lostfan

Alexei had 768 fielding chances... Jeter had 553. That's a difference of more than 200. Seriously it's no wonder Jeter only had 6 errors... at least he fields the balls that are hit right to him cleanly.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 06:59 PM) When you look at it, 8 of the 10 games they lost they easily could've won. But to be fair, they won games they had no business winning. I was 13 or 14 at the time. It's just amazing feeling watching a game thinking your team is just going to win. No matter what. They're going to find a way to win. And I don't even think that team was the best of the title bunch. Give me the '92 team over the '96 team 7 days a week. But there was just something about that '96 team. I remember they lost 2 straight games in February, I was like wow how'd that happen?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 11:44 AM) As I've told many people when they were having similar problems is that hold the device naturally as possible, so both thumbs are free to move, and don't TRY to help the phone correct your typing, just type. People tend to over compensate for the phone in trying to be precise, when they're actually making themselves less precise by over extending reach, etc. The software was designed to work with you, so don't try to work against it via "helping" it out. That's probably why I keep f***ing it up.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 04:19 PM) I dont feel sorry for you being out of a job Dave. My sentiments exactly, I mean, you created this situation and f***ed some other people over so...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) It was on the ballot. I'm glad Brady didn't win, but I'm sad that Quinn did. Also, politicians should not be allowed to use the word "mandate" anymore, or they get automatically impeached. There are no mandates in American politics unless you win like 70 or 80% of the vote. I hate it when politicians do that. Or even using the word "majority" when you're talking about 53%. Ugh.

Yeah, 72-10 is pretty safe for the time being

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:14 PM) A lot of what will happen with healthcare is unknown right now, which is why the prices are going up. Hospitals/doctors/pharma/insurance companies are not sure what the future holds, so all of them are kind of pricing in the unknown (how they do that, don't ask), much of it seems like greed due to uncertainty, but some of it seems necessary in some ways, as obviously they're on the hook for a lot more now. Anyway, I maintain that something needs to be done about the entire industry. Insurance companies aside, pharma and the industry in general still need reform, because despite a 2000+ page law, they were left untouched. Anyway...email/chat: [email protected] Or you can AIM me at y2hh It's not really politically correct to say in public that a lot of doctors are full of s***. I can say it and people would probably listen, but a politician can't or he has to beat around the bush because people like doctors and inherently trust them because they went to school for so long and they've been pretty ambitious people most of their lives. Example: a doctor tells a healthy 60-year old woman she needs an MRI for no reason in particular. She doesn't need it, but he knows what he's doing and she's probably oblivious to it and she's thinking "well if my doctor says I need it then it's probably important." Or, something that's probably happened to everyone at some point: you go tell the doctor and complain of some symptoms. The doctor says "oh, ok it sounds like you have xxxx" and runs a test, then writes you a prescription. A week later the prescription hasn't done s*** so you go back and he says "it looked like xxxx but it could also be yyyy. Let's run the test again." Then he gives you another prescription. Viola, it works. But you made a co-pay for both visits. They were both billed to your insurance. You paid for 2 prescriptions. Did the doctor know you didn't really need both prescriptions? Yeah, odds were pretty good that he did. But who do they answer to? Someone that's going to check that? I doubt it. Lawyers go to school for a pretty long time, do we give them this much leeway? Absolutely not.

Changing the subject a little: GM's IPO is happening on 18 November and I might be a little Pollyana here, but I think they'll end up being fine. Bankruptcy was a traumatic experience for them but it helped them shrink to a more appropriate size, and they were able to shed the albatross contracts they were stuck in that were bogging them down pre-2009. Now they are smaller and more agile and are in a better position to make profits and do things they couldn't do before. I see people saying "why would anybody invest in GM right now, remember what happened to GM's shareholders last year?" That question is a non-sequitur as far as I'm concerned, because for all intents and purposes they are 2 separate entities pre- and post-bankruptcy. They were investing in a company that had been in trouble for a while, and it essentially went belly-up. What would've happened to their shares then if the government hadn't bailed them out? They would've gone into the s***ter! So why's that even being brought up?

Kotsay used to be a pretty decent ballplayer. It's kind of hard to picture it now though.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:47 PM) Your coverage will eventually change, and sooner rather than later. It's more expensive for insurance companies now, so if you think your rates will remain the same, you're in for a surprise. Probably. I dunno. It probably has more to do with the financial shape my firm is in (outstanding) than anything else. OT: I need your e-mail address if you don't mind, I always have little questions that I want to ask someone about investing etc. and you're a pretty sharp dude, but I can't get on ST at work

My insurance coverage hasn't changed at all except they switched dental coverage for 2011 for basically all the same coverage. This data isn't new btw... if you break it up into individual pieces of things people wanted changed people support all of them by pretty wide margins. Add in the mandate and put them under a banner like "Obamacare" and the favorability goes way down.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 04:06 PM) A saving grace is that Yankee fans don't ride the short bus: http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php/1...ld-Glove-Awards edit: doh someone already posted that. Better comment:

