Just pointing out that using the IPCC as a source on climate change may not be the best way to be thought as credible.
Gravity isn't 'fact' either, but we can observe it. I fully agree that not all the data are in on climate change. But the data we do have strongly points towards us causing the changes and those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
But more broadly, if a problem can't be completely quantified, but trends are starting to appear that, if fully realized, portend 'really bad' (tm) things, wouldn't it be prudent to start trying to address those things we are doing that feed into those trends?
A problem that plays out over decades or even centuries can't be addressed once it is in motion. The inertia of the problem would make it completely impossible to stop. So you start now before all the facts are in because the cost of being 'wrong' on the trends in the bad direction is simply way to high.
No, MSNBC and most of the 'liberal' media have shown time and time again that Fox News is clearly in the tank for the GOP/Tea Party/Conservative/Big Business groups.
Are MSNBC unabashedly liberal? sure, that's not the point. The point is that Fox tailors their coverage and flat out LIES to their audience. My favorite example was when Fox was covering/sponsoring one of the early Tea Parties using Hannity. He is clearly heard off the air asking how many people are in the crowd and is told about 5 thousand. He then goes on air and inflates it straight to almost 25 thousand.
Or the clear misuse of the Glenn Beck rally footage to bolster the Michelle Bachmann 'press conference'/rally. That was *not* just a video editing mistake. It happened again within a couple weeks.
Shall we talk political contributions? When was the last time a 'liberal' mainstream media outlet contributed directly to one side of the political spectrum? Kinda hard to be 'objective' if your owner is personally funding one side.
Shall we talk hyposcrisy? Remember the 'show us the funding' cries about the NYC Muslim Center? Who was that from? Fox and the GOP. Now, they say that asking for funding disclosures is unamerican when related to the Citizens United created groups playing a direct role in our political process.
Sorry, Fox News is *not* a media organization anymore than K Street lobbyists are.
A more recent survey, released by the Pew Research Center on April 15, 2007, indicates that regular viewers of The Daily Show tend to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored in the high knowledge range, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51%, significantly higher than the 34% of network morning show viewers. The survey shows that changing news formats have not made much difference on how much the public knows about national and international affairs, but adds that there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know.source The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a content analysis report suggesting that The Daily Show comes close to providing the complete daily news.source
While not quite the damning of Fox News, it does indeed seem to be Stewart at the top of everybody else
In 2010, an independent investigation into the IPCC recommended that the body focus more on explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature, and less on lobbying activities.source
IPCC chair says we need quicker intervention on Climate Change
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, admitted at the launch of this report that since the IPCC began work on it, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change", like the unforeseen dramatic melting of polar ice in the summer of 2007,source and added, "that means you better start with intervention much earlier".source
And numerous other examples on the Wikipedia page complete with sources.
If your 'science' organization is being told it should really stop doing lobbying work and concentrate more on science...well that sorta speaks for itself.
The *vast* majority of science today agrees that we are in fact having effects on the climate.
The thing that is so funny is that the very climate models we used back in the 70s we can now compare to actual results. And it is worse today than the worst case estimates from back then.
So when the models today predict that in 30-100 years, sea levels will rise over 3 feet, we should, what, assume the effects would be smaller? We've seen proven evidence that the knowledge we do have doesn't accurately predict results...the actual results are worse than any predictions so far.
Sea levels *are* rising, record temperatures *are* being recorded each and every year, arctic ice cover *is* shrinking every year, Greenland ice sheets *are* melting and moving faster than we've ever seen them. Should we just ignore those documented facts?
As for 'natural' processes, the burning of fossil fuels by humans for cars and power is not a 'natural' process. Sure it *could* happen if suddenly earthquakes somehow released all the oil and it caught fire, but without us it wouldn't currently be in the atmosphere today. We are putting CO2 from millions of years into the atmosphere in only 150 years so far. That simply isn't sustainable.
The entire point being that if it is truly an EV with a range extender module, I could, conceptually, not even have an ICE generator but another battery as the extender module.
Even better, while the ICE is being 'maintained' the car could still drive around on the original battery power without any issue.
A hybrid that uses the ICE to actually drive wheels simply can't do that.
GM never claimed that you could 'swap' out the electric generator. That's just a basic concept of an electrically driven vehicle. It doesn't care where the electricity comes from.
