Please, read a book about macroeconomics.... for your own good.
Yes, "everyone" is all-inclusive. You are part of "everyone". There is money flowing through whatever business you work for that originates, somewhere down the line, from the stimulus. That's how economies work. You seem to lack the ability to see beyond the deduction line on your payslip, but that's just a problem you'll have to learn to get over.
Dr. Kitten has explained this far more eloquently than I can, but let me re-iterate: in recessions, the problem is primarily one of liquidity, so steps taken to ensure money is moved around the economy are a top priority. You do understand that auto workers need to eat, and thus keeping them in jobs benefits everyone, don't you? When they spend a dollar at the grocery store, the auto worker is better off and the grocer is better off. When the plant buys steel, the plant is better off, the steelyard is better off, and everyone who supplies and works for the steelyard is better off. You understand that no man is an economic island, and that we live in a social economy, don't you? You understand that you cannot ringfence the stimuls spending and claim "only a few benefited", don't you? You understand that one dollar of stimulus spending or one dollar of welfare benefits creates a good deal more than one dollar of economic activity, don't you?
ETA: Do you know what "growth" is, in economic terms? If economics worked in the way you seem to think it does, growth would be impossible!
I think you summed up the basic liberal economic view point fairly well and the fundamental differences between liberal and conservative economic viewpoints.
You keep telling people to pick up a macroeconomic book and I do not disagree with you. However, in order to discuss the macroeconomic effects of taxing the wealthy as well as the social loss from the cash for clunkers, one must pick up several more economics books. I would love for you to summarize your understanding of the "most basic tenets of macroeconomics". Unfortunately, it seems as though you are stuck on your Econ 102 Macro book.
The basic question we are arguing, in my opinion, is whether someone believes the opportunity cost of government expenditures and subsidies is greater than those programs social/economic benefit. Stimulating the economy does not just mean transferring wealth or increasing money liquidity.
The "cash for clunkers" program was designed to stimulate the economy and help/save the struggling car industry. Every tax payer in America paid for the clash for clunkers program, whether they used it or not. If you believe that these economic losses (both from taxes and the opportunity cost such as the government no longer being able to enact a similar program with heating appliances or spending that tax money on a new public works job) resulting from this 3,000 rebate is less than the economic benefit, than the cash for clunkers did its job and stimulated the economy.
The argument begins with how much "other economic losses" someone acknowledges and how much "economic benefit" an individual credits such a program. While this does not apply to every cash for clunkers purchase, my father used the clash for clunkers to trade in his used and very old Audi for a new Honda civic. From the surface, this would appear to have grown the economy, especially since this was the first new car I have ever seen my father purchase. However, during that time, he was looking for a car to replace his old and currently broken audi. He used the clash for clunkers because it was a greater value than the trade in value as well as potential car repairs. So with the choice of paying for repairs (and giving a car mechanic and all the other workers who went into the making of that car part a small portion of their salary) or buying a new car, the government made that decision easier. However, by not trading in his car, he could have indirectly hurt the wealth of another person who now has to pay more money for a decreased supply of used cars or take on debt to pay for a new car. These are all negative economic externalities and costs. I could keep going with the potential negative consequences of his government influenced, economic decision my father made. Just as someone could list many benefits of his purchase of a new car. However, historically, such fiscal policies lead to only short term benefits and no structural, long term economic growth.
Going back to the original topic of the OP, the reason conservative argue against raising taxes on the rich during the recession is because of the definition of a recession is a decrease of economic growth (GDP being the indicator) for a certain period of time. Getting out of a recession and for a sustainable amount of time means decreasing GDP in the long run. Generally, people are in the top tax bracket, for longer than a year, because they made smart economic decisions with their money. People who inherit their money will only be a member of the top tax bracket for a single year and unless they also make smart economic decisions or inherited enough money to earn 250k in interest, they get to sit on there money, not pay taxes and spend. The 250k+ earners are not noblemen stealing money from poor workers, but are usually the people who make the decisions on whether to increase labor or capital. As their taxes increase, their marginal revenue will decrease leading to a decrease in supply(capital or labor). Any increase in demand a firm may experience from tax breaks to the poor While taxes on the productive members of a society can be beneficial,in the long run, the opposite is generally true during an economic recession or prologued slowdown. While such government expenditures might help get an economy out of a recession more quickly than if nothing was down, it will have done nothing to help a companies increase efficiency or productivity (quantity/Labor or Capital) leading to higher natural rates of unemployment and lower GDP per capita in the long run.
For another example of this, read FDR’s Folly by Jim Powell.
Did not mean to rattle on as much as I did but when people state things such as....
Money spent on new cars (hell, money spent on anything, as Dr. K keeps pointing out) is good for EVERYONE. Read an economics textbook - or even just think about how many hands the dollar bill in your wallet has passed through before it got to you, and how many more it's going to pass through once you hand it over to buy a newspaper.
And stating that basic macroeconomic principles support this it is absurdity. "is good for EVERYONE"!? Really? Again, how was the car mechanic helped by cash for clunkers? How was the family who could not afford to trade in their car but had to pay taxes helped? Especially down the road when that family must trade there car in. Money spent (by the government) on "anything" is not good for "everyone", it is generally only good for those the government wants it to be, and generally, only in the short term. While, money spent (by tax paying consumers and business) on things which increase their well-being or marginal productivity is generally good for everyone in a free market society.
