fmikehugo - it was a generic "you"
Allow me to restate ...
What I am saying is that producing the weakest job growth per stimulus dollar invested in the history of the modern American economy, and tilting the stimulus to non-marginal spenders who move their "found money" not into stimulating the economy and hiring more workers, but into reflating the equities markets, produces negative long-term economic consequences.
Now, you could:
(1) Disbelieve the contention that on a dollar for dollar ROI basis (amount of GDP stimulated per dollar of stimulus injected) this is the least efficient stimulus in modern US economic history, or
(2) reject the idea that even if (1) is true, it doesn't necessarily mean there will be a tab to pick up one day, or any long-term negative consequences
But if a person acknowledges the factual basis of (1) and agrees with the premise (2) and still labels them as "good", then yes, I am suggesting that person favors certain interests over certain other interests in the economic spectrum, and has a bias toward borrowing from the future to enjoy today.
I don't have a political "agenda", btw, although I do still serve in politically appointed capacities. I think you might be quite surprised at who my last appointment came from and with whom I work on a regular basis.
Incidentally, as I'm sure you must know, there are a great many conservatives who happen to be well aware of (1) and wholeheartedly embrace the premise of (2). I wouldn't be so quick to resort to oversimplified assumptions about who's who here. If you disagree with the thesis, just argue the point and skip the same labeling you found repugnant when you thought I was leveling at you (which I trust you can now see I wasn't).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