Much like Toyota didn't initially claim the Prius could be a plug-in hybrid, yet people modified them to be that way; not by changing the type of car but by putting in bigger batteries and a charging port. Same car, just different inputs for the electricity. Unfortunately the Prius is still a gas & electric driven hybrid.
Q: How is the Chevy Volt different than other cars on the road?
A: The car is a plug-in range-extended electric vehicle with an on-board gasoline generator. It will have a large battery that stores power from your home electric outlet and which is connected to an electric motor. The electric motor directly propels the car. The battery can last for the first 40 miles. After that, should one continue to need to drive, the on-board gasoline/E85 generator will power up to provide electricity for the motor.
wow you're pedantic. The point being that a hybrid has 2 systems to maintain, not that people won't 'remember' to maintain the gas system.
It's not what it is 'labeled', my original post may not have been clear on that. It is what it actually *is*. A hybrid with better numbers isn't what GM has been advertising this as.
My understanding was that the wasteful $400 hammers/toilet seats, were actually funding for the 'undisclosed' portions of the budget. But the 'wasteful' tag nicely got people in an uproar over something completely unrelated, thus clouding the issue beyond any rational discussion.
It is important. If it is simply a version of the existing hybrid cars, with both gas and electric propulsion systems, then it needs the maintenance that gas and hybrid cars need; oil changes, traditional transmission, etc.
By being a fully electric vehicle it no longer needs those parts since there is only electric propulsion. Where that electricity comes from is where GM said the Volt differed. By adding a gas generator (range extender) module you lessen the chance of being stranded with a dead battery. It gives it a 'usable' range for family trips and such. More importantly, the range module can be swapped out for something else, an extra battery, a fuel cell..anything that produces electricity.
If it turns out that the gas generator is actually driving the wheels, it can no longer be swapped out...
The price is marginally (very marginally) acceptable given the new technology and abilities and projected savings that have been touted by GM.
But if it's 'just' a hybrid with slightly better numbers, then the $40K price tag is simply ridiculous...
That comes from you not understanding that gold is not just a commodity, it's actual money.
Did Papa Beck tell you that himself? Money itself is a made up commodity, in whatever form you choose to express it. It is a way to assign a common measure of value to a particular item.
Gold is nothing more than an element/ore. Societies have attached value to it, but that is no different than the paper money we use today.
The Cato Institute is your example of history? LOL
What decidedly *most* reputable scholars know is that the Depression was significantly worsened because they tried the very same policies being espoused by the GOP now. "its bad in 1933-34, the stimulus stuff (1930ish) hasn't worked so cut things to the bone to save our way out."
The economy stayed in park because exactly nobody was spending money. Not the rich, not the poor, and certainly not the private industry. The Gov't was the last resort and it went to the sidelines and we got another 5 years of solid Depression.
WWII is what brought us out of the depression, not the 'cutting of spending' in the 50s. Which I would beg to differ was a time of heavy gov't spending, building little things like the Interstate Highway system and a good many of the bridges we still use today. Infrastructure doesn't come from private industry, it comes from the gov't for the greater good of the society.
Have you looked at job number trends? When Bush left office we were losing 750,000 a MONTH. Within a year or so we were about breaking even, with some months actually positive in growth. It's what everybody wants...a job trend going UP. Sure it's low, but after Bush and CO destroyed the regulations, safety programs and the economy you don't get the luxury of starting out with high job growth (like Bush did). Except just like the budget surplus, Bush squandered even that, they lost about 3 MILLION job in 8 years. Not exactly a booming track record to complain about Obama's numbers.
but back to the point. As the GOP is now pointing out, things are starting to slide backwards as state and local govt's have to scale back. The economy isn't quite ready to run on it's own just yet, but the stimulus has pretty much run its course.
So yes, it was too friggin small thanks to the GOP.
you don't see them spending large amounts of money over here
lol, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting chinese funded enterprises. Hint, it's the gov't and all the debt we're racking up, they are buying that debt up left and right. They are spending plenty of money here and it's a damned good thing, we'd be royally screwed if they stopped.
Uh, one of the reasons the Depression lasted so long here was exactly because they stopped the stimulative efforts after only a few years and so the economy started shrinking again...
that sorta says that continuing stimulus is actually better.
Food stamps make it possible to continue living without producing
Thank you. A perfect representation of the GOP.
