Here's the basic Republican 'point' (as it were) as set forth by Louisiana Gov. Jindal immediately following Obama's speech:
1. Democrats' plan is a lot of spending (true, it is)
2. Spending increases debt and potentially burdens future generations (Ok fair 'nuff)
3. We (Repubs) would like to have seen tax cuts instead (.....Ok now you've lost me)
Why am I lost?
Because the implicit point 4 is as follows:
4. Tax cuts DON'T increase debt and potentially burden our future (which is a crock of doo doo)
There are a only a few ways in which point 4 is valid, and each of them is equally ridiculous:
1. Jindal and the Republicans want to decrease taxes AND simultaneously decrease government spending. This is ridiculous because this, for all intents and purposes, would virtually nullify any fiscal simulus effect.
2. Jindal is a follower of Arthur Laffer and believes that Republican orchestrated tax cuts would increase growth so much so as to make future revenues actually exceed the increase in the debt. This is the magical la-la land where Dick Cheney inhabited - the land of pigmies, fairy tales, but not a whole lot of reality or trade offs.
3. Jindal and the Republicans just don't believe in fiscal stimulus in general and the tax cut idea is just the same old LONG-run supply-side tax cuts they've tried to push before. They perhaps think that if they can market them as "stimulative" that maybe they'd have a snowball chance in hell of gaining support. In other words, if this point is the reason, Republicans are purposely misleading or at the very least using the vulnerability of the American people for their political gain.
...I personally think point 3 is the most likely. It is nevertheless, just as offensive as the first 2.