• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
And what is wrong with that? Cantor was trying to push an utterly foolish stimulus package that was basically entirely tax cuts that have limited stimulative effect. Regardless of the political merits, it was dumb economic policy. When he tried to push it on Obama, he was told (correctly) that his plan wouldn't be going into place.

What Obama DID do however is craft a stimulus bill that was about 40% tax cuts. It was met with nearly unanimous Republican opposition. Shocking.
What's shocking is that you totally ignore the reasons the Republicans were so against Obama's stimulus bill. Then again on second thought...maybe it's not so shocking after all.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Democrats always claim that the reason they filibustered legislation by Bush was the good of the country, why wouldn't the opposite be true? Unless of course it's just partisan bullshit on both sides?
Now you partisan Democrats can go "wah wah wah false equivalence! ebil repugs did it more often!"
Are you really truly this ignorant??
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,056
136
What's shocking is that you totally ignore the reasons the Republicans were so against Obama's stimulus bill. Then again on second thought...maybe it's not so shocking after all.
Well friend DSF, if love to hear your wisdom as to why you think the Republicans were against it. My guess is that you will take republican statements at face value despite former and latter legislative records and words on similar issues. You are very wise in the ways of legislative analysis as shown in previous threads, so this should be good.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,907
1,056
126
What's shocking is that you totally ignore the reasons the Republicans were so against Obama's stimulus bill. Then again on second thought...maybe it's not so shocking after all.
They were afraid it was going to work and make Obama look good for fixing the mess that they created. And they were right, it largely did work, but it's hard to fix a mess that the GOP spent years creating with bad policy.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Well friend DSF, if love to hear your wisdom as to why you think the Republicans were against it. My guess is that you will take republican statements at face value despite former and latter legislative records and words on similar issues. You are very wise in the ways of legislative analysis as shown in previous threads, so this should be good.
There was much dissention in the Republican party against Cantor's plan. That's why Martinez drafted an alternative plan and Nelson/Collins drafted a bipartisan plan.

You are obviously much wiser than me regarding legislative analysis...please tell me why you think the Republicans overwhelmingly objected so vehemently to Obama's plan.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,056
136
There was much dissention in the Republican party against Cantor's plan. That's why Martinez drafted an alternative plan and Nelson/Collins drafted a bipartisan plan.

You are obviously much wiser than me regarding legislative analysis...please tell me why you think the Republicans overwhelmingly objected so vehemently to Obama's plan.
Every republican plan was comprised almost entirely of tax cuts, something they knew was a nonstarter. They basically signaled their willingness to vote for a stimulus plan so long as it was a republican one. They created alternative plans for political cover, not as bills they actually expected to pass. This is no secret.

This is not universally true, Collins, who later voted for the full bill, did appear to genuinely be interested in compromise. Apparently by her vote, she felt she got enough. The republicans in the house and most of them in the senate would not have voted for it almost no matter what. Their small minorities allowed them the freedom to oppose everything at a low political cost.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Every republican plan was comprised almost entirely of tax cuts, something they knew was a nonstarter.
And the Obama plan was too expensive, not enough tax cuts, and largely comprised of excessive and wasteful pork barrel spending that wouldn't do much, if anything, to stimilate our economy...something Dems knew was a nonstarter for Republicans.

Not one Democrat attempted to rid the bill of any the pork in the bill. At least Tom Colburn was successful in preventing $286mm of pork going to Hollywood's movie industry. Not much in the scheme of things, but at least he's doing something constructive for the taxpayer.

They basically signaled their willingness to vote for a stimulus plan so long as it was a republican one. They created alternative plans for political cover, not as bills they actually expected to pass. This is no secret.
Your highly biased opinion? Or do you have facts to back up this statement?

This is not universally true, Collins, who later voted for the full bill, did appear to genuinely be interested in compromise. Apparently by her vote, she felt she got enough. The republicans in the house and most of them in the senate would not have voted for it almost no matter what. Their small minorities allowed them the freedom to oppose everything at a low political cost.
Many people were 'genuinely interested' in compromise. After several weeks of the White House switchboard being 'lit up' with calls from angry citizens, Obama called Martinez to get support for Porkulus.