"If you're poor, you should just die and not inconvenience us"
How about Social Security? Medicare? those to make it possible to continue living without producing.
So much for helping your fellow man, huh? What about people who were made poor by the banks? they should just die because in a tough economy there aren't jobs to take in the short term?
I used to drive over the 'Old Cooper River Bridge' in Charleston, SC. It got a '4' out of hundred. Ouch.
It was replaced a few years ago, but still it's a perfect example of the problems we face.
And of course the republican governor back then was arguing that this bridge, on US Rte 17, was actually a 'local' bridge simply because of it's location and prime usage. So the local (democratic leaning) people should pay for the replacement rather than the state with the gov't highway money.
Just about a perfect example of the current situation, GOP's 'you deal with' mantra rather than actual future thought and planning for the greater good.
The 'stimulus' wasn't meant to help much more than a year or a few years.
That's why it's a 'stimulus' package and not an ongoing plan to keep providing that same amount of input.
The time when private industry wasn't investing or buying or selling was the time that the gov't created the economic activity that kept the country from delving deeper into recession/depression.
Studies have shown that for every dollar you put into foodstamps you get $1.74-$2.24 back in economic activity. For tax cuts you get $0.74 back. Which is a better way to stimulate the economy (when it wasn't doing enough on it's own)?
It's a valid strategy to simply stop when you're in debt; I would say wrong headed, but valid. However, when your output depends on the activity level of the overall economy, shrinking the overall economy as austerity budget cuts would do, will create more problems rather than lessen the problem.
Your answer is the relatively uninterrupted growth from the Great Depression through 2008. And what changed?
The Glass/Stegal Act from that time was repealed in the late 90s allowing the bad investments to now start affecting people who had simply bought a house.
Obviously this is a massive simplification, but it's one of the main underlying causes of our current situation.
You touch on what is probably the crux of the pro/anti stimulus argument at least to me.
Is the massive short term pain of a full blown depression better or worse than mitigating that pain for a longer period at lower levels. It's a fair and debatable question.
let those who were responsible with their money keep it
But what if I was responsible with my money and the irresponsible banks lost it?
Let the winners win, let the losers lose
Pretty harsh when bad luck is all you have against you...
You speak of bridges. You do realize that *lots* of the bridges in this country are past their expected lifespan date right? Things were built massively after WWII and it's coming up on 60 years. Concrete things don't last forever and need to be replaced.
I would bet there are quite a few projects waiting to be built.
As for delays, most modern contracts include penalties for being late and bonuses for being done early, so what is the motivation for them being late again?
You're point about logistics is fair, but the stimulus wasn't to 'finish' existing projects, but to start new ones so there aren't any work sites sitting around idle waiting.
It would be much more irresponsible to *not* have done the stimulus. It should have been even bigger frankly. Gov't stimulus kept the economy moving while private industry stayed on the sidelines. Think of it as a bridge loan to when the economy starts ramping up again. You can pay some interest on the debt that you 'invest' for higher gains down the road.
That point is something that the GOP seems to forget. Stimulus is giving money to people that otherwise would not have had it. Why is this different than a tax break? because if you don't have a job a tax break doesn't do you a damned bit of good until maybe April. But foodstamps or unemployment checks do put money in your pocket that you will use right now.
Also, tax breaks for the wealthy that the GOP seems to love so much (remember 'small' business they want to help includes 2 of the worlds richest people the Koch brothers) don't help if the environment isn't good. They will just sit on the money until things improve, because, well, they can. They have money and don't need it for monthly expenses.
The poor and unemployed will quickly spend the money and food stamps, thus creating the 'stimulus' as that money ripples through the economy.
Infrastructure is likewise. Money that would not be spent because nobody is real positive about the future is spent by the gov't to build roads, new power lines, dams, whatever. That money goes into companies and employees pockets. So while paying for something you need to do anyway (said infrastructure) you are also putting money into the economy. Which allows money to circulate creating revenue and income for people up and down the chain.
Slashdot Mirror
Just pointing out that using the IPCC as a source on climate change may not be the best way to be thought as credible.
Gravity isn't 'fact' either, but we can observe it. I fully agree that not all the data are in on climate change. But the data we do have strongly points towards us causing the changes and those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
But more broadly, if a problem can't be completely quantified, but trends are starting to appear that, if fully realized, portend 'really bad' (tm) things, wouldn't it be prudent to start trying to address those things we are doing that feed into those trends?
