TPS

Give the guy a break, I'm sure it's the first time someone has thought of this comparison....

Every nfl team needs a good Samoan!

Not true. It helps to have a central bank that requires of its private banks they bid and fill the auction. Just look at the auction data. The cover to bid ratio is over 3, while it's being reported that foreign purchases are declining. added: let me rephrase that, it may help, but it's not needed.

I'm looking forward to the Jags game and seeing Allen in person. The last time I saw the Jags at Bills was 20 years ago and got to witness the "Flutie Leap." I'm hopeful that there will be some late game heroics from Allen in this one....

I've stated this a few times here: there is never a failed Treasury auction because the 23 Primary Dealer Banks are required to bid and fill it. Take a look at any auction result and you'll see the tenders from the PDs exceed any Treasury offering, easily. Yes, I've had a lot of arguments here about the impact, or lack of, from QE on inflation....

That's what Parcells said about building the O-line, which is why I think the #1 need next year is C, the OT. Yes, they need skill players, but they need to be able to run and protect Allen.

It might be wise to wait one more game with their bye week coming up after the Jets. That would Give him 2 weeks to prepare for a home game against the Jags.

Hope he starts this week.

Yeah, we're seeing how important E.Woods was to this line. Finding a center to anchor the interior would be my #1 priority next year.

McD said in yesterday's presser they were evaluating him at LG and Sirles at RT, and would look at the film...

In case some of his fans didn't notice, he was in at LG for Ducasse on a few plays, then came in for Miller who got hurt. will be interesting to see if he earns more time after McD watches the film. time to look at what they have in all of the young guys.

If Allen is healthy, he needs to play and get experience.

It supports your point, revenues are Lower. The reason Revenues were up the first half of the fiscal year (which starts in October) was because we were still under 2017 tax rates for the first 4 of 6 months. If you look at the data, once the tax cut went into effect in February, revenues went down relative to revenues in the same month in the previous tax year. For example, January 2018 revenues are higher than January 2017, but February 2018 revenues--and every month after that--has lower revenues than 2017 (except April, which is also based on 2017 rates). The article posted (by LA) was a biased editorial, not an analysis.

The article is fudging the numbers to support a point. The first half of the fiscal year ends in March; for the first four months of the current fiscal year Oct - Jan, revenues in 2018 > 2017 (for each month individually) because they are based on the previous tax rates; tax revenues are lower in every month after Jan except April, which is also based on 2017 tax rates. Here is the Treasury Report: TAble 1 has the data.

State debt matters; national, not so much.

Star made one great play today!

I enjoyed this more than the “if Allen fails at the end of 2019” post...

You are correct sir.

As you can tell, I wasn't sure. It does matter if you're talking about building from scratch and drafting your own QB, as the Bills are doing. Appreciate the data though.

Wentz was drafted in 2016, if that's who you're using there. McD had a good blue print. The D is Super Bowl caliber in year 2. If Allen Pan's out, they can make a run in 2020. They did screw up on not providing the vet/mentor and going with NP. They will address O as much as possible next year.

That's a problem with most government budget processes--there are no incentives to come in under. I've found it's also difficult to implement changes during times of forced cuts.

Here is where you have the BS issue wrong. The Fed "finances" its assets by crediting the reserve position of banks, creating a "liability" On its BS. However, it's no more a liability for the Fed than are USD, which also show up as a liability. Because of its unlimited ability to create bank reserves with a keystroke, it always has the ammunition to buy assets--it can intervene anytime and to any degree, always. We debated this issue a lot here when the Fed was in the midst of its QE to infinity, and quite a few people believed it would lead to high inflation, which it did not, as I argued. Of course it's not responsible for FP, but you also have FP's impact wrong. Deficits absolutely are expansionary, and my argument has been that Trump's FP changes are revving up demand relative to our ability to supply more output because labor is getting more and more scarce--sort of where we agree, one cause of inflation is excess demand relative to supply. Btw, trying to compare US to a country that has external debt denominated in a foreign currency (USD in V's case) is not a valid comparison.

The size of the BS has nothing to do with the Fed's ability to handle the next downturn. As I once mentioned to an infamous poster here in the middle of the crisis, the Fed can never run out of "jack", to use his term. So, yes, you do need to explain why the reduction in its BS is needed. There is NO economic rationale for what the size of its BS should be. A bigger deficit stimulates economic activity. It is the most important reason for the 4.2% 2Q growth rate. Faster growth leads to lower unemployment and eventually faster wage growth, which will increase inflation--the Fed's ultimate target. This is the prediction I made (probably on this thread) back around January: The tax cuts and spending increases create larger deficits which are juicing the economy when unemployment is near what's considered full employment; this will cause the Fed to raise rates faster and higher than anticipated, causing the next recession. Btw, its BS is over $4 trillion.

Expanding the deficit when we are near full employment adds fuel to the economy at the wrong time. As I said, if bigger deficits lead to overheating for an extended period, then the Fed will be forced to act more forcefully. 2018Q2 is currently the only quarter under Trump >4%, which IS a result of the tax cuts and spending increases. I expect Q3--which comes out next week, to be close to 4% as well. The underlying problem will be the wage pressures that come with a hot economy at < 4% unemployment. Why does the Fed need to reduce its balance sheet? Certainly it affected markets as it accumulated assets, but by what economic rationale is it necessary to reduce it? In fact, its BS will automatically decline as the assets are paid down (its MBS holdings, for example) and/or mature. The size of its BS doesn't mean a hill of beans to the real economy... We disagree on the impact from S-H in 1930. Economies were already declining rapidly, and would continue regardless of S-H.

I think he's always been highly motivated. The difference this year is they now have four good pass rushers they have to account for instead of 1 or 2.