ByThe People On Line


On The News

Business & Technology on the New

World of Politics



Any Given Sunday - NFL Reality Check Weekend

ByThe People.org Sports Staff


Sept 16, 2012 can be labeled as the first of the many reality check weekends in the NFL as Baltimore, New England and the New York Jets all got a big time reminder of the perils of overconfidence in the NFL. In the case of Baltimore and New England, they just got beat by slightly lesser teams and the Jets simply showed they are not as good as they appeared in their first game. Unlike colleges every team in the NFL has some elite athletes and some elite coaches, and therefore can and often are very competitive. Remember the expression - "Any Given Sunday". Therefore if an NFL team does not bring their  “A” game on Sunday, they more than not get beaten. Further, as we all know by now an NFL team is never as good as they might appear to be in a blow out game.


Michael Vick made some horrible throws early in the  Baltimore game, and it look at first like Baltimore will have an easy victory. However the Ravens continually gave up big plays and their offense was weak to say the least. In the end it was Philadelphia winning late and a Ravens team left to figure out if it is really going to be one of the final playoff teams like everyone (including themselves) expect them to be. In the case of New England they ran into an up and down team named the Arizona Cardinals. On Sunday, the Cardinals were on their up day. If one were to review the statistics from the game, it looked like New England. However, field goals don’t win a lot of NFL games and New England had only one touchdown. More importantly, and most commentators agree on this point, New England is just an average team when their quarterback Tom Brady has an average game. No one “stops” Tom Brady and the New England offense. However if you keep him from making big plays, New England is beatable.


Finally there was a lot of hype about the Jets offense after their 48-28 season-opening win over Bills. However the old and injured Steelers still know how to play defense at home and after an early Jets touchdown (where the Pittsburgh safety bit on a fake and let his cornerback out to dry on a slant pattern), the Steeler defense was there normal hard hitting selves. At that point, Sanchez once again disappointed his followers with off the money throws in the second half. Further, the Pittsburgh receivers took many hard hit but hung onto the ball time after time. More importantly Big Ben of the Steelers showed that a play is never over until he is on the ground. Therefore if one were to rank reality checks this weekend, the New York Jets got the biggest reality check. They simply aren’t as good as they thought they were. Hence, as the expression goes  “welcome to the NFL”  anything can happen "Any Given Sunday"..

"The U.S. State Will Expand Whoever Wins", Larry Summers
Op-Ed, Financial Times

August 19, 2012

Author: Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor


With the selection of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, it is clear both political parties agree that the central issue in the presidential election will be the scale and scope of government involvement in the US economy. There will be disagreement over what constituted “normal” levels of spending in the past and indeed over what constitutes “spending”. But there is a widespread view in both parties that it is feasible and desirable that in the future the federal government will be no larger as a share of the overall economy than it has been historically.

Unfortunately, this aspiration is unlikely to be achieved. Even preserving the amount of government functions the US had before the financial crisis will require substantial increases in the share of the economy devoted to the public sector. This is the case for several structural reasons.

First, demographic change will greatly expand federal outlays unless politicians decide to degrade the level of protection traditionally provided to the elderly. Between Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other smaller programmes, about 32 per cent of the US federal budget, or about 7.7 per cent of gross domestic product, is devoted to supporting those aged over 65. The ratio of this age group to those of working age will increase from 1:4.6 to 1:2.7 over the next generation, implying a rise in federal spending of 5.6 percentage points of GDP, if no other adjustments are made. True, as Americans’ health and life expectancy improve, it may be appropriate to revise upward the assumed retirement age. However, it will be unlikely to counteract the expected 34 per cent increase over the next generation in the share of the population who will be within 15 years of estimated life expectancy.

