Y2HH

If the dems want to push the health bill as is, they can -- congress simply has to vote yes to the senate version and its done.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 02:04 PM) That's all of that tolerance we are always hearing about... Olbermann is the polar opposite of Bill O'...without the ratings. Heh.

After reading that, I wish it were April.

In no particular order, because I like them all -- Like a Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan Sweet Lullaby [Ambient] - Deep Forest Hard Sun - Eddie Vedder All Along The Watchtower - Hendrix Read My Mind - The Killers To Heal - Underworld Here's Looking At You, Kid - The Gaslight Anthem Baba O'Riley - The Who Wish You Were Here - Pink Floyd Closer To The Heart - Rush Top 10 just isn't enough, since I have like a top 50.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 02:04 PM) How many contract years has Jones had that people said that about? And how many did he turn it around in? What would make this year any different? To expect anything from a player who took 500k just for a chance is a huge mistake. You want the Sox to start a guy who last year was a DH, and over the past two seasons only played about 150 games total? I've always liked Jones, and when he cares, he's REALLY good. Bobby Cox had to ride this guy to keep him going, the last few years he didn't have that, look at his numbers after leaving Atlanta, straight down hill. I think Ozzie is the type of manager he needs now to light a fire under him, to call him out and not cater to his laziness. We will see.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) Do you really think Jones can play CF well anymore? I'm unconvinced. I do.

Quentin = DH Jones = CF Rios = RF Pierre = LF Rios is a really good RF, leave him there. Jones was one of the best CF's in history in a bigger park, playing CF for us shouldn't be an issue, he's only 32 -- he just needs to show up in shape and were good to go.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 01:42 PM) In 2007 he hit 26 HR's in 659 PAs (he's not getting that many here) In 2008 he hit 3 HR's in 238 PAs I'd say 15 is at the lower end of what I would expect from Jones with a good amount of playing time, but how many PAs do you really expect him to get. I actually expect him to be our starting CF not long after the season starts. He's in a contract year, so he's going to play hard and show up in better shape. Besides, who else do we have? Quentin needs to be DH, period. Pierre in LF. Jones in CF. Rios in RF. I'd make that our standard starting lineup -- subbing Quentin from time to time to rest Pierre/Rios, shifting Rios to CF when Jones rests. Keeping Jones on the bench, IMO, is just dumb. He's better than his numbers have shown the last few years.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) The problem is that this is a best case scenerio. Worst case... Pierre: 1 HR Beckham: 20 HR Quentin: 15 HR, hurt on and off all year Konerko: 18 HR AJ: 12 HR Rios: 16 HR Missile: 14 HR Teahen: 12 HR Jones: 15 HR Assorted Bench Guys: 10-15 HR The truth lies somewhere between these two most likely, but adding a cheap great hitter to a position where all that is required is hitting is always going to yield better results then rotating mediocre hitters under the guise of "a flexible, dynamic bench" If Andruw Jones plays a lot, he will hit more than 15HR at the cell in his worst year ever.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:40 PM) I never said it was a decrease. That wasn't my point. My point was, this deal is not "nothing". It clearly has positive effect. And my point wasn't that this is necessarily a "bad idea" if it's done right. But if they're going to just sell things off, make money short term, have less burden, but continue to increase the taxes -- which is exactly what they will do. In that case, than this isn't good for the taxpayers, because it gets us nothing real in return. Our taxes still go up, only now that private companies own these services, the fees go up on them, too! If I worked for the City financial unit, I'd be harping about how great of an idea this is -- it sheds burden, we can continue to take money from people and just spend what we were spending on Y and put it into Z, until we sell Z that is...then we'll take the extra money no longer going to Y and Z and put them into X! It's Chicago. To expect anything else is insanity.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:25 PM) Property taxes are mostly county, not city. And you really think that a billion dollars and a 75 year projected revenue haul is nothing? You really think that if we hadn't done this, the taxes would not have gone up? If so, there isn't really much left to discuss. No, I'm saying EITHER WAY OUR TAXES ARE GOING UP...and that's the problem.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) You mean the study that looks at projected revenues assuming increases in fee rates? Again, you have to look at the full math. Currently, the city makes no money on the meters. If they raised fees like the lessee is doing, then obiously they start to make money. That's not the issue, though. The question becomes... do you do that, or do you have someone more efficient do it, and split the difference? That's what was done here. Furthermore, this dismisses the fact that if the city itself raised meter rates like this, as bas as this private company has been at implementation, how much worse do you figure it would have been if the gov't did it? Oh and, if people don't pay the meters, the city still gets the ticket revenue, which I didn't see mentioned in that report either. And that quote is garbage, because if you look at his report, he specifically states what value the system had to the city WAS calculated by the city, and he even uses those numbers as a comparison! The margin difference that is at stake here is, the difference in increased revenue versus efficiency. Assuming the gov't would be less efficient in implementation and maintenance - and I think we can assume that - then how much of that marginal difference goes to the city? That is where the real difference lies, in how good a deal this was. That report, which I saw before, doesn't see things that way. They see only the lost revenue. Its not a great analysis, from my perspective. Now that all said, the city might not have gotten a great return on this when compared to future cash flows ASSUMING the rate increases (which, again, would likely not have been possible had the city run the meters). There could be some variance there. And the report does work with a reasonable discount rate to make that accounting, which is good. But this is also the reality of giving gov't work to private businesses - they want a profit. You can't have it both ways. What would you have suggested doing, by the way? Continued the same path, having the gov't continue its inefficient ways, and not get anything? Raise meter rates themselves (which I guarantee would be stopped by the city council)? What are the REALISTIC alternatives to this that are better? I am no great supporter of city government, but I'm also not just going to blindly dismiss all actions of an agency or party because they sometimes make bad decisions. I would agree with you 100% if we got anything out of it, but we didn't. Our taxes will NOT go down, despite our burden being less, and now the meters will cost us more, on top of the same taxes we are going to continue to pay. This is reality. The only thing the City did was plug a hole they created themselves via poor management of assets and funds. We pay for it. And will continue to pay for it. I repeat one final time...our taxes will NOT be going down, DESPITE our burden having gone down. How much would you like to bet our taxes won't fall no matter how much of these things they sell off? Nothing? Didn't think so. And furthermore...our taxes will continue to increase just as fast as they are now...since I know this will be the attempted counter argument. It holds no water. As a matter of fact, property taxes just had one of their biggest increases EVER, and this coming AFTER they sold this asset.

