They are marked. When's your cut-off point for determining whether or not it comes to pass?
Also, and this is open-ended to everyone, clarify something for me. Economics isn't my forte, so apologies if I'm just completely misunderstanding. You talk about government being unable to spend its way out of recession, that instead the taxpayers should get a break/refund so as to stimulate the economy, buying big-ticket items (new cars) and whatnot. But what, exactly, is the difference between the two in economic terms? For the sake of discussion, let's reduce the numbers involved and say you've got a country with 1 million people and the government collects $10 in taxes from each to pay for an attempt at spending its way out of recession. That's the government spending $10 million in the private sector. Now, say that government instead decides to refund everyone that $10, and for the sake of argument, let's say that everyone who gets that back spends it rather than putting it in savings or whatnot. That's the populace spending the same $10 million in the same private sector. Where's the difference? Is it just the assumption that the population will make better, more economically-stimulating purchasing choices than the government? I sure as he|| wouldn't; any tax refunds I get in the near future are either going in my savings account or going to pay for small-item necessities that I'd be buying anyway. That may just be me, though. Now, of course I'm not asking about the money that's just being handed to failing businesses; I know all about what's wrong with that. But for things like public-works projects that are bigger-ticket purchases than any of us could make normally, where exactly does the problem lie?