4 ms·

But you DO look past the purpose of that injection of money, which was to protect jobs/economy. Whether it could have been implemented is one thing to be debate

But you DO look past the purpose of that injection of money, which was to protect jobs/economy. Whether it could have been implemented is one thing to be debated; to assume/pretend it had absolutely no positive effect, and that we would have been off than we are currently without it, seems disingenuous.

andrew_ 4y ago
To the argument within my comment, the purpose of the money is of no consequence. It is merely fact that the money was injected. The moral consequences or beneficiary of that money don't have bearing on the fact that the money was injected, and would have negative long-term effect.
- disantlor 4y ago
  Right, and not injecting the money would have a negative long-term effect. I'm saying while it's difficult to be sure, it's at least reasonable to conclude that we traded a short term disaster for smaller long-term pain. Maybe you disagree, but I don't get why people are acting like this is sinister.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    it would seem that you are basing aspects of argument on feelings, perceived individual benefit, and speculation. That's not a debate I'm interested in engaging in. I prefer to look at the facts as they are at present.
    - librish 4y ago
      But how can you argue that we're living in a world that's worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus when you haven't lived in that world?
      - andrew_ 4y ago
        I'm not and have not argued that. That's where I believe you may be leading with emotion.
        librish 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to accuse the person you're talking to be emotional. It's implies that your argument is logical and correct, and the other person's is incorrectly clouded. Can you clarify what your argument about the stimulus is then?
        andrew_ 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to continue to try and draw a person into an argument they've repeatedly stated they're not attempting to make nor have interest in joining. Stop trying to make fetch happen. I have no argument for, against, nor interest in engaging in the shaving of a yak that is bald. You're in a debate with a single participant.
        librish 4y ago
        I'm not trying to "draw" you into an argument, I'm responding to my best faith interpretations of your posts. That is not considered bad form. That you refuse to clarify and call me emotional is.
  - 0x7265616374 4y ago
    Why are your kind so desperate to spin this situation into anything remotely positive? Is it buyer's remorse? Tribalism? Desperation? We're in deep shit. A lot of people saw it coming, a lot of people ignored the warnings. A lot of people tried to spin this like it was no big deal "nothing to see here, all is well." It doesn't matter if this is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont - we're in the shit now, and that's all that matters.

andrew_ 4y ago

To the argument within my comment, the purpose of the money is of no consequence. It is merely fact that the money was injected. The moral consequences or beneficiary of that money don't have bearing on the fact that the money was injected, and would have negative long-term effect.

disantlor 4y ago
Right, and not injecting the money would have a negative long-term effect. I'm saying while it's difficult to be sure, it's at least reasonable to conclude that we traded a short term disaster for smaller long-term pain. Maybe you disagree, but I don't get why people are acting like this is sinister.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  it would seem that you are basing aspects of argument on feelings, perceived individual benefit, and speculation. That's not a debate I'm interested in engaging in. I prefer to look at the facts as they are at present.
  - librish 4y ago
    But how can you argue that we're living in a world that's worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus when you haven't lived in that world?
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      I'm not and have not argued that. That's where I believe you may be leading with emotion.
      - librish 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to accuse the person you're talking to be emotional. It's implies that your argument is logical and correct, and the other person's is incorrectly clouded. Can you clarify what your argument about the stimulus is then?
        andrew_ 4y ago
        As an aside it's pretty bad form to continue to try and draw a person into an argument they've repeatedly stated they're not attempting to make nor have interest in joining. Stop trying to make fetch happen. I have no argument for, against, nor interest in engaging in the shaving of a yak that is bald. You're in a debate with a single participant.
        librish 4y ago
        I'm not trying to "draw" you into an argument, I'm responding to my best faith interpretations of your posts. That is not considered bad form. That you refuse to clarify and call me emotional is.
- 0x7265616374 4y ago
  Why are your kind so desperate to spin this situation into anything remotely positive? Is it buyer's remorse? Tribalism? Desperation? We're in deep shit. A lot of people saw it coming, a lot of people ignored the warnings. A lot of people tried to spin this like it was no big deal "nothing to see here, all is well." It doesn't matter if this is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont - we're in the shit now, and that's all that matters.