Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 79 anonymousDiscussion: What should a healthy senior program look like?
| Posted | Discussion |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Tim Millette 615 posts | What should a healthy senior program look like? I just filled out a survey my SSUSA on some "weird" open round robbin seeding format. This survey made me wonder what a healthy senior program looks like? And how to achieve it? For the most part.... I believe the senior game is well organized and balanced from AA to Major. The 5 run rule keeps almost every game close. SSUSA bumps the world winners out of the AA-Major Division they have been crowned Champions in. SSUSA give teams the option to break up and stay in the same Division they have been crowns Champions of, as long as there is only a certain amount of returning Champion players. These concepts appear to me to be working well. Because they continue to turn over the top of the Division making it impossible for the same players to win time and again. Only at the Plus Level does it appear Dynasty's are allowed to dominate time and again. These dynasty's left unchecked make it hard to build a Division. Which is exactly where the SSUSA Major Plus Division is stuck. It looks, from the survey, like SSUSA is trying to solve the Plus problem on the backs of every other Division. My question is.....Would you think the SSUSA program would be healthier if they broke up the Major Plus Champions in a manner resembling what they do in every other Division.... ie...There can only be FIVE(pick a number) Major plus Champion players on any one Plus team untill the players reach the next age group? If you think this is out of the box thinking..... You should see the survey concept. Do you think this would help grow the Plus Division |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Tim, shouldn't it be up to the players and a combination of their abilities and hard work to keep games close, and not a contrived rule 5-run rule? There would be nothing worse than seeing the game turned into tball. If "dynasties" were artificially broken up years ago the sport would not have such legendary teams as Howards and Steeles. No one that I recall was calling for their breakup (well, maybe a few, but I don't believe many), but rather was working hard to try and catch them. As it should be. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Tim Millette 615 posts | Actually Gary? If you were part of the ASA Super program in those Howards days you would remember ASA tried a Metro concept to try to stop Dynasty's from destroying thier Super program.... It didn't work because ASA didn't think of a Super list to hold over the Dynasty sponsors moving players into thier Metro. Now.... Back to this issue.... If only allowing a limited number of AA, AAA, Major Division CHAMPION players to stick together and still play in the same Division is working so well regulating those divisions why stop doing it at the Major Plus level? I don't think there are tons of guys walking around with 20-30 "rings" from the AA, AAA, Major Divisions. The problem in senior ball is the Plus Division.... Allowing the same groups to dominate year after year has been proven to be a failed concept. Some method has to be created to turn over the top (not allow the same guys to win multiple rings together). I say limiting those Plus Champion teams to no more then five Champion players on their roster untill they teach the next age group is a good start to enticing teams to move up from major instead of disbanding. This concept would also require Plus Champions to bring new blood into the Plus program every year. The only teams/players that would be against this concept are the same group that's causing all the problems in SSUSA. I believe at the fifty level, the two years we have participated in Worlds has proven that SSUSA has been doing a great job ranking teams to this point. I am a little concerned SSUSA has started bumping teams based on homeruns instead of scoring and Defensive ability, but that's a debate for another thread. How about talking about the problems Plus ball as it's currently set up is causing in senior ball.... I am guessing your dynasty in "" means I mis spelled it..... I stopped trying to lean how to spell years ago.... If your going to correct my grammar and spelling you have a lot of work ahead of you. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Not sure what days of the "Super program" you are specifically referring to. I watched them for a number of years on Labor Day weekend in Parma and Cleveland in the 60s and 70s and they were just playing plain old ASA Open. Winning a lot, and I was just a kid in the stands, but I don't remember of lot of people whining about it. Instead of disbanding teams by enforcement of some contrived rule, what about other teams improving to be competitive? Easier said than done, I am sure, but wouldn't that be a much more rewarding way to win a title than by the attrition of doing it with the major assistance of the better teams being forced to break up. