For something that sounds like a no-brainer, our brainless administration hasn't figured it out.  Why do they do EVERYTHING wrong?  Why is their every motivation based on greed rather than the good of our country?  How did they get away with all this?

Can you imagine if they win in 2008?  I am sick!

Jan

Bull. 'The government' can't well account for probably half of its' spending, and it's been that way for years. Start with a spending STOPPAGE, and drastically improved federal book keeping practices, to include healthscare and defense, two of the biggest scams that ever were.
Stop selling us down the river, here, and fix the fiscal incompetence that allows deficit spending to stand to begin with. That's the one and only 'contract' you should be concerned about, the one that gets some gods-honest-truth reform started in that whole ugly fiscal mess.
Anything else, give it a thumbs-down and stop trying to pan-handle the public to cover over for systemic dysfunction. 10 dollars take away 52 dollars equals NO SALE.

Any money allocated to "projects" will get stalled, diverted or otherwise misdirected. Letting contracts won't get it flowing either. At best there will be a portion allocated up front with the rest paid as goals are reached. This is years not months.

Rescinding the payroll tax for awhile will put money into the pocket of anybody who works on the books. There will be no need to send out checks, no playing with the timing of the checks to influence the elections, and no included letters about how the GOP is helping the poor working folks.

Another immediate step would be to allocate money to states in proportion to the loss in revenue from a decline in sales tax receipts. There could be a proviso that money had to be used for the same purposes as the missing tax revenue. This would keep vital services from being cut as well as keeping many civil servants on the job. The payment could be restricted to the total over 2008 so budgets could be calculated properly.

The way to fight poverty is by giving the poor more money. This is true of individuals and local government.

These payments may not "solve" the recession, but it will ease the pain of those who are suffering while things get resolved. Once the banks have written down their speculations and the economy has readjusted to higher commodity prices (either through improved efficiency or reduced consumption) things will right themselves. The recovery may not be at the level of before, but that's what happens when you eat your seed corn.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

re: However, the bottom 40% of people on the income ladder aren't by any means all tax payers, so this technique won't get them any money.

Huh? It's my understanding that they are talking about sending out $800 to every person who filed an income tax return last year, regardless of whether they had to send a check with it or got a refund. Assuming we are talking about adults, that's a lot more than 60% of the population! To be sure there are other worthwhile things that could be done, but if you want very quick shot in the arm that sounsds like the most effective thing to do: send money directly to the people, rather than filtering it through state government, contractors etc.

The first necessity of an economic stimulus is of course to get money into the hands of those who will immediately spend it.

Translation: the economy is bad, so we need to consume more.  Bullshit.  This is like trying to solve pollution by burning MORE fossil fuels.  What we need is to save more money and to allow a recession, as painful as it may be, to wipe out the malinvestment in the economy.  When you lose your job, the way to improve your financial situation is not to consume more.  We need to consume less and invest more. 

A poor idea is to give generally to all businesses greater investment tax breaks -- at least if the goal is immediate spending. Firms that aren't making profits don't need tax breaks. Firms that have too much capacity won't invest more until demand conditions firm up, which would happen if consumers spent more, so that they would actually benefit from the measures above.

On some level you are correct.  Increasing investment without increasing savings will create an unsustainable boom.  On the other hand. your argument is specious.  Investment gives people jobs, which will increase consumer demand.  Plus, the idea that companies won't invest until they are profitable suggests that they are very short-term thinkers.  Obviously, you make investments that are not profitable now with the hope that they will be profitable later.

My preferred economic stimulus package would be for us to get out of Iraq, and then to use that money to pay down our debts, freeing up investment capital for the private sector to use.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

The first thing out of my mouth when I heard about giving this money to taxpayers was is this going to be a repeat of his last giveaway which turned out to be nothing more than an advance on the next tax filing's refund. After that, my selfish gene kicked in and I thought of the fact that I have no taxable income this year and would likely not even file a return, therefore I wouldn't be eligible for anything. As far as I know, I, like many other responsible non taxpayers, spend money, and spend it on food, clothes, and other necessities. In fact, the low level of the funds we have available to us make it more likely that we quickly spend the money than someone with more income. Carrying that a little further, what incentive is it to the high income earner to get a rebate or check of $800 from the government? Perhaps there should be an upper limit to the income where the additional government check is cut off. Failing to allow for us to get some of this cash is cutting out a significant part of the population from the effort to stimulate the economy away from this impending recession.

The Administration doesn't favor this approach, because those on the bottom don't get attention from this White House -- even when they are the most likely to spend money sent their way.

Yes, this should be the starting point. The problem is not that sound economic options are hard to find or even debatable (though I think infrastructure and other projects are more long term and invite abuse if rushed into). If anything, seven years of this administration is proof negative of what policies do not work. The problem is that the administration is not interested in them. The real problem is that this administration has been running the country and that is what must be changed to deliver reform. The philosophy guiding conservatives is antithetical to New Dealist government intervention into the sacred marketplace. There is no debating or compromising with them on stimulus packages because they can only see government expenditures in terms of giving back to the elite what is theirs (handouts to corporations and the rich- you know, real Americans).

This is where I would expect Congress to stand up. Seriously, if ever Congress needed to show they aren’t completely whipped, preventing the country from sliding into a severe recession is it. This is where they should be telling the President, who is more of a dead duck politically than a lame duck, that it is his policies that have created this mess and he’ll have no say in furthering the disaster. If he wants to pull out of this looming recession, he needs to sign the measures the congress enacts (an immediate stimulus to lower income and middle class who’ll immediately spend it, bury the tax cuts for the rich, close corporate loopholes, reorganize financial regulations, or whatever). I just don't think it is a problem of economic strategies as much as fundamental philosophy.

Congress has failed to stand up to Bush on everything from the war to torture to illegal spying and all the other FP national security issues. It failed to stand up to a seizing of power for the executive, packing agencies with industry hacks, and packing of the courts with activist ideologues. It failed to control the compassionate conservatives from rolling over them on everything from bankruptcy for the working poor to drugs for seniors to health care for kids. Bush has absolutely no authority anymore. To stand up, all Congress need do is stand up.