Martinez wanted provisions to help save the housing market differently than Obama's plan. Martinez wanted a $15,000 tax credit for new homeowners (vs Obama's $7,500 tax credit). But more importantly, he also wanted to give home lenders a financial incentive to work out deals with homeowners who could lose their home to foreclosure. We now know how Obama's $50b Foreclosure Rescue Plan worked out...a debacle that did little or nothing to solve the problem. A little compromise here on Obama's part would have been really nice...but that didn't happen. Martinez also wanted greater emphasis on projects that could quickly begin and employ new workers. Do you think these were unreasonable demands?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,056
136
And the Obama plan was too expensive, not enough tax cuts, and largely comprised of excessive and wasteful pork barrel spending that wouldn't do much, if anything, to stimilate our economy...something Dems knew was a nonstarter for Republicans.

Not one Democrat attempted to rid the bill of any the pork in the bill. At least Tom Colburn was successful in preventing $286mm of pork going to Hollywood's movie industry. Not much in the scheme of things, but at least he's doing something constructive for the taxpayer.
Actually Republicans who had only recently voted for President Bush's stimulus plan suddenly declared that stimulus didn't work. Interesting that their opinions changed so quickly with a change of leadership in the White House. Of course they complained that there weren't enough tax cuts, their plans were basically all tax cuts.

What I do find interesting is that in the exact same sentence you complain about insufficient tax cuts (widely regarded by economists as among the least effective forms of stimulus), with a complaint about spending which you believed was ineffective stimulus. I have to give it to you friend DSF, that's impressively dumb even for you.


Your highly biased opinion? Or do you have facts to back up this statement?
A simple reading of the news from the period shows it just fine. I doubt you want to hear things that will conflict with your highly biased opinion, but it's quite obvious that a large percentage of the Republican caucus was opposed to stimulus as a concept, including those who had voted for stimulus under Bush.

Many people were 'genuinely interested' in compromise. After several weeks of the White House switchboard being 'lit up' with calls from angry citizens, Obama called Martinez to get support for Porkulus.

Martinez wanted provisions to help save the housing market differently than Obama's plan. Martinez wanted a $15,000 tax credit for new homeowners (vs Obama's $7,500 tax credit). But more importantly, he also wanted to give home lenders a financial incentive to work out deals with homeowners who could lose their home to foreclosure. We now know how Obama's $50b Foreclosure Rescue Plan worked out...a debacle that did little or nothing to solve the problem. A little compromise here on Obama's part would have been really nice...but that didn't happen. Martinez also wanted greater emphasis on projects that could quickly begin and employ new workers. Do you think these were unreasonable demands?
Many people were genuinely interested in compromise? I would love to know exactly who those people were. It is telling however that you are asking for Obama to have entirely reworked the mortgage section of the stimulus bill to net a single GOP vote. That should show everyone quite clearly the intransigence he was working with.

The GOP found it politically advantageous to oppose everything Obama did, they did so almost uniformly, and they stated their intentions publicly. I'm sure these aren't things you want to hear, because they interfere with your insipid false equivalence arguments that you seem so desperately wedded to.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Actually Republicans who had only recently voted for President Bush's stimulus plan suddenly declared that stimulus didn't work. Interesting that their opinions changed so quickly with a change of leadership in the White House. Of course they complained that there weren't enough tax cuts, their plans were basically all tax cuts.
"President Bush's stimulus plan"? Bush's TARP bill targeted the credit crisis and Obama's Porkulus bill targeted job creation. Admittedly, TARP had some stimulus money attached...but the vast majority was used to stabilize the credit markets to keep them from collapsing. Surely you know this. Conflating the two as similar stimulus plans is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. BTW, many Republicans voted against both TARP and Porkulus...the change of leadership in the White House had nothing to do with it.

What I do find interesting is that in the exact same sentence you complain about insufficient tax cuts (widely regarded by economists as among the least effective forms of stimulus), with a complaint about spending which you believed was ineffective stimulus. I have to give it to you friend DSF, that's impressively dumb even for you.
So...we're doubling down on personal insults now?

