this point. I agree. You've actually argued that corporate tax breaks are the best solution to poverty, at least for food and fuel. That is simply insane.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) You are talking about one product versus hundreds. Also the IMF's existance is build around them providing subsidies to the poor of the world and then controling their economies for them. What possible reason would the IMF argue something that would put them out of business? Please answer the question. How much of a cut of these subsidies would you estimate goes directly to shareholders'/CEO pockets?