A problem that plays out over decades or even centuries can't be addressed once it is in motion. The inertia of the problem would make it completely impossible to stop. So you start now before all the facts are in because the cost of being 'wrong' on the trends in the bad direction is simply way to high.
No, MSNBC and most of the 'liberal' media have shown time and time again that Fox News is clearly in the tank for the GOP/Tea Party/Conservative/Big Business groups.
Are MSNBC unabashedly liberal? sure, that's not the point. The point is that Fox tailors their coverage and flat out LIES to their audience. My favorite example was when Fox was covering/sponsoring one of the early Tea Parties using Hannity. He is clearly heard off the air asking how many people are in the crowd and is told about 5 thousand. He then goes on air and inflates it straight to almost 25 thousand.
Or the clear misuse of the Glenn Beck rally footage to bolster the Michelle Bachmann 'press conference'/rally. That was *not* just a video editing mistake. It happened again within a couple weeks.
Shall we talk political contributions? When was the last time a 'liberal' mainstream media outlet contributed directly to one side of the political spectrum? Kinda hard to be 'objective' if your owner is personally funding one side.
Shall we talk hyposcrisy? Remember the 'show us the funding' cries about the NYC Muslim Center? Who was that from? Fox and the GOP. Now, they say that asking for funding disclosures is unamerican when related to the Citizens United created groups playing a direct role in our political process.
Sorry, Fox News is *not* a media organization anymore than K Street lobbyists are.
A more recent survey, released by the Pew Research Center on April 15, 2007, indicates that regular viewers of The Daily Show tend to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored in the high knowledge range, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51%, significantly higher than the 34% of network morning show viewers. The survey shows that changing news formats have not made much difference on how much the public knows about national and international affairs, but adds that there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know.source The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a content analysis report suggesting that The Daily Show comes close to providing the complete daily news.source
While not quite the damning of Fox News, it does indeed seem to be Stewart at the top of everybody else
IPCC: Criticism of the IPCC
In 2010, an independent investigation into the IPCC recommended that the body focus more on explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature, and less on lobbying activities.source
IPCC chair says we need quicker intervention on Climate Change
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, admitted at the launch of this report that since the IPCC began work on it, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change", like the unforeseen dramatic melting of polar ice in the summer of 2007,source and added, "that means you better start with intervention much earlier".source
And numerous other examples on the Wikipedia page complete with sources.
If your 'science' organization is being told it should really stop doing lobbying work and concentrate more on science...well that sorta speaks for itself.
The *vast* majority of science today agrees that we are in fact having effects on the climate.
The thing that is so funny is that the very climate models we used back in the 70s we can now compare to actual results. And it is worse today than the worst case estimates from back then.
So when the models today predict that in 30-100 years, sea levels will rise over 3 feet, we should, what, assume the effects would be smaller? We've seen proven evidence that the knowledge we do have doesn't accurately predict results...the actual results are worse than any predictions so far.
Sea levels *are* rising, record temperatures *are* being recorded each and every year, arctic ice cover *is* shrinking every year, Greenland ice sheets *are* melting and moving faster than we've ever seen them. Should we just ignore those documented facts?
As for 'natural' processes, the burning of fossil fuels by humans for cars and power is not a 'natural' process. Sure it *could* happen if suddenly earthquakes somehow released all the oil and it caught fire, but without us it wouldn't currently be in the atmosphere today. We are putting CO2 from millions of years into the atmosphere in only 150 years so far. That simply isn't sustainable.
The entire point being that if it is truly an EV with a range extender module, I could, conceptually, not even have an ICE generator but another battery as the extender module.
Even better, while the ICE is being 'maintained' the car could still drive around on the original battery power without any issue.
A hybrid that uses the ICE to actually drive wheels simply can't do that.
Much like Toyota didn't initially claim the Prius could be a plug-in hybrid, yet people modified them to be that way; not by changing the type of car but by putting in bigger batteries and a charging port. Same car, just different inputs for the electricity. Unfortunately the Prius is still a gas & electric driven hybrid.
GM *did* claim that the Volt was *not* like other cars on the road.
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/
Q: How is the Chevy Volt different than other cars on the road?
