caulfield12

But eliminating all earmarks would hardly dent annual deficits. In the 2006 fiscal year, when Republicans last controlled Congress, they approved nearly 10,000 earmarks, a record; the $29 billion cost was about 11 percent of the year’s deficit. But now deficits are much larger, swollen by the recession. In Republicans’ overall policy statements, they have not specified exactly how they would fulfill the promise to cut more than $100 billion from the budget for domestic discretionary programs. That would be the largest reduction in such spending from one year to the next since it began to be tracked in 1962. Once they take control of the House in January, however, Republicans will have to begin work on their alternative to the annual budget Mr. Obama will outline soon after Congress convenes, an exercise that will test Republicans’ unity once the scale of such reductions sinks in for them, for their allies among business lobbyists and for constituents back home. “Neither party dealt with this in the campaign, particularly with asking the middle class to face up to what costs it may have to bear,” said C. Eugene Steuerle, an economist at the Urban Institute and a Treasury official in the Reagan administration. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats also have promised to work to reduce projected deficits, lest they inflate the already high federal debt to an unsustainable level. But Democrats do not favor major spending reductions until the economy recovers, perhaps by 2012, and even then they would not consider anything near the $100 billion in one-year cuts that Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House speaker-in-waiting, has proposed. “To have cuts that deep — cutting nondefense spending on average by a fifth — will require deep cuts in programs that most Americans think are very important,” said James R. Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Reductions inevitably would hit education, the national parks, health research and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, just to name a few, Mr. Horney said. “And if you start saying you’re going to protect certain popular programs,” he said, “then the cuts in everything else become really draconian.” The cuts in discretionary programs would not apply to the so-called entitlement programs — chiefly Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — whose rising costs, along with inadequate tax revenues, are driving the deficit projections. Domestic discretionary programs account for about 15 percent of the annual budget, a portion that is not growing. Entitlement programs are 40 percent and national security spending 23 percent; both are expanding. Mr. Cantor, in his document to other Republicans this week, has acknowledged that the debt problem could not be solved without reining in the growth of the entitlement programs. nytimes.com

2) You also have to take into consideration all the high school students who are looking to pay for university, seasonal university students, the typical lawn mowing services in the summer, the 20% that are unemployed or underemployed right now, the elderly that are typically greeters at Wal-Mart but now desperately seeking any way to make ends meet, prison work progams, immigrants (legal and illegal)...it's not just about taking away unionized or city/state jobs, it's much more complicated than just bashing unions for being against such a program (you didn't do that, but it came up somewhere else) Not to mention the fact that (as mentioned below) if single mothers are going out and being forced to do #2, then there's absolutely nobody to monitor or supervise their kids, which will lead to multiple detrimental affects on a society compared to the positives accrued from simply imposing responsibility on people. I taught in an inner city school for four years, most of those mothers would have loved to have high paying jobs, but they resented having to work 2-3 jobs for 60-80 hours per week and then never have any time to spend with their children. I think you need to look at this on a case-by-case basis. 1) One of the biggest problems in the inner city is alcohol and gambling. You're not going to touch on either of these...and you're certainly not going to get the working middle class and rich to pay for drug testing for the poor, are you? I don't think so. 3) Many of these programs like Job Corps and job placement centers DO EXIST. They just cost money. And nobody wants to pay for programs and services...and non-profits, of course, have likewise seen tremendous drop-offs in donations, same with churches. What you really need to do is provided "bundled" services (where you can go to school, receive health/dental/counseling, every possible social service in one place) like the Harlem Children's Zone, but that's a VERY expensive model. It could be replicated, but there's not the political or societal will to do so. It's, once again, one of those times when people are more concerned with their own welfare and don't care about anyone else, as I perceive from reading the various comments about taxes. You would think the US tax rate was 70-80% like in much of northern Europe. We're actually in the bottom quartile in terms of the industrialized world. Whenever this issue is raised, someone will quote the tax rates for a rich person in NYC, but that person is living in Manhattan for a unique reason which isn't applicable to the majority of Americans, and 98% of those New Yorkers wouldn't want to live anywhere else. The whole thing about welfare abuse, WIC, food stamps, it's like complaining about foreign aid or assistance when it's a tiny drop in the bucket. The fact is that the majority of uber-rich people don't pay much or anything in taxes...they often earn salary through stock options and have had zero or low capital gains rates during the Republican years. Most of them have companies set up off shore to avoid taxes. I'm sure the real/actual tax rate for millionaires is often lower than it is for the middle and lower class, maybe 15-20% if the US government and IRS are lucky enough to catch them. QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) I have no problem with the different taxation policies. But I want the following for those who are pulling services and are not contributing from a taxation standpoint. 1.) If you are receiving benefits from the government ( eg welfare, unemployment, healthcare, etc ). You must submit to scheduled drug tests. I don't care if you are for or against drugs. But if you can afford drugs, you don't need welfare. 2.) If you are able bodied and are cleared by a doctor to work and are receiving the above benefits then you must perform some sort of community work. This will help associate work with benefits as well as to coop some of the costs. Now of course the Unions will fight this, but in reality it makes sense. This can be anything from litter patrol, to cutting grass, to whatever is needed from labor standpoint. You don't want to do this, then you don't get the benefits. 3.) Skills for work program. For those who participate in the above work program, you will get credits for some training to learn skills that will help you get employed. This can also include office based skills and have some college credit involved. Again its about training people and letting them provide for themselves. 4.) People need to actively show that they are looking for a job. My wife's friend's husband was all proud of the fact that he made good money on unemployment. So now he could have "me" time. He could work out at the health club, and watch movies and enjoy life until his enemployment was going away. Then magically he was motivated and found a job. I don't care if you tax me, well I care, but sure whatever. But then in the next breathe don't ask me to be thrilled when I see someone pull up at the local Jewel in their 45k SUV, have a shopping cart filled with all sorts of stuff. Then split the order up into small orders using some on link, some on wic, and then buy your liquor after pulling out a wad of 100's. I see this more than a few times in Darien and its stupid. Sure not everyone is doing it. But I have seen enough abusing the system to say that we need to start to make sure that those who are getting help need it. And if they are getting the help, then they can provide some sort of service back to the community.

