Which is what you illogically assumed as a matter of course, though it is incorrect, as you said,

“you would've also complained had the Federal government dictated to the states how to spend that money…yelling “State's Rights!” at the top of your voice along the way. “

to which I responded logically.

Enough said.

* * *

“I do think the stimulus was necessary to keep us from going over the cliff”

I supported the decision to attempt a real stimulus, complete with ambitious spending and even large temporary debt goals. (Not the facile recent re-discovery of Keynes we see in the media, but accepting the idea of defying prudence and sensibility as a temporary measure, which might well work, in theory.)

“but”

Good-bye, again, logic. This ought to be good…

“maybe next time the states should check with you first to make sure they're spending their stimulus money in the way that you approve of. /snark”

I've listed ways not only that make sense to me, but to others, such as Democrat ally Zandi at Moody's, of “bang for the buck list” fame (his well-known assessment of what's effective and what isn't as effective). But who cares what thoughtful people are thinking, if panic prevails or reason otherwise is rejected?

I do think the stimulus was necessary to keep us from going over the cliff but maybe next time the states should check with you first to make sure they're spending their stimulus money in the way that you approve of. /snark

So far we haven't had to worry about a federal debt trap. So far. What about interest rates, before then?

I probably would have, without shouting, as you incorrectly surmised. There is no hypocrisy in such a case, and it's illogical to complain about it when referring to the obvious short-term, short-sighted misconduct by the state and local governments (which is independent of where they get the stimulus money — no different than if they were to raise taxes and spend money nominally on “stimulus” measures within each of the states or counties).

You don't seem to care to note the obvious, be it to defend mismanagement by the states (any spending is OK, perhaps, to you), or for other “reasons.” Correctly: I guess there's just no pleasing some people.

You just have to hope you don't get caught in another flow of funds reversal.

Instead of transmission uprating and new construction, what is being proposed? “Smart meters,” as an example of a smart grid. No, a distribution service-point labor-saving proposition is more like it. (Fewer meter readers required, is the real issue, not how it helps the homeowner manage and conserve energy.)

If my portfolio “V” holds its curve, I will be back into total black by early next year.

My Dean Witter key word whisper to those interested….labor productivity stats. Human capital without a substantial intellectual capital component is not worth investing in.

So far, the stimulus has fizzled, Stockster — saving or “creating” many fewer jobs than originally claimed. The real questions relate to how the money has often been used by state governments, not for job creation or growth or development, but simply to fund current expenditures, and “fill deficit holes” (which won't be guaranteed to be possible next year, and are projected to be worse here, in Michigan, for example).

“The stimulus was sort of a life preserver”

I believe it has been used this way, but that it never should have been intended, or used, this way.

So the stimulus programs worked! Better than the economy completely going downhill. I think MIkkel's characterization of “treading water” is most accurate. The stimulus was sort of a life preserver to keep the economy from completely going under but at some point the economy will eaither be rescued or will start sinking.

Watch out — the cool season is almost on you, in earnest. You'll even see leaves change color around Christmastime (before the buds start opening and flowering within six weeks later).

As far as my swipe at NPR, you can even stomach that if you realize that it used to be true, and was made because yes, I often listen to NPR. (“Morning Edition” or “All Things Considered” would be the perfect program for retired people to listen to in a greenhouse…)

It's a welcome relief that NPR is healthily skeptical rather than robotically obedient to Team Obama.

What has been neglected is to what extent the economy has been temporarily propped, and a continued downward slide postponed (until after the 2010 elections, people should be suspecting), due to the stimulus money, which often has been [mis]spent on filling current state government deficits and otherwise [mis]spent on prompt needs or wants rather than on long-term growth projects that would be better associated with not only a sustained recovery but with greater future prosperity. What happens when the credit card bomb finally explodes, or the unemployment benefits expire, or worse deficits in state government finances materialize next year (a concern already in Michigan, where stimulus funds are being [mis]spent to fill in this year's budget deficits), and there is no stimulus or other bailout money to foolishly expect to [mis]spend? What happens When The Music Stops?

How can they say we're out of a recession when home foreclosures are surging still (see http://www.foreclosure.com) and auto repossessions are skyrocketing (see http://www.repofinder.com)?

I'll trust my magic 8 ball over Government “reports”.

Haven't we seen such rosy (optimistic, unrealistic, perhaps dishonest) assumptions or presumptions before?