TPS

There are always tax receipts coming in, but the quarterly business payments create a blip. The Treasury has a daily target ($5 bil. I believe) it keeps on account at fed banks, the remainder is held in formal accounts with private banks. Some portion of tax receipts go to fed, but most are sent to the private accounts. Bond sales also go to those private accounts. Treasury works with fed to transfer funds from those accounts when needed. As a matter of procedure, the government "spends" from its account at the Fed by crediting a bank account which increases bank reserves. The bank then would purchase an interest bearing government security with those reserves. It's almost as if government spending creates the funds (reserves) necessary to finance itself....

ME-vie J will end up taking the money and running to a big market where he can have his ME-dia attention.

Have you thought about therapy?

You have to consider that Merriman factored into the decision at the time. Since Maybin didn't impress (or didn't want to) on special teams, was it worth keeping the one-trick pony? As they say, hind sight is 20-20.

I'd like to say the former, but sometimes things slip by...post-turkey brain fart I suppose? On the bright side, that may have been DaveinElma's best post ever...

Rogers was my "sleeper pick" of the draft class. I liked what I saw. He'll be a solid slot cover CB in the future. I wish they'd let him return punts, as he's pretty dynamic there too.

It's not inciteful...?

Good grief...

Oh great, another wannabe at PPP... First, if you are a dogmatic republican, nothing will obviously sway you--your goal is to destroy the messenger. Fine. On the other hand, if you believe that both parties are corrupt, then there's hope. Lofgren certainly isn't kind to democrats either, so you are beating a dead horse there. As for my point, a few years back former Reagan cabinet members like David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett and PC Roberts were highly critical of Bush2's "Supply-side economics on steroids." Bartlett wrote a book titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy;" Roberts said GW was using S-side theory to reward his cronies. That sort of stuff.... These "Reagan Republicans" rejected the extreme policies of the Bush2 admin, saying that original S-Side theory was based on remedying stagflation, which was non-existent in 2001. I was making the analogy that Lofgren is similarly rejecting Republican extremism that wants to destroy the government to fix it. It's not too hard to understand.

My take on the article is that his "coming out" is much like the Reagan Republicans' criticisms of Bush2's policies--it was extremism, not conservatism. Lofgren doesn't want any part of the "we have to destroy it to save it crowd." I would disagree with his point about the rich--both parties are "parties of the rich," not just the republicans.

My link

So you think they should run the same offense as they ran in Miami? I really wouldn't mind seeing run, run, run, run, run, run...

Put Fitz behind center, let McIntyre lead Spiller, and tell the O-line to "show me what you got". Hell, might as well run 2 TE and one WR against the Jets.

Bills are so beat up in skilled position, they better go to the 2-back, with a FB, and power football. I don't think they have a choice. Pound it.

Maybe it's time to run the traditional 2-back with a FB? Too many injuries, so this team better try power football.

I'm certainly an optimist, BUT... The Jets game showed the Bills are not quite there yet on the talent meter. An interesting comment in the McKelvin article, something like, "No one catches a thing on me in practice, but somehow it just doesn't happen in the games..." While the no-names are ok, there really isn't a serious threat at WR. While Moats is ok, there is no serious pass-rushing threat from outside. Ok, back to the positive... I think the Bills match up well with Miami. They need this one in order to win 5 out of the next 7, which they have to for playoff possibility. I don't see no fat lady yet...

Let me know when you find that link that proves your innuendo...like this one... Soros

You might enjoy this piece, an interesting new problem arising from renewables. Also suggests that most electricity needs will be met by renewables. Bloomberg

I resemble that remark....

I think if it's going to happen, given our current 2-party system, it would have to happen in the primaries--dems probably aren't going to vote for a repub, and vice versa. It could happen if the 2-party system made it easier for competing parties to qualify candidates.

Which is why someone can come in and say "it's common knowledge" in order to de-legitmize a movement. I think conservatives who support the Tea Party are doing so for their beleifs, not because Koch's put money into it. Same for people who are camping around the country. I am sympathetic to any movement that questions the current state of "government."

I've searched and seen allegations by right wing sources, without confirmation. You are the one who said it's common knowledge, but it's common from right wing sources, without knowledge--it's all rumor based. Find one legitimate source that proves Soros funds OWS. If it's so commonly known, I'm sure you could quickly find a verifiable source--why are you wasting my time without simply providing a link that should be so easy for you to find? All I've seen is a video by O'Reilly on Fox and some wacko right-wing sites claim this, as well as Rush, of course...

A video on Youtube by O'Reilly, or DaveinElma's posts on at PPP, don't count as "common knowledge." Everyone knows evil George funds Moveon, but that next step gets a little slippery... What is your source for this "common knowledge" that Soros is funding OWS?

Common knowledge if you watch Fox Snews or listen to Rush.... I'm sure you have a legitimate source though.

Wow, Soros is a liberal democrat and uses his money to support his beliefs? Next your going to tell me someone like the Koch brothers does that on the right... Soros is OWS? Now you are a conspiracy nut.