A simple reading of the news from the period shows it just fine. I doubt you want to hear things that will conflict with your highly biased opinion, but it's quite obvious that a large percentage of the Republican caucus was opposed to stimulus as a concept, including those who had voted for stimulus under Bush.
I asked to for facts to support you assertion...I see none.

Many people were genuinely interested in compromise? I would love to know exactly who those people were. It is telling however that you are asking for Obama to have entirely reworked the mortgage section of the stimulus bill to net a single GOP vote. That should show everyone quite clearly the intransigence he was working with.
No...it should show everyone quite clearly the intransigence Republicans were working with. Obama totally screwed up the mortgage section of the bill and many Americans suffered for his incompetence.

The GOP found it politically advantageous to oppose everything Obama did, they did so almost uniformly, and they stated their intentions publicly. I'm sure these aren't things you want to hear, because they interfere with your insipid false equivalence arguments that you seem so desperately wedded to.
False equivalence? You mean like equating TARP to Porkulus? Is this the part where I'm supposed to call you "impressively dumb even for you"?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,056
136
"President Bush's stimulus plan"? Bush's TARP bill targeted the credit crisis and Obama's Porkulus bill targeted job creation. Admittedly, TARP had some stimulus money attached...but the vast majority was used to stabilize the credit markets to keep them from collapsing. Surely you know this. Conflating the two as similar stimulus plans is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. BTW, many Republicans voted against both TARP and Porkulus...the change of leadership in the White House had nothing to do with it.
No, not TARP. The Bush stimulus act. The same one that 85% of Republicans in Congress who voted against Obama's stimulus in 2009 voted for in 2008. lol, intellectual dishonesty. Gotta educate yourself, brotha.

I asked to for facts to support you assertion...I see none.
Sorry to hear that, I gave you a perfectly good suggestion to go educate yourself, but I can't force you to do it. Only you can make that choice.

No...it should show everyone quite clearly the intransigence Republicans were working with. Obama totally screwed up the mortgage section of the bill and many Americans suffered for his incompetence.
Nonsensical statement.

False equivalence? You mean like equating TARP to Porkulus? Is this the part where I'm supposed to call you "impressively dumb even for you"?
Nope, I in no way have ever equated TARP to the ARRA. (laughable hyper-partisan names for things aside) I have to say that I do enjoy you trying to call me stupid while exposing your total ignorance of the topic. Like I said earlier, gotta educate yourself.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
No, not TARP. The Bush stimulus act. The same one that 85% of Republicans in Congress who voted against Obama's stimulus in 2009 voted for in 2008. lol, intellectual dishonesty. Gotta educate yourself, brotha.



Sorry to hear that, I gave you a perfectly good suggestion to go educate yourself, but I can't force you to do it. Only you can make that choice.



Nonsensical statement.



Nope, I in no way have ever equated TARP to the ARRA. (laughable hyper-partisan names for things aside) I have to say that I do enjoy you trying to call me stupid while exposing your total ignorance of the topic. Like I said earlier, gotta educate yourself.
Just to be accurate, there was no "Bush stimulus plan". The Dems controlled both chambers of Congress in 2008; they wrote both versions, and they had control of reconciliation. Bush signed it into law and then sped up the implementation, but Dems wrote it. As to why the Pubbies snubbed up, it can't possibly have anything to do with Porkulus being over five times as large as the 2008 stimulus AND geared more heavily toward unions and state governments. Nope, political infighting (a concept wholly unknown to the Democrats' pure minds as we all know) is the only conceivable reason why a Congresscritter might balk at throwing three quarters of a trillion dollars at a problem.

Five percent of GDP? Chicken feed! It's not big enough! We need REAL stimulus!
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
No, not TARP. The Bush stimulus act. The same one that 85% of Republicans in Congress who voted against Obama's stimulus in 2009 voted for in 2008. lol, intellectual dishonesty. Gotta educate yourself, brotha.
Ah... the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008...so you you think $187b vs $787b is an inconsequental difference that wouldn't affect voting. How about the billions and billions of pork that had minimal if any impact on stimulating the economy. Is that also an inconsequental difference that wouldn't affect voting? How about a horrible foreclosure rescue plan? Is that also an inconsequental difference that wouldn't affect voting? There were many, many differences...no? Smells like false equivalence to me.

