Mavric

It's clearly explained in the link. This is the cost (or benefit) of every single piece of legislation signed by Obama and Bush. If it was signed by Bush, it goes to his column. If it was signed by Obama, it goes to his column. No more and no less than that. (Edit: I'll respond to the rest of your points later. Getting ready for a very busy week.) Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics. You can make the numbers tell whatever story you want. Whether or not they mean anything is a different matter. My main point on Iraq and Afghanistan is that Obama has basically continued Bush's policies including adding more troops in Afghanistan but because it started under Bush it all goes to him - even though Obama at the very least increased the troop presence in Afghanistan. Technically by they way they set up their comparison that are showing it correctly. But by that logic we could relocate the entire armed forces to Iraq and it would count as Bush spending money because it was a continuation of a Bush policy. By the way, where is the "cost" of the payroll tax "holiday" that has been in effect for over a year? The United States has spent approx. $3.5 trillion each of the last three years. If that were to stay the same (unlikely), that would be $28,000,000,000,000 over eight years. By thei count, Obama would only be "responsible" for $983B of that amount. That would mean there is only "responsibility" for about 3.5% of total spending - and if that isn't the definition of a spending problem, I don't know what is.

Care to give us any examples?

No way am I saying he is bursting with talent, but Doc screwed the pooch with Elliason. He is looking like an All B1G guy today. He is a role player that brings things to the floor that NU doesn't have. I watched Eliason play several times in high school and just wasn't sure he was big-time D1 material. 6 points and 4 boards in 17 minutes isn't exactly setting the world on fire but we could sure use some big bodies with at least some potential.

Second.

To me, some are having trouble adjusting to this FACT: Not an excuse. Just the way college football is in the 21st century.

How has there been nearly as much added to the deficit in three years under Obama as there was under 8 years of Bush yet the entire amount under Bush gets put on him but only about 20% goes to Obama. Seems to me like they're the ones cherry-picking numbers. Where is the other $4B since he was elected? Maybe Obama didn't directly sign off on it but he's done nothing to stop it. IIRC, there's been bigger deficits in each year under Obama than ever under Bush. Obviously the economy has a lot to do with that but that's a pretty weak distinction, IMO. Also, it goes back to my point about Congress having more responsibility over the budget. Maybe it's not any bigger because the "party of No" has the majority in the House. On Iraq, etc., again, it's not so much that he's "responsible" for it, just that he's kept the operations going but doesn't get marked down for that because it wasn't "his decision" (btw, I don't think he voted against it as he wasn't elected until 2004 but I assume he would have). My point was that the resolution passed by better than a 2-1 margin in both the House and Senate so there was wide support for it. Not as much support amongst Dems but many still supported it. I've also always wondered how legit the cost of war numbers are. Are they gross or net numbers - that is, we're going to have equipment and manpower costs whether we're at war or not but I've never seen it explained which way the numbers are being presented. Not arguing that being at war increases costs, just don't know if the numbers being show are the increased costs (net) or the total costs (gross). My guess is they're gross but I don't know. Defense costs - so Obama fought against any strings on the debt ceiling increase but gets credit for the ones that happen? Pretty much like having your cake and eating it too. And he doesn't get blamed for increases in defense spending on his watch because he didn't sign off on it? Then what are Bush's other costs outside the wars? I was looking at the CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook paper for the numbers (Appendix F). I couldn't find the 2011 data the other day but I did now. I must have looked at something wrong because it should have been about 26% over those two years (24% on the 2011 data). But, compared to 2008, there was $58B more in 2009, $136B in 2010 and $124B in 2011. But it shows a decrease to the deficit for Obama in that area. So Obama pushes the CLASS Act which fails in less than two years, the Republicans are pushing to repeal it but the White House and Senate say they don't want to. But you're still giving Obama credit for being "fiscally responsible" based on that program? How do you explain that? I would say the chances of ACA coming out in the black are slim based on Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office and the not-even-implemented CLASS Act all running in the red. I'm not sure what major government social program isn't running deficits (I'm not including the Post Office as a "social program").

@knapplc - Spent from 7AM Friday to 1AM Sat trying to get everyone's lights back on. If you've got an extra one of those, it could come in handy.

Outside of the two JUCOs, I wouldn't mind seeing everyone redshirt. Not that I don't think there's talent, but we're staring to stockpile talent which I like. I won't be surprised if one or two of the true frosh play on D but the JUCOs hit the two levels where we need the most help.

Between ESPN Classic and Fox Sports, I think I went three or four years between seeing a game that the Huskers won.

Late run by Missouri pushes them to a 39-34 halftime lead.

It's only going to SEEM like there's 28 of Rex on the field versus the Badgers next year.

Did Kansas bring the Phog with them to Columbia? Looks hazy in there.

