Magox

Because there is a contingency on this board of posters who are so sore about the decisions that Beane/McD made surrounding Watkins, Jwill, Darby, Ragland that any players that came about from those moves will automatically be seen as not up to par with what was already here.

He's got plenty of speed and has enough vision to bounce it outside if need be.

I would think there could be a deal to be had. With the So-called Dreamers he could make it permanent for those kids to get a legal status and in exchange he gets his wall fully funded. Basically they could dare the Dems to vote on a bill that would deny these kids permanent legal status. I don't see how Democrats on a large scale would vote no for that. Package infrastructure with a tax package. Basically you'd have the nationalists and Democrats both in favor of infrastructure with a "Made in the USA" bend to it, tax cuts for everyone except the "rich" which again would be bring these two potentially together and viola! You have enough of a coalition to pass a tax reform bill.

Oh yeah, this could end up being a bad move. Reasonable people can agree with that but it could end up being a good move as well. If Sammy ends up being a border line pro bowl player or worse, then not having to sign him at $17M a year on a long-term basis along with maybe Gaines being a quality contributing player on the team and drafting a second rounder that ends up being a quality contributor then they look like geniuses.

Great advice and I encourage everyone to listen to it. Also, I guess that goes for all the people who will be stalking Watkins/Rams and see how their ex is doing and hopefully all the catty comments will stop then, right?

I don't know Bandit. If you look at that video there is no one remotely near Gilmore and he was looking in the whole time. He should have stayed with the WR, I don't care what the safety said. This to me is a matter of the safety taking ownership of him making the wrong read but Gilmore also lacked awareness on this play even if that wasn't his responsibility per se. Gilmore blew it man.

I don't know, maybe because I don't want to sift through a bunch of the same old **** day in and day out? This was a topic that had been on my mind and the title of the thread caught my attention.

I don't know if it was Gilmore's fault but this seems to be a pattern for one reason or another. A play on his side on a man that he was covering gets a long touchdown reception. Then there is a he said she said deal on who gets the blame. Bottom line, TD occurs on a somewhat consistent basis against the guy he was covering at some point during the play. The way I see it that it occurs too often for a supposedly elite corner to happen against.

Gilmore was a solid DB and much better than average man to man cover guy, but he wasn't worth what he was asking for from a Bills perspective under this scheme. So the move to not attempt to re-sign him was a no brainer.

I'm glad he did it and I hope he does more of it. Kicking out Bannon and the other goofs and listening to the more moderate minded people in his administration AKA the more responsible folks plays to his better angels. He tried to get things done with the moderate rights and further right wing/purists and he got burned. They couldn't get it done and there is nothing out there to suggest that they could get anything done going it all alone on the right. He ran on some right wing stuff and without doubt that was part of his coalition but he also ran as a moderate quasi lefty on his spending and healthcare. That's where he should continue to go. If I were him I'd go to the Democrats and Republican leadership and try to craft everything he does with bipartisan support. Clearly what was going on wasn't working and you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to believe that moving further to the right would accomplish any sort of meaningful legislation. His only hope is to move to the center if he hopes to get anything done.

It was gratuitous, and I suppose the Bills putrid record over the past 17 years gave him the chutzpah to say it.

That was a pretty stand up thing to do to a pretty stand up sorta guy. Shady deserves it and he has bought into the team. Happy for him.

Sorta like Jwill?

Aside from portions of our rabid fanbase, most NFL evaluators who are paid to give their opinions and many others understand the logic of the Sammy trade due to his injury history, salary cap implications cost vs benefit analysis. Reasonable people can agree to disagree with the decision but from a rational perspective it was completely justified.

Right, I eventually do believe that the US won't have the same role as it has today as the sole world's reserve currency. The difference however is if you continue a hyper money creation policy that two things would occur aside from the eventual loss of status of being the top dog. A) The length and period of holding the belt as the world champ will be lessened. In other words we would lose our reserve currency status sooner than if we practiced more sound economic policy. B) The fall would be from a higher place. Meaning, that unwinding of this mass exodus would be extremely painful more painful than a gradual degradation of a more orderly protracted exit. In any case, both you and DS seem to be straddling with your positions. What sort of taxation are we looking at? What sort of Debt to GDP would be acceptable? What kind of spending are we talking about? We talking about spending to fuel growth via stimulus measures or are we talking about spending for social safety nets, health, etc? For all I know, it seems as if you are essentially ok with the status quo, because in essence that is what we are already doing. Or are we talking about dramatically expanding the balance sheet?

