Regan vs Carter should perhaps be a seperate debate (both of which i believe get a raw deal from some would be historians) I would be more than happy to debate that issue in a different thread, since it really doesnt have much to do with this topic.

The battle between the two main economic theories that they represent shall I believe continue to polarize politics indefinitly.

Funny thing is Obama is using some Reganonmics in his proposed program (sans reduction of government spending that lil puppy is just going to grow ten plus fold) but wait this isnt really all an Obama plan in the first place, its a morphed clone and continuation of the Bush plan with a BarryH twist.

Morphed? why yes Morphed in a very Un-funny way as he is also filling the majority of it with socialist programs.

Not that the bailout plan is a very good plan to begin with(which if it works Obama will take all the credit and if it doesnt the Repuplicans will take all the blame), especially if the media has anything to do with it. (I was honestly shocked when Bush came forward with it but he and his predesessor Clinton didnt allways fit into the common stereotypes)

I see it as rather funny the democrats are even bothering with the pretense of trying to gain a consensus of republican support for the thing. The only reason I can see for them to do this is that they are not soely thought responsible for the outcome if its bad, which is silly becuase they will just paint the blame the way they like anyway despite the actual facts as mentioned above.

Personally I think both parties need to rethink the entire deal and they need to include as many of the other world leaders/ governments as possible in the desicion making proccess becuase whatever they do its going to effect everyone on the planet not just the USA.