TPS

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.

It looks like the Bills recognized their weakness and made an effort to get physical against the Chiefs. That's the kind of effort they need the rest of the way. Apparently KWilliams gave the pre-game pep talk that helped "light a fire" under these guys. Here are some of the quotes:

That may be your interpretation. Both parties fight like hell to make sure that candidates are party-line candidates only. This year, the repubs fought like hell to make sure Ron Paul would not rock the boat for their party-line candidate.; in 2004 the dems made sure Kerry would get the nomination and went after Howard Dean after his infamous yell.

Gets my unsung hero award. He made the key block that sprung Leodis on the punt return, basically taking out 3 guys with one block. He also played well when they put him in during the 4thQ. Props to a guy I thought would be pushed out of a job by Carder.

Yes, only the democratic party is guilty of voter fraud and suppression...blah, blah, blah.... BOTH parties fight like hell (including fraud, manipulation, suppression, etc.) to get their man in, and then they make changes to reward their contributors. Some choice, some democracy...

Thanks for making my point. It's silly in general to try to place more blame on one party than another, when there were so many contributing factors. Good point, as there is another factor that has nothing to do with GSEs: rating **** AAA....

You misconstrue my point. Hell, Fannie was fined for fraud in early 2000s. My point is, you can try to blame one party, but there are so many different factors that "caused" the crisis, there is blame on both parties. And subprime was only a part of the problem as well; there was significant fraud in the so-called prime market as well. Then there's the fact that it was a global bubble: housing spiked and caused a financial crisis in the UK, EU, et al. Hell, the first shoe fell at a bank in England.Really, to blame one party shows bias. Despite my good friend Alaska D's criticism of me, we agree that both parties are corrupt.

That leaves out all of the fraud that occured at the origination level. One can point to the Bush admin castrating state regulators who were trying to pursue the "epidemic of mortgage fraud" the FBI had identified in 2005/06. Let's not try to politicize something that was so broad in scope. There is enough blame to go around for both parties.