I see both sides of the union argument. On one hand, I've been a member of the teacher's union, it can protect teachers who don't deserve to keep their jobs. On the other hand, working in China, you can see how many advantages your employer or the government has over workers here....and your rights are almost ZERO. If you want to know more specifically, start reading about Foxconn (maybe it's Foxcon) and all the workers who have committed suicide in the last couple of years by jumping off the roof? Something like 13, they actually had to erect netting to keep workers from killing themselves. China will have unions in the next 10-20 years too, they're already beginning to institute steps for foreign companies/multinationals. As much as some bemoan unions, would we rather be working at Wal-Mart and be treated like their employees? The funny thing is that I was listening to CSPAN and all these voters were complaining about the unions and the costs of doing business in America, but I didn't hear a single person call in to complain about the bankers and their bonuses. Not one. It's a good trick, that the GOP has workers (middle class) turning on each other but completely ignoring the real bandits who are pilfering the system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) Those 30,000,000 people without insurance obviously don't deserve it. See, our economy is really just a sorting algorithm for human value. Poor? Can't afford medicine? Well, you probably did something to deserve that! It's actually something like 47-50,000,000 now. But I was pretty sure not every single American would be getting coverage, but a large majority of those remaining. Would have to double check the stats. It might be 35-40/47,000,000 or something like that. But same thing is true with unemployment, it's 9.6% but actually closer to 15-20% in reality.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) Why not read some actual criticisms of capitalism instead of straw man versions? There's a lot of question begging in those sentences. If this straw man was true, Democrats wouldn't hold the Senate and the WH. Also, who that has a small paycheck is getting taxed 50%? But I read Ayn Rand and know who John Galt is, lol. I can't wait for that movie. Perfect timing, lol.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) More class warfare That's exactly what FDR did, just more successfully.. Why do you hate people who earned their money? Or is it jealousy that you don't have what they have? #1 best bet wold be to compromise and extend it for 2 years as-is and revisit it then when the economy is (hopefully) better. (then you're 100% not reducing the deficit and only enlarging it....true? once again, $9.3 trillion of the deficit numbers are due to Reagan and both Bushes, not the evil tax and spend liberals of big government, i just want to see all the Tea Party inductees vote for tax cuts for the rich and explain how that will reduce the deficit exactly, where's the evidence, corporations are sitting on $2,000,000,000 and won't spend it because future demand is so uncertain) #2 Not sure what you would have to gain from this. #3, most the new people campaigned against earmarks, so them staying away from them should be a positive. (and that's the only idea Eric Cantor has put forth, we heard the same from McCain, it's 1/100th or 1% of the overall problem statistically) #4 Why would cutting costs create jobs? They will be happy to give you specifics on things to cut, but I have no idea why you seem to think that that will create jobs. (nobody but Rand Paul has given specifics, and obviously his idea to cut defense spending and end the war in Afghanistan won't go over well....we'll here that we are "surrendering" over and over again) #5 So you want to remove troops, threatening all the gains (if any) so far, just to score cheap political points? Nice. (is our country safer since 9/11? i don't think so, but capturing Obama might come close to guaranteeing Obama a 2nd term) #6 sounds like a Clinton tactic, co-op the other sides ideas and make them your own. Clinton wasn't as bad a President as some make him out to be, but he was kinda scummy. I met him once and shook his hand, can see whay people like him. #7 Never happen #9 That's pretty funny. But he can always get spray-on tan. #8 The dirty secret none of the politicians wil tell you is that unless the government is hiring, they can't create 'jobs'. They can just get the hell out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Make the climate favorible for them to do so, remove obsticles, etc. But unless they hiring themselves, they can't do jack. (once again, besides lowering every tax ever developed, what's the magic bullet idea here? how has that worked under Reagan, Bush and Bush? all it has done has increased the average amount of a CEO salary 10X the rate of the average middle mgmnt worker compared to the 70's while real wages for the middle class are increasing as are hours) #10 Young people get a real shock to the system when they finally leave mommy's house and get outr on thier own. Taxes take on a whole new meaning when you see your already small paycheck being cut in half to fund all these things that make you 'feel good'. (most of the money in taxes goes to entitlements in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest payments on the debt....specifically, what programs are you going to cut and how? if you're going to go back to scratch on Obamacare, how are you going to save $700,000,000 and ALSO be able to cover at least 30,000,000 Americans without health insurance currently....explain) #10a Why don't they? (because they don't dare to alienate Hispanic voters....the same reason Rubio has already flip flopped, and why McCain did so)

