Testing, testing ...
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Tilted
..
Investments don't have 'costs'. They have 'returns'.
They still have (initial) costs, you just hope the (eventual) returns are greater, such that the net cost (in the end) turns out to be negative.
Now back to the original question.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
They still have (initial) costs, you just hope the (eventual) returns are greater, such that the net cost (in the end) turns out to be negative.
Now back to the original question.
See? That's the kind of attitude that stands between us and even more investment!!
This_person
Well-Known Member
The investment of which Tilted speaks does not seem to have any returnsInvestments don't have 'costs'. They have 'returns'.
Tilted
..
The hope that net cost (in the end) is negative?
Sure, but it only seems to stand in the way of private investment. Public investment doesn't seem all that deterred by such hope.
Now back to the original question.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I am totally kidding.
As far as I know, it was supposed to cost $780 bil and only 1/3 has been spent. I am unaware that the estimated cost is more than $780 bil.
Tilted
..
The investment of which Tilted speaks does not seem to have any returns
Pfft. There's a big sign not a quarter mile from my house letting me know (albeit rather cryptically) that they're using some of that money to do something - I can't figure out what - to the creek that runs along the edge of my property (or maybe it's to the bridge over that creek). Whatever they're doing is sure to have returns.
Tilted
..
I am totally kidding.
As far as I know, it was supposed to cost $780 bil and only 1/3 has been spent. I am unaware that the estimated cost is more than $780 bil.
Of course I knew you were kidding.
So, $780 Billion. Any other answers or estimates?
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
On the Price Is Right, there's always the person who tries to be sneaky by betting $1.
So I will say $1... trillion.
bcp
In My Opinion
The investment of which Tilted speaks does not seem to have any returns
Not all returns can be measured in monetary terms.
sometimes, the return can be as simple as a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that your tax dollar helped in some small way.
Sing with me
God Bless American,,,
oh wait, that might offend someone, never mind.
Tilted
..
Okay, the cost of the Stimulus package is $780 Billion or $1 Trillion? That's about what I've seen reported most places - somewhere between $787 Billion and the mid to high $800 Billion(s). Not too long ago a lot of people were (gleefully, it seemed) reporting and talking about how it cost more than the Iraqi (theatre of the) War had thus far. The cost figure cited, from the CBO, for that war was $709 Billion, I believe.
So, what would it cost to re-enact the so-called Bush tax cuts?
So, what would it cost to re-enact the so-called Bush tax cuts?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
All of them will 'cost' $4 tril over the next 10 years. Or, 'save' $4 tril if you look at it another way.
Tilted
..
Which is it? Are you a disingenuous liberal with an idiotic mindset which considers reductions in tax revenue - giving people back more of, or letting them keep more of, their own money - to be a 'cost' to the government, or an intellectually honest, fair minded conservative that wouldn't consider those things as such?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Is this what you were leading up to?
Because it really does tick me off to hear Democrats talk about how much the tax cuts "cost" as if:
1) We're really just a source of revenue to them such that taxes are "supposed" to be at this level and
2) The tax cuts had absolutely NO EFFECT whatsoever on total tax revenues over the last eight years.
It's kind of the stupid thinking where if you sell a product for 10% less for ten years, and some schmuck asks "yes, but how much money did we LOSE by charging less for it?" - somehow missing the point that if he had charged more, he might have sold a lot fewer product.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Which is it? Are you a disingenuous liberal with an idiotic mindset which considers reductions in tax revenue - giving people back more of, or letting them keep more of, their own money - to be a 'cost' to the government, or an intellectually honest, fair minded conservative that wouldn't consider those things as such?
Well, just today, I have been called obstinate, a dope smoking college professor, Obama supporter (redundancy) a Tin Foil Hatter and a(n) Amadinnerjacket supporter, so, to narrow it down on taxes is probably a bit much right now, thanks.
Tilted
..
That's not my ultimate point, but - depending on how you look at it - it might be my penultimate or antepenultimate point.
Tilted
..
Well, just today, I have been called obstinate, a dope smoking college professor, Obama supporter (redundancy) a Tin Foil Hatter and a(n) Amadinnerjacket supporter, so, to narrow it down on taxes is probably a bit much right now, thanks.
For the record, I'm not of the belief that you're any of those things (maybe obstinate, but most all of us are a bit).