$1,000,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for the manufacturing of advanced batteries.

I seem to have missed the part dealing with batteries in the Constitution. About the closest thing is this: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Small problem though: who’s job is it, according to the U.S. Constitution, to invent things? Not the government, but rather “We the People”. This is killing me. If only Rep. John Shadegg could get his Enumerated Powers Act passed.

Bread and Circuses/panem et circenses

Had to look that one up. Thanks, Michelle. I learned a new phrase today. A highly appropriate one, unfortunately.

On January 19th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, lgm said:

some things are worth going into debt for. How about avoiding a depression?

No. Roosevelt’s deficit spending did nothing to end the depression – it prolonged it for many years. Nor will Bush’s or Obama’s deficit spending end the current recession. It will only exacerbate it. Even you aren’t stupid enough to think that the cure for maxing out your credit cards is to apply for more cards. In point of fact, few if any of the people pushing these bailouts think they’ll work to end the recession. That’s not what they’re for. The real intent is to nationalize as much of the economy under the rubric of a fiscal emergency as possible. That’s why the push to get everything passed right away. The longer people have to study it, the more they come to understand what it’s about.

Reagan’s spending not only strengthened the military, but coupled with tax rate cuts, stimulated jobs,

In other words, it was a deficit funded stimulus. That’s what Obama wants to do now, and you oppose it. Sounds more like ODS than logical analysis

Although Reagan expanded the military, the cause of the deficit was a failure by Congress to restrain other spending. The tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficits – revenues doubled during Reagan’s presidency, but spending went up faster. In any event, spending, even deficit spending, on the military is a legitimate government action – such as WWII, or Reagan rebuilding the military after the Carter debacle. Spending to bail out failed businesses, even businesses that fail due to government policies (as with the auto and mortgage industries), is not a legitimate role of constitutional government. It’s mostly wasted anyway, because the companies will not be able to survive given the current circumstances, none of which was improved by the bailout. They will only be able to survive and prosper if Congress repeals the CRA (for mortgage companies) and eliminates CAFE mandates and stops funneling money to the car companies so they can declare bankrupcy and rid themselves of the union contracts that are breaking them. In any event, it’s going to be a long time working through this mess, and no amount of government “stimulus” is going to help, unless they repeal Sarbanes-Oxley and pass capital gains and business tax cuts. That is the only sort of stimulus that really works.

You claimed earlier that Americans want to use their money for bailouts. That is untrue. According to the only poll I’ve seen on the subject, 70% oppose the bailouts.

Don’t let all the Obama/Biden photo ops with The Children fool you. The Generational Theft Act of 2009 is on its way.

This is what kills me about the BHO lovefest. The kids helped elect him and he’s about to saddle them with a debt that will make Bush’s look like a picnic.

The deficit spending by Reagan was necessary to re-establish the military that the Democrat Party steered into decay.

So, some things are worth going into debt for. How about avoiding a depression?

Reagan’s spending not only strengthened the military, but coupled with tax rate cuts, stimulated jobs,

In other words, it was a deficit funded stimulus. That’s what Obama wants to do now, and you oppose it. Sounds more like ODS than logical analysis.