Jocko87

I have a very reliable inside source here in Wichita that told me Pelfrey has the Twins at number 1 on his list. Boras and the money are apparently the sticking points but they are pretty deep into negotiations. I'm told the arm feels good and he has his velocity back so who knows, definitely worth kicking the tires if the price is right.

Sorry, I let you down this time.

Heh, thanks. I just try to call it like I see it and rarely agree with any party on more than a few topics (even the Libertarian Party, they just happen to be the closest thing to "my" party). I have very little respect for anyone who follows party lines because, in this day and age, it doesn't make any sense to do so and shows just how little independent thinking that person is putting into their political opinions. This kinda illustrates my point from several pages ago, when open-minded liberals and conservatives get together and actually talk through issues we often end up agreeing on quite a few things. I can't think of much that I agree with the President or MSNBC on but non-extremist liberals and I usually come to very similar conclusions if we can talk civilly for a while. I maintain that most people are mostly libertarian but don't realize it. I have also found that for the most part that these discussions are highly ineffective when held on the interwebs. I have had or read several of these conversations with people from my motorcycle boards and then met them in person only to find a completely different individual than their posts were depicting. My main forum doesn't even allow these type of thread because they can be a very slippery slope. I have a feeling this would be an entirely different conversation over some beers. Also odd that somebody identified themselves as "fairly socialist". Just don't hear that very often.

I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train. Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back. I think you misunderstand my point. Say you are on welfare, getting $300 a week. You are offered a job at McDonald's making $300 a week. At that point, you have ZERO incentive to go to work. Why would you? But what if the government said "take that job at McDonald's and we'll pay you $150 a week for six months. After that, we'll pay you $75 a week for another six months. At which point, you become ineligible for welfare for a year (because you'd have unemployment insurance to fall back on should you lose your job). The system is incentivizing work instead of staying on the government dole. People live a little better and gain work experience (even if it's ****ty work). The system gains relief while the tax system sees a minor uptick. It's not a perfect system but it's a system that looks at the REAL situation instead of trying to tell people "work harder, you lazy ass" or just throwing money at the problem in hopes it will sort itself out. Because you can't just cut people off. Not if they have children. And if you incentivize having children, that only encourages poor people to go have more kids. That's a losing situation for everybody. The only thing you can do in return is to hand out as many contraceptives and birth control pills as you can, give people a reason to go back to work, and cross your fingers that making more money will outweigh being a lazy bastard. And while people are on welfare, I'm all for supporting as much education as possible. You have to do as much as you can to deter sloth and breeding, even if it costs you more in the short-term. Because no matter how much education costs the system, it's a hell of a lot less than raising two kids for 18 years. I agree with you on the premise and I wish more or this kind of thinking went on in Washington. I think I just assumed you meant working for the government. I can see how something like that could work and be part of an actual solution. My thought was very similar except that I was thinking of using some sort of training rather than the work. Maybe while someone is on welfare they could be in welding school or something similar. You could add some job search requirements at the end to tie things up. I did all of my schooling while working more than full time so I know how hard it is to find time for learning a new skill. If I had kids or a relative to take care of I don't know if I could have found the time. Obviously not everybody would be a good fit for this but I think a significant number of people would see it as an opportunity. You can do really well as a welder, plumber or electrician and these jobs are generally available. If somebody is already a welder, maybe they are a better fit in your plan. The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train. Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

Is there an emoticon or something for smugness? This is the internet, everybody sounds smug to me. Please don't bother trying to rub me the wrong way, it seems you are just a little bit too confident in your ability to affect somebody through a message board. I've played this game before, the fact that you are resorting to these tactics illustrates the weakness of your argument. I don't have alot of patience for debating with anger-baiters. Do I realize that I am talking in very grand terms? Of course I do. One of the problems as I see it is that people tend to want to continue to band aid problems because they don't realize how deeply ingrained into our culture that this problem is. Love him or hate him, but Rush Limbaugh makes a very effective argument when he talks about how the democratic party NEEDS a permanent underclass in order to survive. This is reflected in by the silly people in the streets scare tactics. I would obviously add republicans as guilty parties here but to a lesser degree. Politicians in general have become vote buying scum and have transformed the public into a highly dependent group. They are at least united on this one front and they need us to be divided so they can maintain their hold on the power and control of money. That's a big part of the problem with welfare and I will say it again and again, dependency reduces accountability. I don't understand how you can say that nobody aspires to be on welfare. Isn't one of the big liberal talking points "no corporate welfare"? What do you think they do? If an opportunity for government money comes, they are all over it just like a sad number of individuals will. It is in our culture that this is acceptable and that is the biggest obstacle that we face. I realize that I said lazy in my post earlier but you and everybody else knows I was illustrating a point. What I didn't mention is that I could see me being one of those people. Not now, unless you can get the benefits up to a level that you would be comfortable with, but had a few things worked out differently it would have been pretty easy to go down that road. I don't necessarily blame people who are on welfare even though I do believe many do seek it out. Why are we advertising our welfare programs at the Mexican border? Why is there an ad every commercial break about something that the government will provide? Because we are training people to look to government for everything. Dups like you are more than happy to sing along while I see a problem and would like to address the real issues. I'm not laying out policy here, all I'm saying is that a change of attitude is needed. We need to be trying to get people off welfare, our current administration is doing the opposite.

