NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) What's "oxy" got to do with it? Now THIS stuff belongs in the GOP-only thread.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) The housing boom would not have happened without the tax cuts. The tax cuts stopped way more people from getting laid off than actually happened. To post the figures of the money that was interjected from the tax cuts isn't the full story. The full story includes the jobs that DIDN'T get cut, the wages that DIDN'T get lost etc. If people don't have jobs, they don't buy houses. I'd love to see just one of those articles include some quantitative analysis that actually included how many jobs never were lost because of the tax cuts. The economy never fully crashed like it would have because of the tax cuts and then the interest rate cuts that came afterwords. I would contend that the interest rate cuts were a much bigger factor than the tax cuts. It allowed current owners to get a lot of cheap cash, and allowed people to extend further to fiirst-time buy, or pushed some borderline people over the edge to take the plunge. The number of people who may have bought homes but would have lost jobs, but didn't because of the tax cuts, would seem to be very small compared to the number of people in the list in the previous sentence. But I am certainly open to someone finding an analysis of actual job saving that is likely tied to the tax cuts. And I did agree with Bush's one-time tax refund out of the surplus. It was a small move on an individual scale, but I think it was needed and smart at the time. It helped individual spending, though I am sure it did nothing for jobs.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:43 PM) Dennis Kucinich is just Ross Perot with a better toupe and a few cans of red bull. So?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) Stay in your own room!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My own room? I have no room. There is no room. I have too many views on both sides of the aisle. Many of my dislikes of Mr. Bush have nothing whatsoever to do with party affiliation. Heck, I voted for the guy in 2000. But he has turned out to be a lousy President and further, a sub-par Republican, in my view.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:34 PM) Its funny, at every single gym probably in the chicagoland area. The week after new years eve you have a hard time getting on a machine at some gyms. Everyone working out. Give it a month. The New Years resolutioners have given up and are back on the couch watching TV and eating the bon bons. At least that is how it is at most ballys' and at lifetime fitness. I will be back up in the front row of the treadmills in 3 weeks again like I was the week before Christmas. . I see the same thing. What I like to do is find the exception. You see some people regularly at the gym (same people go at the same times). Usually they look pretty much the same. But every so often, you see someone new show up out of shape, and over a period of months, watch them actually get in shape. It's kind of cool, but also sad, because it seems so rare.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) I think that they do have the leadership, but they're putting the wrong people in the leadership positions. Good point, that was also stated in the article. You are correct, that's more accurate. I do also think that the state and local stuff that Dean and company are doing will pay a lot of dividends with getting new blood in for the Dems, in the long term. But not this year so much.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) Given that the amount of money pumped into the economy by the tax cuts was relatively marginal compared with the amount of money pumped in by the boom in home equity and refinancing, I would disagree with that last statement...the one thing that saved things from being way worse was the massive stimulus pumped in by the Fed of lowering interest rates to be practically zero, allowing people to massively expand their debt holdings and pumping that cash back into the economy. Edit: The effect of the tax cuts was not zero of course, and I don't mean to come off sounding that way...but the effect of the Tax cuts was in the shape of a normal keynesian stimulus - it wasn't just that the country was cutting taxes, it was that the country was cutting taxes while at the same time printing money while it was going out of style, thus pumping money into the economy in 2 ways - more money in people's hands through the tax cuts, but also more money in people's hands through the growth in government, combined with vastly more money in people's hands through the interest rate environment. Damn. Beaten to the punch by Balta again.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:25 PM) The irony is that this isn't any different than the stock market driven bubble that was allowed to go on for years too long. Much of the good times in the 90's were driven by equities that put tons of money in peoples pockets just like housing prices have. People also ran up tons of debt in the 90's, and the savings rates haven't changed at all. Not without coincidence, when the stock market burst, so did the economy. The one thing that saved things from being WAY worse and us feeling the full effects of the burst, were the tax cuts saving many jobs. As was pointed out in a previous post, there was a good article showing statistically how the tax cuts did little to help the economy (I think Balta posted). Instead, I believe that real estate boom was what pulled us out in such a hurry. And for some parts of the country, that's going to eventually bite people in the ass. Fortunately, everything I've read says that Chicago is not nearly as "bubbled" in real estate as other major cities, particularly on the coasts. There are local exceptions here, of course. Also, at least this real estate bubble has a little more equity foundation. Property and housing has serious real value, more so than stock in companies that simply ate other peoples' money. So I think the bubble burst won't cause as dramatic a downfall this time. And the equity markets are not as overinflated, IMO.

