TPS

Regarding the second one, you'll have to expand on what that empty rhetoric means. My point was that the bailouts were 2 different things; in fact, the Treasury "invested" in the banks via preferred shares. Regardless, it is quite easy to perform a bailout of student loans that is equivalent to the Fed's bailout of the banks.

You are confusing two bailouts. The Treasury (under Paulson) made loans to the banks to fortify capital, and those were paid back. The Fed provided both liquidity loans AND bought most of the bad **** from the banks at face value--those were not loans. In fact, for the first time in its history, the Fed started paying interest on the bank reserves that were increased by the Fed's purchase of that bad ****. Eventually the Fed sold that **** for pennies on the dollar. Fortunately, since they own the printing press, they can lose money until the cows come home... So, regarding the student loans, we could easily change it to the same animal if students defaulted on the loans they have from private banks, then have the Fed buy those loans from the banks at face value...

I agree about his inability to coordinate a better run game, Hackett is a ****ty blocker...

that's twice today I've laughed out loud at your posts. Can you point me to 3 other posts today? I really want to believe in 5...Sorry, I realize I didn't tell you the other one, but you're smart...

Did I tell you about the 5 things I hate?

WhyTF is every publication focused on "5 Things"? Can't one of these reporters have some balls and talk about 6 things, or 4?

Two points, one to reiterate and one to disagree. I've been thinking of posting about Mario, so I'm glad he was in your list. While he has been criticized in the past about taking plays off, he IS showing some nasty out there. I love it when he rag dolls someone! Regarding wholesale house cleaning, I would hope that Pegula(s) has a heart-to-heart with Whaley, and that it's Whaley who helps P make that decision. I think most of us trust Whaley's judgment, so let the insider be the decider. Hope you enjoyed your break.... Ps. As usual, GG is wrong.

And we get older and grumpier....

Offensively, KC is a little like the Jets in that they rely on their run game, which includes the QB. Obviously KC's Smith rarely turns the ball over, but also relies more on a short passing game. Stop the run, which includes containing the QB, let your CB man up the outside, and then your safeties focus on helping cover the underneath stuff. KC's D is much tougher this year, especially against the pass. The Bills have to fix the run game to win this game because KC will sit back in cover 2. Maybe best option will be to get it to WRs (sammy) quick and see if they can make a play.

Hard to compare the 3-4 against the 4-3, but I think Hansen+Mt Washington+Bruce > Mario+Dareus+KW+Hughes. No contest at safety, sgt schultz and henry jones over AW and Searcy. Current starting CBs have the edge over 99, even though the rookie Antoine Winfield stepped in for the injured Kenny Irvin late in the season. That was a Super Bowl defense, had it not been for the forward pass....

Some interesting #s based on D-rankings by Points or Yds per game: In the first half, the Bills have played 6 teams in the top half of the D rankings and 2 in the bottom regardless of whether one chooses ppg or ypg. Points Top half: Det, SD, Hous, Mia, MInn, Pats; Bottom half: Chi, Jets Yards Top Half: Jets move into the top half and Hous into bottom. In the second half, it only gets slightly easier, as there are 5 teams in the top half and 3 in the bottom. Points top half: KC, Den, Mia, Pats, Clev; Bottom half: GB, Oak, Jets YPG top half: Jets and Cleveland swap. There is no equivalent difference in the O stats--8 teams are in the top half and 8 in the bottom. So, based on D stats at the half way point (for the Bills), 11 teams rank in the top half of the league and 5 in the bottom. That's a tough schedule.

Clearly they did not survey this site.... http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-10-27/the-nfls-most-republican-and-democratic-fan-bases

I think you hit the nail on the head there. They will most likely let him slowly adjust back by limiting plays for 2-3 weeks.

someone posted in another thread that we might be looking back at the Houston game and saying "what if?" I think you make a good point to counteract that line of thinking. As you state, it led to Orton starting, and it is that loss and ensuing decision which will most likely put the Bills in position to contend for a spot in the last quarter of the season. Here's what I think has to happen in the second half for the playoffs to become reality: 1. Win all 4 home games--KC, Jets, Cleveland, and Green Bay. All are possible given home field advantage. 2. Split the 4 road games--Miami, Denver, Oakland, and New England. This will most likely be easier than the #1 with Miami and Oakland as Ws. This outcome puts them at 11-5 and in the playoffs (my sig line btw).

