NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2006 -> 05:58 PM) Non-partisan CBO study says: Tax cuts do not create enough revenue to pay for themselves. Thanks for the find. I had a discussion in some other thread in SLaP last week, where we debated which had more positive effect in bringing the economy out of the 2001/02 recession: the real estate run-up or tax cuts. I was pretty sure it was real estate. I am even more sure now. Now I need to go find an article on the impact of the real estate boom...

This guy, like a lot of folks in the media and some on this board, has his pet stats. In his case, he tends to over-value offense versus undervaluing pitching. And aspects like defense and speed are just not even part of the equation in his world. Therefore, Pods sucks, and the Yanks rock. :rolly

Population numbers for a given city are kind of worthless in the U.S. Chicago has only 2.8M, but the metro area is 9.1M. Other cities, like Albuquerque, look big at 600k (similar to Las Vegas), but that's really all there is. Las Vegas metro has a population of 1.5M, and is the fastest growing metro in the U.S. during the last 10-year census cycle... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884086.html (see second chart)

QUOTE(SadChiSoxFanOptimist @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 02:12 PM) You are proud that you're "too lazy" to read a post longer than a single thought? I'd keep thoughts like that private, were I you. BTW, it was a terrific post -- what's up with all the animosity here? VAFan's points are not ALL bad, IMHO... it's just the way he posts them that annoys people. He makes the same points over and over again in multiple threads, he bumps threads to say "I told you so", and he gets into back-and-forth shouting matches with people who are obviously toying with him.

QUOTE(mreye @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 11:55 AM) So, will they outdraw the Cubs this year or next year? And how long will it take the first Cub fan to say, "Well, your capacity is more and it's about time..." Well guess what? Our capacity in 2006 will be LESS than Wrigley. That's right. Wrigley at current has a capacity listed at 39,538. They are adding 2,200 new seats with the bleacher re-build, so put that number at 41,738. The Cell has a listed capacity of 40,615. Wrigley will hold 1,000 more people. Kinda weird, huh? I normally don't care too much about the Cubs one way or the other, but I do think that this is an interesting thing in a historical context. First time in the modern history of the city's two teams that the south side team has less capacity than the north side.

--Accident occurred in Lincolnwood, not Wilmette --I can't even imagine how fast they must have been going to have the car do that kind of damage --Whenever I see articles about accidents with teens like this, I always cringe at the way I drove as a 16-year old. I was a lucky SOB. --I hope these kids' friends learn something from it --I offer my condolences to the parents and surviving kids

QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 11:39 AM) Gload only plays first and Mackowiak can easily play 1B and both hit lefty so Gload is as good as gone unless he has a Pablo-like spring and bats .550 Actually, Gload plays corner OF as well. He even played 3 games there in 2005 (2 in RF, one in LF) with the Sox. He is a solid defender at 1B or in the OF, with the exception of a weak arm. Between Borch and Gload, unless Gload has an outstanding spring and Borch falls apart, I think it will be Borch at the 4th slot. We already have 3 guys who can play 1B pretty well, and Borch has more power and can play CF in a pinch. Gload, though, is a much more disciplined hitter. We'll have to see. It's the battle of the last chances for these two former fast-movers in the organization - one gets on the roster, the other is probably done in the organization (traded or released). Don't write off Gload just yet!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) That's the point, guy. The guy who plans and executes is #1. He should have a spokesman, but if he did - I'm pretty sure that would make things worse. I think we've descended too far into the semantics here, and are talking right past each other. I just think Dean should DO, and not SPEAK, in his role. I'm not talking about a spokesperson for just him, I mean the spearhead guy/gal for the whole party and it's core ideals. That should be someone else. A figurehead, if you will.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 02:14 PM) He will be the number 3 guy for the party. He's not running for anything. In the actual party infrastructure, he's #1. In role, I suppose, he is #3 or lower. My point is, he shouldn't be the guy on point with the public. He should be the guy who plans and executes.

