You spend a bit more until the economy does recover. So long as the recession is expected to be short term (i.e. a few years) and not permanent or long term, then you don't have so much of a problem. History has shown that over the long term economies will grow at a fairly consistent rate (the amount escapes me atm, IIRC it's around 1-2% pa), so it would be unrealistic to expect things not to recover. You would only say 'enough is enough' if you believed that you wouldn't have such a recovery eventually.

While I agree with the first part (it's pretty much exactly what I've been saying), I disagree with the second. The economic cycle has it's ups and downs - during the ups you should be reducing the deficit (and ideally creating a surplus), but during the downs you should then increase the deficit. The result is that instead of a 'boom-bust' style economy you create one with smooth, steadily, reliable growth. Because you don't grow excessively you're far less likely to suffer negative growth, meaning confidence will be far higher, businesses can plan further in the future, can undertake investment with greater confidence/less risk, and you benefit overall as a result.

It's too late to save now, but that shouldn't mean the second part is similarly abandoned - it would still be better to borrow now (and repay it in the next growth period) than to let the recession get even worse - for a start you'd help avoid some of the 'negative spiral' effects such as demand falling causing firms to fire staff to cut costs causing demand to fall further.

I'm not supporting that if you noticed - I was dubious at the time whether it was a good idea (since the only reasons I could think of for trying to justify it were never really made, making me doubt whether such reasons existed), and nothings happened since to really make me change that view. It's essentially spending money to boost banks balance sheets, and hoping that will feed through to increased loans and hence increased demand, as opposed to just spending that money directly (and/or giving it to people who will spend it)

True there may be issues with accessability to certain markets and how easily transferable skills are for them. I've no problem with someone who argues that money shouldn't be spent in x area because of that (since if new workers can't get to that market then the whole point of the spending in the first place is largely negated). However until now I haven't seen anyone trying to argue that. To be clear though I have no problem with tempoary jobs that won't last where it is fairly easy for people to switch into that occupation. In fact to achieve the aim of boosting demand, the government could take it to the extreme and hire people to dig holes, then hire more people to fill in those same holes (and make the jobs low paying to attract those with the highest marginal propensity to spend). Similarly a less extreme version would be to get people to do a job that machines could do slightly more efficiently (such as helping build roads) if using the machines would take too much time in training.

Nice theory, but won't happen.  There's not a chance in hell of any of the programs sundowning - they'll just find something new with which to justify their continuing existence.  Too many people (read: voters) will be dependent on them for any group of politicians to have the guts to pull the plug and mission creep is a too well-entrenched a feature of bureaucratic life.  Never been a bureaucrat who hasn't claimed that if they'd just had 'enough' money, the mission would have been achieved, the corollary being that no program has ever had 'enough' money.

I do agree that it would be unrealistic to expect things not to recover - which is why we don't need to dig this monstrous money crater that our kids & grandkids will have break their backs to fill.

That'd be nice it would work but as past experience has shown us once the government grows it doesn't ever contract.

But how much is a bit more?  $1 billion? $50 billion? $100 billion? $500 billion?  At what point do you declare we have spent enough?  If the theory is that the economy will recover anyway then why bother spending any money to "stimulate" it, why not just let it run it's course and maybe up the unemployment benefits period to help people cope in the mean time?  Why create a false demand for jobs in the mean time?

This would be the absolute worst application of tax payer money.  I would much rather increase unemployment benefits to have the person out there looking for a real job rather than paying them to do an absolutely worthless job.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not too sanguine on the future of our Constitutional republic.  Our representatives no longer seem to represent and are about to voluntarily transform us into a socialist republic, apparently on the theory that one large socialist republic will succeed where a union of separate socialist republics has been shown to fail.  That the Dems and their media sycophants have managed to persuade a sizable number of our citizens that our own fundamental principles of freedom and free enterprise are our problem is simply tragic.  The systematic dismantling of our Constitutional republic starts with HR1 of the 111th.

According to an article that I read on either Foxnews or cnn (I can't remember which) the democratic representatives are told to basically fall in line with the party leadership.  I beleive the representative that was interviewed (the name escapes me but it was one of the 11 that voted against the stimulus bill in the House) said that he felt as though the representatives were treated as "mushrooms".  I can't say for certain but I would assume the the republican leadership treats their representatives in much the same way.  This is why we end up with votes that end up along strict party lines so often, our representatives no longer represent the people but the party.  Why anyone continues to re-elect these jokers is beyond me.

Interesting take on it from across the pond.

