545 for a brainbusting creative choice of song, drop a point for Funny for the usual neoconservative mythologies.

Except for one thing: I'm not a neocon, I'm a libertarian. I think tax cuts are good, but the government needs to spend less instead of more. Let the private sector fix the infrastructure at a reduced tax rate and with fewer regulations, and you'll get a better recovery at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers.

I kind of agree with your economic thoughts there, Mike. The repeated mythologies of Obama's involvement with ACORN and Chicago politcs is what bugs me.

Can these people really be dumb enough to know that the bailout, as currently structured, won't work? Building roads to provide jobs to the starving poor goes back to the Irish Potato Famine. Is Obama going to have unemployed stock brokers spreading asphalt to accommodate the cars no one can afford to buy? Remember, the goal is not to fix the economy, but to take credit for trying something, even if it's not the right thing to do. Back to the purpose of this site, I just saw my copy of the Ray Stevens 45 on the shelf, I'll have to spin it again.

Patrick -- good points. The fastest way to create jobs is to cut taxes and regulations. And I don't even disagree with copying Bush43's refundable tax credits in this situation. People who pay negative income taxes still compensate by paying other taxes, like sales and excise taxes plus the portion of their rent that goes toward property taxes..............But spending money on infrastructure projects is a temporary help at best. It may create a few jobs and save a few expenses when the things being fixed really are in a state of disrepair, but eventually the cost of maintaining the bureaucracy exceeds the benefits of the projects. Plus, if new infrastructure is being created, that means higher maintenance costs down the road.

Credit for trying a tough song, but wake up and enter the 21st Century. Tax cuts are not good because most of the benefits end up going to those who least need them. The government spending less, cutting taxes and reducing regulations is what got us into this mess over the last eight (dare I say 40?) years. "Let the private sector do it" is a joke: They will NOT do it unless doing it is more profitable. The private sector doesn't give a damn about anything but profits. It will only be when nobody can afford to buy their stuff, thus threatening their own survival, that they'll do anything about it. Spending money on infrastructure is temporary, all right: The stuff FDR's WPA built lasted anywhere from 50 to 75 years, and some of it has been replaced, and some of it still needs to be replaced. Ever see those road-construction signs? "The inconvenience is temporary, the improvement is permanent." Well, not quite, but it is significantly long-term -- and it must be done. Our highways, bridges, water mains, electrical grids, all of it need work now. And calling President Obama's plans "graft" or "pork" doesn't make it so, or any less needed, or needed any later. The time to spend, spend, spend is now. Actually, it was probably during the Clinton years, but Bill thought it was better to balance the budget. And it worked, leading to the creation of 23 million jobs -- or 20 million more than Dubya created. Obama may have to do at least that well to fix Dubya's screwups.

Excellent title and parody, Michael. As you suggest, the earmark-infested “stimulus” bill will not help the economy as much as reducing taxes and regulations.

It is good to see Michael Pacholek back with his wonderfully passionate arguments, but his arguments need to be answered. First, when MP suggests that reduced government spending is what caused current economic problems, I have to ask when was there a reduction in government spending. Unfortunately, Republicans did not reduce spending when they had the chance, even in non-defense areas. Second, I question his FDR mythology. Anyone who thinks that his Works Progress Administration was a success should listen to jazz great Louis Armstrong’s 1940 tune, “The WPA,” which included these revealing lines: “Sleep while you work, rest while you play, lean on your shovel to pass the time away, at the WPA.”

And of course Pacholek failed to comment on the Obama campaign raising over $600 million during a recession, creating few if any jobs in the process. That's more than the annual profis of most corporations and more than the quarterly net sales of many. While I may not agree with the behavior of some corporations or their managers, the fact remains that people must be hired to manufacture, transport and sell their products, and to build the facilities for all three. In contrast, a presidential campaign is almost completely operated by volunteers and contributes almost nothing to the economy.

Not to jump deep into the fray, but Michael McVey--Name any successful presidential candidate in recent history who didn't spend a lot of money to get to office? Republican or Democrat, how is that a fair comparission when both winning and losing candidates for ever major election in at the very least my life time and likely most of our lifetimes have spent millions. . .and most of the money raised is from people who would not have spent their money on anything that would beneift you or I anyway (IE it stays in their savings account until they need it).

Oh and anyone who honestly thinks 'tax cuts' or the stimulus will 'fix' the economy is ignoring the cause. . .You don't eliminate a problem without attack it's root, taxes have nothing to do with what happened to the economy. Gasoline. . .Credit companies out of control. . .irresponsible management of banks and major industries. . .gouging profits by corporate executives. . .poorly structured loans and credit cards given out to people who would have never been able to afford it. . .but taxes are not and have never been the major factor contributing to our current economic problems

B.A.D. --- I agree your comment about campaign spending. Obama raised and spent more than those before him, but it is not likely his record will last long.................. History proves that tax cuts do revive an economy, and I can give several examples under Presidents of both parties. After the U.S. spent most of the '50s in either recession or recovery (the jobless rate got quite high in 1958), Kennedy proposed a substantial tax cut which took effect in 1963. The unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent in 1965 and stayed there through 1969............. In the 70s taxes went back up and the capital gains rate peaked at 49% under Ford. When Reagan took over in 1981, a far worse recession than the current one was underway. Unemployment peaked at almost 11% and was over 20% in some localities. Reagan's tax cuts in the early '80s and the rapid recover that followed are the most dramatic historical example of how broad tax cuts work as economic stimulus..............In 1998 a recession should have started as a result of the Asian crashes, but a tax cut signed into law by Count Taxula, of all people, staved that off. Most of the millions of jobs created on his watch were created between 1998 and 2000...............Then, with a recession underway at the time of 9/11, Bush enacted tax cuts and rebates that made that recession the mildest since 1970, with peak unemployment of only 6.3%...............How do tax cuts work? Simple: they give people and businesses more money to spend, which increased demand, which increases production, which increases employment.

For all interested, here is an article that explains why government spending does not, and indeed cannot, creat economic growth: http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2208.cfm

Excellent!!

Adagio -- good to hear from you again :)