The spending on Iraq/Afghanistan was something like 800 billion dollars over eight years. The two companys you mentioned (Halliburton and Exxon) got contracts worth only a few percent of that money combined. Both are large corporations, and their Iraq work was a small fraction of their revenues all during that time. Look it up yourself.

They and all the Iraq contractors (literally tens of thousands of companies large and small were contractors and subcontractors) used that money to pay salaries, make investments in plant and facilities, to pay for products, to pay local taxes, to pay dividends to their shareholders (many of whom were peoples holdiing shares in 401 K plans), etc. In short they spread that money all through the economy, just like the stimulus spending is supposed to do. The only difference is that it went in the direction of the Republicans' supporters and special interest groups, rather than the Democrats' supporters and special interest groups, as with the stimulus bill.

If you think spending on the Democrats' prioities is money better spent (as with the stimulus bill), I'd (mostly) agree with you on that. But claiming the Bush spending didn't stimulate the economy because it all went to a few people's pockets (or in Cheney's matress) is silly and just isn't supported by the facts. Defense spending is spread through the economy just as efficiently as government spending through most other sectors (as shown by the WW2 spending contributing to ending the Great Depression).

I think we went through that already about 144 years ago as to whether states could go their own way when they disagreed with the actions of the federal government. That being the case, its a bit moronic to criticize the "red" states taking the stimulus federal spending, since they are indeed still stuck with the resulting debt they didn't want.

As I remember, the present Secretary of State, as well as the Democratic congressional leadership, also voted for Bush's war and the related spending. You might also consider that the stimulus bill, plus the other bailout spending under Obama, is now bigger then all of Bush's eight years of Iraq spending. And by the way, if government deficit spending is so good for the economy, why didn't that large Republican deficit spending keep the economy from tanking on their watch?

How about an arrangement that if a state doesn't take the stimulus funds, then their citizens are not responsible for that part of the federal debt, and will pay correspondingly less future federal taxes? No deal, right? Can't work that way, right? That being the case, I really don't see any hypocrisy in the GOP governors taking the funds, even though they were against the whole deal to begin with (despite certain stimulus supporters trying to claim the opposite).

If a state doesn't have a balanced budget, there are only two ways to fix it - Either by cutting spending, or raising more revenue, meaning taxes. California already has about the highest income and sales taxes in the nation. It also had about the highest percent recent increase in budget spending in the nation (something like 40% growth in the last four years).

That spending growth was based on revenue windfalls from California's recent (maybe mythical) economic boom. So when the state's economy tanked, and the tax revenues with it, don't you think it would be prudent for California to cut spending back to what it was a few years ago? And don't you think maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of fat in the state's spending that could be prudently cut, without really "creaming" education? Why do you think just increaing taxes to support past levels of spending is the "easy way?" Or don't you pay those taxes?

The GOP leadership is not so foolish and stupid as this SNL send-up. You might want to think so, Joan, but they're not.

Compare them with the Democratic leadership, who in the face of 9/11 caved in completely to Bush and the nation's "terrorism panic" on torture, the Iraq war, etc., etc. The Democrats were totally afraid of Bush's then overwhelming popularity, and went right along with the then current groupthink.

The GOP leaderhip, in contrast, is standing up pretty strongly against Obama's agenda against overwhelming odds, and for political or principaled reasons not quite joining in the nation's current "economics panic" (which Obama and many of his allies seem to be inflaming when it suits them).

The GOP may or may not have made a good move here, strategically or politically. Only time will tell; the verdict is still out. But they are certainly not acting like the SNL caricature as much as you might wish it so.

And it's not clear yet who's winning. It won't be until we see what happens to the economy the next year or so. The Dems spending bills are HUGE, are a lot more than just a "stimulus," and they're just getting started. The Republicans simply decided they wanted no part of it. If the economy recovers, Obama wins. If not, hello President Palin. A very dangerous game for our country is being played by both sides. Be very worried.