Mike Sixel

Again, what does this have to do with the thread? We have hundreds of posts on the Tulo non-deal, I don't want to re-type my thoughts.

Not sure what this has to do with anything at all in this thread.

Still being patient on Stewart, if there isn't progress next year, I'll worry. I think a player that has success in an unconventional way is often under rated by scouts, and Hu might fall in that camp. But, I have no idea if that is true or not.

I give it a solid Meh......another arm and AJ would have been moved to a solid NICE for me. I wanted Tulowitzki......and I still think he'll be better than Escobar next yaer, but that's a nice non-trade for this team, I think.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-first-for-brian-doziers-career/ As usual, an entertaining article w/o any kind of point, really.

I think I'm the only one "predicting" it here. I am merely pointing out that history shows it happens when inequality gets "too" big. I don't know I'm predicting it, but I am suggesting that some elites are thinking it could be a problem, and more should think about if it is or not.

Funny how we keep spending on the military, but keep cutting back on care for all these troops once they retire. Kind of like being pro life, but not pro helping poor children (whose fault it is NOT that they were born poor).

funny thing is, he was at first when the ball was caught......

I haven't posted about inequality at all, other than to say that history says that when it gets bad, societies and people die. Over and over and over, that's what history says. I also haven't ready anywhere on this thread (but it may be there and I forgot) that anyone wants to return to the days of 70% tax rates for companies. Maybe, I don't know, google could pay the same rate I do, and still be big......

Insider is pretty cheap for what you get, imo. And yes, ending chats is a bummer. I liked KLAW, Matt Williamson, and 2-3 random ones a week..... KLAW is now doing them on his personal site.

Not sure I get this post, is there an implication that someone said big companies are inherently evil?

Interesting comment on TR and what he believed based on results. I had not thought of that. Not sure it changes his mind, but maybe it does.

Not sure what any of that has to do with the fact that he could have been up in place of May's spot start......at all.

I'm more worried about revenue, and cutting the military spending, than cutting other spending. Any other cutting is nibbling at the edges (or, imo, should be reapplied to other, similar, spending).

http://espn.go.com/blog/jayson-stark/post/_/id/1409/read-it-and-weep-explaining-all-of-the-potential-tiebreaker-scenarios

Agreed. Cruz is no worse than 2nd at the end.

It's how it works today, which is why the discussion we as a country have is so skewed. Not sure what percentages I'd use, personally. What some people fail to realize, and don't all agree with me on, history has shown for thousands of years that as wealth is concentrated, that the wealthy end up dead......Not saying we are there yet, but we are approaching areas like we had at the turn of the 20th century, when we decided to tax the bleep out of the elite....

You don't pay 20% on the full 50,001....you pay 10% on the first 50K, and then 20% on the next set of income.

Agreed, because this led to the other losses possibly....and possibly to Berrios not being here as an option. This single decision is my least favorite of the year, because of the ripples......

agreed, it is Cruz vs. Bush right now, I think.

Well, I've had these ideas since I was first asked to run, some 20 years ago.....but there are some politicians who have similar ideas (except the radical one)....but mostly they are stymied by their leaders.

Uh, I did clearly say I don't like the specifics.......and that's part of what I don't like. I prefer something like this: eliminate the SSN and other "special" taxes, and just have income taxes....no more FICA and SSN and whatever the hell else. You can still say a percent of taxes have to go to a stupid trust fund if you want.... Eliminate all deductions (not counting losses on investments, this part can be tricky.....) except number of people in your immediate family. I'd be OK with some kind of upper limit, but I don't need one. Tiered taxes: 1-2% on the first 50K of net income (to cover SSN and other stuff) x% on the next 50K x% on the next 100K 25% on anything over 200K I don't know the exact percentages. This applies to any kind of income, investment or salary or whatever. I think this is at worst revenue neutral, but probably raises more money. I'm ok with that. I also think inheritance is income, and should be taxed. Heck, the people getting the money likely did NOTHING to earn it..... On the spending side, change farm subsidies to be income subsidies for farmers that actually farm.....eliminate federal subsidies to any company that makes more than $10MM in revenue in a year (like McDonalds and oil companies). I am all for a more free market when it comes to not picking which companies we help succeed. Actually, and this is radical....... I'd create an account for every person in the US. I'd cut all Medicaid/Medicare, etc (have to be phased in). Every person gets some thousands a year into their account, which can only be spent on healthcare and education. That money is invested in the market. Once you are past 18, you can change the investments. I think I did the math some 30 years ago, and this is pretty easy to pay for if you cut most individual and corporate subsidies.....

While I don't love Trump's specifics necessarily, that's the kind of tax reform I could get behind.

Fortunately, I doubt any of them want that any more than we do.....

I say let them wear whatever they want. It is, imo, silly for them to wear a uniform, but whatever.