I agree 90%. I also agree that it's pretty hard to have this conversation with any amount of nuance on the interweb, but I'll give it a try. What I'm talking about is a very deep cultural problem. Kids aren't being taught the right things- in the homes you mention, the schools, the stupid indoctrination cartoons or pop culture ______. It isn't unheard of that a child from one of these households to be a success though, very often it only takes one person to believe in someone to make a huge impact. If the culture of the nation is the mindset that anyone can live the dream, then more of these children will seize the opportunity. The other part of the equation is that if there are consequences for irresponsible behavior, then irresponsible behavior decreases. As it stands now, people have children because they can get more money for it and then they have their children have children to get a bigger check. That won't work either. We have to get to the point where the safety net is just that, a net. There has to be a stigma about being on the government dole. We have to have people hungry and fighting for their piece of pie. The sad truth is that to get to that place it will be very difficult on some people. I don't really know the best solution to that except that the Ryan plan phases in over 30 years to minimize that effect, cultural change takes awhile. The 10% I disagree with is the dual assertion that I would be writing these kids off and that the environment would be any different that some of the squalor that kids these days are already raised in. We see success stories still somehow managing to come out of garbage homes. I say that if less of these kids are raised in an environment where "oh well, Gubment check comin" is the attitude more of them will be successful. I maintain that if you give the lazy incentive to be lazy, that's exactly what they will do. Remove that incentive and a surprising amount of them will go to work. I realize that I may be oversimplifying things but hey, its the internet. The other thing that I wish people would realize is that almost everyone in this thread is basically a libertarian (other than Psuedo) until it comes to the specific government program that benefits them. Like I said earlier, everybody looking out for #1 is very healthy basic concept. The general problem with that is that nobody wants to cut their own programs, this is probably a big part of why Ryan voted for a lot of the things he did, he has to look out for his district. If the money is being handed out he better get his for his district. This is why I'm a huge fan of term limits. I'm always amazed when I talk to liberals and ask them to explain their point of view. Some of them are pure talking points people like Psuedo but quite a few of them are very much libertarian and just don't know it. Keep the government out of my bedroom? Libertarian, but from the liberal side of things. Cut the military! It's to big, to wasteful etc. ( I happen to agree, I know because I was there) Libertarian, but still a liberal talking point. People need to understand that the R and the D are not really that different. People on both sides agree that the government is the most ungainly, inefficient, ungodly disaster of an organization the world has ever scene but they are allowing themselves to be divided by minutia to that point where nobody in Washington is ever held accountable. Like I said, dependency minimizes accountability. In general, I support the tea party point of view here. Less government is better in every way. Don't get caught up in the kill the grandmas and put the babies in the streets garbage, nobody wants that, and that is my original point. Everybody wants to take care of those that NEED the help, I just don't want to take care of lazy bastards that take help when they don't need it.

Looks like I picked a bad week to be busy supporting the welfare state. I'm glad Lev was here to appropriately counter most of Pseudo's drivel but since I was personally attacked I'm going to take some time to personally respond, even though it might give the impression that I give half a crap about message board credibility. I made a blunt statement about the stupid semantics thrown about by the left and their (I hope that's proper usage) media, God Bless Lev for taking the time to write the volumes to help explain the nuances. I got what I wanted, which was a pretty good discussion started but unfortunately haven't had the time to participate. I have all the credibility I need in real life and have a plenty of ability to articulate what I believe in. The more I read from you, the more I see that you struggle to have something to believe in. Getting back to the meat of the discussion, I read this thread 3-4 times and keep coming back to these gems. These quotes tell me everything I need to know about your viewpoint. Even if these are throwaway lines to everyone else, they speak volumes about your disdain for basic personal responsibility which is the bedrock of a functional capitalistic society. You are correct if you assume that I don't care about the people that won't care for themselves, I do care very deeply about those that can't. The elderly fall into the can't work category, by the way, just to cut off that talking point. They have worked, paid into the plan and earned the benefits. You seem to want to take care of people cradle to the grave, because it makes you feel better. Won't work, eventually the workers will stop working. I do have a plan for the lazy, it's called the Freedom to Fail Plan (trademark) I personally have known scores of people who don't want to work, who would love to sit home and be taken care of and under your philosophy I guess they won't have to. The problem is that these people have made a basic choice, that government dependency doesn't pay well enough to support the quality of life that they want for themselves and their families. They also enjoy the freedom to succeed that my Freedom to Fail Plan offers. These statements reflect your basic misunderstanding of human nature. People will rise to the level of what is expected of them. If you create a culture that says it's OK to be dependent on the government, that is what you will get. The left mostly (the right has played along) has worked very hard to remove negative stigma from failure in order to create a dependent class. The government depends on dependency, dependency minimizes accountability. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty. Paul Ryan deserves some legitimate criticism here but at least he is raising the issues to be discussed. The disastrous culture of the ruling class congress can't be changed overnight. If you can't make the distinction between can't and won't, nothing anyone here says can help you. Feel free to wallow in your liberal academia vacuum.

