Much of the new spending would be for victims of the recession, in the form of unemployment compensation, health care and food stamps.
This quote is from the article. Could we guarantee that this new, additional money is going ONLY to those who are "victims"

142smilie ) of the recession by not including lifers on welfare and food stamps?
This may sound cold-harded, but if we are going to stimulate the economy we need to be directly helping those people who want to work but have lost their jobs.
A plan to help the unemployed purchase health insurance would be reduced to a 50 percent subsidy instead of two-thirds.
This is a logical cut because this is what many employers are doing. Once again, if this bill has any hope of "stimulating" the economy, we have to make it more appealing to get back to work than to not work.
Much of the money would go for victims of the recession in the form of food stamps, unemployment compensation and health care.
Second time in this article that "victims" was used. I fecking hate this word in this context. It's like we expect to coast through life without road bumps and hurdles. Victims? Feck that!
It's hoped that the combined effort would work its way into the economy and save or create 3 million jobs or so to begin to ease the nation out of the recession by the end of this year.
I have a question from the last quote above and a quote from another article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aUQhUE4hmNh4&refer=us
The total number of people collecting benefits jumped to a record 4.788 million a week earlier, today?s report showed.
Are these 3 million jobs government jobs? If so, does anyone else get an uneasy feeling from the angle that we are getting too many people employed by our government? This trend will continue to weigh down our (taxpayers) burden to keep the house of cards going.
If not, then disregard that last statement/question.
