jjamie12

I don't understand this. Doesn't this actually make his argument all the more compelling? If someone who is supposedly the 'beneficiary' of 'government largesse' is decrying the system, doesn't that say something much more powerful to you than someone who is NOT benefitting from the programs and decrying those same programs? To me, his living in Alaska (and possibly losing $$ due to his advocacy), actually makes me stop and think that there is something more to his position, not degrade it. But that's just me...

Wow. Just wow. You have ZERO idea what I agree or don't agree with. Let me see if I can be clear for you. The minimum wage should be tied to some sort of inflation index. I'd never heard anyone claim that the CPI was a 'political' index... I didn't realize that people voted on what to put in the CPI. The CPI is what it is. Obviously, there are issues with the CPI, the same as any index would have, however, your characterization of the CPI as 'political' just doesn't hold water. You DO have to tie the min. wage to some inflation index, though... what do you propose?

Let me be more clear about my position. My position is that the Democrats do not 'care' about the working poor. They care about getting votes. Further, if the 'cared' about the working poor, they would push to have the min. wage tied to some inflation index. If they 'cared' about the working poor (or whatever you want to call it) there would be substantive debates on the floor of the House, and in speeches around the country about tying the minimum wage to some sort of inflation index. If you take it as a given that there should be a minimum wage, then it follows that this wage should be tied to some inflation index, period. No one ever even talks about this, though. Not even in the debate leading up to a minimum wage bill. You have to ask yourself why that is, don't you? Why not even a debate about the merits of tying the min. wage to CPI? The answer is very clear. Democrats want an issue to bring up when it is convenient for them, the same way that Republicans love to talk about gay marriage whenever someone questions the validity of the Iraqi war. It is really that simple.

Hang on a second. If you presume that the Democrats will have the political juice to get an increase in minimum wage passed, why would one tied to CPI get vetoed, but a minimum wage tied to CPI not get vetoed? That doesn't make any sense. If there is political support (from the people) for a wage increase, there would be even more political support (from the people) for a wage tied to CPI. The question I have is: Why does NO ONE talk about tying the minimum wage to the CPI? And the most obvious one is that it is politically expedient to have an issue to go to the well with every now and then. Seriously... if Democrats really cared about the poor minimum wage workers, they should propose one that keeps pace with inflation. Anything else is just eyewash.

What do you mean by 'eroding'? I'm not really sure how to respond, but all I can say is that I think it would be a hard case to make that the average American was better off in 1970 (say) than they are today. We live longer, we live better... all of us. This NECESSARILY means higher prices. Does that hurt or help all Americans? I also think that employess whose jobs are outsourced should be given some sort of training in order to help them try and find another job that is fits in more with the 'new economy' That is an important piece of the puzzle, because there is no doubt that it hurts some people. Those people that are hurt by it should get something out of it. It would be in our national interest for that 'something' to be a more well-educated workforce. Then, those people can reap the benefits, as well. You want to tax companies for running their business in the best possible way? You understand what this would do to value of American companies, right? You know, the companies that you and I and everyone else have as part of our mutual funds or 401K or IRA's right? I don't know how you can say this. Everything that I have read leads me to the understanding that we are, as a whole, better off because of globalisation. Americans enjoy lower costs. I assume that you know about all of the costs that would be borne by all Americans (mostly middle class, though, because a greater % of our paychecks will be going to consumer goods than an upper class person) as outlined above, I guess I just can't figure out why you think it is going to be better, given the things that you've proposed above??? Now I see... That is tough, I am sorry that this has happened to you, I'm sure it doesn't seem fair, and your position on this issue makes a lot more sense to me now. Unfortunately, it really still is a matter of making things worse for everyone by trying to help out a few. It is too bad that you are one of 'the few', but I really feel that it is important that the US economy and US worker continue to change, adapt, and grow with the times. If we don't, it will lead to much bigger economic problems. For what it's worth, my father is in a similar situation, but his job has been spared (fortunately for us) so far. He works in a factory in Olean, NY, that has been cutting jobs for years now, and employing more and more workers in China. We have this same conversation quite a bit. I'm not sure if he buys the whole globalisation argument, either, but he DOES buy a lot of stuff for cheap because of it.

