This all makes sense at the individual level. However, the government is here for a reason and platforms differ on why the government exists/what its role is. So who has the "right" to make such subjective determinations of the consequences of people's actions and where does the government step in?

This country is no stranger to social programs and safety nets. There are ways that the government determines who is eligible for these programs. We have given the government the power to make such determinations so it really shouldn't change now. America and global capitalism have always had contradictions and hypocrisies. It is extremely contradictory and hypocritical for this country to ignore the monster that it/we created and say "well many of you chose to be consumers in this consumer economy. So just live with the consequences of your actions that coincidentally helped build up the most powerful industrialized nation in this global market."

My point about bailing out society is the repercussions on the rest of us when all these houses end up abandoned. Blight is not a good thing for a neighborhood and only makes your own home value continue to decrease at an alarming rate. If my neighbor's house is auctioned off for $20,000, that completely kills my own property value. The more people who lose their houses, the worse it's going to be. It seems like a neverending downward spiral. I'm concerned about where "bottom" is. As I've said, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe a depression is inevitable.

But how do you restore or maintain property values if they were based on a bubble created by bad lending practices, as well as short-sighted self-interested behavior by buyers?

I'm worried about where the bottom is too, but I'm not sure that trying to cushion the bottom with tax money is where it's at.

I disagree. When the government has demonstrated it's unwillingness or inability to govern or regulate effectively, and depending on who you ask actually institutes programs that led to some of the problems, I think we have to decrease the government's power to make those decisions, rather than increase their role. ETA: actually, I'm all over the place on this. I really don't know. I feel mutual contradictory impulses that lenders needed more or different regulation previously, but at the same time I don't trust the government to know what regulation they need now.

And most of our view of government in the US is based on the idea that we are individuals capable of making decisions in our own welfare. The idea that most of us are simply passive witnesses to the creation of some monster is kind of odd. Purchasing a house is not a passive process really.

ETA: If we were talking about a federal package strictly to temporarily strengthen what we usually think of as safety net type programs: food stamps, housing vouchers/public housing, health services for the poor, I don't know that I'd feel as resistant to that. But what we're seeing doesn't seem to have any kind of focus.

This sounds good in theory. How does it work in practice? Whose opinions/frame of reference and what evidence will these steps be based on?

Americans are both active participants and semipassive witnesses, depending on the process. We purchase homes and accumulate wealth (and inform ourselves and vote) but don't have complete control over every outcome. For instance, the unemployed people I know had accumulated a great deal of wealth such that they could be unemployed and pay high mortgages (among other costs of life) for 1-2 years if need be. However, even they can't withstand but so much economic downturn. Still, they aren't the average Americans in terms of education, income level, or wealth building. So I wouldn't base my opinion of the economy primarily on them and people like them.

I'm a Giddens' Structuration person. That applies here in that as far as I and many are concerned, America enables individual freedoms and also constrains individual freedoms. In choosing to be responsible or irresponsible, we are recreating the structure as we know it. However, I believe that there are still some structural processes that are beyond our control. When things begin to crumble and personal and/or social safety nets are ineffective, what next?

Those who were irresponsible and lack basic life skills will not benefit too much from this approach, unless people are saying that the average American fits into this category.

It's a big topic that I feel all over the place about, as well. I definitely see both sides of the coin.

I agree.

Why do you think this plan lacks focus, even for those who have read the documentation beyond the graph breakdown on recovery.org? I have not looked at recovery.org in a while.

I think that maybe the safety nets were deemed dead ends by the powers that be. Then again, we have many Americans who are totally against any kind of social safety net (usually based on class and race stereotypes, etc.).

I don't think individuals have control over everything that happens to them certainly; I just think we have to be careful about what the the government does to "solve" problems. The government can create incentives and disincentives to shape individual behavior. I want to make sure we have carefully thought out any unintended consequences.

I'm not seeing that with current government spending.

ETA: I'd have to brush up to make a list of things that I don't think belong in it. Would you like me to do that?

Or would just suffice to say that my conception of safety nets have to do with temporary measure to carry people though especially hard times in terms of absolute necessities. And that my conception of stimulus spending would be specifically targeted spending with almost guaranteed outcomes (especially when it comes to job creation), rather than just throwing money at projects. My general impression of current spending in just getting anything that ever seem like it might be something a legislator wanted to see funded the funding required.

ETA: Looking at recovery.com, I'll immediately say that the category of broadband internet access shouldn't be there. Nor does clean water and flood control seem like it has anything to do with the economic downturn. Local school district spending is complicated. Sure the economic down turn has hurt local districts, but I don't think it's a federal issue, and I think only extremely poor districts ought to qualify for these funds, but that's not how it's shaking out in Georgia. Higher education and Pell grants don't belong here. Transforming energy systems should be funded someplace else. I can accept that in certain industries, depending on exactly where the money is being spent, it could be economically stimulating, but I think it's being done in a sloppy way which guarantees nothing. Certain aspects might even belong in homeland security.

Looking at Wikipedia, there's 50 million to the NEA to support artists, and I'm not sure about census preparation as economic recovery.

While some of these thing can be regarded as legitimate government funding, they shouldn't be sold to the public as part of the economic, fending off complete catastrophe, stimulus.

Can you think of any examples?

Some consider the stimulus plan an incentive for some and disincentive for others.

Just keep on looking for conspiracies and mob mentalities. I really don't know what to say anymore, and at the end of the day I don't care.

Good luck, and I sincerely hope you have more appetite for intelligent debate in real life.

Well, generally, I suppose I mainly think about taxes as creating incentives in certain areas on both the individual and business level. They can also create disincentives.

At the strongest level, I suppose we criminalize as our strongest disincentive. Is that what you are asking me?

What I wonder about with the stimulus bill in the areas that actually target what I'd consider to be directly related to the economic crisis it that by helping people and industries in the short term, we're rewarding what we want to see least, like mortgage non-payment or abandonment or irresponsible financial risk taking in business in the long term. OR to counteract this fear will see an new era of over-regulation that will hamper growth or home ownership.

ETA: let me add local school funding as an area in the sloppy areas of the stimulus. In metro Atlanta, several of the school systems pretty routinely conduct themselves in a financially wasteful way. What this funding teaches them is that if something really hurts their revenue stream they can expect the federal government to ride to the rescue, with apparently little accountability for the money they receive. Might it have been better instead to make them bear the cost for their foolish decision making coupled with the economic downturn? Perhaps. I feel like I should qualify this for anyone who thinks that the funding flows through to actually affect instruction for the kids by noting that isn't how it seems to go down. The systems with the highest spending per pupil often have the absolutely most crappy classroom conditions. The dysfunction in management prevents the money from getting to the classroom. The leadership of these systems could have made cuts to bring their costs under reasonable control, but now they don't have to.

And I sincerely hope one day that you learn the difference between intelligent debate and just disagreeing because of personal issues you have.

I'm going to declare that although you are merely user name, I personally dislike you. All your paranoid thoughts are true in my case.

It's not your positions on issues or the petty way you want to argue when you've been unclear or your argument is incomplete. It's a personal issue I have with your username.

So basically every point you're making can be summed up as:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j9...6553910891.jpg

LOL

FTW