StrangeSox

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:55 AM) Am I the only one that thinks stimulus = spending? Is stimulus supposed to be a savings plan? QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) creates jobs investment in future technology This isn't just paying people to dig a hole and fill it back up. Stimulus bill is a spending bill. Synonymous. It's the gov't upping it's spending when the demand market shrinks. Spending on things like this could actually really help the country. It's a matter of timing. Money that's not going to be spent for 2 years isn't exactly a stimulus for the current economic problems.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:52 AM) Yeah for one that 2 billion doesn't EXPLICITLY say futureGEN is the beneficiary, though it is likely. And besides that, I think it is worth it to continue to try out FUTUREGEN, if it can do what they say or think it can do, it is a fantastic investment. We have a lot of coal in the U.S., if this really can do with the CO2 emissions that it says it can, that 2 b is a good use of money. No green tech. is completely ready yet, so we are going to need to take some chances with money, but something will prove worthwhile. I'm all for FutureGen, but does it really belong in a stimulus bill? I know I've said it before, but this is just a massive spending bill with a couple of short-term pieces that will stimulate the economy a little.

I know I'm bumping up an old thread here, but the Mormon church keeps changing its story. First, they hadn't donated anything. Then, it was a few thousand. Now, its a couple hundred thousand. http://www.fox40.com/pages/landing/?blockI...&feedID=190

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) Wipe Out Bowl halftime show this year > Springstein halftime show this year Kitty Halftime Show at Puppy Bowl > All

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Daschle, like Geithner, shouldn't pass confirmation. Neither deserve the posts they were nominated to. Unfortunately, both will make it in. Not only is this a mistake from a right/wrong perspective IMO, but it is yet another bit of political damage that Obama has elected to take on, when he easily could have found other qualified candidates who don't have this baggage. He is throwing away small bits of his political capital in supporting these guys, and I can see no logical reason to do so. Daschle may have helped with the campaign, but he certainly wasn't a difference-maker in it. Geithner bought Obama nothing. So WTF? He's giving his opponents an awful lot of ammunition right off the bat.

QUOTE (Cubano @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 11:14 PM) Is there any Democrat that pays taxes? No.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 11:53 AM) If you believe Keynes...what makes it a true economic stimulus is that the government is going in to debt to pay for it. In a deflationary, recessionary environment, that's the key. That's where the Keynes quote that in this specific environment, the government should pay people to dig holes one day and fill them up the next day makes sense. Even very inefficient stimulii, like say, corporate tax cuts still provide a stimulus effect if they're employed through government spending in that specific environment. The question is then how effective each variety of stimulus is per dollar spent. That's a different question. Things that provide employment and increase efficiency in other ways can be particularly effective if they drive multiplication of the dollars spent through either people respending the money or other efficiencies that are created, which is the whole concept I was hitting on in the dem thread. Well, there's an awful lot of economists who don't...

QUOTE (Cubano @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) By the way, Palin probably has less money than Michelle. The Republicans gave her the clothing. Maybe, but so what? Michelle is a Harvard Law graduate - I'd expect her to have done well. And, for the record, Palin's family income was in the upper $100k's.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 09:39 AM) I doubt it. Rush's crowd is faithful. He's converted my brother, and now my brother sounds like a complete dumbass when he talks politics. It's like he goes to download idiotic talking points and regurgitates them to me. He is one of those who still thinks Obama is a Muslim. They wear the label "dittohead" with pride, not with shame. I don't know why you'd ever want someone else (who's being millions upon millions of dollars to rant daily) to control your opinions.

They can have my incandescents when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

The House prosecutor sounded pissed off. And another one hour caucus break.

Someone should tally up how much all of his trips back and forth to Springfield have cost this state in terms of additional children he could have supplied insurance for.

npr is also streaming this live on www.wbez.org It has certainly been interesting. "I was trying to save the children! How can you possibly impeach me?!" "my dad was a war hero!"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:51 AM) [applause] We could do with a much smaller stimulus bill. If you want to start talking about passing a highway bill, a contrespectives bill, an NEA bill, a mass transit bill, etc, that is fine. Over half of this bill does not belong in the sentance with the word "stimulus". At best it is an omnibus spending bill. This is my feeling as well. I think money needs to be spent in some of those areas (particularly energy and infrastructure), but they're not really stimulus items.