Actually, we're already seeing it with lower prices for consumer goods, which puts real money into the pockets of real people everyday (or, rather, takes less money out). And how much more alarming would those increases in health and energy costs be if we had to pay EVEN HIGHER prices for everyday things, like shirts and shoes and whatever else? That certainly sucks for the percentage of the population that this happens to, no question about it. However, for the greater good of ALL people in the US, the best way to distribute those gains made from globalisation is to try and re-train those who lost their jobs due to globalisation so that they can be productive members of the new economy. You're absolutely right, it isn't going to be smooth sailing for every single person in the US. However, the economy (and thus, the people) will be much better off. We need to ensure continuing economic growth for everyone, not protectionist policies that help only a few, and harm the many. I guess the part that I am not seeing is why I should subsidize people's housing choices? If you can't afford your home, sell it. You're not out here saying that everyone should be employed, right? You're not calling for the government to ensure zero unemployment, right? So what makes manufacturing special? Further, you're obfuscating the point with your reference to Enron. The people who brought you Enron got their day in court, and justice (sort of) was done. Enron wasn't outsourcing manufacturing jobs, though. Enron has nothing to do with this conversation. That line goes into a 'Business Bad' thread. Look, we live in a capitalist society. If you think that everyone should be guaranteed a job, go ahead and vote for Socialists or Communists, and that's fine, I respect your opinion about those things. However, you aren't making a case for Socialism, you're making a case for protecting a class of people in the US, at the expense of the greater good. Not a good (or rational) case to make, in my opinion.

The reality is that, in the long run, outsourcing makes us all better off. Unfortunately, there will be a few people who don't have any marketable skills other than 'laborer'. The government should assist them with education and/or training to be a productive member of the new economy. Face it, folks, we live in a global economy, and lower consumer prices across the board helps all Americans.

You know, I forgot that play to Shelton. They beat a blitz on that play, because the linebacker who would normally cover Shelton on that FB flat was blitzing, and the play picked up a decent amount of yardage. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Part of the problem with us fans, and our 'analysis', I guess, is that we really don't have a clue. That WAS a 3-step drop, but what I don't know is: Was the play a designed 3-step, or is that a hot read on JP's part? Offenses have become so sophisitcated that it wouldn't surprise me if he cuts his drop short to make that play... I honestly have no idea, and I can never really know, because, obviously, I don't have the game plan. That's what makes thinking about these things particularly frustrating! Thanks for pointing out the Shelton play to me, though, I had forgotten about that one.

I actually just meant a 3-step drop pass play... Seriously. I didn't see every offensive snap yesterday, but I don't remember a single time that JP took a 3-step drop. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but I certainly don't remember it happening. If you can point to a time or two that it happened, that's great, but that's the point, isn't it? If we are constantly getting sacked and hit in the mouth, shouldn't there be more 3-step drops? I am literally asking why we don't see more? Does anyone have a good idea why the Bills wouldn't make short, quick, passes more prominent in this offense?

Correct. Week 3. We have to go back to week 3 to remember an executed 3-step drop passing play? Actually, that's not really fair. In week 5, the garbage time TD pass to Lee Evans at the goal-line was also a quick 3-step drop and slant for the TD. But, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. We have to go back several weeks to come up with a play that utilised a 3-step drop (which should negate a pass rush) all the while being sacked and hit in the mouth consistently. I'm just trying to figure out WHY we don't do more 3-step drops? Are our coaches blind? Probably not. So why don't we see more of it? This SHOULD be an easy adjustment, but we don't go to it. The question is why?

