Naveed Zafar says:

On November 27, 2005 11:05 PM

Might be more comfortable to the resident than the Prime Minister in his big Castle :)

Anther Great Piece of Art, I would say.

Erik says:

On April 29, 2012 1:59 AM

To those of you saying the stimluus worked, please explain specifically what outcome you believe was positive.First of all, the stimluus was not $700 billion. The ANNUAL deficit is more like $2 trillion, and there is no accounting of how much of that is just being printed by the fed vs real investors buying bonds. Nor is there any accounting of the $ trillions the fed continues to pump into banks, insurance companies, fannie/freddie or whom ever they want to. It's all hidden from public view.Why does the stimluus go to banks who pay it out as multi-million $ bonuses, rather than to more productive things like fixing/enhancing the infrastructure, or renewable energy? Answer, gov is OWNED by special interests MAINLY the large banks. (PS, this is non partisan, I hate both parties). The banks will never be allowed to go under no matter how stupidly they behave, so unproven scare stories are put out that it would wreck the economy.I'll grant you one positive. Without the trillions in stimluus EACH YEAR, there would be massive homelessness, hunger and untreated illness. Much like we read about the first depression. (Yes, I'm calling this a depression, but please let's not get stuck on names). The official stats are around 10% unemployment. When you add those uncounted for various reasons and include under employment, it's probably closer to 25%. 40 million are on food stamps. 20 million are direct gov employees who wouldn't have a job if gov only spent what it took in from taxes. Millions are living rent free in homes that banks refuse to foreclose.If you took away that stimluus, all those people would be out in the street. Plus the negative multiplier effect would dump many of the rest of us out of work. The problem is how do we get off this speeding treadmill, where the gov has to borrow/print more and more just to keep half of us from being unemployed? I believe we would have been much better off if we let the banks go under and just sold off the debt to the highest bidders. The $10 s of trillions spent on infrastructure would have created tons of new productive businesses, much like building roads stimulates development in those areas. But again, that will never happen because the banks own both parties in DC. Rate this comment: 0 0