I like a lot of his ideas, and I think on paper, he profiles nicely as the type of politician that the Dems should be modeling on. Also, he's truly excellent at building local support and grass roots campaigns, as noted above by Rex. Unfortunately, the man just can't seem to express his ideas in a palatable fashion. So in short, I think his ideal spot is as the #2 guy in the party, not #1. Let him be the doer, not the talker.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 12:29 AM) lol than you would support bugging Mosques (that is where the terrorists go, like drunks go to a bar). Clearly, this conversation is lost on you.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) You jest but your example is already in practice. Go to any military town's local watering hole about 2 AM and see the coppers hanging around waiting to nail drunk soldiers stumbling to their cars. You just proved my point. OK, so let's go a step further with this example. To me, one thing is OK here, and one is not. It IS OK, I feel, for cops to hang out near a bar where people tend to get drunk and drive. Similarly, it's OK to hang out near the night club where fights tend to start. The police are reacting to a BEHAVIOR. Now, what is NOT OK, is to pull over people I see with military stickers in the windows or that drive cars that I see parked outside the questionable night club. It's not OK in this instance because it's profiling, and because it judges a whole sector of the population unjustly (thus, in a sense, degrading they freedom). Do you see the difference I am illustrating? Behavior is choice. If you choose to act like an imbecile, you're at risk of getting trouble, and should be. You have in essence given up some of your freedoms by choice. But BEING someone or something, like say a racial group, is not a choice. Therefore if the police profile based on it, then they have taken away that choice, and are degrading their freedoms.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 03:57 PM) They say time is the fire in which we burn.... It's like a predator... it's stalking you.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 02:58 PM) Tax cuts allow businesses to plow more money back into expanding their businesses ( e.g. hiring more people and expanding operations ). Additionally, individuals have more money to spend on whatever they spend money on and that helps increase economic activity as well. All this increased activity increases the tax base and that allows the government to more than make up for revenues lost fron reducing the tax rates. To add to that, the "windfall for the rich" cuts in Capital Gains taxes and taxes on dividends encourage people to go ahead and book profits they would otherwise be reluctant to. This has the same effect of increasing the pool of people who are paying the tax and thusly increases revenues. You have to look beyond the rhetoric of the left to the economic fact to see all this. Yes, tax cuts allow companies to plow-back more earnings, if they see fit (no guarantee of course). That point is correct. And yes, there is some increase in capital gains tax revenue. In the short run, that's positive. But to "book profits" does not necessarily represent anything positive at all for the economy. In fact, better to NOT sell, stay in a stock, and keep that company growing. THEN they can hire more people and help the economy grow. People liquidate their equity assets to cash, stocks fall, companies lose equity and leverage, and people lose jobs. The result is the opposite of what you suggest, and has a negative impact in the long run. We're about to see a huge example of that, by the way, when the baby boomers start cashing in their investments in the next 10 years. And what's funny about your post is, you seem to think people have been taken in by phantom "rhetoric". I don't categorize in the small-minded way that you seem to in your posts. If all you're going to do is write off people's statements by assinging them to a category (everyone not in agreement with you is a liberal) and/or being media zombies, then why bother contributing to the discussion at all?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 03:21 PM) Im so sick of hearing about racial profiling. I look at it as common freekin sense. If the people who are committing terrorism are young Middle Eastern males then it makes sense to focus your investigations on them. Same goes for Young Black Males and random acts of criminality. Im sorry if it looks bad but thats just facts of life. Investigations should center not on categories, but suspects and evidence. I have an idea. How about I start pulling over cars to check for DUIs only if they have USMC stickers on the back window? 'Cause, you know, all those military brats are wont to drink and drive when they are off base. Sound good to you? :headshake