I just don't understand why the Bills don't do more of this then? Are the coaches that myopic? I guess it's a possibility, but it just seems like such a basic adjustment to what our problems are that this would have been the first thing to do, given our struggles... So why haven't they adjusted this way at all? There are NEVER three-step drops! I'm not sure I buy the size thing completely; obviously, it helps to be bigger, but that isn't the only thing that matters -- route running, speed, making the correct read of the defense, getting off of the line of scrimmage (which, I know, is related to size as well)... all of this matters at least as much as size. There HAS to be a reason why we never see a three-step drop. What is it? I can't figure it out. JP is completing 60%, it's not an accuracy problem... What gives?

I would rather that this thread remain a 'Is our sense of what constitutes time to throw off?' thread, rather than a re-tread of all of the JP good, JP bad threads. I find myself saying "Get rid of the ball!!!" as soon as our QB hits the 5th step of his drop, and I don't find myself saying this as much when I watch other games. I'm just wondering if my sense of timing is off, given our recent experience as Bills fans.

A number of posters have pointed out that the Bills rarely, if ever, resort to a three-step drop. The question is: Why? It would seem that more three-step drop passing might help out this offense considerably, so why don't they do more of this? The offensive line certainly has had its share of problems protecting the Quarterback, but it is difficult to pin down 'fault' in this situation. Without knowing play calls, adjustments to routes, and the other team's defense and matchups, we have no way of truly knowing what is going on. Unfortunately for us as Bills fans, we definitely know that SOMETHING is going wrong! A number of three-step drops (or even quick 'smoke-screen' passes to the wideouts) would seem to help fix what is ailing this offense. Do the coaches not trust JP to make these timing throws? The receivers to make the proper read and get open? Do the coaches just not realize that this is an option? I would probably lean toward the receivers being part of this problem, only because most high-school qb's, and almost all college qb's can deliver a pass 5 yards down field accurately; further, I am going to assume that the coaches aren't idiots. That leaves, in my mind, our receiving corps. Can these guys get off the ball and open on a quick slant or out? I'm not sure, because we don't even try it! What is your take?

I really don't want this thread to turn into an argument about JP. There are plenty of other threads for that. I'm just wondering if we have a skewed perspective of what 'time to throw' means? Another thing that I noticed yesterday, mostly watching the Colts-Pats. Typically, when there was immediate pressure, it was only one player, and the QB (either one) would easily slide to the left or right and then have plenty of time to make a play. It seems to me that most of the time, when JP gets sacked, there are two defensive players meeting at the QB. It just looks like a jailbreak out there sometimes. Now, this isn't always the case, for sure, but it happens multiple times a game. Yesterday, I can remember three sacks for sure that were just absolute jailbreaks.

On one of the (many) sacks yesterday, I thought to myself: "Damn JP, get rid of the ball!" Then I watched the slo-mo replay, and started counting... During the replay, I counted from the moment JP received the snap: 'One-one-thousand, two-one-thousand, three-oneSACK'. In the slo-mo replay. This got me to thinking: Do we, as Bills fans, have any idea what it means to 'hold on to the ball too long'? Have we been so disposed to bad offensive line play that we assume that anytime the QB can actually get to his fifth step on a five step drop that equals 'time to throw'? The game just looks completely different when you watch a decent team play football. The quarterback gets into his drop, sets up scans for a second and throws. Almost ALWAYS they get to three-one-thousand before the ball is out (unless it is a designed three-step drop), and most of the time, they even have a quarter or half beat longer. I ask you: Is our perception skewed?

Fair enough. I don't know anything about this guy or his book other than the excerpt given here. I would certainly defer to you in that area. Greed is driving the unsupportable dollar valuation? I thought that this excerpt pretty much laid it out as you've described? Did I misread it? This is the only part that I miss. I didn't get this characterization out of the excerpt, but, again, I only know the excerpt, not the man nor his book, so I'll ask: Is Steingart usually anti-American, and does he characeterize Americans as 'greedy'? Or is it the 'investors' being 'greedy' by not selling the dollar when he (Steingart) thinks they 'should'?

