3 ms·
I mean, a trillion spent is a trillion spent: it'll trickle down regardless of how you spend it, the question is if you could have spent it some other way that
by SiempreViernes 4y ago
I mean, a trillion spent is a trillion spent: it'll trickle down regardless of how you spend it, the question is if you could have spent it some other way that would have given more jobs?
- namdnay 4y agoIt was Bush - if it hadn’t been spent on Iraq it would have gone straight to tax cuts for the upper brackets. We’re talking about the guy who managed to tank the worlds healthiest budget
- MisterMower 4y agoI thought we were talking a miniature nuclear reactor…
- Jenk 4y agoNot if it is stashed away secretly avoiding tax and other contributions to society. https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super...
- patmcc 4y agoA trillion spent building factories, highways, public housing, schools, etc. may employ exactly as many people as a trillion spent building weapons, dropping bombs, and killing people. What you end up with after spending that trillion is a bit different though.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> it'll trickle down regardless of how you spend it That's an article of conservative dogma dating from the Reagan and Bush eras, and it's pretty-much discredited now. For most major capital expenditure programmes, the majority of the money trickling down stops trickling once it reaches shareholders and executives.