But you're right, basic business decisions to sell an asset at 50% off are...well, basic! I can't wait for you to sell your house for 50% off, let me know when you put it up for sale, I'll buy it, since selling it at such a steep discount is so...basic!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:34 PM) 70 Its bordering on crazy that some of you aren't able to make a decision on this issue, versus saying all things must by nature be bad if they came from government. And ironically, you are even attacking how bad the government is, when it is trying to remove government from the equation. Bizarre. Go do some research on this if you want to know more, everything I've stated is out there. The reason they got a billion for it is that the company holding the lease will raise revenues, and do it at a lower cost than the city could do it. Not that complicated, really, its a basic business decision. One entity can maintain a business more efficiently than another, so they buy it, and do just that, benefiting both. Actually I did some research. The city's governmental watchdog, the inspector general, has just wrapped up a five-month long investigation into the parking meter lease deal. And like most of the folks who park their cars in Chicago, he doesn't like what he found. Not at all. The big money lease of the city's parking meters to private operators has not only been a source of anger and more anger for city drivers, it's also turned out to be a very bad financial deal for the Daley administration. That's the gist of a 43-page report by Chicago's inspector general. "The city failed to make a calculation of what the value of the parking meter system was to the city," Inspector General David Hoffman said. Charts and graphs in Hoffman's report say the city, eager to balance the budget, unloaded its meter revenues for $974 million less than they were actually worth over the life of the 75-year deal. That's just shy of $1 billion.

Correction -- 75 year lease.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:26 PM) In this case, the city was making nearly zero money on parking meters. So the period to generate a billion dollars would be basically infinate. Selling the asset generated a billion in the short term, which they wouldn't get until decades and decades down the line. And the lease is up well before then anyway. So its hard to see how it isn't a financial move that makes sense. So the future cost is miniscule, against a large cash infusion. I don't defend the way the city spends money. But in this case, this was clearly the smart move. It is bordering crazy how much you seem to trust government math. Yes, they were making 0 dollars, that's why it was worth a billion. The lease is for 70 years, so no, it won't be up by then, or anytime in your lifetime.