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Sweet P Men's 60 191 posts | Tim, I personally would prefer to see documented rules/guidelines for determing roster composition and for how/when teams are moved down/up. The frequest use of arbitrary decisions by senior softball exec's has left a number of teams with a bad impression of the process. Tim, your idea of limiting the number of players that can return to a team that wins a world tournament, might increase the number of teams willing to move to Major Plus and their chances of being competitive. I think all your suggestions have merit. Hopefully they will be considered by senior softball. Phillip, Full Circle/ West Coast Allstars |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | All great points made here! But here's a thought. If you build a team to compete at the AAA level and very seldom, if ever hit the homerun limit. But win, why should you get bumped regardless of where you finish in tourneys? I just have a hard time understanding how our divisions are homerun based, but if you follow the rules given & win you still get bumped. If you get bumped you very well might have to change the roster to add more power to compete. Is this ok for most of you? Our team will either play together or most will choose not to play if forced to move up or change roster. What do you think? |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Tim Millette 615 posts | I think the health of the whole senior program is more important then individual teams. If a team that's dominating one Divisions, with or without hitting homeruns, chooses to not compete with the current rules when they are bumped, that's thier choice. I ,obviously, believe dominate teams left unchecked and allowed to win a large number of events in any one Division are bad for the health of the program, and MUST be regulated for the good of the whole. SSUSA obviously agrees with this concept, and it helps create many competitive ssusa Divisions, EXCEPT when it gets to the Plus Division. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | "and MUST be regulated for the good of the whole." Interesting concept, Socialistic softball. The Karl Marx view of senior softball. I know the younger generations have a severe sense of entitlement, probably provided by the parents in our generation, but I didn't think this was as prevalent in our age group as it is sounding here. I still thinking there is something rewarding in really earning what you get, whether it is three outs and the right to bat or beating the best and earning a trophy. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Tim Millette 615 posts | Wow Gary. You being a big Obama guy and all... Attacking me with socialism. If I was pushing socialism I'd be recommending the big money sponsors pay four times as much to enter tourneys so 41 % of the teams don't have to pay anything. If I looked at this as a conservative... I'd call it term limits.... One you win the election your days are numbered. I guess your see the assault of Normandy beach as socialism. Some giving for the benefit of many. Anyway.... Better to leave the inner Einstien in me out of this one. Since softball is being regulated in many ways, including with many Divisions to create more Champions... To use the all mighty phrase...Why stop sharing the wealth" when you get to the Plus Division. For the record....for one National tourney. I would love to see the five run an inning thing go away and count every homerun as a home run, with no limits. I'd even like it to go back to Aluminum. But we know those days are gone. It's good to have you are the message board devils advocate.... It makes people validate thier beliefs. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Major-plus has major problems and they made it WORSE this year by upping the HR total and upping the runs per inning total...way too much! Games will probably last about 3 innings. SSUSA said they were going to get more teams to move up when it is actually going to make teams stay away from Major-plus even more! By allowing two out of area players to Major-plus teams, they have widen the gap even more for teams to compete with them. At least the teams that have money and will bring players in. The team that dominated for a few years disbanded last year after they lost a tournament but there is talk that they are coming back. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Tim, you beat me to it with Gary, although I hesitate to use the 'socialist' term loosely. There seems, at first look, to be a lot of merit in your ideas, Tim. I am afraid that money would still buy enough great players to continue a dynasty, but it deserves a look. I will be getting a good look from the inside on major plus ball this year with GSF. I hope to talk to a lot of guys about how to make it better. Tim, you also mention going back to aluminum or alloy bats. I agree that would be fun-maybe that should be the standard for major plus. You would still have quite a high scoring game, with a lot of home runs, but maybe you could play straight up-3 outs, no HR limits. (just musing a bit) |
| Feb. 2, 2012 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | Tim, iwas using our club as an example. To think we are the only team with my line thought would be a mistake. Why use the homeruns as a basis for division if your not gonna use them. |
