TPS

I said something similar in another thread. A win this week and I say their chances of making the playoffs is better than 50%. I think the final WC spot will come down to 2nd place in the AFCE. Right now SD is 4-3, but they have a tough schedule. This young team will start to get the breaks that it hasn't in the first half.

I believe they have improved in almost every metric measured for defenses, with almost the same personnel.

The way the second WC spot looks right now, it'll probably be a 9-7 team and come down to tie breakers. KC is the season: a win could put them on their way; a loss and they're done.

go piss on someone else's parade. The op (and I) qualified with "if" they win and are 4-4. There's always hope...

No doubt! If they were 4-4 after the first half, and with a relatively easier second half, I would bet they make the playoffs.

by what measure are they 8th? Looking at YPC they are in the middle of the pack, which is a heck of a lot better than last year.

Could be because the bills haven't had any games against bottom 10 defenses?

I didn't think his knee ever touched down, and that photo doesn't prove it. His hand is right next to his knee on the photo, and there is some distance between the hand and knee. Bottom line, it doesn't matter.

Any projection is an opinion. Your bull stinks as much as mine...

Damn! Even if the Bills beat Miami Sunday, they can't be declared the better team. That sucks man.

You're an idiot. (note: I'm using copyrighted material without the author's consent).The point of my original response was to point out, one, we are past the trillion dollar deficits; and two, throwing out big numbers without some type of normalizing is a way to make a blow-hard point--which you are good at. I used Reagan to give you an example from someone you probably idolize. The deficit in 1983 was 6% of gdp, which would generate a trillion dollar deficit based on 2013 gdp. You want to change the subject and play "mines better (bigger?) than yours," which has nothing to do with the point I made. If you'd like to move to that subject, fine; though the majority of the current large deficits (and Reagan's) have more to do with revenues than spending.

It sounds like Bill Murray as the bass player....uhh, I mean Kiko...

A big part of the improvement has come from the end to the SS tax cut, which is not subject to manipulation. Those tax increases and spending cuts helped slowed economic growth in the first half of the year. The economy was gaining a little more momentum starting the second half, then the idiots in DC took over...

Yes, that's all I got because I'm not defending Obama as most of you infer. As for comparing it to Reagan, the purpose was to show you that you can't focus on the nominal number alone. Again, if you want to claim Reagan's deficits were somehow better, I think that gets you into very subjective arguments that will be based on yours and my biases, plus I'm not comparing them for any other reason than to point out why your talking point was wrong. As for deficits in general, of course we're not out of the woods yet, but it's headed in the right direction, which was my other point. Really, there are two main points about deficits that I'll defend: 1. They should be countercyclical--falling when the economy is growing, and rising when the economy is contracting. 2. The government does not EVER have to pay off its debt, but long term stability requires that the deficit as a % of gdp remains below the nominal growth rate. As long as this condition is met, the debt/gdp ratio will decline over time, and that's the ratio that investors tend to worry about. Current projections by the CBO indicate the deficit ratio will be < NGDP growth for the next few years, so the debt ratio will decline. However, in another 4-5 years, the healthcare costs begin to push it back up again. That still needs to be resolved. Yes, I set myself up for the ACA-attack...

doesn't change gdp, but it creates a source of funds to sop up treasuries. The tax increases from January and spending cuts from sequester are gimmicks? I haven't said anything about whether this economy has been good or not, I was simply pointing out 3rdnlong's right wing talking point that reps are tired of trillion dollar deficits no longer holds.

Kiko has been getting a lot of interviews lately. I didn't know he played bass too... ok, I was reluctant to post this for some time now, but it so sounds like him...

what's the underlying cause of the interest rate increase? If it's higher inflation, then that means nominal gdp will be growing faster too, which, again, is the source of paying the debt. Any scenario is possible in the future, and some changes will be necessary, but not to the extent fear mongers lead you to believe.

absolutely. That's how deficits are supposed to work, countercyclical: shrink when the economy expands, and rise when it's contracting.

Greece is constrained by being in the eu and adopting the euro; it's analogous to a us state that must balance its budget.We've always been in a position where the fed loans the us money, just not to the current degree. If there was an issue with selling tbills, one easy solution would be stop paying interest on bank reserves, which currently exceeds 1 trillion. The banks would then buy treasuries with their excess reserves. Once again, the key for fed govt deficits and debt is the direction of change. We are currently moving in the right direction with a falling ratio, and now that it's dropping below 4%, then the debt/GDP ratio will also decline.

I think I've said this before, the government like a corporation is an ongoing concern, so neither one has to ever pay back their debt until they are dissolved. As long as you can make your interest payments then you will be able to rollover debt in perpetuity.

that last part was directed at 3rdnlong.How much debt can one handle depends on their level of income.

Two points. How much debt any entity takes on is related to your income and assets. GDP is the ultimate source of taxes and ability to service that debt. Comparing it to GDP also normalizes for comparisons sake, which is why I brought up the Reagan comparison. A nominal number is pretty meaningless without some type of comparison. The key issue for deficits and debt are the trends. As the deficit ratio has been declining since the worst of the recession, and is now reaching a sustainable level (<4% of GDP), which means the Debt/GDP ratio will start to decline again. To 3rd, any discussion about usefulness and wastefulness will be based on subjective factors for the most part, so I do try to stick to more concrete issues. You stated several times that the Reps were tired of trillion dollar deficits, so I decided to point out they no longer exist, and in fact have been declining significantly for the past several years.

Yes, Miami hasn't shown much of a run game. However, as it's an away game, it should come down to another dog fight for the Bills, and the team that gets the lucky breaks will win. The Bills have shown that they can generate a decent running game against good run defenses, so that will help Thad in the passing game with play action. On D, the Fins have also given up a lot of sacks, and hopefully Gilmore and Byrd will be much better in this game. I like the match up and think the Bills squeak this one out, 23-20.

I guess changing the subject is an admission that you are wrong about trillion dollar deficits. I find it ironic that a conservative wants to argue one government's deficit spending is "better" than another's...

Final exact numbers aren't in for September, but it's estimated at $650 billion.If you want to compare nominal numbers to make a point, that's up to you. If you want to be honest, then this year's deficit as a percent of GDP will be 4%. This will put Obama on par with Reagan, who also experienced 5 years of Deficit/GDP ratios of 4% or greater during his 8 years in office (yes, I'm expecting the next 3 years to be less than 4%, just as the CBO projects).