TPS

You apparently didn't read the article. The point was that the bailout was targeted toward them in order to prevent them from bailing on US assets in general triggering a collapse of the dollar. There's a difference between "involve them" and "aimed at them." You're slipping...

Why is he to blame?

Ahh...the irony...

The first article talks about the increased borrowings by banks from the fed's discount window, something that used to be frowned upon. The second says the Freddie/Fannie bail outs were aimed at foreign holders of the debt, specifically the official sources, not the private. Gee, the administration acquiesced to foreign governments for fear they'd dump the dollar? Where have I heard that before.... Bank borrowings Foreign bond holders

Christ! Stick to working the web site. Now I'm gonna bet money on the Jags...

Might want to look at that again, since I never argued that. As for taxes, I still believe the best solution for the current problem is a temporary cut (10%?) in social security taxes. And yes, everyone got a cut, but the majority of the cuts were skewed toward the top. When demand is the problem, I believe it's more effective to skew the cuts toward the group that spends all of their income.

If you watch what happened to their gunners on that punt, you could see that Roscoe was going to have a good return. Same thing a few punts earlier, our guys totally stopped their gunners, and he almost took that one back. I fully expect all punters will be trying to kick higher and shorter as a result.

Yeah, we need to cut those taxes at the top so more so we can continue the success that Bush started....errr.... Oh, yeah, it was Greenspan's fault... Note: I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy, but it's more effective to cut taxes on those who spend, not those who save.

Couple more things about D and Stroud: - Kyle Williams had 1.5 sacks. Larry who? - Officially the D gave up 252 yards, but 100 came in the 4th quarter after the 34 - 10 lead.

Maybe you don't remember Kevin Gilbride? I think the Bills passed on every first and second down...

Couple of things: - First good Turk/bad Turk: loved the draw call on 3rd and long for the TD by Lynch; don't understand why you empty the backfield on 3rd and 1 though? - I feel a lot better about the O-line depth now. Someone will go down before the season ends, and today showed they can be solid when that happens. - Glad the team did not give up on Youboty, he is coming into his own. - Finally, will Moorman create a QB controversy?

"They"?

Speaking from experience???

For both of you partisan hacks, there was a recession during Bush1's term; there was no recession at the start of Clinton's 8 years. For Bush2, the recession began before his term started--it began at the end of Clinton's term. It may be true that Bush2 is the only president since WWII to begin and end his term in recession, but that's not assigning blame, especially in terms of him inheriting the first one. As for what to expect, from my new favorite prognosticator: Roubini

The easy plan is to do the Chippewa scene, and there is quite a mix of bars there. If you're going to do the walking tour, then I'd start about 4pm. If you make it back to Chippewa and close the place down at 4am, then you are my idol.....

Best thread I've seen here in months.

Better yet, here's my assessment of that walk. 1. Goodbars: the ultimate dive bar. A good 20 beers on tap, and a nice patio to observe the little coeds walking down from the college. 2. Coles, the classic Buffalo bar. Another 20 beers on tap. Good Guiness, and maybe get your wings here (or try the Buffalo Shrimp--a take on wings). 3. Bullfeathers is next. Again, lots of beer choices, strange crowd. 4. Next up, the old "No Names" at the corner of Bidwell and Elmwood. Can't remember what it's called now, but a great place to sit for one of their many micro brews on tap. 5. Things get a bit dicey from here. Ok, maybe you can take your first trip to the east side of the street when you reach Merlins. Classic biker bar and a great little patio out front. Always have live music on Saturdays. Beer selection sucks, unless all you need is Blue or Molson. 6. A few blocks from there, you hit pay dirt again. You can stop in at Mode, but it's a bit too yuppity/artsy-fartsy. Go straight to Toro. Yeah, it's really a restaurant, but the scenery, read that as hot babes, is great. Besides, when you're ready for your next real beer, Faherty's is right next door. Have the Murphy's there, and play some tunes on the juke. 7. Better have a couple at Faherty's, because the next bar is a little hike. You basically need to walk to Allen at this point. Again, I'd recommend a trip to the East side just before Allen street, with a stop at Cozumel--best deck on the Elmwood strip. Might as well do a shot of tequila here. 8. Ok, now it's time to take a little detour. Turn right on Allen, and you have your hands full. There's Mulligan's Brick bar, the old pink (now something else), and The Allen Street Hardware Cafe (or something like that), which will have one of the best beer selections in the city. After that, head across the street and do Nietzsches--probably a cover because of live music, but always good. 9. At this point, a big decision to make. Do you wander back down Elmwood to the Hampton and Chippewa? OR do you head east on Allen toward Colter Bay? I suggest the latter. Colter Bay is another great beer bar. Of course, you will have to stop at Gabriel's Gate before you reach Colter BAy. 10. After Colter Bay, you've got Gallaghers, then head down Virginia. 11. On Virginia you've got Fat Bobs, Mothers, and Scarlet's (for the hot professional babe crowd). In fact, once you're done with Virginia, go back on the Delaware Ave side of that block and stop at "The Snooty Fox" (another babe hangout), and Stillwaters--very impressive upscale place. 12. From here, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump back to Chippewa, assuming you are still standing. Good luck.

