billsfan89

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.

Governments are different from businesses. Also even in your analogy if you have ever worked for a gigantic corporation you would know that half the time one entity has no clue what another entity is doing. I worked for a Fortune 500 company and the organization in that company was such a mess (it is almost as though the larger an entity becomes the more waste, bureaucracy and procedure bogs things down.) While working for that company I once received and empty FedEx and worked with someone who literally played Solitare all day doing nothing collecting a check because he got soaked up into 3 different departments with 4 different supervisors who all assumed that he was doing work for one of the other people that were supposed to be supervising him. I just find it to be a hack argument to think that infighting and inefficiency do not exist in the private sector. In the opposite way where super liberal people will place an idealized version of government conservatives will almost anoint the private sector infallible as though comparing a tightly run small business is comparable to a state or federal government.

Outside of Brady there is no injury on the Pats that makes them any less good it seems like. Every year X player would get hurt on the Pats and half the time it wouldn't make a difference.

The Bengals aren't going to be a team that has a winning record at the end of the season. But I do feel like they are going to pop a few upsets. Their defense isn't tragic and they have a respectable QB with some weapons to throw to (esp if AJ Green gets back) along with a good RB combo in Minion and Gio Bernard, what is really holding the Bengals back is offensive line woes and while their defense isn't tragic it isn't elite either. They will win 5-6 games and much like the Bills last year will pop some upsets that will ruin some seasons. The Bills can't afford to look ahead to the Patriots. First of all, all these games count the same, a win against the Bengals is worth as much as a win against the Pats other than tie breakers. Secondly 10+ win teams mostly get to that mark by taking care of the teams they are supposed to beat and winning some of the toss up games. The Bills at home should come out there and really put the Bengals away as quickly as possible because if you let that team hang around it could be a nail bitter.

I don't know how you could rank the Colts and Vikings ahead of the Bills. There is something off about that. But just outside of the top 10 seems fair. The Bills have beaten a mediocre team and a bad team on the road. One narrowly and the other comfortably. It's not a bad resume two road wins is two road wins. But it isn't lighting the world on fire either. Take care of Cincy at home and see where the season goes.

He didn't look awful on every play obviously. But he was very up and down and overall I would say that he played poorly that first half. I place blame for all turnovers but the Beasley tip to some degree on Josh. The fumbled snap and other tip ball turnover weren't fully his fault but I think he bares some responsibility for those turnovers. I also think the he looked uncomfortable at times and really inconsistent. Of course he turned that around for the most part in the second half and he turned it around against the Giants. But every player has bad half's and bad games. I am not sure how good Cincy's defense is but after Cincy you have two tough defenses in NE and TEN coming up. By the end of 5 games we will really have a good sense of where Josh is at development wise.

AJ Green is hurt and his play has been on a decline. That being said he is still a quality player when on the field. The risk is high but if at the trade deadline the Bengals season looks lost and Green comes back and looks solid (Personally I have to see if he can play before giving up anything for him) I would trade a 4th rounder and a younger role player like Zay or whomever they want of that caliber. While AJ Green might no longer be a top 5 WR in the NFL he is still a quality player when on the field and would complement the offense which when going up against better secondaries might need that extra weapon.

Far too early to tell on both Allen and Baker. Baker got off to a slow start last year too and finished strong, maybe he is just a rhythm type guy who plays better deeper into a season? As far as Josh he looked like ass in the first half against the Jets but showed up to win the game and took care of business well against a bad Giants team. Not exactly a grand resume. The NFL season might only be 16 games and week to week people go crazy but you still have to keep things in perspective.

Ramsey is a headcase. I could have seen Minka Fitz more than Ramsey if the Bills wanted an all in type move to add a piece to the team. However I don't think the front office is going to make a big splash giving up a first or second rounder. I could see them giving up a third or less to add a starter at a critical position either on the edge rush or at tightened/receiver. Barring significant injury I don't see the Bills going after other positions. I also think such a trade is going to come closer to the trade deadline as i think McBeane is going to want as many games as possible to assess where the needs truly are and wait out any injury risks.

Since the Sunday night game went to NBC the Monday Night schedule has failed to get the big time matchups. When Monday Night football was on ABC the slate of games were A level while the Sunday night game on ESPN was not always that great of a game. But now that NBC picked up the Sunday game it's the A game of the week.

Just to be fair and add context the Jets secondary is mid-level at best (solid at safety but poor at CB) and the Giants might be the worst or second worst secondary in the league. Neither team has a pass rush that is top 10 in the league either. So it's not like Josh has had a lot of great defenses to go up against and it is only 2 games to begin with. BUT you play who you play and the path to 9-10 wins is usually take care of the teams you are supposed to be esp on the road and snake a couple of games at home against tougher opponents. The Bills have for now put themselves in position to be successful by winning 25% of their road games including a divisional opponent and putting themselves in a position to go 3-0 against a very beatable Cincy team. Cincy has a decent D-line (probably as good as the Jets if not a little better) but I am not so sure how well their secondary is and their defense overall is. But it will be a decent test to see if Josh can continue to take care of business against these teams that they should be able to beat.

