Wow!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090209/pl_bloomberg/agq2b3xegkok

The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

America is already in the Red by trillions of dollars, in the long run, its the american people that will suffer greatly.  The americans need to start looking after there own.

All this money spend on wars and arms can go and help it own people by having univeral health care for all, cheap housing, better education, pensions for all, lower fuel cost (heating, elec etc).   I know I sound like a socialist but these are the basic needs people need.

I belive everyman should earn his own bread, but greedy bankers want to take his last cust away from him.  This is wrong and thats what is wrong with the free market.

So...why is this news now and wasn't news for the last 8 years?

Conservatives have somehow woken up from their graves and been born again. NOW they are fiscal conservatives. Those last eight years (when they actually had the power to BE fiscally conservative), those were just the "Bush" years. Republicans will certainly remain fiscally conservative like they have always claimed to be if we elect them back into power. They promise THIS time.

And so the cycle continues...

Republicans needed this slap on the face to be fiscally conservatives again. 

Whether it's Republicans' fault or Democrats', the amount of money being spent is amazing.

But we are facing a huge recession...and private sector spending has plummeted...

We are in a liquidity trap. We are facing deflation and a dearth in spending. We are shedding jobs like nobody's business. And the job losses really aren't slowing down. Wasn't the economy supposed to be important to Republicans? I thought that they were cutting taxes during the Bush years to "stimulate" the economy (when the stimulation wasn't really needed). Although they did probably help during the 9/11 induced recession.

See, the reason why I find it laughable that the Republicans are so upset about this is because it isn't about the money. Its about the money not going where they want it to go. If it was 100% tax cuts (which would not be an effective solution to this problem because we are facing a liquidity trap, not stagflation. Republicans have somehow convinced themselves that tax cuts are like duct tape, that they can do anything), they would be shouting up in down in the aisles even if it meant the deficit would soar. If the spending was mostly geared towards things like defense, they would be happy.

I'm upset with Republicans because they have the audacity to lie to the American public's face that they actually believe in fiscal conservatism, when there is almost no evidence that this is true. I never heard Republicans complain about the deficit in the last eight years until the 2008 election cycle came around. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

If you look at how much money Hoover spent on public works, and FDR spent on the New Deal, and consider that the unemployment rate still averaged 18% over most of FDRs terms, it should have been clear that throwing money at an economic downturn doesn't correct it ...

Ironically, the unemployment rate jumped severely when FDR cut back on spending and tried to balance the budget around 1935-7.  Many economists think that FDR didn't spend enough, which is why the economy slipped back into a recession into 1937-8.

You just love to pick and choose the facts that help you, don't you?

And do you honestly believe that if Hoover had done something to shore up the banks that as many of them would have failed as did?  Public works isn't the only element of a Keynsian style economic recovery.  Not that many banks actually failed before 1930.  The majority of them that did fail failed after 1930, when it was already extremely clear that the economy was about to hit the skids.  About 744 failed from 1929 to the end of 1930.  Over 9,000 failed after that.  Just sitting around and twittling his thumbs led the market into a panic.

You are also assuming that it is just as easy to fix a problem as it is to prevent a problem.  That's like comparing someone who has a minor wound and chooses not to get it treated compared to that same person down the road who has a massive infection because they didn't get it treated.  Its much easier to solve a problem before it spirals out of control than once it has spiralled out of control.  Its like fixing a drug problem early versus bottoming out and having to go into rehab.  Rehab costs a hell of a lot more financially and emotionally than if you intervene early and fix the problem.