TPS

There's no "i" in hubris....errr, wait, yes there is ....

Hmmm...I assumed this was a post to bait OC into several tome-like reponses....

I've been making this argument here for years....Supply-side is bunk.Tax cuts to increase savings doesn't translate to increased real investment (and growth), because investment is driven by demand and competition. More often then not, those policies have caused asset bubbles.

So, many people aren't voting for their guy so much as they are voting for the lesser of two evils. They may not like obama/Romney, but they hate Romney/obama, so they vote for Obama/Romney.

Grew up in SoCal, and my teams were the Angels, Lakers and Rams. Showing my age, my first championship experience was the Jerry West/Wilt Chamberlin Lakers in the early 1970s. I remember listening to it on the raido and running outside to let out a big holler. All of the lakers championships after that one pale in comparison. I moved to Buffalo in 1990, and it was easy to adopt the Bills since the Rams moved to StL and it was the first championship season for the Bills. I got pretty excited about the Angels first championship in 2002 too. If the Bills win one in my lifetime, I think it will eclipse that first Lakers' one.

Simple solution, he left the d off "win"...hmmm...something erie about that...

I think it has added to his regression this year. I liken it to trying to change your golf mechanics--you play really crappy for awhile until things start to click. Not saying it'll work, rather the change could certainly make him regress.

Again, I'm not sure to what extent it captures those exiting, but part of it is explained by the retirement of the babyboom generation. Structurally, there will be more people retiring (exiting) than entering the work force for quite a number of years.

From what I can tell in the report, the drop was driven by an increase in part-time workers by 600K.

Corrected.

I'm sure the "council" is totally unbiased....Here's a simple critique: the reason we have exploding future deficits is the retiring babyboom generation moving onto medicare (the main culprit) and collecting SS. In order to get back to the level of "Clinton entitlements," the per capita benefits would have to be reduce significantly.

BO was bumbling last night. He clearly got crushed. A couple thoughts: I'm wondering how Romney's domineering attitude toward Lehrer (who's too old for this role) played with the female voters? Obama barely responded to so many openings. Romney basically said, "we'll give rainbows and ponies to everyone," without saying they will come flying out of his arse. I won't be voting for either of these bozos.

Regarding debt, you stated "debt is not necessary in a captitalist system." That's quite a jump from what you state above.As for captial accumulation, I assume you mean real productive capital, and not financial capital? Too many people seem to believe that growth of financial capital is equivalent to growth of real capital. As we just experienced, it's not. Your real savings definition is lacking. real savings=goods? All goods can be exchanged for money, so is real savings equal to the value of consumer goods? This seems rather bizarre to me. A little clarification please.

Your comments remind me of the Miami game at home last year. I was embarrased for our team they way Miami physically manhandled the Bills. They have the talent. They could be a shut down defense. They have to want to play physical and dominate opposing teams to do so...

This is an interesting discussion, sorry I didn't see it earlier. However, you make a lot of statements without supporting them. How can you say debt is not necessary in a capitalist system? Anyone who has taken a finance course can tell you that debt IS necessary to finance production and working capital. Read up on something called the cash conversion cycle. But that's a minor issue.The important concepts you raise: what is "real savings"? What is capital formation? Can you define those for me specifically?

Not at all! The point is they have talent. What they lack is a physical presence that creates a little fear in the opponent. Some of the responses missed my point. I'm not defending Gailey, but he is right, the Bills, especially the D, lack a physical attitude. I disagree with anyone who thinks they lack talent; they don't. Mario and Anderson are very talented. Neither one of them is physically mean. Watch a 49ers game or even a Miami game, and those defenses are physically intimidating as well as talented. The Bills have the talent; they lack the toughness. Gailey calls it mental toughness. Same difference.

Gailey is correct. His team, especially his defense, plays passively. They play football as if it's a sport solely played by X's and O's; it's not. Not only must you execute a game plan, but you must physically intimidate/dominate your opponent to win consistently. Kyle Williams felt he had to pump the D up for KC, and it worked. Unfortunately, the Bills lack that innate physical mentality, so someone has to create it. In fact, Mario epitomizes this personality of the Bills' D: all of the talent in the world, but he doesn't create any fear in the opponent. Put a mauler in front of him, and you essentially nuetralize him. Where's the physically intimidating D Wanny had with Dallas? That's what I'd like to see!

I also noticed that the Pats called a lot more runs when Carrington and Johnson were "spelling" Dareus and KW, and they also had more success against those two.

Brady is getting older, the Pats have some serious issues on the O-line. Last year's win was damn lucky with all of the TOs. Is this the year the Bills finally take the Pats down and win the division? This could be the defining moment for this team. Go Bills! Fu$k the "Pats won't lose 3 in a row" argument!

He's probably doing his part to get them fired up.

I sure hope it doesn't come down to poor punting that gives the Pats a shorter field to work with....If so, it'll be ugly around here and the locker room.

That's all? Not to brag, well, maybe to brag, but several of us have been talking him up since last year.

The crew covering the game was pretty bad too. 90% of the time talk was how a particular play or situation affected the Browns. I agree with the post "beating the Pats will take care of it."

This is quite a contradiction. 1. The bottom 50% own no assets, so fed policy helps them most. 2. Fed policy has boosted stock prices. Hmmm....explain please.