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem. I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials. And the line of reasoning that the republicans want to make kids dumb and leave seniors in the streets doesn't fly with me either. As if republicans don't have kids and parents and people they care about. I firmly believe that nobody will take care of you better than yourself, certainly not the government, and we need to get back to that line of thinking.

I generally agree with this. Ryan has talent but I can't shake the thought that he really speaks to a minority of the electorate. The other downside is that it changes the main focus of the campaign from the poor economy to fundamental change in the social safety net. I think people like the idea of reform in the abstract but balk when it is presented in real terms of cuts to medicare and whatnot. I also doubt massive tax cuts for the wealthy is a winner right now. Are you saying that the minority of Americans believe in cutting government spending? I just can't believe this, it's one of the greatest running jokes there is-the $2000 Kindle or the $25,000 toilet seat come to mind. This is why the Dem's get no traction with me, all the taxes in the world won't solve the real problem. I like Ryan alot. Watch this three part series on the youtubes... Lots of straight talk about pain to come and he also addresses the main lib concerns of "evil corporations" and the "evil 1%" Removing the loopholes effectively raises taxes for them by actually taxing the real money. True leaders tackle hard issues, even if there is pain involved. I hope he can pull it off.

Yup, absolute stud and if there wasn't enough to love already then there was this. [video=youtube;QyQ-ckmKrXQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyQ-ckmKrXQ

Yes, 4 runs allowed should be an auto-DFA.

Its the evolution of West Wing. The West Wing was the portrayal of the lefty's fantasy presidency and started to blur the line between real life and fiction, using very close to real life plot lines as the tool. The Newsroom has taken it up a level, a fake news room, fictionalizing real stories like the BP oil spill. The libs love it because the story is retold how they want to remember it, factually or not. It's a very dangerous premise knowing how uninformed the average viewer is. It can look like either news coverage or a documentary dues to its loose ties with reality. This guy said it best... From the Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/06/24/the-newsroom-aaron-sorkin-s-flawed-new-hbo-drama.html The politics are the most important part of the show, for shame.

If Revere could learn to walk he could be a really really good lead off man.

Thats always been how you know Justin is locked in, you can see him get all google eyed when he sees the meatball. It might even be more like a puffer fish with the cheeks. I noticed him doing it a few weeks ago but just missing the pitch, I guess it may be a good indicator. He certainly wasn't doing it in June.

Pandering is pandering and you really should care if your politicians are doing it. The issue they pander on is irrelevant. How will you know what they believe if they spend all their time pandering?

This is an improvement, I was expecting him to get one at bat tonight then off to the DL.

Go away.

Kauffman is great, it's kinda rough in these temps though. I'm staying home this weekend, the A/C in the casino works great and the game will be on TV.

Coming to you from Royals country, I can tell you to stop kidding yourself. You were struggling when you were naming top prospects and you can guarantee that any of them that pay off will go the way of the Grienke's, Dye's, Beltran's and on and on. I've been here watching them "develop" for over ten years now and this crop of kids is no different, they always have lots of young potential. Quick quiz, name a competent Royals pitcher or pitching prospect. Bruce Chen doesn't count, he's only good against the Twins. They have the same problem as the Twins, but with less resources to solve it. They don't get free agent pitchers for the same reason I'm not at the game today, its a 105 fricking degrees in the shade.

Agreed, he seems to be very comfortable even when he isn't hitting home runs. He gave Willingham quite a bit of credit on MLB TV last night for helping him with his approach.

Apparently the season must continue.

Great swing by Trevor right there, against a really good pitcher.

We just got Menards here last year, they have become my go-to even though HomeDopet is within walking distance. You would like it.

That sounded great on the radio, pffft.