*That we cut down on the penalties *That we are able to run the ball with effectiveness *That Tyrod is able to get the ball out efficiently *That Zay and Clay are able to get a decent bit of targets *That the front four can get some pass pressure *That the run defense continues to be stout *That our DB's are constantly in position.

" MMT says deficits within reason are okay so long as hyper-inflation is avoided. Taxes can be lowered if it leads to greater economic growth hence taxes will inevitably grow with it." So what is "within reason"? How much debt should we be able to run up ? 60% , 100%, 200%, 500% of Debt to GDP? This "within reason" is what we need to know. WIthout properly defining it, this goes nowhere. And since in your own words Taxes destroys money, at what level should taxation lie from where we are right now? You believe there should be taxation not because you believe it is necessary for it's intended purposes of paying for government spending, but you pretty much imply that it's necessary to serve as a check on hyperinflation. Again, this is another vague comment meant to straddle both sides of the argument to shield MMT from the crux of it all. Which is what are the levels of debt and taxation that is allowable? "In MMT so long as the USD is the the only acceptable currency to distinguish taxes then there's no worry. As far as demand for U.S. debt the Chinese could re-evaluate their currency tomorrow, but would be playing economic suicide. They will continue buying US T-Bills and accepting USD for the goods they manufacture for our markets" So as long as the USD is the only "acceptable" currency to distinguish taxes, no worries? What does that even mean? Are you saying the only currency that continues to be in command of Reserve currency status? Also, there is no guarantee that the Chinese would continue buying Treasuries or for that matter any country. Every day that passes by there are more options to diversify, there are more currencies gaining credibility and more work-around options to bypass using the U.S dollar. Countries such as China, Russia and other emerging nations are continuing to lessen their reliance on US dollar based transactions. "With the power of the world's largest military, and most sophisticated Central Bank, that's likely not going to be us. And keep in mind systems are designed to crash" This is just a total disregard of history and assumes that the U.S will always continue to remain in this status. And, "systems are designed to crash" What does this mean? Sounds cute, but put some meat behind it so I can actually grab on to something. Again, these vague statements allow proponents of such radical ideas to attempt to wiggle their way out of really making a detailed case. It's all been generalities and theories. "the USD is used 64% used as the reserve currency. The EURO is lagging and the Chinese yuan is a new entrant. China & Russia signed a currency swap in 2015, we should embrace economic competition. The more the yuan appreciates the quicker we get back to exporting.* Again, this goes under the assumption that the U.S will always hold it's status and dominance. And currency swap agreement doesn't make your case. Economic competition and viability is exactly what would the beginning stages of the house of cards to come crumbling down. Without there being alternative options the game continues, the more viable options available the less reliance to hold and transact in USD. "The Chinese yuan is the only viable competitor, and they are a command economy with stifling central planning. It should be pointed out that every major currency we compete against has more "socialism" than we do, as far as government involvement in spending as a % of GDP." Right now it is, but who says that the gradual degradation of the USD has to come from only the Chinese Yuan? There are so many unforeseen potential triggers, there could be a new currencies formed, wars, debt crisis's that could create severe dislocations and funds could in a massive way in a very short time period from one area to another. Fear is a powerful thing and at some point very important decision makers will look under the hood at the whole model and see if there is a lasting foundation to continue to invest in. *Consumers household credit although large represents a fragment of the economy, when looking at international currency exchange. This really isn't a valid point." I wasn't talking about household credit, go back and reread what I wrote. "Again as long as Congress, the Treasury and the Fed can work out a suitable and sustainable growh rate - they could easily achieve a targeted inflation rate using TPS formula of Govt spending less revenue. This is also not taking into consideration the role of private sector debt, something post-Keynesian economists are sure to point was THE contributing factor of the 2007/2008 GFC" Again, more vagueness. So what is a suitable and sustainable growth rate? You have to consider taxation, debt etc. And the contributing factor to the latest downfall was for a whole host of reasons, anyone who pins it on one point has an agenda they are trying to push. It was a perfect storm of events that was caused by government, greed, malfeasance and a whole host of other reasons and is meant for a separate thread. Which we've discussed on this board ad nauseum. Years back. "Japan, The Euro, UK, China, all have universal healthcare and public sector debt levels higher than the U.S., yet they sustain their economies. Yes there are emerging markets like Brazil or S. Africa but they are decades behind the U.S." What does having Universal healthcare have to do with it? Are you trying to make the point that since they have higher levels of spending and more debt then we really don't have to worry about them competing? Or are you saying that since they are able to have so much spending, it proves that it's a sustainable model? Or are you responding within the context that if the U.S were to go down, these other nations who have higher debt levels would be in danger first? Whatever you are trying to say, I'm pretty sure it goes under the assumption that the U.S is the top dog, so no worries. "The banks weren't run on, so much as Wall Street essentially foreclosed on itself. Lehman was the chosen loser, but the business model of CDOs/MBSs, derivatives, meant that the possibility someone was going to lose was highly probable. Again let's not confuse solid central bank monetary policy with private sector banking, or as some say 'casino capitalism" Of course there was a run on the banks. Not in the most classical sense but in construct. Investors panicked, investors looked under the hood, evaluated viability and other factors and money was pulled and put into different assets primarily U.S treasuries and hard assets. Of course the government picked winners and losers and I was an outspoken critic of the whole deal, even though I do understand why it was done. The point is that you've straddled the lines of fiscal prudence and higher levels of spending. That taxation destroy money but that it needs to be done. You've hedged yourself to defend MMT. Without putting some meat on the bones all we can do is discuss theories via generalities. It goes nowhere. The arrogance that the USD will always be the best game in town and basing the majority of what you are supporting around the thought that the world will continue to keep playing this game shows a lack of historical awareness. There will always be a better game at some point, specially if the game that you are playing is built on a house of cards. Creating money with nothing really backing it at some point is destined to fail, specially if its done on such a large scale. The U.S can get away with it because we are still the best game in town. It won't last forever.

