StrangeSox

I don't think anyone who is actually planning or even thinking about running in 2020 would say they were in 2017, but yeah Biden isn't running.

http://conferencecall.biz/

What the AHCA means for people with pre-existing conditions: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/upshot/f...conditions.html

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 2, 2017 -> 09:09 AM) Yeah, I got the joke, thanks. yeah, sorry, I definitely misread that and my post came across kinda mean when it was meant more to be laughing at the wacky times we live in

it is real life, check your twitter

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2017 -> 06:17 PM) Transcripts of his interviews melt my brain Here's the full transcript http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trum...ull-transcript/

These Fox graphics crack me up

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ May 1, 2017 -> 04:14 PM) Good stuff StrangeSox. I'm pretty sure Trump is becoming da man. Transcripts of his interviews melt my brain

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 1, 2017 -> 03:13 PM) I absolutely think Pace had more information than I do, which is why I said: "If people were offering fair value for the Bears pick, I would have traded down and taken the 2 1sts, 2 2nds, plus." Thats just personal opinion though. After reading Ptatc's comment above, I think the deal more had to do with what time Pace thought he had left. If he thinks he has at most a 2 year leash, he cant stockpile picks for next year because hell be gone by the time they produce. That's an interesting thought because it highlights that there are definitely cases where the people running the team have a very strong short-term incentive to make decisions that may not be in the team's best interest mid- to long-term. QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 1, 2017 -> 03:20 PM) And ultimately that's why I don't get this move. It's a poor draft for QB's. The team will be terrible next year and in the top 5 again. Maybe even the following season. So get your roster loaded with young talent and THEN find your QB. Even if that QB fails, at least you have a decent roster that can mature over a couple of seasons. If good enough, maybe you can find a QB in FA that can put you over the top. Instead Pace completely gambled and either (1) gave away potential 3rd and 4th round picks, or worse, (2) gave away those 3rd and 4th round picks PLUS whatever they could have gotten for the #3 this year. Instead of filling 5-6 positions of need, they got 1. But like SB was getting it, while that may or may not be the best strategy for The Bears as an organization, it's not the best strategy for Pace if he thinks he doesn't have ownership's confidence for 2-3 more years of rebuilding and needs to start showing results soon.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2017 -> 12:16 PM) It is creating a permanent underclass that is utterly dependent on the government for just about everything. Our economy is trending more towards a Saudi Arabian look versus the Scandinavian one where a ton of people don't work, and really have no need to do so because the marginal gains aren't worth the different in income, or even the loss of benefits. That could potentially explain why say the bottom quintile or two saw their share of economic gains drop, maybe. That doesn't explain, at all, why 95% of the gains went to the top 1%.

related:

QUOTE (bmags @ May 1, 2017 -> 10:41 AM) Can someone clarify something for me. The Peter King article at different point mentions the bears trading a 2017 3rd and 4th and a 2018 Fourth, then later in the article says its a 2017 3rd and 4th and a 2018 4th. I've seen multiple "bears basically traded a 3rd rounder after they recouped their picks trading down". What is accurate? I hate this framing because they could have not traded up in the first and still traded down later and ended up with a lot more picks overall.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 1, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) He doesn't have time to golf. He sits in the White House making great deals. We will all be sick of winning pretty soon. He went golfing for the 20th time in his Presidency this weekend. That was after a fundraiser on Friday and a campaign rally on Saturday. QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 1, 2017 -> 10:26 AM) That's some world class negotiation right there by Trump. Really took it to them. Art of the Deal! edit: I actually think that we'd have a budget that was much more Republican-friendly had Clinton won right now. Congressional Republicans are in a lot of disarray right now, and there's obviously no leadership coming from the White House on this sort of stuff. If Clinton had won, they'd have been united behind total opposition. This budget is the result of the non-HFC group of Republicans negotiating with a majority of Democrats to come up with a compromise funding bill. If you're someone who actually likes a functional government and a legislature that actually knows how to do its job, this is a good sign.

Details on the agreement to fund the government through the rest of the fiscal year: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-...0430-story.html

So what about the other 79% that aren't on governmental incomes of one sort or another but still saw 95% of the wealth gains of the past decade go to the top 1%? Maybe there's something wrong with the structure of our economy itself and not just 'government handouts' that has driven more and more wealth to the very top of the pile over the past several decades? The argument seems sort of circular, anyway. People aren't on governmental assistance because they want to be, they're on it because there just aren't enough living wage jobs available, or health care has become too expensive for many people to be able to afford without assistance. The gains flowing to the very top have climbed much quicker as a percentage than government spending as a fraction of GDP, so that just doesn't really seem like a correlation let alone a causal effect. edit: I mean, there are other countries with higher government spending per GDP, much more generous social safety net programs, and much higher economic mobility and lower economic disparity. If "government spending per GDP" is a major causal factor in more and more wealth going towards the 1% in the US, why doesn't it hold true elsewhere?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 04:07 PM) Over the same period of time the share of the GDP that belongs to the US government has also kept on a steady upward trajectory, which is not a coincidence. When your income is locked into the government, there is no room for growth. That is happening to more and more of the economy. It is also borne out with the labor force participation rate continuing to crash. You aren't going to grow wealth on social security, on disability, on unemployment or any other governmental paycheck. Organized labor also fell steadily. So did manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains and wage increases became decoupled. The economy became increasingly financialized. The salaries between upper level executives and the rest of the workforce diverged quicker and quicker. And actually, the federal budget as a share of national GDP has been more or less steady with some up and down modulation for the past several decades: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Trump: I don't stand by anything

for the record, Andrew Jackson was a plantation-owning slaver who died 16 years before the Civil War started.

Duterte has been invited to the White House

The Benefits of Economic Expansion are Increasingly Going to the Richest Americans

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Apr 1, 2017 -> 05:15 PM) The best album I have heard in a while is "Hot Thoughts" by Spoon. Saw them live at SXSW. Second time. Guys are amazing. Solid album. I saw them at the Aragon back when Transference came out, would love to see them again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/arts/mus...hamas.html?_r=1