shelby7vdy: Making Easy Money

Harry How/Getty Images

While the Cincinnati Bengals don’t have much more to play for, the San Diego Chargers' postseason destiny already seems sealed, as they are one game behind Kansas City in the division and a wild-card berth is unlikely, as they are two games behind both Baltimore and the New York Jets.

Our latest NFL odds have the Chargers as -7.5 in this one with an over/under of 44 points.

Still, the Bolts will come to play behind standout QB Philip Rivers, who has the second best passing offense in the NFL and has thrown for 4,141 yards and 29 touchdowns with just 11 INTs.

The Bolts sure turned things around after starting the year 2-5 and went on a tear including a stretch of six wins and a single loss to the Raiders in Week 13. However, that loss to Oakland can be labeled as the one that ended their hopes of clinching the club's fifth straight AFC West title, as well as knocked them out of playoff contention.

The Chargers have played masterfully at times, and besides Rivers’ golden arm, they have also been able to nurture their rushing attack back from extinction. Running back Mike Tolbert leads the charge with 737 yards and 11 touchdowns, while Ryan Mathews is looking to have a bright future after several early season setback and rookie mistakes.

As good as the offense is, the defense has been that much better and ranks third against the pass and 11th against the run. Shaun Phillips leads the Bolts' pass rush with 11 sacks, while Antoine Cason has snatched a team-high four of the Chargers' 14 interceptions for the year.

That could play a huge role in cutting off the Bengals' passing attack in this one, as QB Carson Palmer has thrown 18 interceptions so far this season. Offensively, the Bengals have been dreadful, with many of Carson’s 3,396 passing yards and 21 touchdowns coning in garbage time.

The season has been a huge disappointment for Cincinnati, as they went from first to worst in the AFC North in just a single season and have one of the worst records in the entire NFL this season.

Running back Cedric Benson has gained 1,006 yards and seven touchdowns on the ground, but he too has continued to perform a little too late.

Flashy and sometimes controversial wide receiver Terrell Owens leads the Bengals in receiving but will miss the remainder of the year, leaving Chad Ochocinco as Carson’s main target.

Defensively, the Bengals have not been kittens, holding the opposition to just 25.9 points per game. With plenty of young talent, this could be the core strength of the team heading into next season.

Free Prediction: San Diego -7.5

I expect the Chargers to win this one outright and against the spread with their ability to move the ball and their stingy defense.

Interested in making some money this NFL season? Check out what our expert NFL handicappers have to offer in their weekly NFL picks.

Matt Schneider wrote “As intelligently noted at Hot Air, defaulting on one’s debts is not exactly “fiscally conservative,” not to mention the wisdom of following this advice is doubtful given that a Republican-induced economic collapse…”

A few questions for Matt: can you please elaborate on how not extending the debt ceiling is “defaulting on one’s debts?” More specifically, on what partifular debts will be be unable to *avoid default* if the debt ceiling is not raised? For example, if we commence bringing the troops home right now and close a bunch of overseas bases, will that save enough money such that we don’t need to increase the debt ceiling in April (I believe that is when it is expected to be reached). How about if we abolish the Departments of Education, Energy, HUD, etc.? If we make drastic cuts to such government entities, are we STILL going to default on anything? Or is the threat of default simply a concept to hide behind for those who want to continue unsustainable spending?

Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Using 2010 as a baseline, we brought in 200 billion more in revenue than what is described here as “mandatory” spending. That suggests after mandatory spending, we could use the remaining 200 billion to operate the Federal Government. Further, I bet a bunch of what is listed as Mandatory Spending in the Wikipedia link is not really that. There’s about 600 billion of unspecified “other mandatory spending” in there, much of which is probably hooey. And commencing the restructuring of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid would similarly provide more headroom. So, the Dept of Education disappears? So what? The Dept of Ed we have totday didn’t exist before 1979. Did the country collapse without it? No. (In fact, Education was both better and cheaper.) Same with the Dept of Energy. Will the country collapse without the Dept of Energy? No. They don’t produce any energy. Same goes for 90% of our bloated government. We need courts. We need defense. (Though we’d be fine with a fraction of what we spend on defense now.)

Hard cuts are just that. HARD. Does not mean they don’t need to be made.

If the approach to a “debt ceiling” is to raise it every time it is reached, it’s not a debt ceiling at all. It’s a fat guy who gets fatter every day, with a legal commitment in writing to start a diet tomorrow. Always tomorrow.

What is more evil? Making hard cuts while we (perhaps) still can? Or kicking the can down the road to GUARANTEED PAINFUL, GUARANTEED COLLAPSE?

When two laws conflict, how are they reconciled? If we have a law that obligates us to spend, and a law that says we can’t spend any more, why is your default resolution that the “don’t spend any more” law is the one that must yield?

Curious to hear what you think.

Regards,

bench craft company reviews bench craft company reviews

Monday, January 10, 2011

Making Easy Money

No comments:

Post a Comment