My 4 year old son: Dad, can I play Nick Jr. on the computer? Me: No not right now. I'm busy. Son: But I don't want you to be busy. Me: I know, but I have something to do. I'm helping my friend right now. Son: I can't let you be busy. I need you to go upstairs, and think about sharing.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 10:31 AM) It takes time to run the ball effectively. Bears had some nice carries on the day and things worked out well, imo. Might not have been the best rushing attack ever, but you know what, It kept the opposition honest and Cutler was hit a hell of a lot less this week. If the Bears can consistently work on running the ball things should continue to get better, imo. It takes run blocking to run effectively, something the Bears can't do. At all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:04 PM) Honestly, a decent survey of this stuff is something that comes in an intermediate level college macro-economics class that involves lots of fun calculus. Its not really easy to explain, and Krugman is being ingeniousness as an economics professor by pretending otherwise. At the end of the day, sending money to the government means that instead of a $10 meal, you are paying $11 for the same meal you could have just bought yourself, but instead had to hire someone to buy for you. That is the very simple definition of waste, or inefficiency. I'm not arguing this point, I was converted to that point of view long ago although I don't act like it on here

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:55 PM) I've always wondered about this myself but assumed that I'm obviously missing something. There would be no waste or inefficiencies regardless of what money was spent on. But I don't think you can look at things like infrastructure or public education and say private dollars would have been spent "better" or more efficiently. Without an educated populace or roads, we'd be little more than another developing economony with resources that are exploited by foreign companies. I really am not disputing that you really would rather the government not be doing something that the private sector could do and there is a mostly finite list of exceptions to that rule. A government, of any size, really doesn't have the flexibility that a private business does (although this point starts to become moot when you're talking about tens of billions of dollars of revenue, and multinationals, etc.). I do argue about the nature of taxes, though. You'd think all that money just goes into a poisonous black hole or something. It doesn't.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:44 PM) No it isn't. It takes more money to generate the same amount of income for the government. That either means smaller government (yeah, that'll happen), higher taxes, or more borrowing from China. I was trying to say, whether that money is collected through taxes and distributed by the government (I'm not arguing that this isn't ideal because this obviously means people get to keep less of what they earned) or whether it's spent by consumers or goes to mortgage payments or whatever, all of it eventually makes its way into "the economy." It doesn't just get burned up, it goes to a cop, or a teacher, or a construction worker and then they spend that money on goods and services like anyone else does.

Public spending doesn't just disappear. Yes I get that it's not an efficient way to distribute income but it doesn't just get eaten up by the tax demons forever and ever. The end result is eventually the same.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:18 PM) All of them? All those things are for city, county, state governments etc. I mean, I pay property taxes to Anne Arundel County, not the feds. Further, let's say that all of it did have something to do with federal revenue, add it all up and sit that number next to the Bush tax cuts, how does it look? I'm guessing pretty tiny.

Disclaimer: I'm about to post a couple of biased links, anyway this author is making a case that the economy is about ready for some real growth, on the order of 4 or 5% and not this 1 and 2% we've had http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...-in-2011/66159/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...-part-ii/66250/

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 09:27 AM) I'm sick and tired of the more taxes vs less taxes debate in this country, it's misguided at best, and if anyone took the time to open their eyes, they'd see how blind it really is. These "Bush Era" tax cuts are all we hear about now, they're expiring, the government needs more money, etc. In reality, taxes never really went down, they just shifted around, only nobody seems to notice...or care. Meanwhile... Liquor taxes went up. Restaurant taxes went up. Soda taxes went up. Water taxes went up. Sales taxes increased across the board, whether you buy a candy bar or a Ferrari. Special entertainment taxes were added to your cable, phone and internet bills, most of which nobody can really explain since they seem like completely arbitrary values. If you own a house, property taxes went up. If you're a healthy eater, don't forget to increase taxes at your local product market, because they sure didn't! You're city stickers/license plate stickers increased in price -- significantly. The cost of work/building permits increased. Bottom line... These tax cuts have been and are a load of garbage, they just moved them from a national level to a local level, and neither are better off. Despite the nickle and dime increases on everything from bread to water, across the board, they're still increasing the state/local deficits, and it's not slowing down. Bush era tax cuts. Meh. Great, I take a little bit more home every check, only I spend that much more one ever single little thing I buy. But how many of these actually have any kind of effect at all on the federal budget? Like 2?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) Isn't quite a bit of that from the temporary Census jobs being gone? I haven't looked much into it, but what I can do is look around. Hasn't government (public) compensation eclipsed private sector compensation? I didn't have time to research this, so it could be a bunch of BS, but if it has, that right there is a red flag IMO. When I get more time I'll have to check deeper into that. I don't know where Balta got that graph but state governments have been cutting the everloving s*** out of payroll to the point where there's not much left that can be cut.

The inside of Gordon's head was his own worst enemy for the first half of last year.

In two words: It's not

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 03:56 PM) Oh, and if you want something to be angry at the Administration about...the HAMP program has done nothing but worsen this situation and ensure that it drags out for years, rather than even taking baby steps towards helping. It's got no teeth.