Re: I have a great idea. How about the supporters of this bill prove to me that most of its elements have the characteristics of a "stimulus"? After all, I'm a taxpayer, right? I have a right to know where my tax money is going and to demand more than just "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."
You haven't been listening. You should know as well as I do that you cannot prove a future event (i.e. is this section of the bill going to be stimulative); all you can try to do is to be as transparent and accountable as possible, and this bill does that through the recovery.gov website that I linked to half a dozen times already.
So you'll know where your tax money is going. And you'll be able to offer feedback on it, as well.
Re: All I've seen are the following two requirements put forth:
a) It puts money into the hands of working people.
b) It benefits society in some way, even if it is just to save some endangered mouse or reduce CO2 emissions.
If you've been paying attention to the conversation, you'd know by now that there is no provision for an endangered mouse in the bill. The best Elmer could find was a link to speculation that some of the environmental protection money could be used in this way. But if it is, it will appear on the website along with everything else, and you can comment whether you think it's a bad idea.
Re: That's not "stimulus," that's socialism. If that's where this country is headed, fine by me, but you have to admit that socialism can never be sold to the American public if it was labeled as such.
No, what you described is nothing like Socialism. Socialism is when the government runs an industry and gets to decide what's fair and equitable to the citizens of the country, and some people don't like the idea that certain things shouldn't be entirely in the hands of the business community.
Things like public schools are socialist, but actually, there's a private element of schooling as well. Police and fire depts are socialist, but we like those and probably wouldn't have a for-profit firm run 9-1-1.
The fear from many Republicans is that the banks or healthcare system may be headed towards Socialist management, but as for myself, I think any bank that doesn't have the discipline or responsibility to protect the investments of its clients should be run by the government - at least temporarily. The healthcare system needs a government option as well, though I think that, like schools, there will continue to be a private component as well. Like schools, healthcare should be available to all people, and if you have the means to pay more, then by all means get a coverage plan that you design from a for-profit entity.
All of this that I describe sounds to me like it's in the best interests of the American people. Republicans call it Socialism, but this country already has a number of Socialist programs that people tend to like a lot. But just because some programs are Socialist, doesn't make the entire country a Socialist country. The major difference is in choice, and being able to handle some systems with both a government as well as a for-profit component.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
