But let's be honest here. Any spending or tax cut bill will contain elements deemed “wasteful” – whether it's a tax credit to some oddball industry or a spending item on wooden arrows in Oregon. We can get a more transparent government and we should. But we'll never do away with this kind of spending as long as people demand it.

But the problem is that the people like you and I and AR who see the need for more careful consideration of priorites aren't complaining loudly enough, so the squeaky wheels get the grease (not to mention, the wheels who donate to the politicians.)

So I see it as a huge problem that you recognize this in principle but you then shrug your shoulders and accept a $900 increase in our debt. I guess I take from your post that you're a pure Keynesian who believes that any spending will help stimulate the economy, but I don't see how you can defend that point of view with evidence, and the stakes are too high to just accept it on an ideological basis.

The only “principle” here is that the winner calls the shots.

If this was proposed by a Republican administration, and the House mix were reversed, the vote would be reversed, I am willing to bet the dialog would support that.

Why, in the end, is it not an indication of the partisan nature of the bill in the opposite direction that 244 out of 255 (96%) of Democrats supported it? Because the Democrats in Congress are truly good of heart, and would never play politics?

The problem is that there was not a whole lot of prioritization here. Some of these things could wait for a long-term bill.

But let's be honest here. Any spending or tax cut bill will contain elements deemed “wasteful” – whether it's a tax credit to some oddball industry or a spending item on wooden arrows in Oregon. We can get a more transparent government and we should. But we'll never do away with this kind of spending as long as people demand it.

So, $25M to re-sod the Mall? Clean-up money for the TVA fiasco? $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? While many of the spending authorizations may indeed, in fact are, good things for government to consider spending money on, they certainly do not come under an umbrella of 'stimulus'. It is indeed just a small stimulus initiative covered in more pork than anything outside defense appropriations.

Just as the Republicans came to regret some of the Patriot Act votes, this package will not look so dandy in a few years.

Myself… I find the pasture quite pleasant. There's 18 holes, good food and drinks and grand company.

To each his own.

How can anyone make a rational analysis of whether this is or is not a good bill? You forgot to add that fourth class of objectors – those who say this huge, massive bill was just passed by our Congress not knowing what is really in it, because the Democrats would not give even a week for a full review.

Economic crisis for a nation of our size is not solved in a few days, and a few days difference cannot make a difference to the success or failure of a package of this size and scope that spans years of spending. Ensuring that what is in there is what should be in there can though.

It was rushed through to make sure the details are NOT known.

We’ll see the results by 2010 or 2012. At that time the voters can decide which vision makes sense to them.

This is true.