Sorry to hear that, I gave you a perfectly good suggestion to go educate yourself, but I can't force you to do it. Only you can make that choice.
In other words...you don't have facts to back up you assertions. Got it.

Nonsensical statement.
I imagine those directly affected by the dismal failure of Obama's Foreclosure Rescue Plan might feel differently.

Nope, I in no way have ever equated TARP to the ARRA. (laughable hyper-partisan names for things aside) I have to say that I do enjoy you trying to call me stupid while exposing your total ignorance of the topic. Like I said earlier, gotta educate yourself.
I was not calling you stupid, stupid. :D
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,056
136
Ah... the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008...so you you think $187b vs $787b is an inconsequental difference that wouldn't affect voting. How about the billions and billions of pork that had minimal if any impact on stimulating the economy. Is that also an inconsequental difference that wouldn't affect voting? How about a horrible foreclosure rescue plan? Is that also an inconsequental difference that wouldn't affect voting? There were many, many differences...no? Smells like false equivalence to me.
See now if we go back to my original post we can get to how individuals who voted for Bush's economic stimulus weren't simply basing their opposition on the size of it, but stating that it didn't work altogether, which was of course my original point before you exposed your ignorance of the basic ideas under discussion.

I imagine those directly affected by the dismal failure of Obama's Foreclosure Rescue Plan might feel differently.
What they do or don't feel has nothing to do with how much sense your statement made as it relates to our discussion.

I was not calling you stupid, stupid. :D
Sure.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
See now if we go back to my original post we can get to how individuals who voted for Bush's economic stimulus weren't simply basing their opposition on the size of it, but stating that it didn't work altogether, which was of course my original point before you exposed your ignorance of the basic ideas under discussion.
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 didn't work. It had some minor benefit, but it was intended to avert recession and it didn't. Nearly 40% of Senate Republicans opposed it. The differences between Bush's bill and Obama's bill were vast. To attribute the reason for Obama's bill getting less Republican support primarliy due to a change of leadership in the White House is pure partisan speculation on your part. The fact of the matter is that a more reasonable explanation for the lack of Republican suppport is that Obama's plan just plain sucked...and hindsight bears this out imo.

What they do or don't feel has nothing to do with how much sense your statement made as it relates to our discussion.
Is this the part where I'm supposed to say you've "exposed your ignorance of the basic ideas under discussion"? We were discussing the subject of compromise. I mentioned that Obama's failure to compromise on the mortage section was a huge mistake. Martinez wasn't asking for the moon for his vote...he compromised to the point of just wanting a couple changes to the mortgage section. It was Obama's failure to compromise that caused a lot of suffering for Americans.

I'm not calling you stupid. I think you're highly intelligent. I'm alluding to your apparent psychological need to call others ignorant and stupid.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,056
136
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 didn't work. It had some minor benefit, but it was intended to avert recession and it didn't. Nearly 40% of Senate Republicans opposed it. The differences between Bush's bill and Obama's bill were vast. To attribute the reason for Obama's bill getting less Republican support primarliy due to a change of leadership in the White House is pure partisan speculation on your part. The fact of the matter is that a more reasonable explanation for the lack of Republican suppport is that Obama's plan just plain sucked...and hindsight bears this out imo.
First of all, for the stimulus act of 2008 to have had to entirely averted a recession in order to have worked is not what people were referring to. If you think it is, then those people have created a deliberately unreachable bar. As I have said multiple times now, many of those very same Republicans who voted for Bush's fiscal stimulus bill in 2008 voted against Obama's bill because they said that fiscal stimulus as a principle didn't work. The differences between the bills is irrelevant to that judgement so long as they were both fiscal stimulus bills, which they were.