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:56 PM) by the way, as for the next 2, 4 and 8 years... 2 years= Obama wins re-election in a very close, and nasty race. He's helped in part by a 3rd party GOP splitoff after the party nominates a Moderate (Romney) and the tea party nominates their own candidate who gathers 10-15% of the vote nationwide. 44-40-14-2% results nationwide. Meanwhile, the Republicans keep the house (losing 15 seats) and pick up 2 more seats the senate. They knock off democrats (McCaskill, Tester, NE Open (after Nelson decides to not seek re-election), and Conrad) The Democrats pick off Scott Brown and John Ensign. New Senate is a 51-49 split. Bottom line, this country is a near 50/50 division. House lead of 224-211 for Republicans 4 years= Two houses moving in 2 different directions. Nationally, the country is swing back to the Democrats They take back the house by picking off 20 seats to take a 231-204 advantage. The economy is rocking. DOW hits 17,000. However the mathematics of the Senate, moves the house back to the Republicans. They pick off 4 senate seats. (Begich, Landrieu, Baucus and Johnson). Senate is now 51-49 Republican. Say hello to Speaker Van Hollen and Majority Leader McConnell. 6 years= All hell breaks lose. There's simply no way they can nominate Palin. Romney would certainly be the odds-on favorite right now, but he's definitely going to have to show more of a personality, he was so wooden and boring in the last campaign. If he had the charisma of Rubio, and his speaking ability, he would be more dangerous. Daniels in Indiana, Christie in NJ, those guys are getting all the ink now, but not so long ago, Jindal in the GOP and John Edwards were the "heir apparents" and look how far they've both fallen. I think there will be some serious consideration given to dumping Biden in an effort to win back one of those states like Florida, Pennsylvania or Michigan. I'm thinking of names like Crist, Strickland and Rubio if I'm on Obama's team. Delaware doesn't matter. Of course, you can argue the VP choice can hurt a candidate but usually can't help very much. Undoubtedly, it would be hard to get Rubio, but I think putting the first Hispanic (or Asian) on the top ticket would send a strong signal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:32 PM) Oh yeah well I....but..ug...I agree. My point was that the system wasn't designed with the current realities in mind, and that it's significantly harder to pass legislation, particularly in the Senate, than when the Senate first formed. The executive has consistently expanded, and it's not like Obama is doing anything to stop that. This is going to go back and forth. I would argue that no president in recent history came close to exerting as much power as Bush did from September 12th, 2001 through the 2006 election cycle (with the Patriot Act, wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, waterboarding and rendition, Guantanomo Bay, etc.) Look at how weak Clinton was in 94-95, Obama now, Bush Sr. in the last year or so of his administration after sporting a 91% approval rating at the conclusion of the first Gulf War...most presidents (except Clinton, there some unique elements with his situation) have lost power because of the economic situation deteriorating. The only ones who don't fit that profile would be Nixon (impeachment), Reagan (Iran Contra and various scandals like the S&L bailout, but not enough to keep Bush Sr. from winning) and LBJ (Vietnam war and protest movement). Carter, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. (the economic universe was falling apart in October, 2008) and Obama all have been on the wrong sides of economic cycles.

