The pillars of Keynesian Economics (to manage an economic slowdown) are:

1) Government spending.
2) Tax cuts.
3) Easy money (low interest rates).

This will lead to an increase in demand and jobs.

It's happening, much to the Democrats chagrin. This economy will continue to expand into 2004, setting up what should be an easy re-election bid for Bush.

You may get an increade in jobs, but i'd be a lot cheaper to just hire these people by improving infrastrcture etc. rather than bankrupting the US.

Paradox -

Well the Dems got involved an offered some demand-side tax cuts in the last package, and now Bush is taking the credit for it. Maybe they don't want to spare the Republicans their own fate?

Muckdog -

Perhaps you're right. But all those things also set up for a very tenuous economy - and (in my mind) the possibility that we'll end up in very different economic pain than we are now. Look, nobody knows where we'll be a year from now. Not be, not you. I think recent economic numbers have people understandably excited, but nobody knows their predictive value. In the next year, we could continue to improve into a 1984-like prosperous economy. Or we could see an unexpected market crash. Or we could hit deflation. Or we could hit double-digit inflation. Or we could have a terrorist strike that demolishes an industry. Or OPEC could play hard-ball and slug us. Or Bush could have a massive scandal on this hands that destabilizes the country (not unlikely).

What amazes me is that people still don't get the fundamental rule of politics: what we're expecting today says little about what we'll be expecting 12 months from now. Ask George Bush Sr. a year after Iraq I. Ask Bill Clinton a year after he took office. Ask George Bush in October, 2001. Ask Howard Dean today. Or go back and ask Johnson, or Nixon, or Carter, or Reagan how much could change in a year. It's not a rare occurance - but rather, routine - that major things break that nobody expected, and very often, it has to do with the economy.

We'll see just how strong this "recovery" is in January when all the holiday temporary workers are let go.

The recovery in relation to the post is completely irrelevant.

The relevant issue that there has already been massive Keynesian (I rather doubt Keynes was gung-ho on tax cuts, but I'm not sure) stimulus with a negative net increase in jobs. Around 3 million lost by Bush so far.

With a huge increase in federal debt.

To continue slashing revenue in the face of that debt is pure insanity. "Conservatives" used to at least verbally adhere to fiscal restraint and prudence--somebody has to pay off that debt someday, and it's not without cost, either. Already debt financing takes up about 10% of discretionary spending.

Only radical freaks would push for $128 billion more cuts. Radical freaks like Muckdog.

The secondary issue related to the post is the incredibly weak response from House Demcorats. The "recovery" currently being so blared to cover up massive failure and debt is, again, irrelevant to the post.

The problem is, your post makes little sense. Blaming Bush for the recession is lunacy. The stock market was collapsing prior to the 2000 election. Before we even knew who won the election. The bubble burst.

The Bush economic team has to be congratulated for an outstanding job managing the recession. Consumers have kept us alive by spending their tax cuts and home equity (from refinancing their homes).

Historically, this has been a very mild recession.

Does the post blame Bush for a recession? No.

The post blames the Republicans for running up massive debt and continuing the insanity right in the face of massive failure.

You're 2 for 2 on completely missing the subject of the post, MuckDog. When Bush said a death a day in Iraq equalled success he must have been talking to you. You're the only one who evidently could make sense of that: failure = success. I guess that's how Hastert thinks when the Republicans ask for more corporate tax cuts; we've failed but its success. Lets do it some more!

What will prove more telling will be if the WTO finds against the US and this tax break cum export subsidy. As we are also awaiting a final ruling on allowing Mexican trucks to roam freely across the nation, maybe now these "Free Traders" will recognize that admittance to GATT was a very un-conservative thing to do.

Wouldn't it be ironic if GATT proves to be the downfall of radical conservatism!

[And before muckdog seeks to "re-educate" me, I remember that ratification of GATT was passed under Clinton. I was against it then and I am more so now.]

These rads talk of this pure free market economy that never existed which will bring a wave of prosperity never matched in this country's history. They know this isn't true but what they do know is that the robber barons of the Gilded Age had a plan. A plan cut short but those darn Roosevelts and that equally darned Wilson guy between the two acronyms.THIS is what our ancestors feared.

Well how about this: maybe the problem with the Democratic leadership is that they mostly believe the same ideological clap-trap the Hasterts and DeLays and such do and they mostly agree with most of the insanity that has been going on in Congress (let alone the White House) since the nearly unopposed usurpation...

It's been painfully obvious that most of the elected Democrats will not -- perhaps cannot -- offer principled opposition to the plunder and rapine of the Republicans, and most will go along with them on just about everything.

Why would they do this, given the outrage, anger, frustration and fury of the public (at least the Democratic public) at them, a fury that translates into loss of votes, loss of campaign money, which translates into loss of power? Why? What do they gain by ignoring or insulting the public and the best interests of the nation? Why are they committing political suicide?

This question has vexed me since their refusal to stand up against the lawlessness of the Supreme Court. My take: they are more fearful of the armed right-wing reactionary minority than they are of the generally leaderless and adrift majority, and their fear has more influence than all our calls and letters and all our marching in the streets put together.

They are terrified. And what they aren't scared of, they agree with.

But what do I know?

--felix

It seems sort of odd that all the left-leaning comments posted here seem to have one underlining theme: Government must get their money first - prior to anyone enjoying the fruits of their own labor, they must lay a large portion of their earnings on the alter of Government.

Could someone also point to a particular policy the Bush has implemented that has cost 3 million jobs? I always hear how Clinton "created jobs" and Bush "lost jobs", but there is never any indentification of what policies created or lost these jobs.