![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Those "few" jobs here and there add up (the money is there to be spread over two years of it), and those jobs are sure important to the people that were unemployed two months ago, but have them now. Is it your position that it would have been better to not spend that money, not improve our dangerously crumbling and outdated infrastructure (bridges collapsing on people, highway repairs, etc) and not hire those people? Look at just the auto industry: what if, instead of stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc., the government did a complete hands off, and allowed the auto industry to fail? Where would we be right now, six months later? Were would unemployement be? Would we be in a stabilizing recession, or would we have fallen off the cliff? Clinton handed Bush a balanced, rapidly decreasing deficit, and Bush raised it to the highest deficit ever, and ignored a developing recession. Now we have to get out of it. We are not in a place where hands off or cutting spending are really viable options at this time, and that's what most of the major economists have been saying all along.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |