Value for money (redux)

When W took office in 2001, he inherited a federal budget surplus of $236.2Bn.
When he left, the federal budget deficit was $454.8Bn.
... and: the total accrued deficit during W's years: $2Tn
(that's $2,000,000,000,000).
[Figures from the Congressional Budget Office.]

So - W's eight years cost us about $2.5Tn ($2,500,000,000).
... I'm not sure the Iraq fiasco is included in these numbers - that's an additional $600,000,000 if not.

What do we have to show for the money?

The Republicans' alternative to the current stimulus bill?
(You'll never guess!)
Tax cuts.... and NO spending.
What will we have to show for the increase in the deficit???
NOTHING!

The current stimulus bill at least includes some $100Bn in infrastructure spending.
If nothing else, we'll have roads, bridges, electrical grids, and water systems to show for the money spent.

John McCain weighs in:

"The American people are beginning to figure out what this package is, that it's not a stimulus package -- it's a spending package."

Thankfully, President Obama responded to this directly:

He said tax cuts alone as a way to stimulate the economy are "a losing formula." He defended how quickly the bill is moving through Congress and belittled those who call the measure simply a spending bill: "What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point!"

Econ 101:

GDP = C + I + X + G, with

C = personal/household Consumption,
I = Investment
X = net Exports
G = Government purchases (consumption + investment)

Consumer spending is in the tank & going nowhere but down.
Investment is in the tank and going down.
Exports - until recently a bright spot - are going down.

From where other than "G" do the Republicans hope to get GDP going again???

(I thought I was finished saying this:)
Stop the madness!!!