Balta1701

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 08:05 AM) Clinton started in a much deeper recession and 29 million jobs were created under his watch. Not that either person was responsible for any job not directly related to the federal government. Well...in that case...it's also interesting to note that some studies suggest that without job creation due to government growth, we would still be at a lower total number of jobs than we were in Jan 2001. Link. At least according to that source's data...increased government spending has accounted for more than 100% of the jobs created since Bush took office.

(Posted mainly because I thought it was funny)

Some things of note based on reading the speech: Ok, so the President wants to protect us from animal/human hybrids? Something tells me we shouldnt' be letting this man watch Spiderman movies. Whoever wrote this line is going to be fired: (Insert loud applause by Democrats)

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 08:17 PM) I hate getting into political discussions but I am going to jump in and ask for opinions. Let me preface this by saying I have a basic understanding of economics and government, but I am not one to debate its finer points. So I will up front say, please do not try to call me out, rather help educate me. My question to you Tex is this... Why does it matter? The federal government is not like an individual's household budget. Why should I or anyone else care if the government is billions in "debt"? Does that debet actually ever get paid off? If the budget is balanced, does it really have any effect on my life or yours? Do you really think a government like ours carrying a large debt will actually cause its economy to fail? We have thrived in times with huge debts. I had an economics professor in college that stated matter of factly that the National Debt didn't mean a hill of beans. I can't argue that he is correct, but I can ask the questions. I'd be interested in yours and others thoughts. The national debt matters for multiple reasons. First and foremost, the national debt matters because the national debt is like a credit card. Every dollar you spend that you can't pay for today costs you much more than $1 in the future, because you have to pay interest on that dollar. When you're shopping around, if you're a wise fiscal planner...what items do you buy on credit? Probably a car, a house, and maybe an occasional appliance. Do you go and blow your entire credit limit at Macy's? No, of course not. Why not? Because the only reason why a smart financial planner would spend money on credit is if it was something he or she would not be able to pay for with cash, and which he cannot make any choice about having (i.e. You can't live in a box, and if you rent a place you build up no equity, etc.) Secondly, the national debt is also important in that it is capable of driving inflation. Basically, what the government is doing when it increases the debt is pumping out money. It is pumping money into the economy with a guarantee of repaying it at some point. But that always raises the possibility, as happened in the 70's...that you'll pump too much cash into the economy, thus driving down the value of your currency and leading, in the end, to that nasty "Stagflation" cycle where prices of goods drop but consumers don't buy because they expect the prices to drop farther relative to the inflating dollar, etc. Lots more theory behind that than i can explain in 1 paragraph. Third, the debt is a security risk. Right now, a significant number of our dollars are held by foreign banks and creditors, such as our good friends in China and the Arab oil-countries. This has happened because those nations have had extra money to invest, and have been willing to prop up the U.S. economy by buying U.S. treasury dollars. First, there is no guarantee that at somem point, they will not cut back their willingness to purchase those T-bills (thus forcing the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent inflation), or in the event of a political dispute...decide to sell some of them and actually do severe damage to the U.S. economy by deflating the dollar. Thus far this hasn't happened...but we're gambling an awful lot on the willingness of the Chinese to continue buying those T-bills right now. Oh, and 1 more...the debt is stupid especially right now because we can see large expenses on the horizon...Social Security and Medicare expenses related to the baby-boom retirement. This would be like having a balloon payment on your mortgage coming up, but again, deciding to max out your credit card the month beforehand. Yes, you can get through, but if something goes wrong (i.e. an oil price spike or terror attack) suddenly you're caught being unable to pay either, and you're literally bankrupt.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 07:54 PM) Interesting flash poll from CBS. 700 Watchers approved of the speech 77-23. However only 32 percent of those watchers thought that those goals would be accomplished. The numbers in the SOTU flash polls are always like that...mainly because the "SOTU speech watchers" is a VERY biased sample set. Last year...the same numbers came up...over 70% approval of the speech among watchers. Bush's average approval rating among the non-watchers last year? About 45%...and that was before his polls went into the toilet. The people who like him watch. The people who don't like hiim don't watch.

The Buffalo Bills have hired Bears' Defensive Backs coach Perry Fewell to be the coordinator of their new "Lollapalooza" defense. (only 2 letters off!)

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 03:43 PM) What's your reasoning? Is there a technical point being hit, or do you mean Bush's speech is going to rattle the markets? There certainly are some fiscally huge things he plans to discuss - health insurance, oil, etc. Google.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:46 PM) pssst, thats two letters changed pssst, thats two betters changed

Oh, and by the way...I think tomorrow looks like it may well be a very very bad day for the stock market.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) Executives know what other executives make. The market pressure is more important in this case, I think. Boards want to make money. That will override any pressure that any single CEO candidate might bring. Boards are all about stock performance. This won't be a fix-all, but it will likely have a significant positive effect. I think you'd be surprised how much cronyism there actually can be on those boards. Several companies have definately been more about enriching each other than about stock price over the last few years. That's the only way some of those gigantic severance bonus packages could have come about.

That's not a crime, he wasn't lying about sex!

