War is an economic drain upon economies -- that much is well known. To bad these so-called Conservatives did not seem to get that point; after their pact in the 1970's with the religious right, they seemed to crusade more then be the stingy-old-white-males refusing to spend money they don't need to?!

<<<< Sometimes peoples financial problems rest squarely on their own shoulders. >>

And other times they're bailed out.<<

I understand that. It does not change the fact that my question is a valid one.

<< "Slowed to a pace fuck near indistinguishable from recession" are other good words.

I don't believe such a characterization is backed up by the actual economic data.

<<1) Dollars for war never seem to, 2) the actual stimulus was *way* too small, 3)

I agree with both points.

<<3) and applied to non-job intensive programs that failed to do the work of the more effective direct cash-in-hand payments of yesteryear.

Which programs are you speaking of?

<<Something like a WPA style national jobs program should've been implemented 8 am Day One.

I agree, but do you think such a thing would have passed the Senate considering the Republican power of the filibuster? Not to mention blue-dog Democrats who would have never voted for such an extenstive program?