Posted on 08/18/2010 10:07:00 AM PDT by Starman417
The Democrats have been trying mightily to turn attention away from their failed economic policies as millions upon millions remain unemployed. Their latest technique over the past few months? To tell us how much better off we are that they gave billions away to save banks and auto companies.
Good segment with Neil Cavuto yesterday discussing this very thing:
[VIDEO AT SITE]
All I know is that after spending hundreds of billions to rescue banks for getting reckless, a lot of them are still reckless. And a lot of em' still aren't lending.Same with auto companies. We spent nearly a hundred billion smackers for them to do what they could of done on their own in bankruptcy. Shed losing divisions and restructure. Only in this case, with OUR money for a makeover. Doing the one thing they said they wouldn't do. Restructure like a bankruptcy.
He points out that the Democrats are trying to say hey! Imagine what would of happened without the bailouts?
We're down a net 3 million jobs, as Neil points out, but things would of been so much worse without them?
Read more at floppingaces.net...
The democRATS are destroying the country by their addiction to spending and big bigger biggest government.
They are driving the country into bankruptcy on purpose.
I hope they are all defeated in November because this insanity must end, the sooner the better.
The bailouts were supposed to FIX the problem - not just “imagine how bad it would have been if we did nothing”
If that was how it was sold, then no one, not even democraps, would have been for it.
How could he have passed something designed to “keep things just as bad as they are now”
How long before Pelosi starts calling this “the failed obama administration”?
It took her all of about 3 seconds to call Bush that, after she was annointed queen bee (wasn’t it in her actual acceptance speach?)
I’v been trying to counter this same argument.
Isn’t there a logical fallacy involved here?
I can’t find then name for the logical fallacy for the “would have been” argument.
Anyone know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.