Before I tell you about the alternative I just want to point out that you can't find your way to prosperity by borrowing, printing and spending money we don't have. And laying mountains of debt on our children and grandchildren.
This has never been done. Ever! Anywhere! I challenge you to point out one example to the contrary.
The way to stimulate (there is that word again) the economy is to let private enterprises to do it, not the governemnt. And the quickest way to make it happen is to reduce governemtn spending and to reduce (or even eliminate, if only temporarily) income taxes. This should be done across the board. Also let companies expense faster newly purchased equipment and other capital investments. Reagan did this in 1980 and after an unavoidable severe resession (curtesy of Jimmy Carter) economy turned around and had almost 10 years of non-stop expansion.

I just want to point out that you can't find your way to prosperity by borrowing, printing and spending money we don't have.

With the exception of printing, isn't this how the investment banks make their money?

This has never been done. Ever! Anywhere! I challenge you to point out one example to the contrary.

Just because something has never been done before, doesn't automatically imply that it is doomed to fail. However, as I said before, there are no guarantess. Should we have allowed the banks to fail causing millions more to lose their jobs, more banks to foreclose on homes, sending real estate prices even further down...?

Lina, you again confusing the issue(s). Investment banking analogy is extremely weak to the point of being laughable. Investment banks are (or at least should be) private enterprises. The people who are "on the hook" if investment bank makes a bad financial decision are investors. They are investing VOLUNTARILY. And they take a risk by investing in a bank (or any other publicly traded company) - and they take that risk WILLINGLY. If an investment bank goes out of business - it is the shareholders who take the hit, not the taxpayers. When the governemnt borrows and spends money it doesn't have - we are ALL on the hook. And unlike the investors, we DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.
Frankly, I am amazed at your economic illiteracy, but then again, maybe I shouldn't be. After all for most liberal democrats this is a norm.

I just want to point out that you can't find your way to prosperity by borrowing, printing and spending money we don't have.

With the exception of printing, isn't this how the investment banks make their money?
Internet service - $30 a month, reading Lina T. - priceless.

The way to stimulate (there is that word again) the economy is to let private enterprises to do it, not the governemnt.
If these private enterprises go out of business, who is going to stimulate the economy?

And the quickest way to make it happen is to reduce governemtn spending
Reduce government spending how? By pulling out of Iraq?
and to reduce (or even eliminate, if only temporarily) income taxes.
How are we gonna fund the government then? What programs are going to be impacted?

I'm sure (or I hope) that better economic minds than yours (no offense intended) have considered various methods of stumulating the economy, and for whatever reason, they went with this one. I wish I was better informed about the subject, but unfortunately I (as many others, including you) am not... so there's really not a whole lot more that I can contribute to the conversation.
Oleg, what exactly did you find so amusing? Borrowing and spending money that they don't have, is exactly how investment banks make their money.

As to your 2nd comment - it really doesn't even merit a response. It completely lacks logic and common sense. Would you recommend someone jumping off a toll building without a parachute and try to fly? After all, it's "has never been done before, and doesn't automatically imply that it is doomed to fail"
And furthermore, it's clear that you haven't comprehended a single thing I wrote. Yes, we should have let the banks fail. And in fact we did. Do the names Bear Stearns and Merril Lynch ring a bell? And yes, this would have caused temporary hardship and increase in unemployment. But his is unavoidable in a capitalist system as ours - the socialist alternative is much worse. It dooms us to stagnation and malaise.
And we do offer an alternative - an alternative that if fact DID WORK in the past. So your logic amounts to "let's try something that may or may not work instead of something that we know has worked in the past." BRILLIANT !!!!

Investment banks are (or at least should be) private enterprises.

Natan, what you seem to be failing to grasp, is that without goivernment intervention, these private enterprises would cease to exist, and along with them millions of jobs and our economy.
When the governemnt borrows and spends money it doesn't have - we are ALL on the hook. And unlike the investors, we DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.

Since when did we have a choice as to how the government spends our money? The government didn't even factor the Iraq war expense into the budget. And that was certainly money well spent. *-)
If an investment bank goes out of business - it is the shareholders who take the hit, not the taxpayers.
I repeat, if these banks go out of business, we all take the hit - with or without government intervention.

Frankly, I am amazed at your economic illiteracy, but then again, maybe I shouldn't be. After all for most liberal democrats this is a norm.

Again no offense, but I have yet to hear something great concerning the economy come out of your mouth.

Finally, something we can agree on - you are not well informed and thus can't contribute a whole lot to the conversation.
It is interesting to note that while admitting your own lack of knowledge on the subject you at the same time in the attempt to "level the field" claim that those with opinion opposite to yours are also poorly informed.
Let me assure you that as far as I am concerned nothing could be further from the truth. I am in fact VERY WELL informed because I choose to inform myself. And learn what I don't know. So that when I come across debating someone like yourself I can counter your naive nonsense with solid, factual information.
And, btw, don't overestimate "brilliant economic minds". These are the same people who gave as Hank Paulson and Alan Greenspan.
This is yet another difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think that people in the governemnt know better, conservative think otherwise.