Certainly this kind of notoriety will be enough to prevent him from doing something stupid like this again.

no, he's definitely an idiot now...The main driver of cap gains revenues has been the change in CEO pay, which has caused them to focus on short term manipulation of prices. http://cdn1.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Client-Day-2014-Transcript-Stephen-Mitchell.pdf

If the Team plays like they did last week, forget it. They need to show they are a playoff contender this week. Spikes will have to earn his pay this week, and I'd expect we'll see more manny Lawson in place of Hughes.

corporations don't pay cap gains taxes. All of their income is taxed as ordinary. Here's an alternative analysis for you. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1286

WR screen.

One more time, there is no tax differential regarding gains and income for corps. The fact that they try to shield any type of income from taxation is independent of the fact that investors face a tax differential. The focus is on the personal tax side because that's where cap gains matter. The issue is whether that tax differential on the personal income side has any impact on corporate decisions to invest in productive assets and therefore influence economic growth? If the cap gains differential has no impact on economic growth, then in reality it is simply a way to allow investors in brackets > than the cap gains rate to pay lower taxes overall. Since it will make Tasker happy, we'll call it an incentive to invest in growth stocks over income stocks, since taxes by design do create incentives and disincentives. Chef claims it's a reward for risk-taking, but the reward for risk-taking is built into risk premiums on investments. In reality, the tax is an "incentive" for investors to put their money into assets that appreciate vs assets that pay some form of income. There is very little evidence that higher stock prices directly fuel increases in productive investment; rather, I would argue that it is increases in investment (which for corporations is mainly financed by internal funds or bonds) that generate higher earnings which fuel higher stock prices. GG argues that somehow the cap gains rate on personal income fuels M&A activity; but as Chef pointed out, the rate was increased via ACA and one would expect that increase to cause a decrease in M&A activity, but it hasn't. There are obviously other reasons for M&A activity as Jauronimo pointed out. As Gman has tried to argue, the cap gains rate also allows "the rich" to pay lower taxes than the tax on wages (as Warren Buffett tells us). Managers paid with stock options pay a lower tax on their "salary income" than workers, and many argue the incentive of managers paid with stock options create a focus on short term profitability over long term viability. Private equity partners are also given this tax break over income with the carried interest distinction. So, the issue, if the lower cap gains rate for individuals who own shares of stock doesn't create greater economic growth, then why should there be a tax differential? As I said in another post, if the government is trying to create an incentive for risk-taking that creates growth and jobs, then focus the tax breaks directly on those who make decisions to invest in productive capital and hire people, not indirectly for those who own pieces of paper...

I'm not sure what you're talking about. What is "full tax bore"? Since they only face one tax rate on income, and gains are taxed as ordinary income, there is no distortion like there is for investors' and cap gains.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but corporations don't pay cap gains,right? Their gains are paid at ordinary income rates.That's the issue that "my friends" here are arguing, the capital gains differential is a subsidy to investors to invest in growth over income (dividend) stocks. If the purpose is to create an incentive for businesses to expand their productive investments, it's a very weak transmission mechanism. While it's a boon to investors, it doesn't really impact the investment decision (which is based on expected sales and profit growth) as I've argued. I would think that a better incentive would be to directly subsidize the investment spending by firms. In reality, the cap gains subsidy is a subsidy for those who invest...the rich...

Right, which proves the point. Unless you want to say that the increase is what's fueling M&A...?

The only disagreement (and it relates to GG's comment) is there are many reasons for the M&A activity. I am wrong to focus only on the competitive aspect, but I think we can all find examples of mergers that support our cases. One of the big headliners has been the tax motivation. To bring it back to the original point I made, the capital gains tax provides investors with a tax advantage over income, and it has very little impact on productive investment, even if you want to include M&A activity. There has been no change in the tax, yet M&A activity is going through the roof, which has more to do with your first comment.