| Feb. 2, 2012 donll 68 posts | Actually Tim you do sound like a bit of a socialist when you start trying to punish (break up) those who have succeeded through competition for the good of the whole. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Recognizing that there are absolutely NO viable Republican candidates, and that almost by default Obama becomes the best option, is "pushing" him? Umm, not really. And no, your line that I quoted is pretty Socialistic. And pretty sad. Let the "free market" play out who wins and loses tournaments, not some contrived rule that penalizes ability, hard work, and achievement. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 stick8 1992 posts | Jawood I agree with you. How wouild you feel if in major plus if the prelim games have time limits but the bracket games have no time limits? |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | donll, props to you for understanding the simple concept. After all, why reward hard work, effort, ability, and achievement? How very un-American! (sigh) |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Tim Millette 615 posts | So.... Gary, Socialism is not a softball issue... Call me Marx or Obama if you'd like. It doesn't matter in this venue. As fas as senior softball goes..... Major Plus seems to be the gorilla in the room. What to do to it, or who to feed to it, s the dilemma. Obviously feeding new teams to the Plus power houses has not worked well to this point... I say try something else, evaluate it, tweak it if you need to, and make the Plus Division better. All I am saying is treat the Plus Champion just like you do every other Champion. Tell them if they want to stay in the Division they just won Worlds in, that they can only come back with X amount of Plus players.(I'd say 5) Maybe..... And this idea is way out of the box....if they come back with more then X amount they can stay together but they have to play in the Major Division in the next youngest age group. I know this is not possible in the Fifty age group, but the 50 would be the only age group that would have to break up.... That's a couple teams per year out of all the senior teams across the country. I also believe the Champion team that splits will make more then one new team, along with making other teams stronger. Keep up the devils advicate thing.... It kinda cute!!! |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Tim, you are making it a softball issue, and I don't appear to be the only one who sees you that way. And how is being able to comprehend rewarding guys for their hard work and ability "devil's advocate"? You think everyone is simply entitled to a chance to win, no matter how watered down you make the product and consequently how meaningless the win becomes. Plus can and should be treated differently, they are the best. To compare them, and make any attempt to treat them, like AA is absurd. Just not my idea of competition and real achievement. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 stick8 1992 posts | Tim, I believe any team that wins a world tournament will have some turnover of players for various personal reasons. The idea that a 50 major plus team that wins Vegas next year be mandated to only bring back x amount of guys for the next season seems much too strict. If I'm a sponsor of a team and I knew that if the team won the worlds we'd basically be mandated to break up I wouldn't bother sponsoring. The best solution to 50 major plus is to combine it with 50 major. The hr rule and other rules can easily be adjusted to suit everyones needs. Contrary to what some may feel there's not a whole lot of difference between the two levels. jmho |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Rip 20 posts | If you look at the team ratings from 50 to 65 you have a total of 844 teams listed,73 of those teams are major plus. That means a little over 8.5% of the teams in those 4 age groups are in the elite category. My guess is some of these teams are really good major teams that for one reason or another have ended up in the major plus division. If you figure 15 players per team on average that gives you a little less than 1100 major plus players in the whole country. Now out of that 1100 players how many are truly impact players that by themselves can consistently change the course of a game? I'm guessing it would be less than half, so now your talking about maybe 500 players. Would it be a better idea to combine major and major plus, rate these impact players, and limit the number to perhaps 3 per team? I understand this might be difficult but at this time none of those 4 divisions have more than 21 teams listed as Major Plus so at most your looking at about 300 players total per division. Maybe you only rate the top 100 per division to start out. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Rip, those are good points but again it is an attempt to artificially engineer the highest level. That level is the best for a reason, let it go and sort itself out. The Major Plus division should not be treated anywhere like AA or the others. That is where true open competition should prevail. Good thing this kind of thinking did not prevail in the past, or I suppose Smith and Waller would not have been allowed on the same team as Arndt and Harvey. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Tim Millette 615 posts | RIP, yes. Rating players is a good concept. Except it takes a lot more time/effort to rank players. If the Fifty Champions were held to no more then X amount of you can play together untill the next age group, it would surely help reduce the talent divide with Major and spread out the Plus talent. As I stated.... I believe guys walking around with tons is rings is a sign of the over all health of softball needing help. The dynastIEs of the Plus Divisions are a problem that needs to be addresses. If SSUSA ever wants to grow that Division. If the Plus teams don't like this concept... Maybe it would be better to eliminate the Plus Division and only allow three Plus players on major teams. Or... IF YOU WIN A PLUS WORLD AND CHOSE TO KEEP X AMOUNT OF PLAYERS YOU HAVE TO PLAY AT THE MAJOR LEVEL ONE AGE GROUP BELOW THE AGE GROUP YOU WON. this wouldn't solve the fifty problem so something still needs RO be figured out for that age group. Throwing the Plus Division into a very well balanced major program is only pushing the problem