A: The car is a plug-in range-extended electric vehicle with an on-board gasoline generator. It will have a large battery that stores power from your home electric outlet and which is connected to an electric motor. The electric motor directly propels the car. The battery can last for the first 40 miles. After that, should one continue to need to drive, the on-board gasoline/E85 generator will power up to provide electricity for the motor.
wow you're pedantic. The point being that a hybrid has 2 systems to maintain, not that people won't 'remember' to maintain the gas system.
It's not what it is 'labeled', my original post may not have been clear on that. It is what it actually *is*. A hybrid with better numbers isn't what GM has been advertising this as.
My understanding was that the wasteful $400 hammers/toilet seats, were actually funding for the 'undisclosed' portions of the budget. But the 'wasteful' tag nicely got people in an uproar over something completely unrelated, thus clouding the issue beyond any rational discussion.
Is it really that important what it's called?
It is important. If it is simply a version of the existing hybrid cars, with both gas and electric propulsion systems, then it needs the maintenance that gas and hybrid cars need; oil changes, traditional transmission, etc.
By being a fully electric vehicle it no longer needs those parts since there is only electric propulsion. Where that electricity comes from is where GM said the Volt differed. By adding a gas generator (range extender) module you lessen the chance of being stranded with a dead battery. It gives it a 'usable' range for family trips and such. More importantly, the range module can be swapped out for something else, an extra battery, a fuel cell..anything that produces electricity.
If it turns out that the gas generator is actually driving the wheels, it can no longer be swapped out...
The price is marginally (very marginally) acceptable given the new technology and abilities and projected savings that have been touted by GM. But if it's 'just' a hybrid with slightly better numbers, then the $40K price tag is simply ridiculous...
They were in a kind of an atypical, degenerate case, though
really?
That comes from you not understanding that gold is not just a commodity, it's actual money.
Did Papa Beck tell you that himself? Money itself is a made up commodity, in whatever form you choose to express it. It is a way to assign a common measure of value to a particular item.
Gold is nothing more than an element/ore. Societies have attached value to it, but that is no different than the paper money we use today.
The Cato Institute is your example of history? LOL
What decidedly *most* reputable scholars know is that the Depression was significantly worsened because they tried the very same policies being espoused by the GOP now. "its bad in 1933-34, the stimulus stuff (1930ish) hasn't worked so cut things to the bone to save our way out."
The economy stayed in park because exactly nobody was spending money. Not the rich, not the poor, and certainly not the private industry. The Gov't was the last resort and it went to the sidelines and we got another 5 years of solid Depression.
WWII is what brought us out of the depression, not the 'cutting of spending' in the 50s. Which I would beg to differ was a time of heavy gov't spending, building little things like the Interstate Highway system and a good many of the bridges we still use today. Infrastructure doesn't come from private industry, it comes from the gov't for the greater good of the society.
Have you looked at job number trends? When Bush left office we were losing 750,000 a MONTH. Within a year or so we were about breaking even, with some months actually positive in growth. It's what everybody wants...a job trend going UP. Sure it's low, but after Bush and CO destroyed the regulations, safety programs and the economy you don't get the luxury of starting out with high job growth (like Bush did). Except just like the budget surplus, Bush squandered even that, they lost about 3 MILLION job in 8 years. Not exactly a booming track record to complain about Obama's numbers.
but back to the point. As the GOP is now pointing out, things are starting to slide backwards as state and local govt's have to scale back. The economy isn't quite ready to run on it's own just yet, but the stimulus has pretty much run its course.
So yes, it was too friggin small thanks to the GOP.
you don't see them spending large amounts of money over here
lol, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting chinese funded enterprises. Hint, it's the gov't and all the debt we're racking up, they are buying that debt up left and right. They are spending plenty of money here and it's a damned good thing, we'd be royally screwed if they stopped.
there are stories just about every week about auto plants re-opening...so yes it is doing its job.
The program, along with the stimulus program was basically a bridge loan until the private sector got back on its feat.
Unfortunately thanks to the GOP, we had a 1000 ft chasm to cross and they insisted we stop at about 500-600 feet.
Uh, one of the reasons the Depression lasted so long here was exactly because they stopped the stimulative efforts after only a few years and so the economy started shrinking again...
that sorta says that continuing stimulus is actually better.
Food stamps make it possible to continue living without producing
Thank you. A perfect representation of the GOP.
"If you're poor, you should just die and not inconvenience us"
How about Social Security? Medicare? those to make it possible to continue living without producing.
