Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
9. Why bring in a straw-man as to what might have happened. It was signed into law. To be consistent
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:53 PM
Aug 2012

with an announced goal of having a recovery, maybe it would have been a good idea to take action consistent with that.

Here's an analogy. If the driver of a North-bound taxicab in Chicago at State and Madison told you that he would take you to State and Wacker but then turned West instead of driving four blocks North to Wacker, you might have an idea that the driver did not have a primary goal of taking you directly to State and Wacker but was interested in running up the cab fare.

If you already got into the cab and were already enroute, the logical thing to consider is whether it would have been better to travel directly to your destination at State and Wacker rather than talking about not going at all.

None one raised the issue of whether it would have been better to not sign the Recovery Act. The issue is whether it would have been better to act in a manner consistent with have a goal of having a recovery.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»The New New Deal: The Hid...»Reply #9