down a Division. The current system IS NOT WORKING |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | Why is it that someone different needs to win every year? Do we need to start handing out participation trophies or ribbons? Will that make evryone feel warm and fuzzy inside? Every team out here starts off on a level playing field. We have rules in place to indicate what level we can play at. Teams that do a good job putting talent together should be rewarded for doin well, not punished. I've said it before, we are ruling ourselves to death. We are taking the competitive enjoyment out of the game. JMO |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Rip 20 posts | Gary I believe you're right over time it will sort itself out, but what I think will happen is you will end up with about 5 or 6 teams at most at the Major Plus level in each division. I'm sure a lot of guys have played in a local league over the years with a team much better than the rest of the league and while its fun winning a lot of games generally in a few short years at most the league is destroyed as all the other teams are tired of getting the crap beat out of them every week. I can appreciate the talent it takes to have a really great major plus team but it can't be that much fun when you have no one left to beat. It's kind of like the local race team that spends so much money their car is much faster than everyone else and they win all the time. That's great for them until all the other race teams stop racing and then what good is it that their cars the fastest? |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Pricer, 100% correct. It is bad enough we are dumbing-down our kids' sports experiences, now some want to do it to us. :( Rip, a league is much different than a tournament. There are all sorts of leagues around, and teams can search around to find one appropriate for them. Major-Plus has already sorted itself out, and it is for the best. We need to leave them be and let them do their thing. If a team cannot compete with them, drop to Major. No shame in that. Which commandment says all teams must have a chance to win Major-Plus? And worse yet, where is it written that winning an artificially watered-down division would be the same achievement as beating the very best? We need to bring some pride back to the game. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 garyheifner 649 posts | Tim I have been on the SSUSA and SPA tours since 2001. In spite of what some of the unobserveant may think, I have not been in a single game that did not display pride and competitive fire by both teams. SSUSA does what they can to ensure NOT your right to win but at least give every team a fair and level playing field that each team has a CHANCE to win if they play well. Every one of you lives in a region of the USA and you will play many of the same teams over and over before moving on to national tournies. You get to know the players and their ability. You all know managers who, without hesitation, drop loyal teammates and raid other teams to form all-star teams in your region. There in lies the problem. They go out, pound everyone and cry when they get moved up. Just a thought. What if you kept the 4 levels. AA, AAA, Major and Major +. Divide them into 2 divisions. M and M+ are one group and AA and AAA are one group. Once you are in M or M+ you are stuck there unless your team shows a terrible result for the season and you win an appeal to move down. EX. a midwest team got lucky at AAA in one tourney was moved up and went 0-46 the next year and was moved down. Let them have their Hrs and open innings. SSUSA can move the M+ and M teams up and down, in their group each year based on all results. Same for AA-AAA. The key to this division is NO Hrs at all. This will make a M type Hr power hitter decide if he wants to be a AAA singles hitter or join a M team where he belongs. I was a supporter of giving every AA or AAA a few Hrs then outs. However, many of the teams we played at 65AAA last year had/added 2 or 3 hitters who could hit it out whenever they chose. When AAA went to 3 Hrs and then outs, team rosters seem to add power animals with hair all over their bodies. Now, I feel make this division a NO Hr division and you might see more teams move up to M and better balance the AA-AAA world. Regardless of any idea proposed, rating the teams is a nightmare for SSUSA and I feel their hardest job. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 DMac Men's 60 207 posts | OKay, I know I am going to piss off someone, but I worked all day and I'm drinking some good Irish Whiskey so I don't care. The powers that be make very little money, if any at all, at the Major Plus division. Seriously, how can you offer rings to a four team field and turn a profit. You can't. The money is made at the Major and AAA levels. Forget AA. If new teams start at the AAA level, then how bad do you have to be to be rated AA. Sorry Tommy. SSUSA does not want to discourage teams from entering their "cash cow" tournaments,so winners have to move up.I played for Double Edge last year. We could play for the next ten years and not even make it to Sunday but we understand how the game is played. We got moved up and we disbanded. SSUSA is there to make money and not to provide a good experience for old men.Don't even bring Karl Marx into the conversation. |