So much for helping your fellow man, huh? What about people who were made poor by the banks? they should just die because in a tough economy there aren't jobs to take in the short term?
I used to drive over the 'Old Cooper River Bridge' in Charleston, SC. It got a '4' out of hundred. Ouch.
It was replaced a few years ago, but still it's a perfect example of the problems we face.
And of course the republican governor back then was arguing that this bridge, on US Rte 17, was actually a 'local' bridge simply because of it's location and prime usage. So the local (democratic leaning) people should pay for the replacement rather than the state with the gov't highway money.
Just about a perfect example of the current situation, GOP's 'you deal with' mantra rather than actual future thought and planning for the greater good.
The 'stimulus' wasn't meant to help much more than a year or a few years.
That's why it's a 'stimulus' package and not an ongoing plan to keep providing that same amount of input.
The time when private industry wasn't investing or buying or selling was the time that the gov't created the economic activity that kept the country from delving deeper into recession/depression.
Studies have shown that for every dollar you put into foodstamps you get $1.74-$2.24 back in economic activity. For tax cuts you get $0.74 back. Which is a better way to stimulate the economy (when it wasn't doing enough on it's own)?
It's a valid strategy to simply stop when you're in debt; I would say wrong headed, but valid. However, when your output depends on the activity level of the overall economy, shrinking the overall economy as austerity budget cuts would do, will create more problems rather than lessen the problem.
Your answer is the relatively uninterrupted growth from the Great Depression through 2008. And what changed?
The Glass/Stegal Act from that time was repealed in the late 90s allowing the bad investments to now start affecting people who had simply bought a house.
Obviously this is a massive simplification, but it's one of the main underlying causes of our current situation.
Discovery of unknown fossil fuels in recent years have been staggering.
and it's not helping. *More* CO2 to release isn't the answer. It is a limited resource anyway.
Also, plants breath that co2 and turn it into o2.
The same plants that we are rapidly killing in the Amazon? Plants do not process more C02 simply because it is there.
It's a beautiful system that we are simply, ever so slightly, accelerating.
Yes and the feedback loops take that 'slight' increase and amplify it many times over. Ooops.
The only way the co2 will cost us is if the Dems hold the house in Nov.
The triumph of ideology over facts; *that* will be our downfall.
Is the massive short term pain of a full blown depression better or worse than mitigating that pain for a longer period at lower levels. It's a fair and debatable question.
let those who were responsible with their money keep it
But what if I was responsible with my money and the irresponsible banks lost it?
Let the winners win, let the losers lose
Pretty harsh when bad luck is all you have against you...
You speak of bridges. You do realize that *lots* of the bridges in this country are past their expected lifespan date right? Things were built massively after WWII and it's coming up on 60 years. Concrete things don't last forever and need to be replaced.
I would bet there are quite a few projects waiting to be built.
As for delays, most modern contracts include penalties for being late and bonuses for being done early, so what is the motivation for them being late again?
You're point about logistics is fair, but the stimulus wasn't to 'finish' existing projects, but to start new ones so there aren't any work sites sitting around idle waiting.
It would be much more irresponsible to *not* have done the stimulus. It should have been even bigger frankly. Gov't stimulus kept the economy moving while private industry stayed on the sidelines. Think of it as a bridge loan to when the economy starts ramping up again. You can pay some interest on the debt that you 'invest' for higher gains down the road.
That point is something that the GOP seems to forget. Stimulus is giving money to people that otherwise would not have had it. Why is this different than a tax break? because if you don't have a job a tax break doesn't do you a damned bit of good until maybe April. But foodstamps or unemployment checks do put money in your pocket that you will use right now.
Also, tax breaks for the wealthy that the GOP seems to love so much (remember 'small' business they want to help includes 2 of the worlds richest people the Koch brothers) don't help if the environment isn't good. They will just sit on the money until things improve, because, well, they can. They have money and don't need it for monthly expenses.
The poor and unemployed will quickly spend the money and food stamps, thus creating the 'stimulus' as that money ripples through the economy.
Infrastructure is likewise. Money that would not be spent because nobody is real positive about the future is spent by the gov't to build roads, new power lines, dams, whatever. That money goes into companies and employees pockets. So while paying for something you need to do anyway (said infrastructure) you are also putting money into the economy. Which allows money to circulate creating revenue and income for people up and down the chain.