Just make sure that any spending plans are 1-offs (even if you spread out the spending over several years). That way to keep spending that money once the recession is over the government would effectively need a new bail out bill which would be far harder to justify politically (and economically). The government also realistically wouldn't be able to keep maintaining a massive deficit indefinitely - they'd have to cut back, even if they only did it in proportionate terms rather than nominal terms (e.g. keep spending the same amount while enjoying slowly increasing tax revenues meaning the deficit falls steadily, and the percentage of GDP being spent also falls).

Please show me where they've 'made sure' of that.

"Just make sure that any spending plans are 1-offs"

Once the government gets into things, it is hard to get them out.  We were paying a tax on telecomunications that was enacted in 1898 during the Spanish-American War.  Back then only the "rich" had phones.  It took over 100 years to get that one repealed.

There is more permanent and certain-to-grow bureacracy created by this bill than by all the bills since LBJ created the Great Society.  That worked out well, didn't it?  Liberals are one-trick ponies - make it bigger, create more bureacrats (read: Democrat voters), steal spend more money.  Rinse, repeat.  What's the problem we're trying to fix, you ask?  Doesn't matter - any and all problems will do.

1. Energy efficiency - spending money on it will slightly decrease greenhouse emissions at the cost of harming the economy. Humanity accounts of 3% of the total global carbon emissions. Carbon Dioxide is harmless to humans and animals and healthy for plants, and the global heating trend in the last few years is firmly tied to sun activity (back in the 1970s they were saying carbon emissions cause global COOLING... which was ALSO caused by sun activity). While I firmly supported this before, all the reliable research shows that it is the sun activity that is causing this, not human carbon emissions.

PS. renewable is not GREEN, it is more environmentally damaging then conventional power sources; massive tracts of land need to be cleared, materials minded and process, etc, to produce renewable sources (like wind and solar). NUCLEAR is green, it has the smallest footprint of any other type of energy source known to man.

2. Security personel - We have too many of those actually, specifically ones whose jobs is to do illigal survailence of americans, fight the war on drugs, etc... we need cuts, not expanding of those programs.

3. Waste disposal - we already are disposing of waste, this is also most likely more recycling bullshit, which actually does more harm to the environment, AND it harms the ecnomy.

4. Flood defences - that is actually a good and necessary spenditure, that should go through, but it should not go through as part of an economy stimulus plan, it will harm to economy (money wasted), but it will help protect people and property from a potential disaster, this should go on its own bill.

5. STDs are not health epidemics in the united states, and the only people affected by it are those who practice unsafe sex... they to the deed, they are welcome to the consequences.

6. The only "education" I see there is "educate about the dangers of alcohol and tabacco"... everyone ALREADY KNOWS they are dangerous, and the government plans are so ineffective they could actually be blamed to increase consumption. Some bimbo saying this is your brain on drugs and then destroy a kitchen is not going to make kids avoid drugs.

7. Fire services - IF, and ONLY IF, you have an underfunded fire department, then it needs to have it boosted. But it should be its own bill, and it will not stimulate the economy. However most likely its a case of a perfectly funded firestations which are going to get more money, which will help the SPECIFIC counties getting the money (the stations will spend it locally obviously) at the cost of taxpayers in the entire country, thus it is pork.

the simple fact of the matter is so little money out of this is really going to something useful . most of the good stuff could have gone in a difrent bill... Like schools... this is a long term investment.... something that will pay off in the long run...why not have that spreate so they get it right?  This has nothing to do with stimulating the economy

What we DESPERATELY need is massive spending CUTS. the united states was a shining beacon of technology and freedom, leading the world, with seemingly infiniate resources... the rest of the world cought up... and the united states pertended it didn't and kept extravagantly spending, digging itself deeper and deeper into dept.

We can't keep pretending, but that is exactly what they are doing, they are pretending we have infinite money, and go out and borrow 800 billion and dump it on programs. Those programs happen to be bullshit, but even if they were useful programs than it still should not happen, we SHOULD be cutting useful and NECESSARY programs that we simply cannot AFFORD to balance the budget. Yes it sucks, but thats the reality, we simply don't have the money.

You know damn well that wont happen with the Dems controling all 3 aspects of the gov... in fact be ready for even more spending...

Boy and here when I called out BO supportedrs and they were all like " WEEL HE PROMISES TO BALANCE THE BUDGET!!" where did those people go...o thats right... those of us that were not riding his nuts saw though the lies!

But as I have said there are some programs that are good things... hence the reason why I am not a true blue Rep... but I will give you that less gov and less spending always helps.