The problem with Bush's stimulus bill was that it was foolishly crafted to rely on tax cuts, which are generally some of the worst forms of fiscal stimulus. They aren't totally ineffective, just a bad bang for the buck. As for Obama's plan 'sucking', I guess it depends on what you mean by 'suck'. It is widely credited by nonpartisan agencies with saving or creating millions of American jobs during a period of severe economic crisis.

Is this the part where I'm supposed to say you've "exposed your ignorance of the basic ideas under discussion"? We were discussing the subject of compromise. I mentioned that Obama's failure to compromise on the mortage section was a huge mistake. Martinez wasn't asking for the moon for his vote...he compromised to the point of just wanting a couple changes to the mortgage section. It was Obama's failure to compromise that caused a lot of suffering for Americans.
You're terrible at talking shit. You think Obama's failure to rewrite the mortgage section was a huge mistake? I can't possibly see how. You wanted Obama to rewrite a major section of his legislation in order to secure a single additional vote, one that wasn't even needed to pass. (and who knows what effect that would have on other votes?) How much more bipartisan would the bill have been if it were 61-37 instead of the 60-38 that it was? Trivially so. You look at a bill that should have had much more spending than tax cuts which was watered down to 60% spending 40% tax cuts, and then complain that Obama didn't compromise because he didn't make a major concession for a single vote. If such a change could have brought significant numbers of Republicans over to his side, you might have had a point. I see no evidence for that whatsoever.

I'm not calling you stupid. I think you're highly intelligent. I'm alluding to your apparent psychological need to call others ignorant and stupid.
You took a post of mine, misinterpreted what I wrote because you didn't know there was a fiscal stimulus act in 2008, called me intellectually dishonest over it, and then got mad when I pointed that out. This was after you combined a complaint about ineffective stimulus efforts while wondering why Obama wouldn't include more ineffective stimulus efforts. That sounds an awful lot like ignorance to me.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
First of all, for the stimulus act of 2008 to have had to entirely averted a recession in order to have worked is not what people were referring to. If you think it is, then those people have created a deliberately unreachable bar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008
Wikipedia says the bill's intent was to stimulate the economy to avert recession. Regardless of whether or not you feel that was an "unreachable bar" or not, the stimulus plan didn't stimulate the economy enough to accomplish this goal...the Bush stimulus was minimally effective and it failed to deliver the intended results.

Stimulus wasn't hugely popular principle with Republicans before Bush's plan...and it certainly wasn't a well regarded principle after it failed to prevent or significantly mitigate a severe recession.

As I have said multiple times now, many of those very same Republicans who voted for Bush's fiscal stimulus bill in 2008 voted against Obama's bill because they said that fiscal stimulus as a principle didn't work.
So what? There are various reasons for the lack of Republican support for Obama's plan as I've briefly touched on previously. To depict this as all Republican's were thinking in lock-step that "fiscal stimulus as a principle didn't work" is an extreme oversimplification.

The differences between the bills is irrelevant to that judgement so long as they were both fiscal stimulus bills, which they were.
The stimulus bills were vastly different and these differences are profoundly relevant to the question at hand. Perhaps this point is the crux of our disagreement.

The problem with Bush's stimulus bill was that it was foolishly crafted to rely on tax cuts, which are generally some of the worst forms of fiscal stimulus. They aren't totally ineffective, just a bad bang for the buck. As for Obama's plan 'sucking', I guess it depends on what you mean by 'suck'. It is widely credited by nonpartisan agencies with saving or creating millions of American jobs during a period of severe economic crisis.
I think you're confused here. The Bush stimulus plan was almost entirely comprised of refundable lump-sum tax rebates. These "tax cuts" had an estimated 1.29 "bang for the buck" multiplier. I believe you are confusing this with the .29 estimated multiplier for making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

When they sold the Obama plan to the public, a 1.4 to 1.5 multipier was promised as well as an unemployment rate of below 8%....some might say that they "created a deliberately unreachable bar"...no? If you've read the CBO report, you know that the Obama's stimulus plan did not perform as expected which essentially validates conservative criticism that Democrats overestimated the effect of the stimulus. It's interesting to note from the CBO report that there is not one single major provision of Omaba's stimulus plan that had a low-bound multiplier estimate of greater than 1.

