I thought your main concern was the welfare of the unemployed people? Why spend money on all the ancillary items, when you can go directly to the source of the problem?

I'm just following your logic to conclusion. If the bailout does work (which you think it will), then in 4-5 years after the economy has been improving it's time to start balancing the budget. Except in 4-5 years there will be another downturn - business cycles aren't canceled yet, are they?

I said I wanted real people doing real work, not paying them to do nothing. And to do real work, they need real materials and real jobs for things that really need to be done.



You're not following my logical conclusion at all, since my assertion is that a stimulus targeted at creating real jobs for the middle class would boost the economy without a bubble. Bush's stimulus plan did the opposite in the early 2000's and that's why it burst so spectacularly. But the Clinton economy, while it did eventually create a bubble, lasted much longer and grew much faster. And the bubble that burst was much smaller and required a less expensive stimulus. Meanwhile, Clinton also managed to balance the budget during that time, something Bush and the Republicans never did.

That would mean a downturn somewhere between 6-8 years down the road, with reduced spending down the road, tax increases on the top tax rates, and a much more gentle recession when it inevitably arrives.

And you're proposing to spend a trillion dollars on that!

Again, I am flabbergasted that very few people on here seem to have a problem with the sheer size of the plan. A trillion dollar expense does not justify a short-term job creation boost, I don't care what side of the aisle you're on.


It seems to be that your logic is that if the president has an 'R' next to their name, then their policy create bubble, but if they have a 'D' next to their name than their policies don't create bubbles. What an amazing bit of critical thinking.

Newsflash: the housing bubble started long before Bush took office and Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the tech bubble.

And what makes you think that there won't be a bubble as a result of Obama's stimulus? We're talking about what, 60% of the trillion dollar package spent on infrastructure projects? Don't you think it will create a bubble in, oh I don't know, infrastructure spending?

That's hilarious.

Krem - 1
Everyone Else - 0

It's about what we're going to end up spending on the boondoggle in Iraq that you supported. Why is it okay to build schools, roads, and infrastructure for Iraqis but not Americans?

As for the size of the bill, it's $800 billion spread out over 3 years, or about $300 billion a year. Our defense spending alone is over $600 billion a year, more than the entire rest of the world combined.



I've repeatedly stated that I favor tax cuts and spending targeted at the middle class and the poor. I oppose policies that give the bulk or all of the benefits to the wealthy. I think the former is good for the economy, I think the latter is harmful. However that lines up along political lines is how it lines up.

Basing your economic policy on supply-side theory is like basing the space program on the theory that gravity repels things.



And yet that's exactly what happened during the Clinton years.

I wanted to comment on the stimulus. I really hope Republicans hold party lines and force the Democrats to take some of what I consider to be fluff out of this bill. Get rid of some of the projects I don't like, more mortgage and tax breaks.