I'm Confused

Before the Senate adopted the new stimulus bill, Obama came out to try to convince people that, despite much of the bill having little to nothing to do with stimulus, the loose (at best) connection between government spending and economic recovery, and a huge price tag, we had to pass this bill or there would be dire consequences.

Referring to ongoing conflicts over the amount of spending in the bill, Obama said that spending was the whole point of stimulus. I guess I am confused, because I thought the whole point of stimulus was... stimulating the economy. I thought that whatever the bill did, be it spending, tax cuts, or both, that those things were to be the means to an end, not an end unto themselves.

I guess we have to expect things to be different in this new era of hope and change. As Obama reminded us, "People didn't vote for the false theories of the past" and that we don't "...want the same tired arguments and worn out dogmas." I guess when he said, "On this day[his inauguration], we come to proclaim an end to... recriminations and worn out dogmas.." he was only talking about conservative dogmas.

I guess I was confused. I thought he was talking about a new way of doing business, not calling for the complete and utter capitulation of his political opponents.

I must also be confused about the terms of the debate. I did not realize we only had a choice between this stimulus bill and nothing, but according to Obama if his opponents got their way that is exactly what would happen, nothing. No spending, no tax breaks, no nothing.

I was under the impression that the Republicans had put forth their own version of the stimulus bill, which focused more on tax cuts with some infrastructure projects. Granted their bill was about half of what was finally past, but I guess they must not have gotten the memo that said that spending was the whole point of the bill.

I thought this was a debate about methods, means, and money, but I guess I was confused.