TPS

Interesting interview with Steve Young which was linked off the article in the thread "The Demise of the Running QB". Young talks about how he made a commitment to become a pocket passer and "exhaust the play," then running as a last resort. He argues that the best QBs are the pocket passers who work hard at the craft so that their progressions are second nature. I think this supports the idea that the best offensive minds only look like the best because they work with the QBs who are the masters of their craft. You can be a creative genius, but if you don't have the guy who can implement your strategy, then you're going to look like Hackett. Steve Young

It's interesting how people rant and rave about $18 trillion debt but can't explain why it's a problem. It's one thing to rant against big government or Obama and his bad policies, and you are right about both. Those are different issues. The OP says we're all getting !@#$ed. I'd like him or anyone to explain why and how that debt will !@#$ us? Meanwhile, since the end of 2007 the debt has increased by $6 trillion, and the Fed has purchased about $1.8 trillion of of that additional debt, so it now holds about $2.8 trillion. Many here have stated all that money printing by the Fed will cause inflation, yet the US and EU are now moving toward deflation. And speaking of Europe, serious people are now calling for radical ways to stimulate demand. Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup suggests the following as a remedy: Full article So he's effectively arguing that the central bank should buy the bonds that "finance" the stimulus, then declare a debt jubilee. "Print the money" to fund the spending. I'd love to hear any arguments for why this is a problem. Back to our $18 trillion !@#$ing... Based on that same idea, what if the Fed cancelled the entire $2.8 trillion in treasury debt it holds? Know what would happen? The debt clock would "fall backwards" and that's about it. If anyone thinks it would cause a problem, I'd love to hear about it....

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said "some ends up in savings accounts of public workers". I'll try to express it in terms of ACC101 so AD can follow along...and I'll exclude the international sector to make it even easier for him. S-I = G-T Private sector surplus is the combined surplus of Households and Firms, and G-T is the combined balances of all levels of government. These are annual flow variables. What the identity states is if G-T (a deficit) =$1 trillion, then by accounting identity there is a $1 trillion surplus accumulated by HHs and Firms. This means that HH savings + business profits = $1 trillion for the year. For the year, the government spent in excess of its revenues by $1 trillion which generated greater profits for firms and savings for HHs of an equal amount. It's the net difference, after your tax issue. So that net government spending will increase revenues 1) directly by its purchases from firms; and 2) indirectly by the consumption spending by public employees, who will also save some of their income. You, as usual, want to change what I've said. I never said tax cuts increase revenues. I said the deficit, the excess in SPENDING over taxes increases business revenues except for the savings of public sector workers. And that deficit is = the savings of HHs + profits of firms. Now, to address your obvious tax issue. If the government cuts business taxes during the year, then 1) the deficit increases from the lost revenue and 2) after-tax profits increase--revenues don't. Of course. But, the increased "surplus" or profit in the business sector is = the government's tax revenue loss or change in its deficit. That's the accounting.

It's an accounting identity used by economists. Did the payroll tax cut from 2011-12 NOT increase deficits and NOT increase consumption spending?

I wish you would take an accounting course. Read up on something called the sector balances approach. It's utilized by a lot of Wall Street economists to analyze the macroeconomy. So consumption spending by government workers doesn't increase the revenue of firms? REally?

You beat me to that one! I was thinking the same.

You can blame BO for some, but you can't blame him for the lower revenues that are a consequence of the recession. If the debt has increased by $6 trillion and his stimulus was $1 trillion, what caused the remainder? If anyone can read here, you'll note I didn't say anything about his policies or impact, I'm simply saying "you're an idiot" if you blame the entire accumulation of debt on BO, and I'm asking anyone to explain why we should worry about the number 18? Now, if you want my opinion on some of those other issues, it was a good thing that the federal government delayed the actions that state and local governments would have had to take to balance their budgets in 2009, the recession year. If they had cut spending and raised taxes in that year, then a severe recession would've been made more so. In 2010 and 11, as the S&Ls started cutting, those actions were offset for the next 2 years by the federal government's spending, but the TOTAL government spending was actually stagnant in real terms. Real federal government spending and total government spending actually declined in 2012 and 2013. Regarding the impact of stimulus and G spending in general, almost all of that spending eventually ends up in the coffers of some business whether it's public employees spending on consumption or direct purchases from (defense) contractors. We can argue about what type of spending is more effective, but it still ends up as revenues for businesses at some point. When G runs a deficit, then it's putting more money into economic circulation than it's taking out, so the net effect of a $1.5 trillion deficit is that it ends up adding revenues to businesses (or some ends up in the savings accounts of public workers who don't spend all of their income). Government deficits create surpluses in the private sector. The impact of ANY stimulus then depends on what those firms do with their funds, and, as most of us know, it's been sitting in their coffers, and over the past 2 years they have used it to buy back shares or funded takeovers. Why would they use it to expand when they can meet demand with current capacity? So, from my perspective, the stimulus did exactly what one would expect in those first 2-3 years: it halted the contraction, and the economy began to expand again, albeit slowly. Since 2010 government spending has actually been declining in real terms and as a percent of GDP. So you call it a failure, and I look at the fact that we went from -2,8% GDP in 2009 to +2.5% in 2010, then policy has actually been contractionary ever since. I think you have to agree because those are the facts...