1) With the expiring Bush tax cuts, change the amount from its present level to ANYONE earning above $500,000 per year in earnings WOULD NOT get a permanent tax cut. Everyone below $200,000 per year would get a tax cut for 2011. In terms of future years, those earning between $200-500,000, it would be assessed on a yearly basis depending on the economic recovery. Draw a line in the sand. Ask for ANY specific/quantifiable evidence of how providing tax cuts or lowering the capital gains tax to zero has helped to balance the federal deficit since January of 1981. Point out that giving all income groups a permanent tax cut would blow another $700,000,000 hole in the deficit. 2) Dare the GOP to shut down the government again on January 3rd, 2011. Bring in Mr. Lee (UT), Mr. Johnson (WI), Mr. Rubio (FLA), Mr. Toomey (PA), Mr. Paul (KY) and even Sarah Palin to make them a part of the deficit reduction bipartisan committee that will announcing its findings the first week of December. 3) Ask for no earmarks from the new Congress or a line-item veto. The new House has no desire to give up earmarks now. Call them on it, even if it's a drop in the bucket, put their feet to the fire, it's worth points symbolically. 4) Ask what specific cuts the GOP would like to make to entitlement programs in order to cut the deficit and balance the budget....with every piece of legislation, ask how many new jobs will be created and at what cost per job created. Call them out (the likes of Mr. Ryan and Mr. Paul) to provide specifics on cost-cuttiing plans for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (indexing based on income, raising the age or payroll deduction, etc.) Continue to point out that the non-partisan CBO has signed off that the Obamacare health law will save $700,000,000 from the deficit and ask for the GOP exactly how they plan on lowering health care costs while simultaneously providing coverage to nearly every American. 5) Drive a wedge between the Tea Party/libertarians and the traditional GOP defense hawks by threatening defense cuts and/or a drawdown of all the troops in Afghanistan. 6) Work with the Republicans on school choice, vouchers, Race to the Top/No Child Left Behind...knowing that the teachers' unions have nowhere to go in 2012 and that you need to firmly stake out the center. 7) Mr. Rubio as Vice-Presidential candidate in 2012 on the Democratic ticket. 8) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS...every press conference or public appearance, convince the American people that the most important item on your agenda is lowering the unemployment rate to ZERO. 9) Executive Order, shutdown of all tanning salons in southern Ohio and D.C. 10) Fight like hell and "man up" to get minorities and 18-29 year old voters back on your side...act as President as you did as a candidate in 2007-2008. Minorities and young voters, are rapidly growing as a percentage of the American population. Eighty percent of the population growth in the country over the last decade has come from minorities. According to the Census Bureau, in the next decade, the Hispanic population will grow another 40 percent. That’s enough growth, over a relatively short period of time, to even turn Texas blue. The youngest generation too, is reshaping the landscape. Every year between now and 2018, four million more Millennials will become eligible to vote. By 2018, they will be 90 million strong—bigger than the baby boomers—and will make up 40 percent of the eligible voting population in America. 10A) Immigration Reform...nobody in the GOP wants to touch this issue right now, especially the likes of John McCain