I don't put people on ignore. Not how I roll. There is a difference between posting well-thought critiques and incessant mindless blather and it ain't even a fine line. And who said it's complaining? Mockery is my tool of choice

There would be no larger house of cards economic system than what the MMT proponents would want. Basically they are saying that there is no need for Bond issuance and taxation to raise revenues because the U.S. government could print it and pay for services and products. Which in turn would create economic output and serve as a feedback loop of sorts. Therefore deficits don't matter. Which over a period of time here in the U.S would probably work. The problem with this is that the assumption is that everyone will continue to hold their assets in dollars or continue making dollar based transactions. If everyone keeps playing the same game, the game continues. Once the music stops, it all comes crashing down. So what would trigger This? And who cares if technically the MMT proponents could be right if the everyone continued holding and transacting in US dollars that everything would be A Ok. What if another country begins to have a currency that is seen as more stable and asset allocation begins to shift in that direction? Or investors move into hard assets? Or bonds backed by countries practicing safer sound economic policies increasingly come into higher demand? In regards to transactions everything is done through credit cards now a days. They don't have to be done in dollars because the currency conversions happen instantaneously, so visitors from abroad aren't reliant on US dollars. As a matter of fact there is nothing holding anyone back to maintaining their holdings in US dollars. Their whole argument is that the U.S will always be the top dog, that the U.S dollar will always be the best game in town and through our continuous spending, reserve currency status, disregard for debt because it doesn't matter since we can print the money and cover the debt and promises of growth that investors, merchants what have you will continue to hold assets and maintain their transactions in U.S dollars. The fall of the house of cards wouldn't be overnight that's for sure. Slowly but surely asset reallocation would occur and the reliance of US dollars would diminish, other safer alternatives would emerge bit even that wouldn't do it. It would take a run-on-the-bank sort of panic like what we saw with Lehman to bring the party to a halt. If there is no foundation then it won't be able to weather a great storm.

Just admit it, you have no idea of what is being discussed here

Speaking for myself, it's the incessant mindless repetitiveness.

If the run blocking will be similar to what it has been over the last couple years and shady is having another good year, my guess is that the backups will be effective as well.

If anything what you cited was an indictment of previous Bills personnel decisions. The fact that we used 2 first rounders for Sammy when we could have stayed put and gotten OBJ, Mike or Benjamin will go down as a colossal failure from Whaley.

We'll see

He'll get his opportunity to play this year.