This author makes so many leaps of faith, so many out-of-context examples, so many bizarre assumptions and is so obviously not interested in the idea of religious freedom, that I can't see how he expects to be taken seriously. It's too bad too, because there is some interesting anecdotal information there, and even a few good points. Too bad they get lost in the cesspool.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) I'm aware of what the law says. But if, God forbid, a few thousand people die in another terrorist attack, that might change. Given that privacy in e-mail and cell phone communications aren't specifically protected in the Constitution, a strong case could be made for a change. Hopefully it'll never come to that. That's one of the many beauties of the Constitution and it's judicial interperetation. Personal communications not in public are protected, and it doesn't matter what the vehicle is. And even if a few more thousand do die in another attack, I would not be ready to give up that right wholesale (nor would most Americans, I think you'd find).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) Dems chafe under Pelosi leadership. http://sun-times.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak05.html It's interesting, this article talks about many of the things we've discussed here regarding Dem leadership. How the Dems seem to have a big gaping whole to drive through with Bush beaten down and his party fractured, but they just don't seem to have the leadership to punch through.

QUOTE(Balance @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) I keep wishing that our choice in 2000 would have been Bradley and McCain instead of Gore and Bush. Amen.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) It would be very unethical to wire-tap somebody's property (home, vehicle, etc.) without a warrant. But, IMO, all others could be construed as fair game. Internet and phone networks aren't the property of the user. A conversation between two private parties over a phone line is the property of the conversants solely (unless someone over hears one end of it in public). That's why you can't wire tap someone else's phone (but you can tap your own). Same with email, unless it's on a company email account (then it belongs to the company). Unless the company carrying the signal (ISP, telecom) were to specify in their contract that they could use the data being transmitted, they can't own it either. Therefore, the conversants have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the law (meaning, it can only be monitored via warrant).

You've got to be kidding. I would hope the judge would not even start down that road, and instead would have the common sense to say, "Both of you get out of my courtroom and mind your own damn beliefs!!!"

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) I just hope it stays patriotic to criticize a President when a Democrat gets elected and doesn't turn back into a "vast right wing conspiracy" like it was when anyone said anything about his holy Clinton. Complainers, extremists and conspiracy theories all make good copy. Of course that's what goes on, for any President. Same will happen to the new guy/gal in '08, regardless of party.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) This has probably already been said, but having a phone is a CHOICE too. Correct. But if you are under surveillance, that could be any mode of communication, including in-person. See my previous posts. If this was JUST email, while I would still think it was wrong, it would be les scary (for the aforementioned reason of choice). But as these are warrantless, unregulated surveillance operations, it could literally be monitoring anything. And that makes it that much scarier.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) And that's as it should be. However, the American taxpayer should not be the nation's insurance company. Exactly. That was sort of my point. I said nothing of rescue and clean up, which are to be expected. I specifically referred to property loss and damage. THAT should fall under a zoned expectancy system, in my opinion. The insurance companies can then sort it out, and natural business competition will force rates higher for specific events in those specific zones, as it should be.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) See previous post. I saw it after I posted. And while echelon is different, I still think it was sketchy. But I must admit, i don't recall a lot about it.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) Pres just entered Board of Trade. Traffic is crazy. For so many people not liking you, he sure does have a lot of people curious to see what he looks like. If Stalin was on display, people would come. Just saying, he's the Prez, of course he gets tons of attention. I dislike most of his body of work quite a bit, but you bet I'd love to meet him.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Don't you mean Dennis Kucinich? Gary Kucinich was Dennis's brother, and as far as Google is telling me, he never ran for anything beyond Cleveland Mayor. I could be wrong though. Yes, you are correct. It felt wrong typing it too, not sure where I got Gary from.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) So, why wasn't it a big deal then? Why didn't the media jump on on that with both feet like they are now? Where was liberal voice when Clinton was trashing the Constitution? I have no idea. As some liberals.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) Time to abandon California, New York, and Florida. No, but you bet your ass they should pay the insurance rates and not get taxpayer money when the obvious happens. People can live wherever they want - just don't make me pay for their mistake. There should be national-level zoning, jus like municipalities have for flooding. If you live on the coast of Florida, you are sure as heck in a hurricane zone, and the stipulation should be that no emergency assistance money should go towards your loss of property if that hurricane happens.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) ... and GREAT Chicago food! Damn, forgot that part! Too true.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) I still don't understand why everyone is so up in arms arms about Bush doing this and they just brush off or ignore the fact the Clinton did it too. I, for one, am not brushing off echelon or any other illegalities. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. I could care less what party the President is, if they break the law (which I believe to be happening here), they need to be held accountable.

Just a fun topic of discussion in the politcal arena. Who are some of your favorite politicians that ran for president, but failed to get out of the primaries with their party's endorsement? They can be from either major party, or even an independent. Explanations of what you liked are great. Bonus points for obscurity. I'll start with a few that I liked over the years for various different reasons... Paul Tsongas John McCain Dennis Kucinich I liked all three, for different reasons, though they all shared some things in common (believe it or not). One thing: they all seemed more real to me than other candidates. You got the impression that the level of B.S. coming from them was lower than the rest.