TPS

It's not often when day 3 carries more interest than 2...

At least we have the other R1 pick

They could've waited

Explosion!

Yes Browns!

Thank you giants!

Beane will now bet the farm!

This is how negotiations go. You say you're willing to trade, but ask for the moon. Those interested claim they have other partners. Someone buckles.

I heard Beane is willing to throw McDermott in too because he's tired of the McBean moniker....

I'm sure there's been a lot of posturing by Beane and Gettleman to try to get what they want, and now the time has come...

As Neil Young said related to this topic, "I've been searchin for a QB of gold, and I'm gettin old..."

Yes, I'm trying to get used to the fact that everyone has to create a new post to express their feelings...

I was looking for the qualifier, "IMHO" ...?

Clinton. ?

Sarcasm button. It's what conservatives support when democrats are in office...

the good thing about the trade up at 6 is they keep both R2 picks.

Allen?!?

There it is!

For a trade up?

It would be good if he's right about Barkley to giants.

They could've paid off debt like good fiscal conservatives are supposed to do. As for causality... The surplus was 2.3% of GDP in 2000. With the dot com bust and 911, it dropped to 1.2% in 2001 as unemployment increased over the year from 3.9% to 5.7%, causing revenues to decline by 1.1%, while the spending share was constant. The tax cuts went into effect in 2002 and we're phased in over several years. Unemployment went up slightly over the year from 5.7 to 6%. The budget went from a 1.2% surplus to -1.5% deficit, a swing of 2.7%. Revenues fell from 18.8% to 17% (-1.8% with personal taxes 1.5% of that) and spending increased by 0.9%. The tax cuts alone would've created (caused) a deficit in 2002 since the unemployment change was minimal. As the phase-in was accelerated in 2003, the revenue share fell from 17% to 15.7%, and the deficit worsened from -1.5 to -3.3% of GDP. The tax cuts were the most significant "cause" of the larger deficit, as the personal revenue share fell by 1%. So, I'd say they sure as Hell were causal, since the unemployment impact mostly occurred in 2001. I would add that increased spending was contributory.

I focused on the fellas who said their tax cuts wouldn't increase deficits. Maybe the third time is the charm...?

I thought everyone knows that Reagan, Bush2, and Trump proved deficits don't matter?

The issue is what to do about those at the bottom, and maybe a whole lot more folk in the future? Technologists are promoting a UBI, a payment for nothing, because of their expectation that AI will eliminate many jobs, leading to social unrest. A guaranteed jobs program is more like workfare, or the WPA and CCC from the 1930s. I'd prefer to see people paid for some type of work than paid for nothing...

Thanks. Fortunately, only one more day until the reality. Nice job though.