Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
I think that was the point, though, merc, whether you agree with it or not. The idea is, if the government boosts things in the short term, that will be enough to set the ball rolling, and by the time the stimulus starts costing productivity the snowball effect of what it STIMULATED in the -private- sector will more than make up for the eventual lessening of the direct effects. Basically, the idea is, if we can get the economy on track NOW, it will be strong enough to survive the eventual side effects of the drug we used to save it. You can disagree with the effectiveness of that concept, but attacking it as if this wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the stimulus on the part of its proponents is disingenuous.
|
Hardly "disingenuous" at all. You are making assumptions about my intent. Show me the chorus of people who were saying the Stimulus was a bad idea and compare that to those who said it was a must pass. Remember Pelosi, Reid, and Obama telling us about all those shovel ready jobs? No go back and look at my numerous posts asking what are we going to do when the money runs out. Well unemployment is still at an AVERAGE of 9% and much higher in some states and areas. What did we get? A world record deficit and much of it wasted. Average costs per job created was around $400k each at the best estimate and about $1.2 million per job created at the worst. Now they are considering another failed stimulus package and a further growth of the deficit. Notice how many of these plans, whether for "Job Creation" or Obamacare or whatever all never really kick in till Obama will be long gone from his job.