Fiscal Stimulus - Good or Bad Medicine?

I'd like to pose one question to these Keynesians...where's your data? We talk a lot about the Great Depression and whether public spending helped or hurt. Often times Keynesians will cite the argument that "things might have been much worse if the gov't hadn't intervened with fiscal stimulus." Well, gov'ts across the world have had bailouts of all sorts. Japan has a debt over 170% of GDP (while the U.S. is around 80%) due to a couple of decades of targeted "stimulus". Many European countries (including Italy, Greece and Belgium) have tried to spend their way to prosperity, but are only left with lower productivity growth and huge debts to service.

The reply from leading lights like Lawrence Summers is that fiscal stimulus should work in theory, it's just never been implemented correctly...ever. To be effective, fiscal stimulus must be "Targeted, Timely, Temporary" or TTT. Any successful examples in the past? Well, no. Think of that, not one. Sure, plenty of models saying it should work if done "correctly", but not one shining star in the vast night sky.

Have there been examples of effective treatments aside from deficit spending? Sure, the U.S. has been through many recessions and managed to power out of them without the aforementioned TTT deficit spending.

Let's pretend for a moment that you are a pharmaceutical company seeking FDA approval. You've conducted a clinical trial on your new blockbuster pain pill. Of the thirty patients that took your pill this was the outcome:

Patients - Side Effects
4 - No Effect
12 - Severe abdominal cramps
10 - Chronic fatigue
3 - Fainting within minutes of ingestion
1 - Death

Here's a hypothetical conversation with the FDA panel:

FDA: "This drug looks lousy and dangerous, why are you even here?"

Scientist: "Well, we have researchers and leading microbiologists that are convinced this medicine will work under the right conditions."

FDA: "Huh? What about the faintings?"

Scientist: "We have good evidence to suppose that those three patients were going to faint anyway. Our data indicates that our medication made the fainting spells less severe."

FDA: "OK. What about the chronic fatigue?"

Scientist: "We've confirmed that these patients swallowed the pill a little too slowly and it reacted with their saliva. We think an intravenous introduction to the body will work better."

FDA: "Wow, your drug is toxic when in contact with SALIVA???!!!"

Scientist: "Only when swallowed slowly Sir, our data indicates that some training and a brisk swallow are required."

FDA: "What about the death?"

Scientist: "It was undoubtedly painless, the way we'd all like to go."

FDA: "Intriguing. Any reduction in pain for people that were conscious?

Scientist: "Not yet. Keep in mind, however, that these results do not reflect on OUR drug. We can prove in each case that maximum pain relief could have been achieved with zero side effects under the appropriate conditions. This drug will be a magical remedy for millions. If you approve it for the general market, we promise it will only be administered under ideal conditions..."

FDA: (Insert your own reaction here...)