Yeah, the only one you see as being remotely realistic is Kemp, simply because he's the typical "buy low/temporarily undervalued" player that KW usually goes after...except the problem is that the chemistry/mix is always questionable when you don't have enough homegrown players who came up learning the same system or style like the Twins/Rays/Rangers now have in place. It's logical enough to imagine Quentin at DH, Viciedo at 1B and Kemp in RF...which means it's probably unlikely to transpire. Except for that small little factor of not having the type of players in our minor league system capable of fetching a Kemp or Upton, even at reduced rates. That's also where you have to start bringing Danks or Floyd into conversations...and also where you give up the one position of strength you have.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-h...vepreview102510 Dunn, of course....could be back in play if we actually had any money to spend. Seems pretty likely that the Tigers are going to be another force to be reckoned with this off-season. Can't imagine the Sox making a $10 million + closer out of Soriano...it has never been their style, with the one year exception of the Koch trade. No mention of Konerko.

But .733 is REALLY good for a catcher, in terms of OPS. He's obviously a platoon player and shouldn't be overexposed, so be it. I don't think anyone envisions him with 130-140 GP. If that does happen, it means Flowers failed and/or AJ wasn't resigned, and definitely those numbers aren't going to hold up with that much playing time.

It's going to take another 2004-05 offseason (and we can't jettison Lee/Ordonez/Valentin and reallocate those resources) to be competitive. We're hemmed in by Teahen, Linebrink and Juan Pierre (to an extent)... Basically, the Twins have to decide to pull back on spending, not re-sign Pavano (definitely), not replace Pavano with an even better frontline starter (they will undoubtedly rue not putting together a package of Ramos, another minor leaguer and/or Slowey/Blackburn/Baker for Lee), for Morneau/Neshek/Nathan (2 of the 3) not to come back 100%, losing Cuddyer/Guerrier/Rauch, etc. They can replace Orlando Hudson and probably non-tender Hardy and instead throw Hughes and Casilla out there to save $10-15 million. It's going to take a fallback from the Twins (75% chance) more than I believe that we can improve our team dramatically (25% chance) going into 2011.

I don't really think you can predicate your offseason on trying to build a line-up specifically to beat the Yankees. It's just bad luck that the Twins have had to face them 4/6 times. If the Rays wouldn't have pulled ahead in the final days....if the Twins would have tanked even more, etc., they could just have easily ended up facing Tampa, who they fare much better against on paper. I do think one significant difference from the 2002-2004 teams is that those teams were a lot more athletic and could steal some bases...ironic, that the Twins' have become more and more like the White Sox (traditionally) in being a station-to-station team, whereas the White Sox have improved their speed and defense but have come up short offensively...bullpen/starting pitching, etc. One thing is that even though the Twins were great with their defensive numbers, watching them would tell you that Hardy/Hudson both are lacking in range up the middle, that Mauer wasn't nearly as good defensively as in the past, that Cuddyer anywhere on the diamond poses danger and the corner outfielders (Young/Kubel/Cuddyer) were basically atrocious except for when they played the White Sox. Even Span, the most gifted defender, seemed to have a down season offensively as well as defensively. Of course, the Twins were still a 94 win team...not exactly chopped liver. But they were able to use home field advantage and they really played well in the ALCD, that was the main key. I'm just not sure that Cuddyer is going to be worth the money to the front office...but you need some RH bats, and Young is far from a sure thing to put up the same season in 2011. He could be even better, that's true, but you can't count on him for 30 and 100. Quentin for Kubel? Maybe. That idea scares me a little...but only if Quentin will be their DH and that will keep Thome from beating us, lol. I really don't think Smith would do it. Quentin has been too injury prone, and they already have to deal with the aches and pains of Mauer and Morneau. Liriano...for whatever reason, he just has those moments when he falls asleep mentally and lets the other team back into it. That's one thing that Johan Santana rarely did, at least against the White Sox. Against Liriano, you have the feeling that there's a 30-40% chance he will beat himself, with Santana or Sabathia, not so much.

