Originally Posted by aceventura3

Looks like we agree on something, I bet it is for different reasons but we have come to the same conclusion.

Even the economist Keynes (his name is almost synonymous with the use of government spending to stimulate the economy) came to the conclusion that government spending does not have a lasting impact on economic stimulus.

Increased production of real goods and services is the only thing that will generate real economic growth. The folks in Washington can play shell games all day long with moving money around, but unless people produce more the shifting of money was a waste in terms of economic stimulus.

So you are correct. Either we pay for this today with increased taxes, nullifying the package or we pay (or our children) in the future with increased taxes - hurting future economic growth.

If the government really wants to stimulate the economy, we need tax cuts targeted to the production of goods and services. Oops, thats some supply side stuff again. I know how much you dislike that concept. But when a family takes their $1,200.00 to pay-off a credit card debt, that won't create one new job. On the other hand if you give a tax break to a small business trying to grow you may get an entity that hires people to produce valued goods and services. So you have real people making real income from producing real goods and services that other real people want to consume.

The basis is investing in the infrastructure for increasing production leads to lasting economic growth.