Did congress take the opinion of the CBO? And why was it the opinion of the CBO instead of facts? Maybe because it could not be proven one way or another? So lets see, I can take the opinion of Liberal economist that espouse the idea of socializing the economy or I can accept that the benefit could not be definitively proven and no actual growth derived from it. Sorry, taking the "it cannot be proven" side on this.
Were they? Really. I don't believe so, for one thing, it took place too far ahead of any election, and the voting public has shown that it has a very, very short political memory. No, I believe that if the Dems had also proposed cuts equal to what they wanted to spend, it would of passed.
I disagree about your assertions about a consumer economy. For one thing, without government interference, there would not be such a concentration at the top. No, the consumer market failed and became more concentrated at the top when American goods became too costly and too low of quality for Americans to buy. Americans went for either price or quality, neither of which most of the American manufactures could supply. Between that, high labor costs (which was causing American made products to be so expensive) and burdensome regulation (like EPA), companies were forced to outsource or go bankrupt, some did outsource, some died off. When this began occurring, monies that were flowing downward were cut off to Americans and the outflow went overseas, but cost a lot less, so those at the top kept more of it. Combine this with the consumer credit frenzy we saw very much of in the 1990 and it is a matter of when, not if, the economy is going to fail. Support of Unions and failure to enact fair work legislation, government interference in health care, EPA regulation, NAFTA Government encouragement of bad credit (fair housing act amendment in the early 1990s), and government forcing of the use of credit agency (in the name of privacy) instead of letting credit companies determine if someone was qualified, all of these and more, all actions taken by the government, were the cause of the collapse of the consumer market and the concentration of wealth. And all of them came from one political party, the Dems.
BTW, it says "promote the [B]general[B] welfare". That does not mean every single individual. Unemployment topped out at 10% nationally, so if 90% are doing ok or good, how is 10% to called the "general welfare"? And of that 10%, how many of them were in that position and stayed there because of their individual, not government, actions and choices. 100%, thats how many. There is around 15% of Americans living in poverty, again, by their own choice, so you believe that under the "general welfare" the government should spend trillions of dollars to provide for less than 20% of our population? And that less than 20% who, for the most part, won't lift a finger to help themselves.
I'm not buying it. For the general welfare, we should just let those less than 20% waste away instead of bankrupting 100% to care for them. Better to place them on work farms or projects at tell them "work or die" and let them choose and leave the rest of us out of it.
Here is you some food for thought "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."