| Feb. 3, 2012 Tim Millette 615 posts | Ok..... If you want to leave Plus alone, then quit trying to force teams up to be cannon fodder. Don't bump any team to major plus except for the major world champ. Then let those great Plus teams that you don't want to mess with have fun playing in thier own world champion division. Quit talking/taking surveys trying to figure out how the Plus teams can get the opportunity to play against lower level teams. If there are not enough Plus teams at an event let them break up for the weekend and try to get added to major teams for the weekend. If they can't play..... Let them stay home. The only problem with doing this is.... The major Champion most likely will fold every year. |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | Tim, it seems your stuck on the Major/plus division. The smallest of senior ball. If a team plays within the rules at any classification and wins more than they lose, they should not be bumped regardless. If a team wins multiple championships, so be it. If they played within the rules, they deserve it. Most folks don't have big money sponsors, so most are local bud's playing together. So being bumped in most cases will result in SB losing members, not gaining a upper level teams. JMO |
| Feb. 4, 2012 DD Men's 75 92 posts | This was reprinted from a July 29, 2011 post on this subject. At the time, HRs were limited, but since then, with the LVSSA/SSUSA merger allowing for unlimited HRs once again, I know of several teams who declined to enter the major Plus category because of the REnewed emphasis on pure long ball offense. Reprinted from Message Board, July 29, 2011--- "What does the top level of senior softball look like? Or better yet, what SHOULD it look like? The current perception of the top level (now known as Major Plus) for many, many players is that it is dominated by the home run. Historically, with the disingenuous "One-Up" rule that allowed for unlimited homeruns, there may have been more than a shred of accuracy to that perception. But, since 2008 when homeruns became limited in all divisions, THE FACTS ABOUT MAJOR PLUS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY...that explodes the myth of Home Run Derby in Major Plus. Since HRs are now counted and the overage ruled as dead ball outs, fewer than 10% of all Major Plus games see the limit reached by even one team...it's less than 10% of all games for BOTH teams to hit 10 each. Thank God for that...20 balls that leave the park in any one game is TOO MANY...and the game quickly becomes boring. My experience in Major Plus (55 and 60) has taught me the best teams do everything well (and I'm looking at you, Turn Two in 60s, and Nighthawks in 55s)...they pitch well, they field well, they run the bases smartly, have good arms in the outfield that prevent extra bases, they hit to the opposite field when the situation calls for it, they hit very few solo homeruns, their managers manage the game and substitute accordingly, they courtesy run for injured players but don't burn out all their fast guys before Sunday, and a lot more. In short., they do all the little things correctly...and shouldn't that be the hallmark of the top level of senior ball? The Major Division---(minus the "plus")---should feature the best speed, the best arms, the best defense, the best pitchers, as well as the top hitters. The HR is a vital part of the game...but it is only a part...and too many of them quickly turns the sport into a comedy that good ballplayers do not really want to play...why should they? Too many dingers neutralize their skills because there is no defense for it. The top level of senior softball---the Majors (minus the "plus")---should find an acceptable HR limit...say 6...merge the divisions...and have at it. With 5 runs per inning and a reasonable HR limit...all the ingredients are in place. PLAY BALL!" |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | DD, Your points are right on and I have said this too ... they really screwed up with the merger, allowing it to basically be "open season" again. Like everyone says, there is such a small number of Major-plus teams, but really there are only about 2-3 that warrant the M+ distinction and the others are made to move up so they have someone to play. 80% of the Major-plus teams are just really good Major teams. The ring thing is a joke! The only tournament that someone should be flashing a ring is for the nationals or worlds ... whatever they are calling it. Stick, your time limit comment is okay, but I'd rather not play 2 hour games at all. |
| Feb. 4, 2012 paul0784 Men's 60 218 posts | So all the Major and Major+ teams get put together with three, four or five players kept from the championship team. There isn't even 1 Major Plus team that touches Massachusetts so all the Major teams should drop out and go back to AAA. The Northeast teams would not be able to compete in this new combined division without the availability of Major+ players? Or am I missing something in this concept. It seems fine in the rest of the country where there are Major+ teams and players but for us here in the Northeast it seems like a bad concept? |
| Feb. 4, 2012 turn2 489 posts | We have been playing major plus for 8 years and where are these so called move up teams? So there should be 8 winners from the major division in spa and ssusa and have not seen the teams move up.I seen Ruth move up after winning the 60 major and played major plus for one year and then moved right back down to major the next year. Nobody wants to play at the top of the divisions except for a few teams that like to play major plus againstthe best compitition out there. The problem will never get fixed because the associations let most of the teams out there sand bag and never move up. How many times should a team win a division and still be allowed to play in the same division? Later Donnie Turn Two 60 major plus |
