...do people in
When money is spent on something like medical insurance for children, the money is not cash into the pocket of illegal immigrants (one popular and misguided PR spin I’ve heard). It goes to doctors and nurses (people who need jobs and spend money) who provide medical care, not to mention the suppliers (who employ people who pay taxes and spend money) who stock medical facilities gauze pads and tongue depressors. Then there are the public utilities (who employ people who pay taxes and spend money) that provide water, heat and electricity for lights. On top of all that healthier kids means less time out of school, less time off work for parents and guardians meaning that adults are more productive (people who pay taxes and spend money). Then those little kids become healthy adults who get jobs and pay taxes and spend money.
As opposed to giving money to banks (who employ people who pay taxes and spend money) that weren't able to make sound financial decision when they weren't regulated without any spending requirements and that did things like buy another bank or an airplane instead of lending it or using that cash to offset the cost of refinancing mortgages as the general consensus says is needed.
It sure seems to me that politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, conveniently utilize a short-term view of a larger picture when it suits them.
No public conversation is comparing the amount of money has been spent over the past eight years to fight a war and the price of this stimulus package that will help people outside the defense industry.
My suggestion is we compare the longer-term effects of those to separate invoices and see which one is going to positively impact more people.
Just a thought…..