I'll say it now -- regardless of how many assets the City of Chicago sheds/sells/no longer holds obligations to uphold, our taxes, be it real estate, sales, income, etc...will *NOT* be going down. Less assets and less obligation should mean they go down, but they will NOT go down. Watch.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) Their assets and their obligations. Which is a good thing. It can be a good thing, for them. For the taxpayers/consumers, it's a bad thing. Our taxes will not go down from this, and the fees/costs of the now private industries will rise with no control.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) Guaranteed income? Not only that, but being that they're selling stuff off, their assets are decreasing right there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 08:03 AM) Just to add some reality here... they haven't spent the $1B, in fact, the mayor was pushing to spend a percentage of it for budget gaps (which he should), that equates to something like 20% of it. The rest is still there. Its basically an emergency fund. Last I heard, it was almost all gone already.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 07:55 AM) Agreed. What made Obama work is that he represented something new and special and didn't appear nearly as polarizing as Palin does. It remains to be seen if Palin can do the same thing, but unlike Obama - its how she started which is a huge handicap for her 2012 prospects. She might run, but frankly, I think she'll be a smarter Rudy and realize sooner that she makes more money and is held in higher esteem if she merely toys with future election campaigns rather than actually have them. I'll just call it like it is -- Obama is intelligent, well spoken, and not a blithering idiot. Palin speaks like an annoying jackass, isn't intelligent and is a blithering idiot. And I don't even care for Obama much.

Let's just keep in mind that they've already spent the billion dollars they made on the meters, and they still have big budget gaps. The issue I have is simple. Selling off all of these things should reduce the price of running Chicago for the taxpayer, hence the taxpayers burden...however, I'll bet any of you right now that despite all of these privatization sales, our income/house/sales/liquor/soda/water/grocery and gasoline taxes will continue to rise. So in other words, they're selling off everything we are paying to support, getting paid big dollars for it on a one time basis, and our burden will remain the same (or increase), despite us having less control as taxpayers to decide who runs the show. If they sell Midway and Midway ups the price of everything 80%, we can't "vote them out"...so now we end up with higher costs on everything we've sold, no control over voting them out for doing so...and our tax burden remains the same, or higher? Laughable that people accept this. Nice try. And don't tell me I can always go to O'Hare if Midway was to do something like that, because O'Hare would increase their prices knowing the only viable alternative already did the same. In the end, we'd lose, just like we lost on the way more expensive meters...yet our taxes didn't fall one bit -- as a matter of fact, they went up despite the City no longer having the meter overhead. I used to park downtown at meters for WAY less than the cost I have to pay now. 25 cents = 6 minutes. 25 cents USED to = 15 minutes.

IMO, this will destroy any future presidential candidacy plans Palin may have, if she even has any. The sheer amount of footage/archived footage that will exist on her will be her undoing in the future, politically. Any little thing she says on the air that looks innocent now WILL come back and haunt her on the campaign trail. The reason Obama was taken at his word so easily is because there wasn't endless amounts of archived footage of the things he said on the record that people could sift through and find ways to rip him apart...for the most part, we had to look at Obama's past and decide whether to believe him or not. I think Palin understands that shes a hot "ticket" right now and needs to continue to cash in on it before that train leaves the station. Seriously, if the GOP pin their future hopes on Palin -- they've already lost. She's simply, IMO, too stupid to run the USA.

I grew up in bridgeport -- my parents still live in bridgeport -- and with that said, Jimbo's sucked, so I hope they not only change the name, but everything about that cheap hole in the wall. A friend of mine was even a bartender there which made things very cheap for me...and I still thought that place sucked! I hope this happens. I absolutely CANNOT stand being served beer or any other drink in a plastic f***ing cup like I'm some immature college kid that has no respect. That place can blow me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 08:03 AM) That is the sound of billions of dollars circling the drain... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9527995 I hope this doesn't actually surprise anyone.