Too bad you can't merge the Twins' offense with the White Sox starting pitching. We have Peavy (theoretically), Jackson, Danks and Floyd who can all dominate games. Obviously you feel Cuddyer is not that elite RH bat, the problem is who is it, then? I could see the Twins going after Vladimir Guerrero as their primary DH, but that pushes Thome out. It's tricky, since you don't know what you'll have in Morneau, the White Sox have the same issue with Peavy. You certainly can't shed Kubel, Thome AND not know what you have in Morneau. That's a huge gamble. And can Thome be counted upon to be as effective again next year, it's doubtful.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/10...?page=1&c=y Six ways to improve the Twins going into next season. It will be interesting to see if KW takes a shot at Crain if they don't resign him...although he'd be overpaying based on 2010. Guerrier could become available, Rauch obviously as well. Pavano might be gone if he asks for too much money (and more than 2 years, which he arguably might get from someone)...Hudson will undoubtedly be gone as well, and they're going to have to make a decision on JJ Hardy. The writer's main idea was trying to deal Young and Slowey for Greinke. I think it would take more than that, personally. I don't think Danks (or Floyd) and Quentin would be enough, either.

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Oct 10, 2010 -> 08:39 PM) For the time being there are only 2 ways to win the AL pennant: The first way is to spend like the Yankees and Red Sox, on both the Major league and Minor League levels. The second way is to go into the s***ter for a 5 year period, and emerge with the amount of talent that the Rays have built over the last 5-7 years. Another note: When you spend or draft, at the end of the process, you must possess 2 pitchers with #1 stuff, one of which pitches like a #1, and the other of which pitches like a #2 or #3. The period between 2004-2008 was special because the Yankees made some really bad contract choices. When the marquee free agents returned to the market it was back to this way. As long as the Yankees have a $200 MM payroll and spend it wisely, these are the only ways to compete with them. It does not matter what you do, The Yankees will always win unless you have somewhere close to the amount of talent that they do. This is why, IMO there should be a cap of a $150 MM payroll in baseball. Unfortunately, there is a more level playing field in the NL. Not to mention from the early 80's through 1995.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/columns/story?...&id=5656406 Since Ron Gardenhire took over as manager in 2002, the Twins are 16-45 (.262) against the Yankees during the regular season, which Elias says is the worst record any team has against an opponent during that span. The record is even worse when you include Minnesota's 2-10 postseason mark against the Yankees: 18-55 (.246). That's a worse winning percentage than the 1962 Mets had. The Twins so resemble the Washington Generals to the Yankees' Harlem Globetrotters that I keep expecting to see Derek Jeter pull down Joe Mauer's pants and toss a bucket of confetti into the Minnesota dugout.

They've won 3 out of their last 22 post-season games. That's even worse than our record against Minnesota in the 2nd half this past decade. What are the odds of losing 12 in a row? One more to go for the Twins to tie the Boston Red Sox record with that loss next year, haha. Not sure if that idea will stick long with the marketing team....well, at least they sent out their season ticket renewal packages and got commitments before this series, just like the White Sox in 2008. Three sweeps in a row (NYY, NYY, Oakland in 2006). The only team they've beaten in a series is the Oakland A's, 3-2 way back in 2002. 2-12 versus the Yankees. I think I read that they had the lead in something like 8 of the last 9 playoff games against the Yankees and ended up coughing up all those leads. Normally, you score the first run or lead in a game, you have around a 55-65% chance of winning. Pretty amazing. It will be also interesting to see if they keep Capps AND how well Nathan comes back next year. Easy to forget about that guy.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 9, 2010 -> 09:47 PM) That's why Johann Santana wanted out. Which makes me bring up another subject. Some guys that leave the Twins organization don't have the best careers after that. Sure there's a few but how many guys on that roster would be great on another team? Twins finished 2/17 with RISP. Hunter did pretty well his first two seasons in LA, but I think that was a bad contract and will get worse over time. Jacque Jones really faded after leaving Minnie...same with Koskie, Rivas, Shannow Stewart, Mientkiewicz, Hawkins, Guardado (he was okay for a couple years), etc. David Ortiz is the big exception, although the PEDS obviously played a role. AJ Pierzynski has continued to have a decent career with the exception of the 2004 season in SF. Kyle Lohse pitched pretty well in the NL after leaving the Twins. JC Romero has hung around, but never as good as 2002-04, another PEDS case with Rincon as well. Losing Radke from the heart of that rotation also hurt...he was the "bulldog" of that team. Pavano's kind of taken on that role, but still not the same.