Since the deficit was about $1.5 trillion in 2009, the way I do math says the current deficit is significantly lower than half of that. Love these guys who focus on nominal numbers. Wow! The current deficit is still a larger number than any president in history! Lions, and tigers, and bears...oh my! What a meaningless comparison. The current deficit/GDP ratio of 2.8% is lower than all but 2 years of Reagan's 8 years. Does Obama deserve blame for the amount of debt generated from higher unemployment and therefore lower tax revenues during this so-called "great recession"? Yes, it's ALL Obama's fault. I guess it's ok to say everything that happened under Bush was his fault too? And so on... Regarding the debt, can someone please explain why it's a problem? What calamity is it going to cause and when?

Thanks, enjoyed that. It's not a coincidence that the three "best offensive minds" work with 3 of the 4 best QBs in the NFL. I think it says more about having a QB with the ability to read defenses than the genius of the coordinators. If you can't tell what the D is doing, then you don't know the weakness to take advantage of.

I'd like to see even less creativity and have them go back to the "EJ Offense" where they ran it twice and passed on 3rd if needed. Too many times Sunday they gained 4-5 yards on a first down run, then passed twice, and punted.

Miami's win last night was huge. They play 3 of their last 4 games at home--Balt, Minn, and Jets, and get the Pats away. Miami is tough at home. I think they are in the driver's seat for a wild card at 10-6, as long as they win their home games.

Will his players carry him out on their shoulders and yell he's the "king of orchard park"?

Bills could've made the list if Trump had ponied up...

I thought the Oline had one of its better games Monday, and Hackett was persistent in running the ball. A successful running game makes everything else work and look better. Without solid Oline play and a good running game, the Bills O looks like crap and Hackett looks like crap. Winning the next 4 games, and staying in the hunt, will come down to how well the Bills run the ball.

Going with a group of 5, and one is a Brown's fan coming over from Cleveland. I'm sure there will be the usual smattering opposing colors...

My first home game of the season (I'm also going to the Packer game), and I will personally applaud Pettine. He's done a great job with what he's got in Cleveland. Who is Whitner?

I hope Mario plays angry again...

Miami plays the Jets twice, Baltimore and Minnesota at home, then at Pats. They have a very good change at winning 10 games now. Bills blew that on.

After Hughes, other young players coming up include Searcy, Hogan, Easely, Wynn, Bryant, and Hairston. It would be good if they can retain them, and I list them in order of importance if they can't keep all. Other UFAs of note include Spikes, Pears, Summers, and Lee Smith. I don't know that losing any of this group would matter much. I believe the Bills have a lot of dead money freed up this off season from Fitz and Stevie, so I think the money is there to offer Hughes. It would help if Mario restructures to give them $ the following year for Dareus.

On the 4th and 1, My preference would be to run on the left side of the Bills' Oline behind Glenn and Urbik.

love it when Mario does the rag doll body slam!!!

They are as good as any team in the NFL. They need to develop a take no prisoners mentality. Just go out and beat up the competition Bills!

Didn't see it, but CNN said the crowd charged that small police grouping. That was obviously going to happen, and seemed like a set up to me.

I'm sitting here flipping back and forth between the game and cnn. I see a huge crowd and inside a barrier a relatively small group of cops in their gear. It looks like this is almost a set up...

Blatant hold on Charles with that ivory run