my whole problem with the the right is its all motivated in selfishness. some christians they are. when you are concerned about "we the people" including as the bible say "the least" then you can come to a rationale conclusion. if not then you are just a sheeple shilling for the plutocrats and oligarchs.

its the democrats who get offended from the debt clock being shown in the chambers. its them who have the problem while putting us into debt slavery. They just keep printing...... they are idiots and traitors.

1) Stimulus doesn't work like that though.  If it did it'd be awesome... but it never seems to work out.  All it does is fill that hole with garbage that eventually must be removed and then you get more economic downturn.   Hence the whole double dip recession worries.  You can't get out of paying the piper.  It's just a matter of if you prefer to rip off a band-aid or prefer to pull at it very slowly.

Generally ripping it off is beter in the long term assuming you can provide for everyones physical needs, because real growth starts sooner, and comounds faster.

2)  The bailout and the stimulus were too different things, the theory behind the bailout was that if the banks failed the credit market would freeze and nobody could get a loan.  So the bailouts happened.... and the credit market froze.   

Why?  Because the Federal Reserve upped the interest it gave a bank for holding money in reserve, so rather then lend it to your average person they held tight.

Meanwhile small mom and pop  banks which were doing awesome and popping up all over the place were crushed by the big banks... those that survived and even some of the smaller chain banks are now getting crushed by the new Dodd-Frank legislation that puts higher regulations on all banks.  (Regulations are like taxation, when flat they weigh heaviest on the "poor".  Which is why we should have progressive regulations.)

Which is why our two big to fail banks are even bigger.

Had we let them default...?    We'd have a much smaller more diverse set of banks right now.  

The stimulus was different, and mostly wasted or just used to plug budget deficits already on the books.

3) Welfare vs Government jobs.    You can see government jobs as a form of Welfare sure, but it's a really ineffective form of welfare since it helps very few people for the money it spends.

Sure you are getting something for the money... but for a lot of the projects... what you are getting isn't really worth it.    I mean would you rather give your friend 5 dollars or buy a pencil off him for 20.  The government job really only makes sense financially if you aren't planning to help out in the first case.  (Not all government jobs, but definitly ones added in a stimulus type sense.)

Better to have everyone get welfare then distort the market by taking more money out of the private market to overpay for stuff that often has limited benefit.  (Espiecally the way the US handles infrastructure, leading to countless "Bridges to nowhere" beause they want that money in their state even if they don't need a bridge)

A lot of people no longer see helping people as a worthy goal in of itself anymore... and need to make bunk economic arguements to justify welfare spending.   Welfare is in of itself, it's own reason, making up economic claims doesn't help because you don't want people to consider the negatives.  Nearly all political positions have both positives and negatives, it used to be the positives of your plan were magnified, but lately it's popular to claim your policy does everything the best, just modern snake oil salesmanship.

That said though, it would be good if the US did get something out of Welfare.  Rather then just sending able bodied people checks if they instead made them go to classes, or do busywork or something to help them rehabilitate into being able to work again

Being out of work for a long time can really mess with your social skills and just knowing how to be an employee in a work place.  Just how to function in the world even.   So it would be good if welfare targeted such things.  (or barring force, offer a bonus.)

I honestly don't understand how anyone can believe we can continue adding to the national debt in perpetuity with no dire consequences at some point in the (near) future. One major problem with continuing to add to the debt is that it makes our spending far less effective. This is because every year we have more debt, a greater percentage of government spending must go towards payments of principal and interest on that debt. To me, this should tick off the left as much as the right. If the goal of the left is really to help the poor, then it is pretty obvious that paying more interest to other countries on more debt is diverting money away from helping the poor and building infrastructure in the long run.

It's really very simple, if a family were to start putting 20% of their net expenditures on credit cards every year, the payments on those cards will continue to grow until this practice stops. This will lead to the necessity to put more on the credit card each year just to pay basic expenses. Eventually all of the income of the family would need to be diverted to the credit cards just to keep up with the minimum payments, the banks would close the accounts due to default, and the family would be destined for bankruptcy. In other words, the family would be forced to take drastic measures because they refused to take common sense measures when they had the chance.

We need to balance the budget, this is necessary both economically and morally, as I believe it is immoral to take out a debt for our convenience that our children will have to pay. I believe this can be done without hurting those who really need assistance. We as a nation have a duty to help our fellow man, but we must do it wisely so we can afford to keep helping those in need.

Perpetual 'assistance' by way of handouts without job & skill training is not assistance, it is merely leads to keeping the under-educated poor economically crippled and on the dole for life. Government assistance is supposed to be temporary, not a career choice. If our assistance programs are not helping people get on their feet, gain skills, and get a good job, they are broken and merely adding to the problem. A permanent under-class who never gains a skill-set and never enters the workforce is lost economic growth, leading to decreased tax revenue, leading to less ability to help those in need in the future. We don't need to just arbitrarily cut people off and make them starve, but we do need to restructure the system so it actually works. As the old saying goes "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime".