They're looking very beatable to the Yankees, not the White Sox. They have another possible ace coming up quickly in former 1st rounder Kyle Gibson from Univ. of Missouri. Possibly they'll lose Hudson and Thome...but they could bring back both without any problems. Casilla could end up as the starting 2B again or Punto. If Morneau comes back (BIG IF), then the need for Thome is less pressing if they hold onto Cuddyer/Kubel/Young again. My guess is that Cuddyer might be the odd man out. Then again, paying Mauer $23 million is going to start to affect their overall payroll structure as well. Plus you're going to have to deal with a little bit of apathy from the fanbase after the "Braves reputation" starts to affect their psyche. Not so fun when you're something like 3-20 since 2003 and have lost 12 post-season games in a row. Was just listening to their announcing team and they think that Sabathia coming far inside to Thome with no retaliation is one of the keys to this series. How many times have the White Sox been hit or busted inside or been run over by the likes of Hunter and Young without any attempt at shoving them back in the face? Same story, same song. Just different teams. They're even arguing the stadium music and crowd get the fans more charged up in NY than Minnesota. The Twins' fans kind of gave up and had that "oh no, here we go again" feeling, which it's hard to blame them for really. And the Twins, unlike against the White Sox...are off the top steps of the dugout and hanging their heads in defeat. 1. Liriano 2. Pavano 3. Gibson 4. Blackburn 5. Duensing 6. Slowey 7. Perkins

I guess a lot of the stories in the NY papers have been about the 2004 collapse against Boston and the fact that the Yankees have never advanced and won the World Series when they came in as the Wild Card. Haha.

I would like someone to enumerate why they believe things will actually get better in the US over the next two years...assuming that House will turn over to the GOP and the Dems will lead by 1-2 in the Senate. Basically, NOTHING will happen over the following two years. There will be endless House hearings and investigations into Obama's citizenship, repealing or euthanizing the health care bill and vilifying illegal immigrants and Muslims. We can't get a NY/NJ tunnel, but you can be sure we will find the funds for a wall to protect us from Mexico. In essence, we'll have wasted two more years that will put us further behind (China, India and Germany) because we'll eventually end up giving tax cuts to the top 2%, which will blow another $700,000,000 into the deficit, even though the deficit is supposedly our biggest problem all of a sudden, even though it was mysteriously wasn't for 8 years under Bush. The funny thing is that Obama will be blamed for obstructionism (and effectively) when he attempts to block the extension of the Bush tax cuts! Basically, the best chance the Democrats have is Sarah Palin winning the nomination or running as the Tea Party candidate...or a Tea Party candidate like Ron Paul running as a 3rd party and siphoning off votes like Ross Perot did in 1992 (essentially electing Clinton with his 19.5%) or Ralph Nader did in 2000 (essentially changing the course of history completely by giving us Bush instead of Bore, I mean Gore).

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_leagu...?urn=mlb-275698 Funny column since it's poking fun at the Twins...but, indirectly at the AL Central teams like the Sox for getting run over 6 (almost 7) out of 9 years. As Dick Allen says, it's pretty hard to be overconfident as an organization when you've won a total of two post-season series in 93 years! Of course, the corollary to that is the last 11 years for the White Sox have been comparatively great as we've put up seasons with 95 wins, 86, 99, 90, 89 and 88 victories.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) British treatment of indigenous people was pretty abhorrent no matter the continent. Colonialism, in general, is terrible for existing populations. But you're hearkening back to the great days of the British Empire as some sort of glory period or situation to strive for. While simultaneously asking for all troops on foreign soil to be withdrawn. Your arguments are not only bad, they're self-contradicting. edit: except your tea party=pity party line. The observation that it's really just pissed off typical conservatives is spot-on imo. I was merely replying to Northside by providing a better example of comparison....as he took issue with my devolving into another Russia line. One can only wonder how China and India will wield their newfound economic power and what will happen when political self-interest and natural resources accumulation and protection come into direct conflict around the world over the next half century. It seems pretty apparent we simply cannot continue our present level of military spending without destroying our social umbrella. Of course my arguments are bad and indefensible...unfortunately, I think there's a 25% minority of Americans who might agree with them and agree that they should pay no taxes to Washington and that every function of government can be done more efficiently and cheaply at the local level. I think we already tried that experiment, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it was a complete debacle, starting with individual currencies printed by each of the colonies as well as zero coordination of state militias to protect against potentially overwhelming threats both from Europe and a few more aggressive Native American tribes.