You may wish to read the following: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/spending-and-tax-multipliers.htm. In fact, the multipliers for government spending are found to be amongst the least efficient. It’s really not hard to figure out when you consider that when govt. spends they are trying to force fit “investement” to fit what they want the world to look like i.e. they don’t have to justify it with a return, whereas if you let individuals or companies do it, they will make economically valued decisions. The other problem is that the only way that govt “invests” is to take those investment $ from another source i.e. taxing, borrowing etc. Even Obama’s newly appointed Chair of the Economic Council, I think much to her surprise, sees that taxes, increasing or decreasing, have a much larger impact on GDP than any form of direct govt. “stimulation.”

This no doubt explains why you spoke out against Bush’s spying, secret prisons and torture regimes.

Me, there’s only one aspect of the stimulation plan that I am definitely for: increased government spending on necessary infrastructure. I heard a very smart economist this morning explain to me that a) this (WWII) was what truly ended the great depression and b) that one gets a bigger bang out of this kind of government spending (+$2 GDP for every $1 you spend) than you do with, say, tax cuts (+$1.25 for every $1 you spend). Business tax cuts? Even middle-class tax cuts? I’d love to talk about those things later, but I’m convinced they should be a part of the stimulus package.

That would be the good news!

Of course, I’m already slated for the first train to the ObamiNation Memorial Reeducation Camp, so I don’t care about having that date moved up.

I’ve consistently been a “cut the spending” guy….I’ve been that way through Bush and will continue with Obama. No economy has ever spent their way to prosperity but many have failed attempting to do so.

O doesn’t need to say a thing. It’s better for him that Reid & Co. look like complete idiots on their own…

MMAC will push for a temp. injunction, and most likely win it. Barrett has no love for this ordinance at all…

I hate cooking my own breakfast.

If you think this recount was handled without prejudice, keep smoking what you got. There are numerous examples where similarly marked ballots were removed from votes for Coleman but included for votes for Franken. Not to mention the fact that if recount totals didn’t match vote night totals, the accepted count went to Franken’s advantage in every case.

Additionally, the suit that Coleman has filed is also provided for by Minnesota law, why can’t you accept that?

- A significant number of ballots that had so much as a stray mark next to Franken’s name were counted for Franken regardless of the condition of the remainder of the ballot, while a significant number of ballots that had so much as a stray mark somewhere other than besides Coleman’s name in the Senate portion of the ballot were not counted for Coleman regardless of whether a clear mark was next to Coleman’s name.
- The court-ordered inclusion of the “improperly rejected” absentee ballots is incomplete, and most of those from heavy-Franken areas were included while most of those from heavy-Coleman areas were not.
- The treatment of differences between the number of ballots cast as of election night and the number of ballots that physically existed when the recount took place had only one constant - it favored Franken.

Now, would you have been one of the few Democratic Senators that refused to seat the unelected Durkin before the second election? Somehow I doubt it.