Another recent study corroborates this finding. Valerie A. Ramey (NBER economist) estimates a spending multiplier range from 0.6 to 1.1. These multipliers are far lower than the Obama administration estimates and her results suggest that government spending may actually decrease economic growth, most likely due to inefficient use of money.

Perhaps 'government spending' fiscal stimulus as a principle doesn't work after all.

You're terrible at talking shit.
I'm not trying to talk shit...perhaps that's why I'm so terrible at it. Think about it.

You think Obama's failure to rewrite the mortgage section was a huge mistake? I can't possibly see how.
It was a disaster imo...and I'm not alone.
Foreclosure Aid Fell Short, and Is Fading
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/business/30foreclose.html

You wanted Obama to rewrite a major section of his legislation in order to secure a single additional vote, one that wasn't even needed to pass. (and who knows what effect that would have on other votes?)
Look, Obama called Martinez soliciting his vote...Martinez wanted a concession for his vote that Obama was unwilling to concede. As a result, we got POS foreclosure relief at a critical time during the crisis.

How much more bipartisan would the bill have been if it were 61-37 instead of the 60-38 that it was? Trivially so. You look at a bill that should have had much more spending than tax cuts which was watered down to 60% spending 40% tax cuts, and then complain that Obama didn't compromise because he didn't make a major concession for a single vote.
It's not about a single vote...we were talking about compromise. Obama wanted Martinez's vote expecting him to fully compromise his values...in contrast, it was Obama who would not compromise one iota in return. In hindsight, we would have benefited greatly if Obama was truly open to bipartisan compromise in this particular example.

You took a post of mine, misinterpreted what I wrote because you didn't know there was a fiscal stimulus act in 2008, called me intellectually dishonest over it, and then got mad when I pointed that out. This was after you combined a complaint about ineffective stimulus efforts while wondering why Obama wouldn't include more ineffective stimulus efforts.
I thought you were talking about TARP at first..my bad. For the record, I said that conflating TARP (which I mistakenly thought you were talking about) and ARRA as similar stimulus plans is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Which is true if you were actually talking about TARP as I mistakenly believed. Also, I didn't get mad when you pointed out my misunderstanding...not sure how you got that impression. Anyway, you have my apologies.

That sounds an awful lot like ignorance to me.
There you go again. This is getting old if you don't mind my saying.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,491
136
Yawn. The Bush stimulus of 2008, being tax cuts, was generally used to pay down debt or was saved. In terms of economic stimulus, it was like pouring money down the drain, as were the tax cut provisions of the Obama stimulus.

People save money & pay down debt in times of economic turmoil & uncertainty, which qactually makes things worse. Reference the paradox of thrift. Tax cuts for the wealthiest are utterly ineffective, because they don't need to do much of anything with the money except sit on it until demand picks up eventually, stimulating them to invest in means of production.

Real economic stimulus depends on govt actually spending money to buy goods & services, whatever they are, because it both prevents layoffs & promotes hiring.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Yawn. The Bush stimulus of 2008, being tax cuts, was generally used to pay down debt or was saved. In terms of economic stimulus, it was like pouring money down the drain, as were the tax cut provisions of the Obama stimulus.

People save money & pay down debt in times of economic turmoil & uncertainty, which qactually makes things worse. Reference the paradox of thrift. Tax cuts for the wealthiest are utterly ineffective, because they don't need to do much of anything with the money except sit on it until demand picks up eventually, stimulating them to invest in means of production.

Real economic stimulus depends on govt actually spending money to buy goods & services, whatever they are, because it both prevents layoffs & promotes hiring.
Government spending can help discourage layoffs, but anyone with an ounce of sense knows that government spending cannot promote hiring. Government has only that money that it takes from someone else. Since it is axiomatic that not even Government <cue celestial choir> can operate with no expenses, any additional money government spends is more than offset by what it removes from the economy. Any hiring based on government spending has to be more than offset by layoffs caused by that money being taken out of the private sector - that sector which produces wealth. The very most government can do is to time shift the layoffs, either by borrowing wealth produced by the private sector or by banking wealth produced by the private sector for future hard times.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY