Quote:
Originally Posted by mauer
Isn't this such a feeble amount now considering what the Leader is now spending? He's trying to get your cash too, not just from us.
|
Still, there is a big difference. At that time, the cause of the need for money (the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) were made by the Bush administration.
And the other option, not invading in first place would have cost 0. (Just talking from a money point of view, whether the world would be a better place with or without those wars is another thing)
Now, the cause, the crisis (house crisis / subprime crisis / bank crisis / car crisis / economy dropping due to high oil price etc.) where not made by Obama administration (not by Bush either, probably only parts of it).
And the cost of not spending that money can only be guessed. Not doing anything would clearly be wrong, but not all measures Obama takes are helping more than they cost.(*)
So, you can't really compare those two things.
(*) (For example, I think helping GM so much is wrong, as there are enough car companies on Earth who can fill the gap if GM is bancrupt. Or I think the Geithner plan to help investors buying toxic investments is wrong, cause the possible gains go to investors but possible losses are paid by taxpayers. Then better nationalize banks in first place. At least the taxpayer then could get the possible gains as well)