TPS

Let's not sell Donald Jones short. He didn't do much initially thrust into the #2 role, but started coming into his own before he went down the second time. Fitz also has confidence in him. Not saying the Bills couldn't use at least one more highly talented WR, but there are some decent options currently on the roster. Given last season's injuries at the position, the more the merrier...

Doc, He was a rushing WLB behind Merriman. He was the reason they let Maybin go. Yes, I remember seeing him in preseason look lost at ILB also, but I think SLB in Wanny's D puts him in a position to play mostly zone in coverage, so he could excel there. He's a very good athlete and playmaker, and I hope they finally find him a home in this D.

Moats is listed as the backup to Morrison, and I'm thinking he might have the tools to be a very good SLB. His 40 time was 4.64, which is faster than Morrison. This cbssports analysis from the 2010 draft makes it sound like he can do everything necessary, just needs more experience. He is a good play maker and would be great to see him on the field in a permanent position sooner than later.

Translation: Calvin Johnson = sure bet. I think there's only one sure bet at WR this year in the top 10--Blackmon.

Yep, I'm leaning in the same direction, would rather see Kirkpatrick over Floyd. It's a lot easier to find a Stevie J or Cruz in late rounds or FAs, then a stud CB.

And I can't say I'm disappointed. He doesn't have the character that Chix look for, and the motivation question mark. That said, I also hope we stay away from WR at #1--unless there is a definite Calvin Johnson, which I don't see. OT is the most likely choice now, but I wouldn't rule out a CB. Signing Bell would mean all options are open. What a great off-season so far! When do the OTAs begin?

My link Check the link, he was being discussed last week.

Couple of informative pieces from Bloomberg on the current state of the oil market. My link My link2

Nice!

Aren't you already on record as saying we should let the tax cuts expire? I'm pretty sure you've said that a few times, yes? And since you already know, why play the game? No doubt the long run deficit issue requires both. I'm the only hard-headed person here? It's ironic that I'm the one defending the Reagan republican link....Bartlett was THE original supply-sider.

Just sayin' that you can't squeeze enough blood from those turnips to fill the deficit gap.

So making sure that the bottom 40% who aren't paying federal income taxes pay some tax will fill the shortfall? Let's see, they get 12% of ALL income, so your saying if we somehow get them back to paying some federal income tax all will be solved? It can't be that the top 20% share has increased to over 50% of all income while their tax rate has declined? Ps. It's pretty hilarious that the pendulum has swung so far right that all of you now arguing against one of Reagan's supply-side gurus in Mr. Bartlett....

I picked those two years because 2001 is the year just prior to the cuts AND the stock market didn't do well so you can't use the cap gains argument that gg always brings in; I chose 2006 because it has a comparable unemployment rate AND it gives a couple of years for the tax cuts to really kick in and provide an impact. The personal revenue shares for each year are 9.7% and 7.9% respectively, a -1.8% difference. Corporate revenues helped offset that a bit. The deficit as a % of GDP was -0.3% in 2001 and -3.3% in 2006. The increased deficit of course came from a combination of lower revenues and increased spending. Overall, for the 3% differential, lower revenues contributed 1% and increased spending 2%. It doesn't change the conclusions: 1. personal tax cuts reduce personal tax revenues measured as a share of gdp (for relatively comparable periods, the personal tax cuts generated almost 2% less revenue). 2. There is no hoser's law. There is a lot of movement around the average, and with $15 trillion gdp, 1% change means $150 billion impact. IMO, If there is some "dynamic" that prevents taxes from exceeding 20% of gdp, it's probably a political barrier--the public reacts at the polls.

All you guys can do is come up an attack when the facts don't support YOUR beliefs. You believe in the Laffer curve and hauser's law--the data contradict. The studies from the original OP contradict. Please provide some facts to back up your beliefs then. Btw, as for more facts, please find a post where I've come out in support of Obama. You want to link me with supporting Obama as a way to discredit. Please provide some facts instead of attacks. When was the last time you posted something substantive as opposed to an ad hominem attack? At least magox tries to back up his claims with data.

Stay away from the green dyed crayons...

A few responses, since we've gone over this ad nauseum... Let's compare 2001 the year before the tax cuts began and 2006 a few years after they had a chance to impact. Unemployment was 4.7% for 2001 and 4.6% in 2006 (this answers crayonz); the DOW was higher in 2006 than 2001 (to compare apples and apples). The on-budget deficit was -$30 billion in 2001 and -$434 billion in 2006--a $400 billion difference for the mathematically challenged. You guys are forced to constantly come up with ways to deny the facts because you are stuck on the ideology that supply side worked, when all it did was create huge deficits under republican presidents. Seems to me you guys need to do some esplaining...