| Feb. 4, 2012 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | Right, Donnie. I've seen the same thing several times with teams out of Florida winning a Major title and getting moved up in name only. You see their name on the Major Plus list but they never play any tournaments after that. They split up and go back to being Major. Maybe the limit on the number of M+ players on a team will keep this from happening as much but I doubt it. |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | donll, props to you for understanding the simple concept. After all, why reward hard work, effort, ability, and achievement? How very un-American! (sigh)-from Gary 19 You say this, yet you back, by 'default' the candidate that openly works against this idea. I do not heartily support any candidate either, but to continue down this road we are on is lunacy. Do you really think our deficit is 'only' 1.5 Trillion? Then why, 6 months after a government stalemate and near shutdown that produced a raise in the debt ceiling of 2.4 Trillion, is the administration asking for ANOTHER raise of 1.4 Trillion in that same ceiling? If we have gone through the whole 2.4 T in 6 months, doesn't that make the deficit around 4.8T per year????? AND, do you think the unemployment rate has REALLY gone down to 8.3%. Go inside the figures on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and really see what they have done. This should be a crime, shuffling hundreds of thousands of workers to the 'discouraged worker' category, or taking them out of the 'work force'. Without those moves it would have gone down by .2% instead of .7%. Who is trying to get reelected with bogus numbers? I thought you were so smart, Gary, that we shouldn't question you. |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | My God guys, what is so hard about this? The SAD part about the situation is NOT that Obama has a litany of virtues, but that the Republicans offer NOTHING as a viable alternative. Nothing!!!! Just like 4 years ago. If stating that obvious observation is "backing" someone, you guys really need to get a better grasp of the language. Mark, you actually prefer Gingrich? Or even Romney? You really would have rather had McCain? Or worse yet, the woman who would have been one old man's heart beat away from the job? Seriously? Now who is not being very smart? |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Donnie, you are right in so many ways, but it really isn't SSUSA's fault. The teams that win and get moved up don't have the 'stomach' to take on the challenge any more. They feel they have done what they can and are content. The wish to be 'the best' is no longer there. So, they break up rather than go for it. I have chosen to play with a team that wants to take on that challenge. I thought that fire was gone in me, too, but it is not. I will be playing with GSF-60 Major Plus this year, as long as they want me. We look forward to seeing you guys this year. Webbie |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Mango Men's 50 159 posts | Webbie, Not being political but just clearing up a couple of things. Just to clear things up. You are talking about 2 different things. One is the National Debt..that is at approximately 15 trillion. The "Deficit" is how much we are short each year, that is how much more we spend than we take in EACH YEAR. Last year the "deficit" was about 1.2 trillion. This was added to the National Debt. These annual deficits contribute to the NATIONAL DEBT. We have been running deficits for the last decade (since the Bush tax cuts of 2001). President Obama extended these tax cuts in 2010 and they too contribute to the National Debt. The last time we had a "surplus"(we take in more than we spend)was when Clinton was in office. Hope that clears up the difference between deficit and the national debt. Mango |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | To Obama, YES. Even with the media touting everything good that happens as Obama's doing, and trying to make the GOP nominees look bad ALL OF THE TIME, I prefer it to status quo. The last several elections have been a choice of which candidate is 'not the worst'. How sad that is. But, our political process weeds out all of the good candidates. No truly intelligent person would go through the vicious personal or family attacks, most of which are untrue or half truths, that would accompany running for a major office. They would not put up with quotes taken out of context to make them look bad. How many of you out there would be able to withstand the kind of vicious 'past history searches' that delve into a person's whole life. Therefore, only idiots would run, and that's what we have. Obama knows Bush did not cause this recession. It was a combination of a lot of things done by both parties to curry favor with voters. It was a lot of Congress bowing to lobby pressures to please donors. Yet he continually blames Bush. It just shows how shallow and desperate he is. He cannot run on his record. His attempt at reviving the economy using Keynsian economics has not worked. It could have, but he had too many personal agendas to fulfill. Now, he has a BILLION DOLLAR warchest, that will grow, to use to get re-elected. Is he considering giving any of that away to the poor?? Where is his 'redistribution now? Believe me, he will use every penny to slander, and smear, and do whatever is necessary to get re-elected. And, any Republican in his shoes would do the same. We need to vote EVERY politician out of office for several election cycles until they listen to US, rather than $$$$$$$. I will be voting for whomever comes out of the GOP fray, and then probably for the Democrat that opposes him in 2016, unless things radically change. |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Mango, I know that. I said DEFICIT (yearly) and I meant it. Why would they have to raise the debt ceiling another 1.4 Trillion just 6 months after raising it by 2.4 Trillion, unless they had already spent enough to reach it??? They threatened to shut down the government then-remember? No, I meant it just the way I said it, and I know the difference. We have been deficit spending since Reagan. Clinton moved to the center, signed the welfare reform bill among others, and showed a surplus. Anyone watching? |
