I didn't write this, but I sure do agree with it. It was an email forward from my sister-in-law. Hope you agree and enjoy:
"The media has worked overtime trying to make us hate GWB. But these verifiable facts can't be refuted. To all my friends—liberal or conservative—FYI only. George Bush has been in office for seven and a half years.
The first six, the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago — Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon.The unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. The DOW JONES hit a record high: 14,000 +.
Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!
But Americans wanted 'change.' So, in 2006, they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes: we got 'change' all right. In the past year — Consumer confidence has plummeted. Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon and climbing! Unemployment is up to 5.5 percent (a 10 percent increase). Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS (and prices still dropping).1 percent of American homes are in foreclosure.
As I write, the Dow is probing another low: $2.5 trillion has evaporated from their stocks, bonds and mutual funds investment portfolios!
Yes, in 2006 Americans voted for change and we sure got it! Remember! The President has no control over any of these issues — only Congress. And what has Congress done in the last two years? Absolutely nothing!
Now the Democratic candidate for President claims he is going to really give us change along with a Democratic Congress!!!! Just how much more 'change' do you think we can stand?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is called the fallacy of “after therefore because of,” or “post hock ergo propter hoc” in Latin. You learn not to make such arguments in the first days of debate class, or classes in logic, or rhetoric, or philosophy.
Why not? Because, if you make such an argument, and your audience realizes that that is what you are saying, then it thinks that you consider it to be stupid.
“After therefore because of” arguments run along these lines: “Ever since we started taking dancing classes, the stock market has declined. Dancing caused it.” Or, “Ever since we moved to Boston, the Red Socks have had winning seasons. We caused it.” Or, the classic: “We carried an umbrella today, so naturally it didn’t rain.”
Recognize the parallel to “These things have gone bad since the Democrats took office?”
In fact, Henry Paulson took over as Secretary of the US Treasury in June 2006, so you could equally date all the declines in the US economy from then. He took over in June 2006, oil prices increased since then, unemployment increased since then—etc. Or, you could date all the economic woes from the surge in Iraq, which also happened about two years ago.
The Republicans must be pretty desperate to resort to such “after therefore because of” arguments. Or perhaps they think we are stupid.
Or, perhaps they think we forget that the economy was already on the decline in late 2006, before the Democrats took control.
For example, by February 2007, less than one month after the new congress was sworn in, the rate of real income per family was calculated as having declined by $1,273 per family under Bush, meaning that each year an average family had $1,273 less to get along on after calculating rising inflation. Real per-family income had increased by $5,825 per family under Clinton.
Post a Comment