Groucho48 posted:
GrilledCheez posted:
The first question was retarded. If it created one job then it passed that one. The second one was equally retarded. Asking if it was worth the cost is dumb. When there is a downturn any braking you can do is good. What they should have asked is was it the best or most efficient or most effective thing that could have been done. I assume those numbers would be hugely different.
So the only thing this proves is that polls say what you want them to say.
The reason for the second question is to answer the doubt you mention about the first question.
Did it work? Yes
Did the cost of its working out weigh the benefits? No.
We could posit all sorts of hypotheticals and ask about them, but, most folks like to look back at any massive government effort and question whether it was worth it. Especially when there is a whole right wing industry claiming it didn't work.
Most economists seem to think it was worth it.
Asking if it was worth the money it cost doesn't answer the question of even whether they would have done the same thing. It means they are on board that it happened, but it doesn't mean they agree with either the mechanism, the speed, the oversight, the scope or anything else about it.
I'll give you an example from my own life. I had a tooth that was giving me trouble. I went to the dentist and he did some crap. It cost me 1500 bones, and lasted a couple years. I then went to a much more competent dentist and he did some more crap that cost a lot more because the first dentist didn't do as well as he should have.
Now under the questions on your poll, I would answer that I am glad I went to the first dentist and that it was worth the 1500 bones. Why? because the alternative of not going would have been much worse and a lot less desirable for me. However, my real opinion is that the first dentist was kind of a boob and I would have been better off never having met him.
Again polls can say what you want them to say.
-----signature-----
Another word for expensive is successful.