| Feb. 4, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Sorry, Tim, I now return control of this thread (and your TV) to you. I will return from the outer limits. Sorry I got going on this particular thread. |
| Feb. 5, 2012 turn2 489 posts | Webbie25 GSF is a very goood team and it has been fun playing these guys over the years. Hope to see you guys in Dalton or Vegas. Good Luck Donnie |
| Feb. 5, 2012 stick8 1992 posts | Technically your correct in what you say Mango. Let me add that when that occurred it meant the government took in more revenue than it spent--or they overtaxed us. And when Bush came into office he sent that excess back to the people-as he should have. It's akin to going to a store and being overcharged for buying something. The store owes you a credit or a refund on the difference. It may look good on paper to show a surplus but company or certain entities yearly financial statements many times show the same amount for expenses and money taken in--balanced budget. If they take more in then they spend they usually use the extra money for bonuses or other things. If they take in less then it's a loss and the boss isn't a happy camper!! |
| Feb. 5, 2012 Mango Men's 50 159 posts | Hey Stick, Nice to hear from you. Your example is not 100% correct. Suppose you owe a store $1,000 and go in and buy a $200 bat and accidentally give them $210. Should you get the excess $10 back or should it be used to pay down your debt? That would be a better analogy.. For the last decade we have run deficits by cutting taxes and increasing spending. And these annual deficits have increased the National Debt to such an extent that almost 1/3rd of the budget this year will be interest on the National Debt. And Tim apologies for participating in the hijacking of your thread. |
| Feb. 5, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Mango-an article this morning in the Albuquerque Journal asked the same question about the size of the deficit that I did Saturday. Donnie-I look forward to meeting you-on and off the field. |
| Feb. 6, 2012 goforit 97 posts | Webbie, Look forward to seeing you on the field this summer with GSF, we should at least have three or four Major Plus teams from the west in Vegas at the end of April. A few from the East would make it a lot of fun. From what i understand GSF is not going to be in Mesquite/St. George so i guess we will play D & K two out of three if no one else shows up. I hope you guys change your mind and come to Mesquite/St. George in March. We are not the strongest Major Plus team in the 60's (yet) but we will give you a battle every game and have fun doing it. I know Major Plus is not for everyone, but i've been playing against and with a lot of these same guys through the 50's, 55's and now the 60's and i enjoy it. We had a great run for 1 1/2 years in the 60 Major division and we are trying to do what we can to get the right players in place to be competative in the Major Plus division. Only time will tell if our plan works or not. See you soon John Giesler Master Collision |
| Feb. 6, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Hey, John I also look forward to playing you guys. I have mandatory inventory the weekend of Mesquite at work, so I can't go anyway. We will see you in Vegas, then. Webbie |
| Feb. 6, 2012 stick8 1992 posts | Mango, hope al is well with you and yours. In your example the store should apply that $10 to my bill which in this case would end up at $990. But if I didn't owe a penny to the store then they should owe me $10 in some form--either cash or a credit. I suppose I would have to initiate that part of it. BTW, I miss playing against the Mavericks! You guys were so strong all thru the order and defensively solid everywhere-- both with remarkable consistency. 50 major plus isn't the same without you guys!! |
| Feb. 7, 2012 neck10 714 posts | pricer if your team played in the usssa senior 50 would you be rec or comp?????????????? |
| Feb. 7, 2012 Marv19 Men's 60 498 posts | I have been watching this topic and I really didn't want to post but I have to comment. If the present administration wanted to tax the rich why didn't they do it when they had the chance? Pretty hard to charge $3,000 to $5,000 thousand dollars a plate at those fund raisers if your going after their taxes isn’t it? No their agenda was to bail out banks and shove a health care system down our throats. I just had surgery and my co-pay nearly doubled from two years ago. Doubled!!! I was given a prescription for a tiny vile of eye drops and my portion was $90. I had to take two others at $40 and $86. That was my share of Medicare and I have a stop gap policy. That was just one eye. I have to do it all over again next week. This I’m told is the result of the new health care system that is slowly taking hold. Can’t do it all at once cus we have an election soon.. right? If we used diplomacy in Somalia why are 9 Somalian kidnappers