QUOTE (mreye @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:47 AM) Are you seriously going to point fingers at Bush for this? Give it up. He's gone. You've got your "change." The problem was they allowed 2 coupons per household. If you're so damned poor that you can't afford your own converter box then why do you have 2 TVs? If they would have limited it to one per they wouldn;t have run out of money. I'm also thinking that a lot of people who didn't really need the boxes were confused and got a coupon anyway, which limited the number available for those who really do need it.

At worst, you're out $40 or $50 for a DAC. You're not forced to buy an HDTV or get cable or satellite. The government received billions of dollars from the sale of the spectrum, so you can even argue that the "rabbit ears" people are still getting something out of it. Why should we waste a portion of the spectrum on redundant signals?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 08:48 AM) Involved in general? Yes. There are things they need to do. Involved as in telling the industry what technologies to move to? No. It comes down to dictating the broadcast spectrum and not technology, right?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 04:37 PM) Yes, they do. I worked in that side of the business for a pretty long while. For a basic letter I'd imagine they'd be hard to beat, but for any sort of bulk packaging I usually think of UPS or FedEx first.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) On the Fight Night topic, watching boxing for the most part does bore me, but I do love that game. And it only is a 3-4 round knockout with the heavy weights. If you go middleweights or something the fight very easily can go the distance. I still remember the first time I fought Ali in the original Fight Night. It went into the 12th in a pretty balanced match when I finally got a KO. After that fight, the game became much easier for me for some reason. I could go back and crush him in only a few rounds.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) Expansion of executive power, which is an unacceptable compromise IMO. No thanks. Yeah, line-item vetoes make me really uncomfortable. It's nice to think of the President cutting pork, but we all know it would be heavily abused. And what if the pork comes from his own party? Why would Obama want to line-item anything in his own bloated stimulus package?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) What restrictions will be put on the states that are given TARP money? My guess is none. Aside from "No Blago," of course!

I think they'll need a five-hour finale of the creators in a room full of whiteboards to tie all of this together.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) I'm not sure there is a difference. Its not dictating law, because its not dictating anything - it is a condition of receiving federal block funds, which are not obligated to the states. The federal government can decide on discretionary funding in pretty much any way they choose, as long as they don't run afoul of existing federal law or the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution (I don't believe) that dictates the conditions under which the federal government can dole out those discretionary funds. Now, if the funds were about something obligated to the states - i.e. military assistance, like if Illinois was invaded by Canada - then it would be unconstitutional. If they were allowed to say "We're not giving money if Blago is gov.," what prevents them from saying "We're not giving money if a (Rep or Dem) is gov.?"

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 12:51 PM) Here is the thing. This is a trick used long ago, and the guy who really made it play big was Reagan, under the guise of his favored Block Grants. See, the US government cannot make a state government change things not falling under direct purview of the feds. However, this is not a true forcing of the issue. Its using federal funding to blackmail them. Its slimy, but, its common. This was done all over the place to force the 55 mph speed limit decades ago, and it stood up in court. This will stand up too, I'd imagine. It seems unconstitutional, and maybe it should be illegal, but precedent shows it is neither. The speed limit thing also popped into my mind. I would imagine (hope) that there's a legal distinction between requiring certain statues/ rules governing what the money is intended for (I think they were only withholding Federal highway money) vs. the Federal government not giving a state money because it doesn't like who's in charge.

1. Secular Humanism (100%) 2. Nontheist (93%) 3. Unitarian Universalism (93%) 4. Theravada Buddhism (81%) 5. Liberal Quakers (70%) 6. Neo-Pagan (61%) 7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (57%) 8. Taoism (47%) 9. Mahayana Buddhism (42%) 10. New Age (41%) 11. Reform Judaism (39%) 12. New Thought (33%) 13. Scientology (33%) 14. Orthodox Quaker (28%) 15. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (27%) 16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (24%) 17. Sikhism (23%) 18. Baha'i Faith (19%) 19. Jainism (19%) 20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (16%) 21. Eastern Orthodox (16%) 22. Hinduism (16%) 23. Islam (16%) 24. Orthodox Judaism (16%) 25. Roman Catholic (16%) 26. Seventh Day Adventist (16%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (6%)