To DK:

I'm not certain there is an answer to your question, "When in history has the government ever successfully spent an economy out of a recession?" The financial crisis we're facing is of the same scale as only one other instance in history -- the 1929 Depression and the faltering economy of the 1930's. A big difference between then and now is that our economy, financial system and the availability of monetary tools to effect economic activity are far more multi-national and sophisticated than "back in the day". FDR did a lot of spending, but with the closed economy and monetary tools we had then, it took almost a decade for economic activity to begin to rebound to some normalcy. It's for that reason that I am arguing that it does little good to look backward, because of that fact that there are such huge differences between what worked or didn't work then and what may work in the future. We should remain grounded in democratic values and idealology, but that alone cannot solve the current complicated economic problems.

You have also completely avoided my question, "how can we balance the federal budget and begin to repay our national debt?" You have focused only on the proposed stimulus legislation. They are two completely different things -- other than the fact that they both contribute to deficit spending and increase the national debt. If the Congress agreed with you and concluded that regarding stimulus they should simply stop spending, an absence of any substantial action to "fill the hole" of the $1.1 trillion annual deficit in the U.S. Budget, would simply add that much each year to the national debt.

So, again focusing on the federal budget deficit -- specifically what spending cuts would you find acceptable (and how much would they reduce the deficit) or would you be willing to pay more (in taxes) for the government services being provided in order to fill the deficit gap? Or, I suppose, would you propose to simply continue borrowing to finance our deficits until we can borrow no more?

To SteveZ:

I can't agree that the only "say" we have is at the time of federal elections. If that were true, there would be a whole lot of pollsters who provide information on public sentiment to elected officials who would be out of work. And while I know I tend to be more pragmatic that enthusiastic, whether the news is good or bad, I'm going to try hard to avoid the cynicsm that you suggest regarding the power of the democratic system. If we had so little control over those we elect to represent us, one might conclude that some other system might be better. I'm not there yet.
--------------------------------------
This has been a pretty good thread. I only hope that the exchange of posts has gotten people to think a little more deeply about the crises we face and the things that can be done to correct them.