rotting in the ground? If a military person sets up a gun and aims it at a target and Mr. O pulls the trigger then how does that warrant victory lap speeches? The military and CIA didn't get nearly enough credit in my opinion. If I earn money and I pay taxes on it at say 30% then I invest the un-taxed portion of that money and draw out some of the profit as living expense. And now I pay 15% on that money that is mine in the first place why is it I'm being sinful? Isn’t that a 45% tax? So now we persecute people that are successful in this country?... seriously. If the fund I invest in puts the money I send in along with countless other investors in a foreign bank why am I being criticized? I don’t own the fund, I invest in it. BTW Its the law. Don't like it change it! The City of Los Angeles is putting $680,000 of “job creating” stimulus money into a yacht they own for new engines and I cant get my home refinanced that is worthless right now. How many jobs were created on this project? Is that not a sin as well. $500,000,000 (count the zeros) into a company that goes bankrupt right away. Sin or not sin? But we did get our photo op with Mr. Bumbles and Mr. O in hard hats didn't we? General Motors... shall we say no more after the private investors got screwed on that deal and the unions got another sweet deal. Canadian pipeline... how many jobs did we kill there? How about a border agent killed with our own guns and and no one knows anything and all are pointing fingers at each other. Worse is the border agent’s family cant sue bc the government is immune from prosecution in this incident. And our AG wont own up to it bc he’s to busy doing his soft shoe routine in front of congress. Do these people think we are really that stupid? Honestly. I'm an independent thinker but there's as much transparency in this administration as my bad cataract left eye. Now he’s blaming the founding fathers for creating laws that make it hard for him to do what he wants to do. (see interview with Matt Lauer) Its called the Constitution... tough! Much to your dismay Mr. O we didn't crown you we elected you! Sorry but my mantra this year is A.B.O. |
| Feb. 7, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | We could always have George Bush back committing troops to Iraq. Too bad he didn't put his military-age daughters where his mouth was and commit them to picking up a gun and serving over there. There are examples of all this stuff in all administrations, in both parties. |
| Feb. 7, 2012 stick8 1992 posts | Marv19 if you ever decide run for POTUS you certainly have my vote!!! |
| Feb. 7, 2012 Marv19 Men's 60 498 posts | Thanks stick. Actually this was posted to the wrong topic. And no I dont have dementia. It's bc I'm typing with only one good eye. I'll post it over where it belongs :O) |
| Feb. 7, 2012 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | And Obama committed troops and/or firepower and major dollars to Libya, Sudan, Egypt, much more to Afghanistan and a myriad of other places in the world. Plus, after all the promises-never closed Guantanamo. (I agree with him on that). I was in the Marine Corps-war is not clean and pretty like some stateside seem to think. How lame of you to again, like Obama, go all the way back to Bush. (I was PO'd at him, too) Gary19-if you are as intelligent as you say you are, and as intelligent as my die-hard Democratic Dad with a 155 IQ is, you will see that Obama is not like the Democrats of the past, but a different breed that is nothing like those of the past and does not deserve your vote. My dad had NEVER pulled the lever for a Republican and is almost sick to think he will this year, but he is going to. With apologies to Redd Foxx---(I feel a BIG ONE coming on!!!!) |
| Feb. 8, 2012 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | Ah, Neck, for the good old days when there was no "Rec" division in USSSA. I remember when it was created back in the 90s. Everything in senior ball has been watered down since I started in 1996. Some of that is probably a good thing...I don't know but when we played Masters ball (35s, 40s and 45s), there was one large Open division with no "comp" or "rec" designations. We had many, many teams attend and back then, it was "2 and Q". If you didn't work each year to improve your team, you would be done quickly. Of course, there was only ASA and USSSA back then, too, not the number of senior tournaments we can pick from now. My rant is now over, you may return to normal programming... |
| Feb. 8, 2012 Gary19 Men's 50 2609 posts | Mark, I completely agree. I just think that the guys who come on saying "anyone but...." are just dangerous. There was no viable alternative in '08, and does not appear to be one now. I was glad to see Santorum win last night. Not sure if he can sustain this, but he is more attractive than Gingrich and probably Romney. |
| Feb. 8, 2012 stick8 1992 posts | Marv19 did you happen to catch what Ruth Bader Ginsberg was recently quoted? "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.” Hard to believe a sitting USSC Justice would have disdain for a document she was sworn to protect and uphold. |
| Feb. 8, 2012 Marv19 Men's 60 498 posts | Yes I did But that is what defines the progressive movement. They believe the Constitution is a living document. Remember she is one of the 4 in the 5 to 4 decisions. Another reason to vote conservative. The president nominates Justices for a lifetime term. If Mr O had his way the supreme court would look like our (CA) 9th circuit court of appeals. Talk about anarchy on steroids. We would be either Sodom or Gomorrah. Take your pick :O) |
