SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ggersh who wrote (73594)5/19/2010 8:18:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 74559
 
$1 trillion on imaginary WMDs was a bung idea, especially while Osama continued to thumb his nose at the USA while the USA was bogged down in Iraq - with Osama delighted to see Saddam and King George II at each other's throats.

Over the decades I have become accustomed to such foolishness so it's not surprising.

While I didn't think it a good idea and certainly wouldn't have done it myself, Saddam was there only because of his desire for power, so it seemed reasonable that somebody else who loves power should join him in a big fight. It kept them off the streets elsewhere. They might have picked a fight with China instead which would have been very unpleasant.

Now, $1 trillion down the drain on "saving" the financial system - in the same way as "We had to destroy the village to save it" of another era. Plus another $trillion on Obamacare. Plus another $trillion to "stimulate" government spending even more - as though there wasn't too much of it already.

A $trillion here and a $trillion there starts to add up to real money. How long before a $quadrillion becomes a common term? Political bidding starts at $1 trillion these days. Anyone talking about a mere $1 billion is beneath contempt.

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext