TPS

Gailey mentioned in his presser yesterday that he told spiller and jackson to focus on running north-south, and hit a crease. Seems as tho they listened. Two things I don't like: I don't mind 5 wides except when you have less than 3 yeards for a first, it seems to be a stupid strategy since everyone knows what's coming. Be interested to know the success rate... Second thing is the draw play seems to have disappeared from the playbook. To me it's something that is effective if it works or not, as it makes the D hesitate when used often enough. Oh well. Good game anyway.

I think Stroud is near the end of the line. Edwards is good. Johnson is a good backup. Carrington will start next year and should be good. Troup is good, but I think we need a top 10 playmaker on the line and a few studs at LB. Dried out at the Blue Monk cable lady.

Some post game musings after a long day of tailgating... Nothing worse than cold and rainy, but not as bad as predicted. Probably 40% of the seats were filled today, but a fairly entertaining game. first, a few things I disliked. I did not like that constant Jackson-spiller trade off. Seemed neither back was able to get going until finally the 4th quarter which was Jackson's time, and he always seems to shine. I hate the 5-wide formation in short yardage. It seems to be a really dumb strategy. Delhomme sucked. A good QB and McKelvin is burned, instead it was an INT. Good for the Bills though. The O-line looked pretty decent. A similar in and out going on at LG with Howard and Reinhart(?). Wood looked good at center. This could be a turning point; I'd like to see him stay there. Fitz was great on the runs; really took a hit on the one though. I watched Nelson on the TD as he was matched up with an LB. The safety tried to get over, but the throw and catch were things of beauty. I also happened to focus on Moats with the fumble, and was yelling "it was a fumble" after it was initially called incomplete. The D was solid in the red zone, and made key stops on a few 3rd downs. A pretty good showing overall, even though the Browns had absolutely no passing game with Delhomme. I am still of the mindset that the first 2 picks in the next draft should be DL and LB. I think this year's draft class has provided a solid foundation moving forward though.

You are correct sir, the dual philosophy at PPP: "I'm right, you're wrong." Only superceded by the mono-philosophical phrase used here: "You're an idiot." Enjoy your stay.

The policy changes that have supported a redistribution toward the top have been made under both parties, as money knows no political bounds. It's not a coincidence that the distribution of income was pretty stable for almost 40 years after WW2, and inequlaity has continually increased since about 1980. I picked that year for a reason, but not for why you think. It's obviously too complicated for your biased, narrow-minded views. As for your response, I've come to expect it when you realize you are wrong.

Speaking of zealots, you are pushing your own beliefs/biases and ignorance on this one. You might want to check your 6th grade history book to see who was president in 1980...

Class warfare began in 1980. Since then, policies have been tilted in favor of the upper incomes over the rest. Inequality peaked prior the the 1929 market crash, then fell until the 1940s, remaining steady until 1980, and now higher than 1929. The rich have been fighting to over-turn the New Deal for the past 30 years. There is a war, but it's been won by those who own the country. So, yeah, it's time the middle class fought back.

It's called an "employer of last resort" program.

Government, the ultimate "by low, sell high" investor. I like it.

Not when the Fed is throwing it!

As soon as we spend an equivalent amount spent by the Fed/Treasury to bailout the global financial system--so, I think we have a few years left...

Exactly. His job IS to piss people off. He plays the bad cop to the Gaughan/Wilson good cops.

I assume they are "playing by the rules." You said they are evil, I didn't. As I have always stated, or quoted Keynes, while futures/derivative markets need speculators for their liquidity; when speculators are driving the prices, then the system becomes less efficient and more casino-like. Big banks and HFs have the capital to buy and hold and influence the system to their benefit, and to the detriment of the actual producers using these commodities. If you want to create ETFs with gold or anything that's not an essential input to production, eat your heart out. This financialization of commodities is creating one big bubble, and it's killing the actual producers who use futures to hedge, because as prices rise it forces them to come up with more capital on margin accounts. In the end, all of us will end up paying for their profits they created because of their market power. Futures are easy to manipulate because there are fewer contracts, which is why there were always contract limits. Now that banks have become "owners" of the underlying commodities, they are viewed as "hedgers" not subject to the same limits. If investors want to profit off of commodities, then buy shares of the companies that mine, drill, etc. This will not end well.

There is a tax cut as they will temporarily cut the payroll tax for workers--finally, someone gets it. Now if only they can get Bernanke to buy those Trust fund treasuries...

IF, and it's a big IF at this point, the Spiller pick turns out to be a mistake, the only blame that Nix would take is for letting Gailey have his way on this pick--and, one would assume, the head coach has the most influence. Gailey wanted Spiller badly having coached against him.

Gee, a big bank hoards a commodity and helps drive prices up. Those funny fundamentals...

It's got to be better than getting advice from economists....

Yes, it is called class warfare, but as usual you have it backwards. Class warfare

I'd say that part is debatable.

As I recall, he includes the Dutch, Spain and UK. Hmm..your conclusion is that technological change occurs faster because of finance? I always thought it was related to R&D spending, or research at University centers? Or that it was the competitive push to maintain one's market lead? Most financial innovations have no relation to promoting technological advancement. This is really a stretch. I don't disagree about taxing and preventing crises, I was talking about how to pay for the deficits mainly caused by finance. Regulations/taxation can restrain bubbles, but they will never prevent them. I suppose in your mind using the term class warfare is a one-way street.

Well then, to get back to the topic of tax credits to keep jobs here, the tide has turned. The cost differences are not so great anymore in China with the Yuan increasing and manufacturing wages rising there, falling here. GE recently announced it was moving a refrigerator facility back to the US from China. Anything that can help that process would be a good idea.

I am sure the Bills will draft an OL or two, but I don't know that it is such a need that they target in the first 3 rounds. Urbik is a solid back up, and Howard seems to be a versatile back up. Who knows about Wang yet. Overall, it is less of a priority than most of us thought. From the video, that play to Johnson, with the exception of the drop, was executed to perfection. The blocking was outstanding--what a pocket!

Don't count Wrotto out. The guy converted from Dline to O his last year at GTech. He could develop into a solid RT...could.

The class warfare is coming from the top trying to force most of the pain on the rest of us--across the entire globe. I say raise taxes on the top, especially for those who caused the crisis and benefit from the bailout the most--Wall Street. Create a financial transactions tax on short-term holdings. Create a worldwide FX tax on non-goods/services related trades. Tax the speculators. Growth has been lower and there have been more financial crises since deregulation of finance began in 1980. AS Kevin Phillips writes in "Bad Money," the end of modern empires (since the birth of capitalism) is marked by the growing influence of finance. Before I get painted by some generalization, I'm all for eliminating corporate income taxes (including the corporate payroll tax) because they are treated as a cost. If we must tax corps, mabye a small VAT. By the way, it's not that the top wouldn't get a tax cut, they would on the first $250,000... Time for a beer mates!

What you describe is the effect from rising income inequality, which means the top is paying more revenues even if their rates are cut. That's just math. The fact is the rich paid less as a % of their income--because that's what tax cuts do, but revenues increased because their share of income grew. As I said, tax policy has more to do with redistributing income, and less to do with growth. Why would you exclude the 2000s when the same policy was used?