I’m glad place the blame at the feet of both Bush and Obama – exactly where I think it should be. At the end of the day they are both politicians and wrote checks their rear ends probably had no intention of cashing.

I will look at the link, but I don’t really have to look at the link to know that the money isn’t being spent on the people on “Main street.” I naturally doubt before I believe and I’ve never believed the money would make it all the way to the people who need it the most. I will keep beating my drum and say the money is probably keeping some executives living their same lifestyle.

First, the economy is far from stabilizing in my opinion and to say otherwise is a bit naive. Unemployment is almost 10% (the real number is closer to 15%), new home sales dropped, and we have yet to see the big commercial melt down. On top of that we won’t see all of the effects of Obama’s spending for months if not years.

Obama is certainly in a sticky situation, that I agree with. He’s in one of the most stressing positions in existence and made bold promises on what his stimulus plan would accomplish and his numbers have fell horribly short. Obama used fear mongering to get the stimulus plan (As did Bush for the first stimulus) passed claiming without it unemployment would reach double digits and with it would top off at 8.4%(from memory).

Here’s a video on the stimulus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C4uSpr4Cdk

Correct me if I’m wrong but I heard the other day that only 5% of the stimulus money has actually been spent. Why was it so crucial to pass the bill overnight if the money wasn’t even going to be put to use to stimulate the economy?

I’ve began doing research into US history beyond what I’ve learned in school but can’t claim I know exactly what took place in the 30′s. What I can tell you is that Bush isn’t free of blame but Obama’s spending/policies will be to blame for a large percentage of what our future has in store. The question I’d ask is how long should it be acceptable for Obama to pass the blame? I’m not saying it’s unjustified but at what point is he held responsible for his actions? Is there a time line, is there an event? Does his responsibility start only when the economy recovers? You see it’s very cloudy but he is in charge now.

I do agree with the Republicans, why should we continue spending money? I’d be all for repealing the stimulus bill. Actually I’m a proponent of repealing it.

Actually my brother just wrote a blog post that features a detailed list (from Bloomberg) of how the government spending has been distributed. What you’ll notice is a very small amount of money has been spent to benefit the American people in any way.
http://www.fightforforefathers.com/2009/06/battle-power/

Finally, there is the economy. The irony for Obama is that as the economy has stabilized, it has become a greater source of political danger. Without an immediate crisis, voters are not as panicked and don’t feel as desperate for federal assistance. A growing number are more comfortable criticizing the administration’s economic policies.

Some Republicans have picked up on this and have asked why the U.S. needs to spend the stimulus money if the recession is almost over. At the same time, Obama is in a double bind: Most experts agree that we will have a fragile economy in the foreseeable future, so voters won’t be happy either.

If there is any new dip in the economy, the public will blame President Obama rather than President Bush. This is exactly what happened with the recession in 1937, which FDR’s opponents called the “Roosevelt Recession,” using the downturn to diminish the number of New Deal liberals in the House and Senate in 1938.