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 12:51 PM) Yes, there probably is something like that much stuck in the Eocene age Green River formation. However, it's even less concentrated than the stuff in Canada. Which means...higher costs for extraction, more pollution, and it even has the negative part of being right in the middle of the U.S., so that all the pollution those plants would belch out would float east and wind up right over Chicago. Not to mention that the Yampa/Green river complex has a lot of federally protected wilderness, park area and other restricted space. Plus that area is an gold mine for archaeologists, paleantologists, etc.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 04:26 AM) Talk about over-reacting. I'm frankly a little surprised this thread wasn't closed, and that an Admin didn't think much of it. As of this point, this thread contains references to some 13-year old girl and various non-age-appropriate acts, and some racial and religious slurs. Whether or not people were joking around, it's pretty crass. I'm all for jokes, even off-color ones, but this has gone a bit over the line I think. I stand with Mercy on this one. Admins, I'll just say this: I think if you leave this here and do nothing, you put yourself in some potential jeapordy. Plus I think this board is usually a lot more respectable than this. Do as you will.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 12:10 PM) Yea, I find that a bit interesting as well. GREEN GREEN GREEN friendly... but it better not effect ME! What do you find interesting in that post? Perhaps I missed some news snippet about Martha's Vineyard. Did they pitch a fit about offsore wind turbines or something? Actually, a lot of power alternatives will make things much more pleasant, if you ask me (though that's just a nice side effect). Every one of the new generation of alternative energy producers (wind, solar, hodroelectric, hydrogen cells, etc.) has drawbacks of course. That's why a combination of them is ideal. The payoff would be huge, in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, reducing our needs in the Middle East, cutting polution and the problems that causes, etc.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 11:37 AM) Revenues have increased dramatically since the tax cuts were enacted. States are seeing a likewise increase in revenues flowing into their treasuries. It must be because the DEMS voted against the tax cuts. If you are going to interject your thoughts in a thread about economics, please provide some evidence that you understand it. What "Revenues" are you referring to? Revenues for whom? By definition, tax cuts REDUCE government revenue. Do you mean revenue for some specific company? Your argument makes no sense. Are you trying to say the government is getting revenues via some other method because of reducing tax on income? Because the increases in property tax revenue, at the state level, are in great part due to rapidly rising real estate valuations. And many states (and the feds) are adding all sorts of specific-use taxes all over the board. That's not a tax cut, it's a tax increase. Or do you mean sales taxes? In which case, you're saying that the tax cuts have increased the overall tax burden. And besides, that argument doesn't make mathematical sense either: you reduce taxes by X, consumers spend X, the government gets some small percentage of X back. If governments are seeing increased revenue into their treasuries, it's due to factors like increased taxation (other than income, if that was cut), increased real estate valuations, increased population, and to some extent, increase in sales tax revenues on greater buying by consumers. If your argument is that last one, then see the paragraph above this one. Please enlighten us. EDIT: Sorry Balta, your reply makes many of the same points, but it popped up after I started mine.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 09:41 AM) I've always been a believer in the Fed taking responsibility for the good and the bad for the most part in an economy, unless the other branches of government actually do something to change the economy, such as tax code changes etc. I took his comment as meaning that the recession was Bush's fault because it occured on his watch, and if that was the case, I was going to explain the velocity of money to him, and that it would be realistically impossible to blame Bush for the recession, which IMO was a long time coming. No one had the guts to prick the stock market bubble years before it burst, back when they really should have slowly started letting the air out of it. Remember the "irrational exhuberance" comments were made in 1997, so the higher ups knew about the overbought status of the equity markets, and yet no one dared stop the good times to insure a soft landing. Instead the markets got into ridiculous levels, especially the NASD, and when the bubble finally did let lose, the result was predictable. To be honest I am surprised things weren't MUCH worse, especially when 9-11 is factored in. I honestly believe the tax cuts were the right move at that time because a big shot of liquidity was HUGE for the economy, more than the cash even was the confidence factor going back into the jobs markets. I think the tax cuts probably had some material positive impact, but not nearly enough given the deficits t put us into. In any case, I think the real estate boom generated a lot more cash to encourage the recovery than any tax cuts did. Actually, that would be a really great study - how much buying power was generated in the consumer markets by the tax cuts, versus the real estate boom? If I was in Grad school for a PhD in anything math or finance/econ or Poli Sci related, I'd be all over that.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 09:46 AM) The LIBERALS do think that way. Moderates, which most on this board are, don't. Democrats do not equal liberals, just like Republicans do not equal conservatives necessarily. I agree, particularly with the statement in bold. But there are plenty of wingers on this board who really like to use that type of categorization. And I think saying that "LIBERALS" think that way is only equal in truth to saying "CONSERVATIVES" think that way. The point I was trying to make was to get people to see the depth and breadth of the political spectrum, and not try to ham-handedly brush an entire party into one narrow ravine of political thought (especially one provided by the aforementioned loudmouth du jour). So really, I think we're on the same page.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 08:56 AM) Whatever, Tex. Put it in green next time. Thing is, I see plenty of GOPs on this board pointing out things that some individuals like Kennedy or Jackson or Farrakhan and saying "see how the liberals...". Then Dems come around and do EXACTLY the same thing with this psycho you are referring to, or Rush, or whomever. Either way, people seem to want to point to a specific few loudmouths that are part of the "other" party and apply that individuals behavior to the whole group. Stop it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 08:03 AM) Would you care to explain how the Clinton recession is BS? Actually, I think both Nuke and I pretty much stated that the recession was caused by factors that Clinton had little control over (overbought markets, upside down tech sector finances, etc.). But if jasoncx it saying that the recession itself was BS, then I don't know what he's talking about either.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:14 PM) Which part of the group whcih owns the Yankees was in the red? Don't know. Ask Forbes - they calculated the numbers somehow.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:13 PM) You dont do a lot of research to back up what you say do you? There isin't an economist out there who isin't saying the Bush tax cuts had a big hand in the economic growth we're experiencing now. I'll take their word over yours. The Clinton recession was just exactly that as the economy began slowing while he was still in office and dipped into recession shortly after Bush took office. The recession under Bush Sr happened in 1990-1991 which is well after Reagan left office ( Jan 1989 ). That recession was his and his alone. The Stock Market bubble popped under Clinton's watch also. That wasn't his fault though as it was rampant speculation on tech stocks that caused it. Take a class called Econ 101 then come back here and post about economics. 1. Recessions belong to no President. Presidents have little to do with the economy. Heck, government as a whole doesn't dictate the economy as much as many think it does. Bush's one-time burst tax refund was a good injection, but his cuts are not helping most people. I don't know what biased reports you have read, but I got the impression from the OMB reports that those cuts were only positive for a small number of people. 2. The stock market was WAY overbought and under-transparent in 2000, and needed serious correction. Take a look at a 20-year graph of any major index, especially compared to GDP growth, and you'll see the absurd spike in the latter half of the 90's. The recession was overdue, and should not be blamed on Clinton or Bush or any President. (on this we seem to somewhat agree) 3. As Balta points out, the real estate boom has been HUGE in providing households with the liquidity to buy the economy back into shape (beyond healthy levels, actually). Much larger in effect than the tax cuts. Ironically, the deep but short recession we had contibuted to the real estate boom, which contributed to the huge jump in consumer buying power, which took us out of the recession.