billsfan89

I don't think it was a lack of effort but rather a lack of urgency by both the playcalling and from Josh to a degree.

Not sure who will be available honestly. AJ Green if he comes back healthy is a possibility but other than that it is not a hot market at the moment. Hopefully by the deadline it is a better market for a WR.

Josh is going to need to develop a sense of urgency in the middle portions of the game. He can't coast on a lead or rely on a defense.

It was only one play, granted it might have been the play that saved the game.

The Bill's lack a true number 1 WR but they have some solid professional level options out there a far cry from last season. I think the front office will make a trade to acquire another WR by the trade deadline.

The defense gave up 17 points including one off a short field on a turnover the offense should have put up more to give the defense a three posession lead. That being said I would not mind seeing McD getting more of the playcalling.

Letting Cincy hang around, not good, team needs points on this drive desperately to calm things down

Good field position got to get points here don't let Cincy hang around

My assessment of the Bengals is a team that has a fair amount of talent at the skill positions (Boyd and Ross are respectable receivers and Mixon/Gio out the backfield are solid) and a competent QB but their offensive line is a mess and their defense is a bit suspect but not tragic. It's a test to see if the Bills can avoid a close game late. They need a 2 possession or greater lead in the 4th quarter because if this is a one score game late then it is likely they could suffer a let down.

It's not an issue for the 2020 cap but it is wasted cap for the 2019 season. Jesse James was given a similar contract but with more guarantees but the front office was at least smart enough to not sign Kroft to any guarantee for 2020 at the very least.

Newton should be put on IR, they need to make sure he is healthy the next 5 years instead of trying to save their current season. I don't see any other QB's going down but Cam is clearly not well.

It is unfortunate but they at least can dump him after the season if he isn't able to get on the field much this season and take no cap hit. It is frustrating that they dumped some decent money on him but you have to think that they might have been able to spend that money in 2019 better elsewhere.

If they had Darnold and went 0-2 you could make some bizarre optimistic case that the Jets could grab a couple of games in the next few weeks and finish strong esp because they have 2 games against the Fins. But without Darnold they could be looking at a 0-7 start with another game against the Pats and the Bills away.

I don't see AB playing until these allegations and issues get sorted out. Someone will take a chance on him if he has all of these issues figured out because the talent is just too good for some team to not take a chance esp since it is likely his price point will come down significantly after all the drama. But as far as 2019 goes he is just far too toxic.

From the outside looking in Bills ever few years have gotten off to hot starts and only once made the playoffs since 2000. But I think that this team is much better fundamentally than every team even the 2017 that actually made the playoffs. The one thing that has impressed me about this team is the depth. The team appears able to survive some injuries that happen to every team. The team is also well coached and fully buying into the culture that has been built. I think that the lack of name talent and the team's reputation and lack of familiarity within the larger mediascape creates a low perception of the team. From the outside looking in the Bills are coming off of a 6-10 season and their big free agent acquisition was a Center.

You are making a very optimistic and inaccurate assumption that money given to corporations and top earners gets invested in making advancements that end up improving the lot of everyone." A lot of the tax cuts went to buybacks of stocks for shareholders (many of whom aren't American thus representing a huge transfer of wealth out of the country.) A lot of the money received by upper income brackets went into assets. Once again it is poor economics to justify inequality by stating that well your TV's are better than they were 20 years ago. Inequality on a macro trend is relative and context based. If you erode the middle class in favor of an economy that is mostly working poor and upper class people that's going to destroy social cohesion and create a race to the bottom. Most economists would say that the issue with the American economy is lack of consumer demand as a result of a shrinking middle class. If your prescription for that problem is to give more tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy then I think you are disconnected from reality. Stock Buybacks https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-companies-expected-to-buy-back-800-billion-of-their-own-shares-this-year-2018-03-02 Lack of Investment https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/31/U-S-46942

