Well, here's the perfect chance for the Democrats to test their firmly held beliefs on economic policy.
Remember the term, "trickle down economics" (the tag that they placed on the Republican theory that lessening the tax burden on the highest earners in society spurs economic growth)?
The Dems SAY that they like to operate "bottom up", under the assumption that moving the lowest socio-economic layers up the income scale (i.e. raising minimum wage), really feeds the economy...
Now that we're facing an 'economic crisis', and many large companies are requesting an 'infusion' to keep the wheels turning, why would the Dems be so big on that idea?
Wouldn't that same money be better spent on the lower income brackets as a means for 'stimulus'?
I mean, if Obama's #1 campaign guise (oops, I'm sorry, I mean promise), is to reduce the tax burden on those making under $250k, (or was it $150k, or $42k?), why not just let those poor and downtrodden types have a substantial advance on their own (alleged) tax payments? Wouldn't that really be "the way" to stimulate the economy, increase consumer confidence, create more homeowners, propel the country into fiscal solvency, feed the big businesses, and revive the market?
Do the math. We've already promised $700B, we threw $24B at AIG, we are looking at another $24B for Citigroup, AND we are teetering on another $25B or so to the "big 3". Some claim that the actual 'bailout' sum total reaches upwards of 2T. If we divied that up amongst the below $250k group of earners, the economy would go through the roof.. wouldn't it? Well?
Wait, that wouldn't give you as much control of the free market, would it?
Gee, I thought you were going to be "innovative and progressive."