What are you going on about? My post was about the merits of supply-side stimulus, and I presented a couple of major flaws I see in the notion in the current economic environment. To put it in simple terms: If there's already excess supply, what good will it do to create incentives for more?

Your ritual fulmination about "leaving money in the hands of politicians" is a non sequiter. A stimulus package takes money out of the hands of the government and puts it into private hands. The issue on the table is, whose hands? It may be ideologically correct, in Rightist terms, to apply the stimulus to the wealthy; but will it work?

As for it being my business how the recipient will use the money, it damn sure is. We're being asked to get behind a particular stimulus plan because it's alleged to produce a specific outcome: General and widespread stimulation of the economy to reduce unemployment and repair damage to stock valuations. If Bush's proposal won't accomplish that end, you bet I have something to say about it. If a government program doesn't promote the general welfare, it's special-interest pork.

--Robert