Deficit spending as a Stimulus

Rich(ie) asks me to comment on deficit spending in the form of a stimulus and/or as a stimulus to a downtrodden economy.
His/Their theory being that: The way to solve an economic malaise is to throw money at a problem. Really it is, the theory is that deflation, the economic condition which we now exist, in terms of assets (homes, stocks) can only be cured with government intervention.

Literally they want us to throw money at the problem, anywhere, to restart the economic engine and more importantly, more money will cause inflation in the various asset classes and restore prosperity.

Here is the rub, and being a scientist by trade, I can usually look at data and theory and find (if it exists) the hole, the assumption, the conflict, the bias which causes the theory to be invalid. (Which is why I can opine on the bias involved in Global Warming research with such confidence).

Their assumption, and it is an important one to their economic ideas, is that if citizens are allowed to keep their money, they will just save it, producing no economic effect. This theory established before, the Internet, online banking, and ignoring the human want to achieve.

During "the great stimulus", the argument was over tax cuts vs. shovel ready projects which were sure to stimulate the economy. (In truth, shovel ready projects were by definition already planned and funded so in reality there was NO economic effect, just pay back for votes).

A pause here, "the great stimulus", it was money we did not have and a decision was made how to distribute it, it could have been with across the board tax cuts or tax holidays (both of which were proposed) or as was done, directed by the Federal government.

Now, here we are a year and one half later and we remain mired in a severe recession. One might legitimately ask, if this theory is in fact true, should not throwing almost A TRILLION dollars at a problem fix it? Now their answer...it was not enough, let's do more!

Their theory rests on...the multiplier effect.

Yes!, they say, taking money with taxes, and having the Federal Government use it to build infrastructure is more productive than letting citizens keep their money and engage in commerce. Really?, the next Microsoft or McDonalds will grow from building a bridge? That is their multiplier?

So we return to deficits, and deficit spending in a recession. Rich(ie)'s theory (as do the Krugman and The Nation articles) ignores today's condition were we have used all of our bullets. Yes! Too much money was spent previously, but just because previous sins were committed, we should not repeat them now! We have no reserve and a tidal wave is coming. We cannot "stimulate" our way out of this mess. If it worked, if  any"stimulus" worked, then the Bush stimulus, TARP, Stimulus one, the Auto bailout, or something would have worked, it unquestionably did not!

The only way we are going to get out of this economic mess is with SPENDING CUTS AND TAX CUTS! We don't have time for a commission, we need to raise the retirement age now, we need to cut taxes to promote economic growth (are you really going to argue that a government stimulus promotes more economic growth than a tax cut?). Krugman is wrong, we and the rest of the developed world are not far from Greece.

Your party better get thrown out in November.