That is arguable at worst.
No doubt there is a snowball effect with suppliers, etc., but the untimate question is this:
As we have seen with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, once you establish a free lunch, it can only get worse.
I'll give you graver economic risks... an endless string of additional "bailouts" as far into the future as the imagination can see.
So I'll ask you what's worse? The anticipated consequences now or when ten times the amount is as stake?
Twenty times?
A hundred times?
All to save the UAW and Democratic votes?
Save the rats, lose a country.
Yeah, that works.
You said — “I’ll give you graver economic risks... an endless string of additional “bailouts” as far into the future as the imagination can see.
So I’ll ask you what’s worse? The anticipated consequences now or when ten times the amount is as stake?”
—
Well, I’ve come up with a “rule of thumb” that I’m going to use for the extent of our helping in this country (of our own) and helping people that are our citizens in our country — and that is — to spend as much as we have spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As I’ve seen it, in our own “enlightened self-interest” — if we see it “good” to promote freedom and help foreigners in their country (to build up and stabilize their infrastructure and *pay* for all sorts of things for their populations) — then we deserve just *as much consideration* for our own country and paying for things here — as those foreigners get (and have gotten) from us...
That seems like a fair amount to me, for the extent that we should go... (up to and no more than we have spent on foreigners...)