You are objectively wrong on the poor and working poor being shrinking demographics in 1971, 25% of people were considered lower class compared to 29% in 2016 (Pew research link included below.) You are correct in that there are portions of the middle class that are joining the upper middle class as that has gone from 14% in 1971 to 19% in 2016. However while those number might reflect mixed news (More upper class, more poor/working poor, and less in the middle) the fragility of the middle class is going to lead to the middle class shirking more and more. Automation, globalization, and less unionization is putting a much harder squeeze on the middle class and going to trend those numbers into a winner take all economy that will race to the bottom. Even within the middle class the stability of things like pensions and education for their children are no longer there likely leading to the trend of polarization increasing to a very Dickensian society where not only will the consumer base be eroded but social cohesion will be destroyed. As for why do I think wealth inequality is problematic. The truth is I don't think wealth inequality is problematic, I find wealth inequality to be a necessary component of capitalism. I think almost anyone would understand why Warren Buffett or Bill Gates has more money than them. The question is to what degree do you think wealth inequality should exceed to? Too much wealth stagnated at the top of the economic system is simply bad economics. It stagnates consumer demand, leads to a lack of public investment in things like education and infrastructure, it stagnates social cohesion, and it generates a winner take all race to the bottom that leads to a shrinking economy. It simply is bad economics that in the face of a suffering and increasingly fragile middle class to orientate an economy around giving more back to the segments of society that are doing phenomenally well thinking that somehow that is going to help the middle class when despite decades of doing those things the middle class continues to suffer and the economy becomes increasingly polarized. My political philosophy is that investments like infrastructure and infusing money into the middle class via debt forgiveness and tax funded higher education are better uses of tax payer dollars than inflating the stock market via tax cuts. So the issue of degree is the issue with wealth inequality The levels we currently see of wealth inequality are rates not seen since the late 1920's and well the 1930's weren't nearly as roaring. Numbers of people entering both the upper class and working poor/poor increasing. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-american-middle-class-is-stable-in-size-but-losing-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/ What is impacting the middle class. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-2019-04-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/america-shrinking-middle-class-debt-homeownership-retirement-savings-2019-5

Your argument came off to me as because you would be rich in a third world country income inequality isn't an economic issue, maybe I was brash in the way you stated it but that is the general gist of what you said?

Sad that they could have gotten Jesse James for the same amount of money just about. It is good they can get out of the deal, at this point just IR him and try and see if a TE could be had on the trade market.

Win and be a key factor in contributing to those wins. I think given how much context goes into football it is hard to put a number on it. 4000 yards, 30+ TD's sub 12 INT's, and a 60% or better completion percentage are certainly great benchmarks but Matthew Stafford has some impressive passing numbers but his winning ability is suspect same with Kirk Cousins. So I think he needs to drive a quality offense and win. Numbers should be good but numbers as always can be misleading. I also think success definitely needs to be measured over the course of multiple seasons. We have seen Drew Bledsoe have 8 quality games, Fitz and Trent Edwards get off to a hot start and Tyrod flash some ability but to me Josh will be anointed a franchise QB when he puts together back to back high end winning seasons. Success is sustained over multiple seasons not simply if you beat the Pats one week like Fitz did.

Do you really think that the argument that your living conditions aren't as bad as third world countries is a compelling defense of wealth inequality? Shouldn't you aim a little bit higher and understand context? Wealth inequality is a problem not just for the poor but for the health of the overall economy. The middle class is the engine of consumer demand in an economy. Rich people can consume more but there is an inherent limit to how much they can consume. A rich person and their family can only eat 3 meals a day, buy so many clothes, buy so much toilet paper and basics. They drive some levels of the consumer economy but they don't drive it anywhere near what the middle class does. Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy via tax cuts and subsidizing corporations leads to the rich buying more assets typically which inflates stock prices and assets prices things most middle class people don't own or don't own in any significant quantity. Simply put take one million dollars into the hands of someone who has 30 million in the bank and they aren't really spending it much at the consumer level. Most likely they peel 50-100 grand off the top and have some fun and then invest the rest into assets. Whereas if you put 1,000 dollars into the hands of 1,000 middle and working class people they will typically spend most of that money paying down debts, treating themselves to dinners and consumer products, or taking care of repairs and other services they need. In which scenario do you think the consumer economy benefits most from? The second scenario most likely results in 90% of that money getting spent at a consumer level. In the first scenario it results in less than 50% of that money circulating at the consumer level. Wealth inequality relates to the middle class shrinking. As we see more money going from the bottom to the top it stagnates the economy. You should be orienting your economy from the middle out as trickle down economics simply doesn't work.

I think that given that in any multi-party system there will almost always be a high degree of theather because there will inherently be conflict and little resolution when there is no CEO that can fire at will and strong arm subordinates. The US federal government is many sections working often times in conflict with one another. Given that you have two political parties whose views as to what the government should be doing then I think you are always going to have theater.

Not shocking they would be bottom 5, keep in mind not only market but stadium is also factored into the value of a franchise.

You could argue the GOP on a national level might not be pushing the policy (although I would argue them blocking Obama's Supreme Court justice was them trying to shift that policy as there was no precedent to do so) but on a State and local level the GOP is pushing like hell to ban abortion. They are doing so both through the state legislative level and through the legal channels. They have been chipping away at abortion access on the state level for decades. I think it is also silly to think that the state/local GOP doesn't have an impact on the national platform as many hardcore pro-life pols at the state level move on up to national office.

I find Chick-Fil-a to be the most overrated fast food place. It's not bad fast food but the portions are small, the price is high, and the quality while good does not come close to justifying the price and small portions. Give me In-N-Out or for you non-West Coasters Popeyes, White Castle, or Wendy's over Chick-Fil-a. I think what helps Chick-Fil-a is the fact that up until recently there weren't a lot of locations which made it seem like a rare gem and kind of built up it's own legend.