Second, the accumulation of more debt and a return to normal interest rates will raise the share of federal spending devoted to interest payments. In 2007, before the financial crisis, federal debt held by the public was equivalent to 36.3 per cent of GDP. On a very optimistic view, where recommendations such as those of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Bowles-Simpson commission) are implemented, net debt held by the public will nearly double to 65 per cent of GDP by 2020. This implies that the federal government’s outlays to service its debt will rise from 1.7 per cent of GDP in 2007 to 3.2 per cent of GDP in 2020.

Third, increases in the price of what the federal government buys relative to what the private sector buys will inevitably increase the cost of state involvement in the economy. Since the early 1980s the price of hospital care and higher education has risen fivefold relative to the price of cars and clothing and more than 100-fold relative to the price of televisions. Similarly, the complexity and hence the cost of everything from cutting-edge scientific research to regulating banks rises faster than overall inflation. These trends reflect long-running trends in globalisation and technology. They imply that if government is to continue providing the same level of these services, government spending as a share of the economy has to rise, by at least 3 per cent of GDP.

Fourth, several methods that have been used to repress the deficit will soon be found to be unsustainable. Federal pension liabilities and the deferred maintenance of federal infrastructure are two examples.

Meanwhile, there is a steady decline in the fraction of tax returns that are audited and there is evidence of growing tax non-compliance. Both are a reflection of unsustainable cuts in spending. And on almost any reasonable view of the state’s responsibility, large increases in inequality such as those we have observed in recent years should call forth increased government activity. All of these factors suggest the likelihood of increased pressure on federal budgets over the years ahead.

There are ways in which federal spending can be reduced. Defence spending, which now represents 4.7 per cent of GDP (its average level over the past 40 years) could be reduced significantly. On the other hand, the fact that in a dangerous world our military is badly stretched by sustained deployments that are far smaller than even the first Iraq war suggests there is little ground for confidence that the Pentagon budget will be cut dramatically.

In some areas technology could greatly reduce government costs but it is important to recognise that by far the largest parts of the federal budget involve cash or in-kind transfers. These parts are far less susceptible to productivity-enhancing technologies than areas that involve the production of goods or services. There is scope for the elimination of outdated or duplicate programmes but efforts to identify waste, fraud and abuse invariably come up with only negligible savings.

For the next three months the US will debate the merits of growing versus shrinking government. But for the next three decades it will confront the reality that major structural changes in the economy will compel an increase in the public sector’s fraction of the total economy unless there is a substantial scaling down in the functions that the federal government has long performed. How government can best prepare for the pressures that will come, and how greater revenues can be mobilised without damaging the economy, are the great economic questions for the next generation.

The writer is Charles W. Eliot university professor at Harvard.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 4 of 90

ByThePeople Polls

MB DB function failed with error number 1030
Got error 28 from storage engine SQL=SELECT p.* FROM jos_pollxt_menu AS pm, jos_pollsxt AS p WHERE (pm.menuid='1' OR pm.menuid='0') AND p.id=pm.pollid AND p.published=1 AND (p.datefrom < '2014-04-20' OR p.datefrom='0000-00-00' OR (p.datefrom = '2014-04-20' AND p.timefrom <= '10:14:27') ) AND (p.dateto > '2014-04-20' OR p.dateto='0000-00-00' OR (p.dateto = '2014-04-20' AND p.timeto >= '10:14:27') ) AND p.logon=0 AND (p.type = '1' OR p.type = '0') ORDER BY p.ordering
FROM jos_pollxt_menu AS pm, jos_pollsxt AS p
WHERE (pm.menuid='1' OR pm.menuid='0') AND p.id=pm.pollid 
AND p.published=1
AND (p.datefrom < '2014-04-20' OR p.datefrom='0000-00-00' OR (p.datefrom = '2014-04-20' AND p.timefrom <= '10:14:27') )
AND (p.dateto > '2014-04-20' OR p.dateto='0000-00-00' OR (p.dateto = '2014-04-20' AND p.timeto >= '10:14:27') ) 
AND p.logon=0
AND (p.type = '1'
OR p.type = '0')
ORDER BY p.ordering
Currently no polls available to vote