Why would you assume 'republican' from anything I have said...

I said that it was necessary to deal with the representatives and senators before the presidency.

Not a single mention of republican.

I figure there are theives and scoundrels in both parties...

I don't care if its democrats or republicans...

Time to clean them out.

One of the things that makes it frustrating to debate with the conservatives here is that I don't remember them once answering my questions. Argument>rebuttal>counter-rebuttal is not a very productive process. I've seen enough Perry Masons to know that in a law court, testimony is not even allowed without the opposing lawyer having an opportunity to cross-examine the testimony in order to challenge its value. I have made every attempt to answer all your questions honestly and candidly. When I ask a question, what we get is . . . well, we've all seen what we get. That's free speech, I suppose, but it doesn't shed much light on the subject.

Don't you think that you are obliged to answer the questions of the person with whom you are debating?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.

The stimulus was intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession. The rationale for the stimulus comes out of the Keynesian economic tradition that argues that government budget deficits should be used to cover the output gap created by the drop in consumer spending during a recession. The modern consensus (a blend of thinking from New Keynesian and New Neo-classical theory in economics) favors monetary over fiscal policy like the fiscal stimulus. However, the Federal Reserve had already cut interest rates to zero, greatly reducing their policy options. The flow of finances was stagnated because of a liquidity trap, or an over leveraged/broke banking system, also limiting monetary policy effectiveness. While many economists agreed a fiscal stimulus was needed under these conditions, others maintained that fiscal policy would not work because government debt would use up savings that would otherwise go to investments, what economists call crowding out. Proponents countered that the negative effects of crowding out are limited when investment has already stagnated.

The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill. The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Barack Obama at an economic forum he was hosting in Denver, Colorado.[5]

As of the end of August 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been outlaid or gone to American taxpayers or businesses in the form of tax incentives.

Context of 'October 3, 2008: Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Bill Passes, President Bush Signs into Law'
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event October 3, 2008: Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Bill Passes, President Bush Signs into Law. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

October 3, 2008: Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Bill Passes, President Bush Signs into Law House of Representatives bill 1424, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), passes by a slim margin in both Congressional houses, and is immediately signed into law by President Bush. [White House, 10/3/2008]

November 10, 2008: Bloomberg News Sues Bush, Paulson for Failure to Reveal Recipients of $2 Trillion Taxpayer Loans After President Bush and US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson push through a long-sought change in how bank mergers are taxed, Bloomberg News sues the Federal Reserve for failing to reveal loan recipients. The change will deprive US taxpayers of as much as $140 billion in tax revenue. As the economy continues its downward spiral into what is called the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression, sources say that a late September $700 billion bailout is “a quiet windfall for US banks.” [Washington Post, 11/10/2008] The legality of Treasury-negotiated equity deals for many US banks is questioned by tax attorneys, as well as nearly $2 trillion that Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve handed out in emergency loans before the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, was enacted (see October 3, 2008). The Fed refuses to reveal which corporations received loans, or what collateral has been presented. Sources say that this secrecy is a legal violation. The Federal Reserve’s lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the TARP bailout plan, although without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress. Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on September 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank’s purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds. [Bloomberg News, 11/10/2008; AlterNet, 11/14/2008]