Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (103261)	2/5/2009 5:15:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542067

But I think the economic situation is much more dire than Iraq was purported to be. Iraq is less important to the US than the US economy. But once you where going to have intervention in Iraq, a rapid inflow of money was needed. Its was either get out or spend more. Obviously you supported "get out" (or likely even better in your opinion "don't go in in the first place"), but whether or not the mission was correct the money was clearly needed for the mission. If "the mission" is now improving our economy, the money isn't clearly necessary or even clearly beneficial. Also if you think its both, there is less need to rush it, because most of the spending won't go in to effect for over a year. If, in your opinion, the amount that can kick in fairly quickly, is a matter that needs to be rushed, we could have a separate bill for only items that can take effect very quickly, and then take at least a few weeks debating the rest.