Your view noted and disregarded out of hand.

Not unlike most facts it seems.

Seriously James, you need better spoofs.

In the first place moron, there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party".

Your view noted and disregarded out of hand.

I don't know Bit, did we need Jack and his Magic Transmission lines? I don't know how else we'd get them, short of identifying the need, fighting the NIMBYs, and building them.

Well, then where the hell were the Democrat party on this stuff a few years ago, before we got to the 'crisis' level? Is this the Rahm effect again?

Our unsustainable debt-fuelled boom, in other words, produced both the conditions for a major global financial disaster, and a political strengthening of the people who benefited most from the risk-taking and associated compensation packages that made this disaster possible. Ending the financial crisis is relatively straightforward - a forced recapitalization and change of ownership/management in the banking system - although this will not immediately lead to an economic recovery (more on that here). But seen in deeper political terms, decisive action to restructure large banks is almost impossible. Such action would require overcoming perhaps the single strongest interest group in the United States today.

As far as where the money goes, and how targeted the stimulus can/should be ... I think it matters less than economists think. Well I mean first economists are not the masters of prediction they think they are. And second broad spending is more likely to have broad impacts.

They only thing I'd look out for would be that projects are not so dumb that we wouldn't be doing them without the rush. I don't think we are in the kind of downturn where you do actually pay people to dig holes and then to fill them up again.

I thought it didn't matter where the money went

Thats your bushie philosophy, you know, the one that helped get us into this mess. We are trying to do things a little differently now.

so what you're saying is, that these aren't the best the democrat party has to offer? Gee, that wasn't the tune I was hearing just a short time ago

.

In the first place moron, there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party". But hey, wear your ignorance like a badge. You are sort of the OTB equivalent of the ditzy chick on the Progressive Insurance commercials

Secondly, I don't think you will find words of praise for Pelosi and Reid from me.

As for your other point, sorry, it is just too idiotic to respond to.

You will not get any argument from me that the Democrats on the hill have done us all a disservice by loading the bill up with Pork. Reid is an idiot and Pelosi is just a run of the mill political hack who is in over her head.

so what you're saying is, that these aren't the best the democrat party has to offer? Gee, that wasn't the tune I was hearing just a short time ago.

That being said, the GOP spent 600 billion on an elective war in Iraq while the right stood and cheered. We could use that money now, no?

I thought it didn't matter where the money went when stimulus was the order of the day? Didn't it, for example, bevacqua Jordi of that money go toward the manufacturer of military hardware from domestic sources? I should think that would be considered legitimate stimulus given the parameters that Obama has laid out for this bill that is forcing down our throats.

Oh, wait a minute. That's right, the current bill doesn't have any military spending in it, does it? He doesn't even LIKE the military, ala Clinton. I wonder how much he's spent on trying to find a new name for The War on Terror?.....

Lord knows, after having read the bill, the thing contains everything else but military spending, and for that matter anything but what I would call economic stimulus. Does seem to have a goodly amount of political payoffs attached to it though.

I think it's safe to say that if we need transmission lines,

If that's the issue then I would suggest to you that the first question that ought to be asked is what prevented us from installing those lines in the first place? But it be government backed NIMBY< by chance? Sorta like refineries, the railing, and nuclear power plants, but the isn't it?

Now, suddenly, we find ourselves in a situation where the entity that cause the problem ... the government ... suddenly wants to ride to the rescue? You'll forgive me if I don't stand and salute.

You will not get any argument from me that the Democrats on the hill have done us all a disservice by loading the bill up with Pork. Reid is an idiot and Pelosi is just a run of the mill political hack who is in over her head.

I pine for the days when talented people like Howard Baker and Tip O'Neil ran the show on the hill. Regardless of your politics, they were men of real ability who were worthy of respect.

That being said, the GOP spent 600 billion on an elective war in Iraq while the right stood and cheered. We could use that money now, no?

Reduced payroll taxes might "soften" the deleveraging in the sense that people will pay down their debts a little faster, but as observers note, if those credit repayments go to zombie banks, not much new lending or activity is likely to come out of it.

I think it's safe to say that if we need transmission lines, accelerating the projects will at least improve the chance that they are built in the tail of the recession. (In the best case scenario that they can be accelerated and that the recession is short.)

You all keep saying this -- or things very like it. Which can only mean you're not actually paying attention when we criticize this so-called stimulus. As usual, you're just attacking a strawman.

We don't (necessarily) object to infrastructure improvements. But, as pretty every commentator agrees, few of those kinds of projects can contribute to "stimulating" the economy because they simply can't get started fast enough. As such, there's absolutely no reason that such spending must be rushed out the door right friggin' now. Except, of course, that public opinion is turning sharply against the bill, so the Funding A Permanent Democrat Majority With Our Grandchildren's Money wishlist has to be rushed if it's to get passed at all.

While you all are busy pretending we oppose infrastructure spending per se simply because we don't like the mechanism by which its being (kinda-sorta) done, we aren't being fooled. Your attempts to distract, obfuscate, and keep the discussion away from our real complaints aren't working. No rational, intellectually honest person can claim $5 billion for ACORN, et al, will "stimulate" the economy. Nor will tens of millions for the NEA. Those may, or may not, be reasonable ways for the Democrats to spend taxpayer funds (probably not), but they have next to nothing to do with economic stimulus.

Just off the top of my head, FICA and payroll tax reductions/holidays would do a lot more (or, as noted above, there could be some significant unemployment/food stamp provisions), but Harry and Nancy wouldn't be able to control how that got spent, so they didn't happen.

THe military being one of the few functions of government actually constitutionally mandated.

This coming from the rocket scientist who insists the military is not part of the federal government.

I'll be kind and presume you've not compared the costs of each.

They are not equivalent, but that is not really the point. Besides what is the total cost of the unnecessary Iraq war skippy?

Eliminating it is the only real solution.

Must be nice for you having an ideology that relieves you from actually having to think about anything.

And Bit: Credit where credit is do, I actually agree with you here (except for the last part... SS is a problem that has to be addressed, sooner or later, a temporary reduction I might go along with, permanent... no way)

Eliminating it is the only real solution.

Funny bit, when you wanted to Invade Iraq, government was the ANSWER.

THe military being one of the few functions of government actually constitutionally mandated.

Its funny too, because when Bush spent on infrastructure in Iraq, the GOP was cheering. When Obama wants to spend on infrastructure in America, the GOP is furious...

I'll be kind and presume you've not compared the costs of each.

Well, actually it is sickening, not funny, but I think you see my point.