Barack Obama has signed his misnamed stimulus package. The $787 billion bill is actually a depressant package. It doesn't create wealth, it merely redistributes it. The wealth it takes comes mostly from wealth producers. The wealth it distributes goes in large part to the un- and underemployed. In other words, it rewards the problem and hampers the solution. The package is more sedative than stimulus.

So what's your solution?

You are right, it is misnamed. Rather than a stimulus, it is a depression elevation bill. Let's not forget who and what policies brought us to this point.

And so what if we provide some welfare to those in need? Let me here an answer.

"So what's your solution?"

Cut taxes. Personal income, corporate, and capital gains tax cuts.

Not every problem has a solution. Most problems don't have a political solution. That's probably the first thing I would do--tell the American people that. I would also stop throwing good money after bad, stop rewarding businesses and individuals for failure, stop making a debt-ridden government such a bad example for a debt-ridden people, and restrain the government from restraining commerce through unnecessary intrusions, mandates, taxes, regulations, etc. Those are my thoughts at 2:00 a.m.

It's bad enough that Bush was weak, stupid, didn't give a crap, take your pick and got conned by Paulson and other advisors to spend billions of TARP money to straighten out the banking/lending mess. But we now have the corrupt incompetent used car salesman pushing through this abominable Democratic payback and socialization legislation as a Stimulus package. The only things this will stimulate are more fraud and corruption and launch the Democrats’ agenda to turn America into Argentina.

Both items have only retarded the process that would have allowed the economy to come back with the help of the free market. In fact, there's a pretty good chance that O's boy Rahm will get his wish and see his 'crisis' linger on for some time to come.

Come on now Dan, that's crazy talk.

"It's bad enough that Bush was weak, stupid, didn't give a crap..."

What ever happened to standing up for his character? My, how things change in simple minds.

No, you see, you were either not paying attention or too stupid to understand my positions all along.

I'll go with the latter.

The one dimensional simplicity of the left never ceases to amaze me.

"...Bush ...got conned by Paulson and other advisors to spend billions of TARP money to straighten out the banking/lending mess..."

No, Bush was a Big Government fraud. I saw it way back when he first declared his candidacy. I grow more proud of my third party votes in 200, 2004, and 2008 every day.

Add that one too if you like.

I wish you luck on that third party thing. Really, I do. Because at this point, I think it's the only solution. That or term limits and we all know that's not going to happen.

It's not that I have much hope with Third Parties -- the system is hopelessly rigged against them. But they are a viable protest outlet, esp. when conscience won't let one vote for evil.

I'm coming around on that. And I have to admit that if the alternative this last time where a bit more palatable on the Dem side, I probably would have gone TP. But, as we now see, the alternative was much worse than voting for a washed up old RINO. At least in my opinion.

Oh, I don't think we see that at all. The jury is still very much out. But if anything, the argument is currently going in favor of the opposite conclusion.

For example, can there be any doubt that McCain would have offered his own "stimulus" plan, only slightly less bad? Now -- and here is the kicker -- would he have had 100% GOP opposition in the House and all but 3 liberal Republicans opposing him in the Senate? No way! Rather, his would have been truly bipartisan, and conservatism qould be truly dead as a political force. As it is now, it has a chance to make a comeback; maybe in two years, or four, or whenever. At best under McCain you would have Republicans elected in coming years (though more likely the GOP would take blame when McCain's "stimulus" fails to stimulate anything other than the size of the State and its favored special interests), but there would be no chance of conservative revival.

And on other counts, from a Taft conservative viewpoint, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, civil liberties, etc, McCain would have certainly been even worse than Obama has proven to be so far.

"When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot."

What's wrong with giving money to Americans?

Sorry, that sentence should have read, "What's wrong with giving American money to Americans?" I was watching a video from the bickering over the stimulus bill, and there was a scene where it simply flicks from one repub to another saying the word "pork". Yeah, the other white meat. 11 billion to modernize the electric grid? Pork. 53.6 billion to prevent education budget cuts? Pork! Ten billion dollars to go to the National Institutes of Health for- get this- research? PORK! PORK PORK PORK!!! I can't believe the government would want to spend our hard earned tax dollars on things like researching for the cure for cancer, educating teachers and cleaning up sites used by the Defense Department when they could be spending it on more important things like 98 dollar bags of laundry, or 28 dollars for a plastic plate, before the food even goes on it! Why couldn't Obama and the damned liberals see the insight in buying billions of gallons of contaminated water for our soldiers fighting our wars to drink! When will they ever learn?

Eric,

From what we've seen this guy do from day one, all of the facts point out that he is a very scary individual who will wield power with little caution and make decisions autonomously as there are virtually no checks and balances that would prevent him from doing anything his Marxist heart desires.