There ought to be enough Bills' fans going to the game to hitch a ride with someone for a beer, or seven.... Yes, staying in the city at the Hampton is the choice. The suburbs suck. Friday (or Saturday) night catch the bus down Elmwood to Coles (or start at Goodbar's next door). Then start walking back and make a stop at every bar on the west side of the street. You'll never make it if you do both sides...

Enlighten me...the republicans passed it without any support from the democratic majority? How did the reagan revolution occur when the democrats were in power? Which is it? The democrats were responsible for only the increased spending and not the tax cuts?

Stupid me. All this time I was arguing that the Reagan tax cuts didn't do what they claimed. sh--, it was the democrats who were responsible for the "reagan revolution." Ok, I now believe supply-side was responsible for the expansion of the 1980s, but not the recession of 1991-2; and it set the foundation for the expansion of the 1990s. Way to go democrats!!!!

I think I said something similar when you finally admitted that tax cuts would intially cause a decrease in tax revenues, only I substituted "keynesian" for s-s. Does this mean you agree the impact is from spending and not saving? Because that is the difference. Keynesian fiscal policy has always described the possibility of using increased spending or tax cuts to spark the economy, and the initial impact is an increase in the deficit--just as the evidence shows (better run a lap in reverse now...). The difference is we keynesians argue that the impact comes from increased spending by consumers, which has the secondary effect of increased spending by businesses as their sales increase. As for deficits, if you look at the history of the debate, conservatives (and conservative economists) were the ones who argued deficits were bad. Since the republicans' supply-side borrow and spend policies have caused the largest deficits, conservatives now are in the "deficits don't matter camp." Your (and my) view on deficits is the standard keynesian view.

Yes.

sh--! Sorry I missed this. This is so ironic. When I was in grad school conservative economists, those who would've been under Reagan or Bush1, argued that deficits do matter. My group, the other side, argued they don't;rather, it depends on where you are in the business cycle. In the current mess, when the private sector isn't borrowing, the government can borrow until the cows come home to suport spending. However, if we're in the middle of an expansion, then government borrowing competes with private borrowing. The impact will depend on whether the FED thinks it needs to constrain borrowing. Now that the right, the republicans, have borrowed so much, they HAVE to argue that deficits don't matter--they have no choice. Thier platform is borrow and spend. And the right wiing idiots here still support that crap.

As I've stated quite often, the initial impact (first year or two) is lower revenues when you cut rates--simple math. And tax cuts will increase spending because you've increased after-tax income. The difference between us is that I believe they have a greater impact if you cut rates for those who spend, you believe they have a greater impact if you cut rates for those who save--true?. Of course as the economy eventually expands, from the expansionary fiscal policy tax cut, revenues increase as more people find jobs and incomes increase--that's why I said you need to compare years with similar unemployment rates. And, as you correctly point out, if one is lucky to have a bouyant stock market, you also get a nice cap gains impact on personal revenues. While that helped clinton, what helped even more was the fact that greenspan let the economy continue to grow, allowing unemployment to fall below 6%, what was believed to be the "natural rate of unemployment." Can you figure out what happens to tax revenues when an extra 2-3 million people are working?

Was there a real estate tax code change under bush that caused the bubble? You dance around quicker than FredAStaire. I tell you the difference between 20% and 18.8% represents some real $, and you bring in the "Clinton bad" retort. Pot calling kettle black! Look, if you want to make a relatively decent comparison, take two years that are similar in terms of unemployment. For both, in their 6th years in office, unemployment under Clnton was 4.5%, and for bush it was 4.6%. Since people who work pay taxes, it "normalizes" the comparison when the unemployment rates roughly equivalent. In those years, total revenue under clinton was 20%, and peronal federal income tax revenues were 9.6%. For Bush, the numbers are 18.5% and 8.0%. In addition, cap gains taxes were the same, so the main difference was the personal tax rates. Hope this isn't too tehnical... The background is different from 20-40 years ago...no sh-- sherlock. Btw, how many times do I have to tell you that I am focusing on your supply-side rhetoric that tax cuts lead to higher revenues? Look, tax cuts can stimulate short run growth--that's standard keynesian policy because people have more after-tax inome to spend. However, deficits increase in the short run because of this. As growth picks up and unemployment falls revenues do rise. As for the long run, growth is a function of technology (productivity) and labor force growth. Sure, low taxes helped lure mncs to Ireland, but they wouldn't have come if there wasn't an educated workforce--taxes alone don't explain it.