[Aramike]

Well, not quite - You don't WANT to see that. Politics is played by negatively bashing the other side's proposals, regardless of what it is. If the Republicans discovered a money tree, the Dem's would call it irresponsible and a fake, just so the other side wouldn't score a political point. It's suicide to admit the other side has a good idea - even if you don't have a better one, you need to down the other side's idea so they can't one up you.

What do you mean I don't want to see it? I'm an extremely independent person who dislikes political maneuvering as a whole, and looks for it ... from any side. And, I was VERY specific in my examples as to the difference I see.

If you have as pointed of examples contradicting my own, please share. But as far as I can tell, my point stands.

This is the kind of thing that makes politics so futile to argue - one side will never see that their team is just as guilty as the other team for any criticism levelled. They're all politicians, they all play by the same rules. They ALL WILL POO POO THE OTHER'S IDEAS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OWN!

I don't disagree necessarily with your conclusion but I DO disagree with the premise you're implying: either side is neither right nor wrong. In fact, my whole point is specifically the opposite. One side seems to trend towards policy that SOUNDS good, and the other trends towards that which actually works.

Indeed, there is a balance to be struck, but do you really think that such policies such as the thread's topic is a "balance"? Does it even make sense to you?

And, if not, then can you justify the incessent liberal pursuit of such a economically crippling agenda?

Bush's plan would not have restricted investment banks from leveraging 40 to 1, it would not have prevented the Fed from lowering interest rates too far for too long, it wouldn't have checked the unmitigated growth of financial derivatives and it would not have prevented credit rating agencies from rating junk paper as AAA, so it would have done nothing for mitigating the recession.

Really?

So you honestly think that, BILLIONS of constant private investment dollars would have done NOTHING to mitigate what ultimately causes every recession in history???

Sure, lending was out of control (by the way, that was also spurned on by liberal policies). Bad paper has existed since the beginning of borrowing ... consumer confidence and the profitability to overcome - indeed, make risky loans - has always overcome such risks. Ultimately what caused our recession was THE most over-inflated real estate bubble in history, spurned on the the over eagerness of everyone with investment capital trying to get a piece of the action. As that speculative bubble burst and capital was lost, so went international trade, consumer confidence, and commodity prices.

Now, inject billions into the private economy. An early bust of the real estate bubble would likely occur, as private lending ability would outstrip practical real estate pricing. Consumer market confidence would have grown than stabilized knowing that the next heavy market injection is less than 30 days away. Tax burdens would be lowered and as a result, unemployment would be decreased. Federal interest rates would increase, placing more immediately burdens upon lenders, discouraging high-risk loans. "Bad paper" would be filtered into the system more slowly allowing for a more stabilized market offset.

The markets themselves would have retained and increased value, increasing dividends and other capital gains. As such, higher employment would result along with tax revenue.

Our economy is based upon confidence in the aforementioned economy. Inject SS money, everyone wins.