You're just spouting off some talking point you heard rather than actually doing research and learning for yourself. 'The right' as you call them generally believes in making the efforts to help their fellow man through their own choice, rather than forcing other people to do it instead... and they put their money where their mouth is. Additionally, nobody wants to just cut the poor off and let them fend for themselves, most conservatives are advocating for restructuring programs to be more effective, thereby not wasting so much money (how many people could be helped with money wasted in bureaucracy). Many are also strongly in favor of job/skill training to be a required part of assistance programs.

@BOLD: That must be why those who identify themselves as conservatives give far more to charity than those who identify as liberals, in spite of making less money?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.UUxXFKjD8dU

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

Or he can use his funds effectively:  http://academy.mises.org/courses/

I'm tired of Washington and the spinoff industries it produces to whip the public up into a frenzy. After watching this system we have grind into a halt,we need to do something different. After watching east coast states like NY(my home) and NJ languish for months after a natural disaster. After Sandy Hook, i just cant take it anymore. I've decided I am all for states rights. Some states pay more to the federal gov than they take in and some states take in more than they pay. Lets make sure basic human rights are recognized at both state and federal level. Then each state can decide what programs and departments they want to fund at the federal level. I hear that Texas spends less on social services than NY. They have their reasons why they spend less and we have reasons why we spend more. The federal gov matches what the states spend on services like that. Why are we paying politicians to bitch about how money is being spent when in cases like that, the fed gov is the middle man. You don't think health care is a basic human right? No problem, don't have uni health care in your state. Don't want FEMA? Fund your own recovery.Want the pipeline? Make the other states(pipeline path) agree and you got it. I would love our species to last as long as possible on this planet,but hey nothing lasts forever. You want people running around with assault rifles in your state? No problem,if you bring it into my state,be prepared to serve some time in NYS prison. You want to ban all abortion in your state? Fine, we could always use more ladies in our abortion states(I am personally against abortion except in certain cases). This was done before a couple hundred years ago and it failed. I think that we are more sophisticated now and we can all agree that there are some basic human rights we agree upon(a person is a person,not a fraction of a person) and some we dont(abortion,gay marriage,etc). Lets work this out and take Washington out of most of the equation. People will decide what states they want to live in based on what it can offer them. We have been doing it for years on a national level,people come here based on what the US can OFFER them versus other countries. What rights we can offer them. My wife and i have had health care through her job at a health care provider for 10 years now. I think we should have health care because I think as Americans we should be competing and leading the world in having a healthy and efficient population. But that's just MO. So yeah let each state do what it wants to do. I'm tired of Washington. It's all crap. They get everyone worked up about stuff to blame others, when its really them who are screwing it all up. Take welfare and programs like that. It's all wealth distribution. From one wealthy company to another. You think food processing companies(sugar) and food selling companies(Walmart,Kroger) want to see ANY decrease in SNAP spending? Hell no. You think the Dems and Repubs on the committee who controls that spending want to stop receiving campaign cash from those companies? Hell no. It's all a sham. All of it. Flame me if you want, yeah it's strange that a black guy from NY is advocating states rights. But I just can't take it anymore, I don't want people to be excited to run for federal level offices,I want them to be upset that they have to stoop so low to have to do that, because the real power is in the state offices. Because in my perfect world a politician would go to Washington to do what Vice Presidents used to do. Barely anything.

what talking point do you see in my post?  had to be the laugh of the day.

you're just reading off talking points if anything..  and cough cough b.s. if you think those pseudo conservatives in watching want effectiveness.  they want total privitization or elimination and thats a fact.  look at what they did to the post office.  they created laws forcing them to pay while restricting them from ways to become profitable despite of the ignorance of conservative legislatures. theyve said the same about social security which adds zero to the deficit since its paid for by workers you know working.  a healthy economy = healthy social security.  since republicans in congress are nothing more than i'll just say haters so i dont get banned again lol, that "liberal" president introduce the payroll taxcut.  a republican idea of course that actually decrease the funds that would go into the ss fund.

@ bold lol.... charities are nothing more than tax shelters.  i've never written off anything i've given to my church or charity until they do that then it's irrelevant.  the right like to spout off the my and i while bathing in the constitution of "we the people"

i bet i can grow the economy faster than any pseudo liberal or conartist i mean conservative 

Paragraphs good sir!

I know, but I was writing that while holding two kids in my lap. I thought trying to maintain decent spelling would please the grammar police. It's seems that I was sadly mistaken.