dayman

What would you do, mighty DC Tom?

It is time for Putin to bend over. His hostility towards this truth is hostility. Hostile Putin, never change.

Should Russia not just join the West? What are the odds some sort of superior prosperity comes to any organization that isn't working in conjunction with "the west?"

Spoken like an American. A Ukrainian opposition supporter would feel differently I think.

This whole deal could end up being the first step in what becomes Putin's undoing.

"The youth these days, they suck." -said every older generation ever Pretty sure this topic is a little reactionary.

Haha, most definitely. I don't get it either, obviously. Point being if there is productive and nonproductive ways to spend money then multipliers are real eh?

As I understand it, in a sensible world we would run surpluses in good times and then spend that money in down times. In doing so we transfer jobs through time, thus smoothing out the ups and downs. This can be particularly useful in disaster situations. Unfortunately, we run nothing but deficits all the time regardless of who is in power. In any event, this is a pointless paragraph because this is not the world we live in and it addresses general Keynesian principles and not the multiplier directly. So as I understand the actual argument about multipliers, it is your basic loop. How much of the extra spending is spent again, and how many times that loop repeats itself will vary based on general conditions and who gets the money. Under the right conditions and with the right kind of spending, you can get money into the hands of people who spend it like crazy and the loop goes on for quite a bit. In this scenario, the "multiplier" will be greater than 1. In other words, I do believe the multiplier is real. So what about stimulus spending to take advantage of the multiplier in times of crisis when we weren't running surpluses first and basically borrow or print the money? I think it is pretty clear to everyone printing money doesn't create wealth, but it creates money. In theory, if the multiplier on that money is large and the economy is hurting badly, this could be worth it. Borrowing money can be viewed only as creating future taxes (although that view is highly theoretical in my opinion, based on what I see us and other nations actually do). But the key is, when faced with certain conditions and certain kinds of spending during those conditions--can you hit a multiplier that helps you come out of the hole more quickly and thus be worth it in the end...despite the problems with having not run surpluses first. I think the answer is yes, you can. But it is far from some magic thing that will fix everything. And it isn't easy to do. That said, I'm not an economist I just read the paper and blogs. I'm an idiot.

You really can't prevent fraud in the system b/c one way or another any form of control will violate one of the endless nondiscrimination regulations and/or guidance bits out there. As for why they give the money, b/c of the kids of course.

I am dumbfounded by this story. Where I live this is commonplace and expected. Additionally, insurance companies literally put up huge billboards outside of the dumpy towns that make all their money on speed traps telling everyone "SPEED TRAP AHEAD."

"Now pay attention boys, I'm only going to show you this once."

It is true, and I have seen that Tyson interview before. Where I disagree with his point is (1) his dismissive take on politics and (2) his ignoring the fact that scientists within the administration have said they felt constrained. The politics of science are (imo) extremely important. The messaging from high-profile Americans about science is (once again imo) extremely important. The "anti-science base" (so to speak) needs to yanked along...not publicly placated too. Frankly, as a public champion and promoter of science, I was surprised when seeing that for the first time to see Tyson so willing to accept the fact that one part will always pander to an anti-science crowd. Also, while Tyson analyzed the money (which is obviously extremely important) he would probably feel differently if he were actually in the administration as an adviser (although he was on a few different committees for specific issues like awards and NASA): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opAXiYr1ubo The messaging is important. High level advisers did feel constrained. And the politics of certain science issues did retard the nations progress in certain areas for no reason (especially on the stem cell issue which is as retarded as it gets in my book, but that is besides the point). Either way just my opinion. But if you want hold up Bush a champion of science, then feel free to do so

Bush years were not literally ant-science...but it was about as anti-science as any administration will be in this nation.

Agreed. Arby's is fantastic compared to most other fast food chains. Anyway the Bills would be Kmart. Still exists, has been trash for many years, tries to invent itself frequently and fails.

We're really just talking about the financial class/institutions v. the non-financial class/institutions are we not? I mean, is this less about success than it is about modern banking?

Boring coach-speak is what that will get ya. What Sherman said reflects his mind on the field in that moment. Fans want to hear that sort of thing.

This issue is a "fun v. no-fun" issue and nothing more. Sherman is awesome.

Nobody is saying "BOOM!" is needed. "BOOM!" is just awesome.

Not sure if this was posted already but Sherman wrote a little op-ed: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/20/richard-sherman-interview-michael-crabtree/ As far as Crabtree being a top-20 NFL receiver, you’d have a hard time making that argument to me. There are a lot of receivers playing good ball out there, and Josh Gordon needed 14 games to produce almost double what Crabtree can do in a full season. And Gordon had Brandon Weeden, Brian Hoyer and Jason Campbell playing quarterback. BOOM!

He was no Alan Simpson but the nation will miss him.

Manning v. Brady is probably the best overall story line in NFL history. It should win this poll.

Omaha! Omaha! Broncos and 9ers win today.

Evans is the guy imo.

Either way we don't have to go #1 to get better at OL. We may have to go #1 to truly change the passing dynamic.

lol I think you overestimate the national stage.