As much as I like the O-line I can't say if it will be a dominant unit just yet. Mainly because I am not too impressed with the Jets edge rush and the Giants D-line in general. I would like to see how the O-line handles better more dominant fronts. Cincy is a solid D-line but I think the Pats and Titans will be a good test as both units could finish in the top 10 in terms of pass and run defense effectiveness.

As much as I love Ralph for all that he did to help this team stay in Buffalo and exist to begin with his ownership had crippled the team by the 2000's. I know OJ isn't the most accurate source but his comments about Ralph not wanting to build a winner in the 70's has been backed up by a few other sources. The Bills got lucky to get some good coaching and management to put together the early 90's teams and remained competitive in the late 90's but Ralph's investment in the team ranged from adequate to poor throughout the years. Ralph was an old school owner who ran the team like a business so I get his apprehension to treat the team like a vanity project as most modern owners do. But I think the biggest factor in the Bills improvement has been Pegula's investment into the team on and off the field. The Bill's have first class facilities and haven't been afraid to stray away from the cash to cap formula. I think Pegula learned his lesson from the 2015 to 2016 Rex experiment that while talent is important you need a culture and plan for building a team beyond talent acquisition. The 2015 off-season was an insane leap of talent for a team that had already prudently (with the exception of the Sammy trade) been building quality levels of defensive talent and had a solid skill position core. They acquired Shady (and paid him well) a top 3 RB in the league at time of acquisition, they acquired Clay a top 10 talent at his position, and took a chance on InCog to help bolster their O-line. Then via the draft they landed two impactful starters (at least the first couple of years) in Darby and Miller. Even the team's biggest issue (QB) they had found Tyrod who was a capable game manager who could make plays with his legs. But as talented as the 2015 and 2016 rosters were (And they spent big money to keep Hughes and Glenn) the culture and leadership wasn't there. Rex is at best an act that wears thin but that act wears super thin if the defense's scheme is changed to not fit the talent thus resulting in a steep defensive decline that counteracted a significant leap for the offense. Then after a failed attempt to bolster the defense in the 2016 draft the team fell apart and the previous 2 years showed you how important coaching and culture are to complementing a talented roster. Now McBeane has spent two years building a culture, trading away ill-fitting talent to stack up draft capital, and clearing out the cap situation. then this past year they spent their money smartly (no real long term commitments besides Mitch) and now the team has a young QB with promise, a good defense with a good young talent base and pieces on offense in place. I hope that they can put this together because the team has honestly gone about it the right way from top to bottom. I can't say every move they did was perfect but the philosophy to which they have built the team (selling out productive parts of the team for draft capital to acquire a QB, clearing out bad cap issues, gutting vets who didn't fit the culture and not overspending for quick fixes) has been mostly correct.

The Giants are who we thought they were. They are a lower tiered team in a transition year. They are kind of similar to the Bills last year where they are eating a lot of dead cap and setting themselves up to build around a young QB. They have some talent on offense but outside of Barkley they are not dynamic there. Their defense is terrible esp their secondary which will be bottom 3 in the league by seasons end. The Giants aren't completely talentless but they will win 5 or less games this year. The Bills need to get off to a hot start and they had to win these games in order to get fat before they have that harder stretch of games coming up later in the season (also Pats/Titans is not an easy pair of games coming up.)

I think McBeane will spend modestly on supplementing some needs via free agency in the summer of 2020 but they won’t go on a huge spending spree signing 3 top free agents and other significant contracts. I think they are eying possible extensions for Shaq (If he has a strong year) Dawkins, Milano, and Tre White. They also have some other free agents like J.Phillips, Spain, Foster, Wallace and a few others that they will have to take care of depending on how they perform in 2019. Although I can’t imagine any of those second tier players commanding huge money 2-4 of those players could command 4-9 million aav type deals. That being said the team can still afford to add a big pass rusher and another pass catcher on a significant contract or another set of needs while still being prudent with having enough space to take care of their own. The team has 90 million in space next year and in 2021 the team has a lot of their bigger contracts that they can get out of easily. Trent Murphy’s deal will be expired after 2020, Brown, Hughes and Kroft are easy contracts to get out of with minimal cap hits, Star carries some dead money but 6+ million in overall savings, and Mitch is similar to Star in that while he carries some dead money (5 million) he also carries significant savings (5.5 million.) So once they need to make space for the 2017 players bigger contracts they can move on from the veteran free agents that they have signed the past few years. Overall the team despite its spending spree this off-season still remains in a good position with the cap as year to year they carry a lot of removable contracts and space. Unless the team pushes off some extensions in favor of high end win now acquisitions. If McBeane can maintain their good drafting and be a bit more consistent in their bigger pro-acquisitions I think they can turn this team into a consistent winner. They have been smart and responsible with their cap while still helping their chances to win now, retain talent, and acquire future needs

Zeke is 24 he will probably be productive for the rest of the contract which takes him through age 29. 15 million aaa seems fair for a top 5 RB.