TPS

That's the idea; welfare programs would be replaced by a jobs guarantee program. I would think conservatives would like that. The wage paid would also set a floor for the private sector.

Rodak picks CB Alexander at 22. I can sleep now...

Since you have been very vocal about them getting a QB, would you be ok with this outcome--getting one of the 4 without giving up any more draft capital?

Darnold, Barkley, mayfield, Chubb.

Miami takes Rosen, polian gongs the pick. Rodak/Bills take Allen.

Only difference here is Denver taking CB ward. Polian correctly said they should've traded back.

Allen and Rosen still there with Miami up....

Anyone else watching? The espn team reporters are picking, Si I assume that's rodak for Bills. first 4 picks as most predicted. Curmudgeon polian commenting. #7 up...

Talked to someone who was in on a meeting last week assessing health issues of prospects. He came away thinking there are only 2 people who know what they're going to do Thursday--this board describes them as one, McBean.

Curious as to the trade chart you use? The JJ chart shows the jump from 12 to 7 is 500 points and 22 alone is worth 780. Is his the new market for moving up? Thanks.

Before Thursday, the Bills swap 12 and 56 for 7 from Tampa bay. Depending on how things unfold, they will either move up to 2 or 5, or stay put.

My reactions as I read this...

I think he's mad because I used DC's line on him. If you can't take that on PPP, then you shouldn't come here...

Yours is one opinion. I'd say he will make a deal IF the other side is willing, be that the Giants or someone else. I believe the most obvious first step would be to trade with the Bucs, moving to #7, which would make a move to #2 easier, or at least more appealing for the Giants. It's a 300 point move according to the draft trade chart on Draftek. #56 is worth 340 points, and the Bucs do not have an R3 pick. This seems to make a lot of sense. I won't be surprised if it happens.

It's not political. Don't let your personal feelings get in the way here. The CBO is evaluating the economic impact on deficits from the given legislation. As it is currently written, most of the personal tax cuts expire in 2025--that's a fact. The CBO's revenue estimates go up when the tax cuts expire--a fact. If the GOP is able to make those cuts permanent after 2025, then the CBO will revise the revenue numbers down--a fact. There is nothing political about this. The article, on the other hand, had a political bent to make the tax cuts appear to have less of an impact on deficits than the reality.

That doesn't change the current estimates, which is what I commented on. In fact, if the GOP does make them permanent, Then the CBO will revise the revenue numbers down.

He's really moving up draft lists. An article on nfl.com lists him as 1 of 4 prospects who could sneak into the first round. I'd say he's a sure bet for R2 now.

I think the Bills have two guys in mind they will trade up for, and if they can't work it out, then they will go to their backup plan, which could be something like this. Wow! Next thing you know, Bob Lamb will post again....

Nice story on my ....errrr... the Vikes R1 pick O. Brown jr. http://www.nfl.com/labs/cfb247/orlando-brown/orlando-brown

This reading of the CBO changes is biased toward the tax cuts, suggesting they explain the entire growth impact, hence supporting the conclusion: "tax cuts pay for themselves." First, as I've posted in this thread, anything that causes bigger deficits is expansionary. The CBO's new forecast states the increased growth is a consequence of the tax cut and two spending bills the Republicans passed. For example, they attribute the increase in next year's growth rate (from 2 to 3.3%) about equally to the tax cuts and spending increases. This year's higher projection is due to spending increases and the tax cuts, especially the one-time allowance for 100% expensing of equipment, which will raise investment spending this year at the expense of future years. As I said, The projected higher growth is a consequence of both tax cuts and higher spending. According to the CBO, Tax cuts and higher spending without additional growth would cause accumulated deficits to rise by $2.6 trillion, but the additional growth from the stimulus--tax cuts and spending--increases revenues by $1.1 trillion, leaving an increase of $1.5 trillion. Increased Deficits, regardless of whether they are caused by tax cuts or spending or both, always stimulate the economy which helps mitigate the the increased deficits they cause. The author also states that revenues rise every year going forward, which is not true. For the next 4 years, beginning with 2018, revenues as a share of GDP are projected to be 16.6, 16.5, 16.7, and 16.7. Revenues were 17.3% of GDP in 2017. As I stated in other posts, revenues tend to decline in the first two years after tax cuts. Revenues are projected to fall by 0.7% of GDP from 2017 to 2018, and 0.1% from 2018 to 2019. Finally, the author neglects to mention that many of the tax cuts will phase out after 2025, so revenues are projected to rise significantly, from 17.5% in 2025 to 18.1% in 2026, and 18.5% in 2027. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, but they never end up "paying for themselves" over time...

I'd say it fits the facts. It was almost identical to last year's episode, which was also purported to be faked by the rebels. Mattis had to satisfy Trump without setting off the Russians.

Good background view on the last bombing of Syria by Hersh. https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

His #10 guy Teller is who I really wanted to pick in R3 for the Vikes at #94 in the TBD mock draft. I posted a video of his highlights in the mock thread. He reminds me of Richie Incognito, a mauler. I think He'd be a good get for the Bills at 96.

I think he will pitch the first game tomorrow.

Yes, thanks for doing this all. A good way to pass the time until draft day and learn more about prospects.