All you have to do is look at the period from 2000 to 2008 (I'll ignore the recession) to debunk hoser's law. Revenues as a % of gdp ranged from a max of 20.6% to a min of 16.1%--that 4.5% swing means lost revenues on average amounted to $600 billion, and most of the loss was due to the Bush cuts in personal taxes. On-budget revenues (which excludes SS) swung from an $80 billion surplus in 2000 to an average $500 billion deficits from 2002-2006, as the Bush tax cuts took effect. But, if it fits your ideology, you can ignore the facts....

Let us pray...and hope the injury bug takes a holiday this season...

Of course, the mindset is "making money" regardless. But you don't think there's a difference between risking your own money vs risking someone else's?

This is how you reacted the last time you were wrong. "You're dumb. I'm a trader. I know what I'm talking about." Yes, I just happened to get lucky to find something really quickly that "proved me right"--as you stated, and I'm still ignorant... Btw, I'm not trying to explain to you what a swap dealer is, I'm trying to explain to you that the list you linked to is based on the old two category format of commercial or non-commercial, and swap dealers were counted as commercial in that old format. A simple question: is a swap dealer a user or producer of oil? There is a reason the CFTC changed the reporting format, which you can't seem to understand. Only one of the new four categories covers users/producers, and they represent less than 20% of the market. You can stick to the old format that you linked to, but you would be wrong to conclude anything about the size of commercial interests from that data. Things have changed.

Check the Kelly interview on BB.com. Kelly said Bruce called him and was all excited. There was no reason for him to be a part, but he is excited about the acquisition.

That's hilarious! You cite a study by academics to support your argument. Isn't that ironic. The Irwin and Sanders articles (they also published one for the OECD) were debunked by several other studies, in particular one by Better Markets which was linked in posts here at least a year ago. As for the data you provide... As you'll note in the actual data the quantity of contracts from actual producers/users amounts to no more than 20% of the open interest. What you don't understand is that Swaps dealers are considered "hedgers" and therefore, not speculators--they are included in the commercial interest category of your chart; despite the fact that all of their trades are related to "financial investments," not actual use. Initially the CFTC granted (position limit) exemptions to the big bank swap dealers (goldman et al) because the banks argued they were hedging exposure to investors who bought the swaps--the banks bought futures contracts to back their swap agreements. Eventually this became the rule. So Mr Genius, the chart that you linked to only has two categories of traders, which is the old format. If you look at the actual breakdown, users/producers make up about 30% of the commercial interests from you table; the rest of the commercial interest category are swap dealers listed as commercial traders. Read this, you might learn something...Definitions If you can't figure out that ACTUAL commercial interests make up less than 20% of the market after this then you are hopeless. Better yet, I'll help you out with the pertinent points:

As GG likes to say, it's the same **** that's gone on for years. However, I doubt they behaved this way before they incorporated.

Maybe you should try the ACTUAL data from the CFTC--there's more detail--instead of some secondary source like you posted. Check and see how much of the NYMEX market for crude (Code 067651) is made up of actual commercial interests, then tell me how financial players don't influence prices. Can't wait to see how you spin this one... And I'm not denying that the underlying S&D is the most important factor. What's happened is that asset allocation toward commodities, especially oil, is creating greater distortion. Do they add a permanent 15%? No. They cause prices to overshoot for longer periods and they create more volatility. CFTC COT ACTUAL data And in case you missed it, here's the data that Bernie Sanders released which shows holdings of crude futures at the height of the 2008 bubble. Check the largest holders. Yes, someone is blinded by ideology here... Sanders' leaked data

Yes, yes, yes...I don't understand how market works.... Who is pricing in the risk? Who is creating the premium? Oil companies, Wall STreet banks, ETF investors, swap dealers??? I guess that means Goldman Sachs, the oil CEOs, Fed researchers, et al don't understand markets either? We are fortunate to have you here, the one person who truly does understand markets.... Dude, all you have said is that expectations influence today's price--possible outcomes in the future influence decisions and prices today--duh. That's what traders/investor/specualtors do--they make bets today about what might happen in the future. Though it seems your spin is that it's only commercial interests who can influence prices? Are you really saying that financial bets don't influence futures prices? So you disagree with GS, the ceos, and a whole slew of researchers? Oil is a financial asset now. It became a "generalized (open to a broad spectrum of investors) financial asset" beginning around 2004. By the most conservative estimates--again from Goldie, oil CEOs, et al--financial bets have added a 15% premium to oil prices.