Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
how about this.... odd idea. that a bill actually be debated before it passes the house and senate. that people have time to see whats in it and understand it and understand how money is being spent?
why is that unreasonable?
|
I never said it was unreasonable. I have said all along the stimulus bill should have been better presented. There should have been more debate and it should have looked at much closer.
Quote:
this is nothing more than a roll of the dice that has NEVER worked for any nation, at any point in history.
instead of touting potential benefits... we should have been weighing the risks.. hyperinflation, worthless currency and worsening economic problems on top of those that existed.
Seriously though.. I like Obama... never let a crisis go to waste. They didn't. They masterfully used the situation to push through exactly what they wanted with little opposition or discussion and dismissed any attempt at debate as "obstructionism". They knew what they could get away with and they went for it. And Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for creating the conditions that made that possible.
|
You are right, it is a roll of the dice. So is letting it crash. We can't predict for certain the exact effects either would have had. Many experts say we were on the verge of financial collapse before the first round of bailouts started. I'm no economist, but that doesn't sound pleasant. Maybe it wouldn't have been as bad as it sounds. Maybe it would have been worse.
Either way it is a roll of the dice. Roll #1 - let is crash and burn and gamble that we would make a swift recovery and not be marred in a decade long depression. Roll #2 - spend a bunch of money and gamble that we ward off a depression, but risk high inflation, lower currency values and potentially have it all maybe not work and we collapse either way.
Neither sounds very appetizing.