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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (493817)	7/9/2009 4:40:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572376

Obama spent far more on the stimulus that didn't work... Obama SPENT less than 10% of the stimulus... will spend the other 90% and then it WILL work. And there will be a return on the government investment, at the least the taxes paid by the employment, the taxes paid by the people who get the contracts, the increased efficiency from the projects, the reduced unemplyment costs, etc. There is a negative ROI from Iraq. That's right. If anyone benefits from our little romp in the Iraqi desert, its the Iraqis, not us. And I am not sure how much the Iraqis have benefited.

To: Road Walker who wrote (493817)	7/9/2009 4:57:25 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572376

4000 dead, and all their relatives and friends suffering is not a drop of blood in the bucket. Of course, and we weren't talking about the cost of soldiers lives lost and disrupted by the war. But Americans have frequently been called upon put their lives on the line for the liberation of other nations; it is to our credit that we do this. The wars are going to cost us well over a $Trillion... and counting. This is doubtful. As I indicated, the vast majority of that money flows back into our economy, so the net cost is significantly less than that. But I'm glad you have some off the absurd claim that it is $3 Trillion. At least you look less stupid now than you did then. >>> Obama SPENT less than 10% of the stimulus... will spend the other 90% and then it WILL work. No nation on earth has ever spent its way into prosperity. Wild spending of money is not "stimulus". It is just wild spending. The entire idea that you can improve an economy by sucking money out of it and redistributing by wasteful spending is ridiculous. It simply doesn't work. Just as it didn't work when FDR tried it, it has failed now that Obama has tried it. Economic cycles happen. As surely as you can't stop a Florida hurricane, there isn't a damned thing you can do to stop a severe economic cycle. It will have to run its course.

To: Road Walker who wrote (493817)	7/9/2009 5:20:32 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1572376

RW, > 4000 dead, and all their relatives and friends suffering is not a drop of blood in the bucket. But 9/11 is a "pimple on our ass," AMIRITE? Message 21570868 Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (493817)	7/10/2009 7:56:22 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572376

4000 dead In many ways a more important issue, but not directly relevant to comparing the budgetary cost, and only modestly relevant to comparing the total financial cost. Also 4000 dead to free 25 million from Saddam. will spend the other 90% and then it WILL work. I disagree, but I guess the main point here is there is no way to prove it either way. If things turn out well in another year or so, they may have been even even better without the stimulus. If things turn out poorly they may have been even worse without it. "The stimulus worked" or "it didn't work", is really a statement about the net effect of the stimulus (which can be positive even with a negative result, and negative even with a positive result), NOT a statement about what happens after the stimulus, but its massively easier to measure the later than the former, and public opinion will probably be largely based on the later.