I've said this on numerous occasions as well. For whatever reason, Bo's first two classes (altough it's hard to dock him too much for 2008) weren't the greatest. I think we've seen a marked improvement in recruiting the last three classes. Some people claim Bo isn't "growing" as a head coach. I see the improvement in recruiting as a major sign of him learning what all it takes to have a complete program.

To me, 2 OL per year is basically the minimum so we just made it. I haven't heard anything more lately about a possible transfer from last year but we could go from 8 over the last two years (with Peat) which would have set us up really nicely for the next three years or so to possibly six which isn't bad but not great either. I really like Moore and Sirles so I think we're in good shape at T for two more years (at least) but I'll bet we'll be looking for at least one next time around.

Seems like the 2009 class was a lot of feast or famine. Who knows where we'd be without Rex and several other have been big contributors (Martinez, Randle, Sirles, Gomes and Kinnie with Ankrah, Martin and Green coming on late). However, there were quite a few that didn't do anything (I count 10 out of 20 that probably won't make much - if any - on-field contributions and it could be 11 if Pensick doen't get the nod at C).

We seem to have done pretty well with the JUCO guys lately. Hopefully a full year of being in Lincoln will get him ready to go.

Offense QB - Martinez RB 1 - Burkhead RB 2 - Abdullah FB - Marrow LT - Sirles LG - Choi C - Long RG - Klachko RT - T. Moore TE 1 - B. Cotton TE 2 - Reed WR (x) - Enunwa WR (z) - Turner WR (y) - Bell Defense RE - Meredith DT - Steinkuhler DT - Rome LE - Carter Sam - Whaley Mike - Compton Will - Anderson Nickel - Evans CB - Green CB - Seisay SS - Stafford FS - Smith Special Teams We all know Maher will be K & P PR - Abdullah KR - Abdullah KR - Turner

The problem is that they fund required books but not suggested other books. The bookstore was also giving them the optional books which is a violation (apparently).

But the vast majority of Top 25 schools are a lot closer to large population centers so, as was mentioned above, they are a lot closer to a lot more recruits that don't have to fly at all or are closer to "major" airports.

Eh ... lies, damn lies and statistics. As I've said, Bush was not great on spending by any means but I'm not sure about how they picked and chose what numbers to include. We've been well over trillion-dollar defecits for several years so to say Bush was responsible for basically the entire debt accumulated during his presidency while Obama is only responsible for about 20% during his doesn't seem to make sense to me. Also, I'm not sure why some numbers are included on Bush's side but not Obama's. - Obama doesn't get anything for Iraq and Afganistan? You can claim it was Bush's War but there was pretty wide support throught government at the outset. - Defense spending increased some $42B in FY2009 and another $33B in FY2010 so I'm not sure how Bush gets docked $616B while Obama gets credit for decreasing the defecit $271B on defense. - Non-Defense discretionary has also increased significantly in the last two years (by nearly 50%) but again Obama gets credit for reducing the defecit. - Showing a health care reduction is sketchy at best. It isn't scheduled to be fully implemented until 2014 so it only counts for three years on the chart but may have longer-term implications that could be much worse. Plus, it looks like we're already having to abandon the CLASS Act part because it isn't fiscally sustainable. Makes me wonder what other parts won't add up how they're "supposed" to.

I'm aware of that. But the reports out of practice were that he wasn't coming along very quickly.

They've apparently been practicing Long there since Caputo got his DUI to prepare for the bowl game if Caputo couldn't end up going. Pensick has been the backup for Caputo for what amounts to two years now though. And he did come in a couple times this year when Mike got banged up. Very interesting though... Do they go with the backup or slide a guard who's started a full season over. I also realize I forgot to mention Jake Cotton above^^^ Should factor in at guard. I've been hoping Reeves would deliver on they hype early and step right in to anchor the Pipeline for four years but that doesn't look too likely now. With how good he looked this year and how smart he apparently is, I could definitely see Long slide over and man that spot for the next couple years.

Our OLine has been a problem for a lot longer than Pelini has been here - unless you go back to his 2003 season as DC and then you'd probably be getting close. I thought last year's class was the best one we'd had in awhile but obviously we haven't seen a lot of it yet. The two guys we got today look like a solid continuation but getting Peat or another sold recruit would have even been better. However, those seven should set us up fairly nicely for the next four years or so. I finally thought our OLine was turning the corner early in the year even though it was against lesser competition. We slid back for a couple games but I thought we finished strong so that gives me hope that we're headed in the right direction. If you've got a really good OLine, you can do about whatever you want with the other six guys on the field.

My first thought was "We had touble being .500 in the Big XII, I can't imagine we'd make it in the B1G". But we've played noticably better since we got rid of some of the injuries and have broken 70 a few times. I'd say we make a run but come up short.

2nd Sweet! Thanks.