The OP has a point. Good fiscal policy from the government boils down to two points. Save money in good times, (eg hang on to the surplus or better yet use it to buy back T-bills from the Chinese. Don't piss it away on unecessary tax cuts when the economy is humming or go on a spending spree). Spend money in hard times to stimulate the economy, but do it in a way that ensures the money circulates (eg don't give it to banks who won't lend it or give to paper shufflers at AIG). W and BHO didn't get this.
A real stimulus plan is a highway bill, school construction, a government contract to American firms, low income housing, better emergency services or even something like CCC. Look at TAB. Hes out of business. If contracts for new school construction or building public works came up he'd have a job, spend the money on groceries and such and stimulate the economy . As a result, we would have something tangible (as opposed to a bailout) and money circulating. CCC did give us a lot, from Dorthea Lang to national park buildings that will be here till the last cockroach dies, to dams, and roads etc. To quote an Indian econ prof of mine, "My country has mouths to feed and hands to work. Give them a useful task, pay them enough to spend in the comunity and the growth becomes self-sustaining. Then step out and let the private sector do it." There is a certain amount of redistribution, but if it is short term and designed not to be a bureacracy like the original CCC, but rather to stimulate necessary projects where the tax payers will get their money's worth, such as nice parks to visit, I'd rather do that than bail out the Wall Street rocket scientists that got us into this mess. At least I'll have a new bridge or a public library to show for it.
FQ13