He is who we knew he was (for those of us who cared to know) and I think you have to be a bit nuts or are not paying attention to think that the Great Re-distributor will not turn out to be the greater of the two evils.

'can there be any doubt that McCain would have offered his own “stimulus” plan, only slightly less bad?’

How could you ever know that? That is a careless statement to say the least. Almost as careless as not recognizing a very dangerous individual when you see one.

I never said that "the Great Re-distributor will not turn out to be the greater of the two evils." I think a strong case can be made that either of the statist, war-mongering, redistributors that were running on the major party lines would be the greater evil.

What I suggest you do is read my last comment again, b/c I was clear that my thinking is longer term, as it relates to whether or not conservatism makes a comeback (and thus America starts on road to freedom again) or if it and the GOP continue to be the cement by which ever Bigger and Intrusive Government solidifies, never to recede.

As it is now, Obama and the Dems will fail. They will fail b/c Keynesian economics is a failure, and socialism is a failure. Ultimately, they will take blame for that. And Republicans, if they continue to stand united on conservative principle (and esp. if they repudiate Dubya's own failed Keynesian and socialist policies at the same time) stand to benefit at polls and free-market conservatism stand a chance of a comeback.

But if McCain had been elected, and they had continued to govern and vote as they did under Dubya -- and I have no doubt they would have, the Republicans would rightly take blame and free-market conservatism would unjustly be further discredited in public's mind as a consequence. Something much worse than Obama would emerge in four years.

Now, it is far from a careless statement to suggest that McCain would have done essentially what Obama is doing (with perhaps a little lower price tag and a little different mix of Keynesian goodies meant to encourage consumption and thus "stimulate" the economy at a time when a market correction should be allowed to occur and savings should be encourages, first by example of lowering federal spending and paying down national debt). In fact, it is naive to think otherwise. After all, McCain was the biggest cheerleader for Bush's $700 billion dollar bailout last fall. Further, his closest ally in the Senate, Lindsay Graham (SC) is in favor of Obama-light stimulus and even in favor of following the "Swedish model" of nationalizing the banks. And McCain is on record in his floor speech during the recent "stimulus" debate as saying the following:

"During a press conference in November 2008 to introduce the new director of the Office of Management and Budget, then President-elect Obama said that, “(T)he new way of doing business is, let’s figure out what projects, what investments are going to give the American economy the most bang for their buck, how we protect taxpayer dollars so that this money is not wasted, restore a sense of confidence among taxpayers that, when we spend our money, it’s on things that are actually going to improve their quality of life, create jobs that are so desperately needed, help to spur on economic growth and business creation in the private sector. That’s all part of the new way of doing business.”

"Mr. President, I was very pleased to hear President Obama speak those words."

McCain has been and ever will be a hard-core statist. He is not a conservative, except in his opposition to pork. His track record of supporting Keynesian stimulus plans and bailouts goes way back. And here he is saying that he applauds Obama's objective to increase gov't spending to "improve their quality of life, create jobs that are so desperately needed, help to spur on economic growth and business creation..." As if government can ever create without first destroying market capital.

As said, McCain would do essentially what Obama is doing, though in perhaps a different mix and maybe multiple packages as opposed to one. And the Republicans would have voted at least 50% with him. And the roll of Republicans would prove to remain as it has usually been: to bring legitimacy to every advance of the State and new set of interventions in the economy. The Dems advocate socialism, and the GOP thinks it is "conservative" by offering socialism-lite in its place. And the line moves one step closer to serfdom, never to be erased because the elephant writes in ink.

Again, in cliffs notes version this time: Obama and the Dems do it and fail, the electoral backlash favors the Right -- and may present an historic opportunity for a truly free market to emerge for the first time in a very, very long time. But if McCain and the GOP do it and fail, the backlash favors the Hard, Hard Left.

That’s my calculus. If I am wrong, we continue drift leftward anyway. But if I am right, we may actually have a glimmer of hope for freedom in this country.

The problem is that Republicans, and even the larger conservative movement, don't really have any commitment to less government, the Constitution, free markets or anything else. For partisan reasons they will oppose big government programs when enacted by the Democrats, but this is just partisanship. If the Democrats are routed in the next election and Republicans take control, then what will stop them from joining the big government, Socialist bandwagon again?

Divided government is the best form of government. Clearly it's possible to balance the budget, reduce the growth of government, and maintain a fiscally conservative government -- if Clinton and the Republicans can do it then anyone can. The reason there were no balanced budgets under Bush, despite Republican Congressional control, is because Bush simply didn't have any desire to balance the budget.