Wow, I agree with Nuke. Nice. Price controls are particularly bad in this case as all that lowering the price of oil artificially through government action will do is give Americans less of an incentive to become more fuel efficient. Here's a hint...you think Exxon's profits are too high? Move closer to where you work. Don't drive to the grocery store for 1 little item if you could either wait or bike there. Bike or walk anywhere you possibly can. Turn down your thermostat a little bit more. Turn off the lights when you walk out of a room, or when you're sitting in a room not using that much light. Etc.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) There is a new law somewhere in committee at the federal level right now to more fully disclose executive pay to the public. Real compensation, non-cash included, is to be given out in plain language terms. This could help give the markets more complete information on just how much profit companies are throwing away at a small handful of people. Stocks will suffer for it. Boards will force companies to tighten up on that. At least, thats the theory anyway. But of course, the counterpoint to that "theory" is to say that if a company knows what all of its competitors are paying their execs in total...they will actually have to pay more in order to "stay competitive" or "attract top talent" or whatever other B.S. they use every time they give one of those massive CEO contracts out. If half of the money was hidden as stock options and unreported...then it also is unreported to the guy who wants that same contract.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) Don't forget that Boston took on Mike Lowell's entire 2-year, $18 million dollar contract. He sure sucked horribly last season (roids?). I didn't forget that, but let's also not forget that they cut salary by getting the Bravos to pay a portion of Renteria's remaining deal (like $6 mil a year or so), and no longer have to pay Mueller, who made $2.5 mil last year as well. They also are out from under Kevin Millar's $3.5 mil deal. So, salary cuts: Removal of: Damon, who made $8.25 mil last year and will make $13 next year Mueller: $2.5 mil Renteria: $10 mil Millar: $3.5 mil Doug Mirabelli: $1.5 mil Additional Salary Crisp - league minimum Lowell: $9 mil 1 year price on Renteria: $11 mil Gonzalez: $3 mil. Loretta: ~$2.75 mil Beckett: $2.4 mil For the first year, they're spending a little bit more, but after that, since they also got rid of Renteria, they get a lot of money freed up by adding some youth and dropping Damon. And I think they probably got better while doing so...especially if Damon really is starting to wear down like he showed towards the end of last year.

Well...Overall...yeah they didn't have a bad offseason...it would have cost them what, $13 mil a year for the next 4 years to keep Damon, but through all their shuffling, they spread out about $14 mil for this season, got younger, added an arm to their bullpen in Riske, freed up money to spend next offseason by not signing Damon, traded a backup catcher for a .300 hitting 2nd baseman, and traded another prospect to get a potential ace (taking a bit of a salary hit in the process.) It's not the greatest offseason in human history, and a lot of it depends on Beckett's ability to stay healthy...but they've put themselves in position to contend this year and freed up salary for next year to make a run at whoever they want (one of the Lee's?). That's not a bad set of dealings. If Lowell turns out to be non-terrible...then it could even be a good set.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) Defensively. Damn sure not offensively. Yet.

There was actually some real studies on upward mobility in the world released sometimem about the middle of last year. They hit the pages of the WSJ, NYT, etc. Here's a summary I found with a brief Google search.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) Ugh. I hope not. Ethanol still requires oil, not just in substance but to produce it. And the prices are still naturally higher than regular gas - they are propped up with subsidies. Or at least they were a few years ago. Maybe that's changed with the higher gas prices. If so, it does make a nice bridge. So do hybrid cars. LAT

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) I doubt that CBS wants her to do it. Yeah, when Fox is willing to remove contestants from reality shows over things like this...something tells me it shan't be happening.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 30, 2006 -> 08:35 PM) Roids are definately a possibility. But G&T made a good point about the Homerun Derby. Remember Konerko's 2003 season after he was in the Homerun Derby in 2002? Konerko said that the Derby screwed up his swing. He also supposedly played the last half of 02 with a broken foot, and it hadn't completely healed when 03 started, according to CSN a few weeks ago.

I'm not even going to waste my time trying the DirecTV sports package again...I'm just going to assume the games will be blacked out, just like last time.

You know...the Red Sox are gonna have a ton of money to spend next year...Crisp instead of Damon, out from Renteria's contract, (does Lowell's contract end this year?), etc.

Um, we had the 2nd lowest ERA in the AL I believe. Not only do the Twinkies have to avoid backsliding...they need us to backslide too. That's still only 3 major starting pitchers. We have 6. They are counting on a lot from guys like Liriano, etc. The Sabermetric guys think he will, but stats don't tell you about attitude. Also...they don't say how much he needs to improve on those. With what the Sox did in getting Thome...he has to improve on them A LOT. 30-40 home runs are mandatory if they want to pass the Sox and Thome and PK stay healthy. Agreed. Agreed, and doable...but he has to stay healthy. It also may take even more than that to pass us if we pitch well. Agreed...but again, he doesn't say how much stimulation is necessary. Give me numbers...average, SB, etc. But how many more balls would Hunter let hit the ground if he didn't crash into the wall as much? Good luck with that. Yeah, if they do all of those...they might have a shot at us...they probably actually need to do better than those if our guys don't take any major steps back next year.

The only part I disagree with is the mushroom cloud part...since basically it doesn't agree with the rest of the column. So on 1 hand...it would take a mushroom cloud for the city to no longer be a cubs town...but on the other hand the Sox could pull it off if they keep winning? Zwuh?