Boy, that's not what I got out of this... I think you might be a little bit too defensive and/or sensitive on this one... What I took away from this is: Steingart thinks the dollar is over-valued compared to US Economy fundamentals, and a steep weakening of the dollar could be disastrous... all of which is possible. Of course, if investors perceive that the security of the US$ drops (rather than an increase in security of another currency) this would create the same effect. I agree with this.

I feel compelled to respond to this nonsense. This prediction is just ridiculous. The early 90's Buffalo Bills never won a Super Bowl, either, so does that mean that you wouldn't want Thurman Thomas on your team?

This isn't economics, it is the stock market. What is an 'educated' decision with regard to the market? If you make a 'decision' on the market, sometimes you will be right and sometimes you will be wrong. If you believe in investor psychology, most of the findings indicate that people exacerbate their 'wrong' decisions, and don't take full advantage of their 'right' ones. Finknottle, unless you are a professional and study the 'market' constantly, how can you possibly justify making a bet on, well... anything 'market' related? There are thousands and thousands of people out there doing just that, and even they screw it up just as often as not! I find it continually amazing that people think they are smarter than everyone else. It just seems like so much folly to try and find the 'bargains', when it has basically been proven that individuals don't do a good job with that. If you choose to, good luck to you. I hope you're one of the 'smart' ones.

RIP Paul. You will be missed. God Bless You.

See, I think it's just the opposite... I think you should stay (assuming you want to), and help clean up the mess that's been made. I love Western New York, and want to see something resembling good times again. If everyone leaves, there is no chance of that happening. We need people to stay.

Honestly, I'm sure that it would receive immediate condemnation from everyone on the Democratic side of the aisle, as well as from the Black 'leadership'. That's not really the point, though... The comments themselves weren't 'racist'. They were stupid. I am not at all interested in a discussion about who can say what, when, and where, and which party is 'racist', and which party is the 'panderers'. Those are just labels. I'm mostly interested in this topic as it relates to real race discussions. And, quite simply, what Sen. Clinton said was not racist. If Bill Frist had said this, I'm sure that there would be people calling the comments racist. The fact that it would now be Democrats and the NAACP doesn't change the fact that it isn't a racist comment.

I'm not really sure what you guys are talking about... Sen. Clinton said: "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," That's not racist. It's complete nonsense, it hurts (rather than helps) any debate about race relations, and it it outrageous, to the point that the ONLY explanation of her choice of words was that it was meant to inflame her audience. Stupid, not racist.

I don't believe that anyone here said that all white people are oppressing all minorities. Clearly, CTM, you (or anyone else, for that matter) are not 'oppressing' my friend. Just as clearly, though, there are *some* white people oppressing *some* black people in their own way. Is the racist manager who is responsible for hiring people in his department 'oppressing' black people? In some small way, he is, even if that person gets a job somewhere else. The problem is looking the other way and not recognizing that this goes on. Those 'small ways' can add up to some pretty large problems if we aren't willing to recognize them. There have been studies done wherein people submit the same resume for a job, the only difference being that one has a 'black' sounding name, and the other has a 'white' sounding name. Of course, the 'white' sounding name received many more interview opportunities than the 'black' one. Does this mean that all of those people are racists? Probably not. Are black people being oppressed by this? Probably. It is undeniably more difficult, in general, for black people to rise to the same socio-econoomic strata as white people with the same abilities, qualifications, and background... and that is what oppression is, isn't it? Don't we all just want everyone to have a fair shake? Most people aren't racists. Everyone is prejudiced in some way, by definition. It is important for people to understand their own prejudices, because you might be doing yourself, your company, your children a disservice by giving up possible friendships that could enrich your life, not hiring workers that could make your company profitable, or passing on certain tendencies to your children because you aren't aware that you are excluding certain people from your life. And that's a shame.

I'm not sure what your point is here... My point is that it doesn't take an America full of racists (which it most assuredly is not) to hold down and persecute a group of people in some way. ie: a few bad apples can spoil the bunch... I don't believe I'm stereotyping or judging any group... Could you elaborate?