I think this a most opportune time to employ the argument damn near worn-out by progressives:
"If he hadn't have done it things would be so much worse."
Not that I don't acknowledge that austerity measures won't boost GDP in the short-term, or at least I wouldn't expect them to. It's just the irony of the progressive argument that no matter how badly a Dem policy fails the response is - "it would have been worse without it!".
Why can't the other side use it too?
Fern
Person A: I accidentally shot a man with a gun and he died from his wound.
Person B: I accidentally stabbed a man with a knife and he died from his wound.
Person A: I find it hard to believe you accidentally stabbed a man with a knife.
Person B: If you can say you accidentally killed a man, why can't I use that argument, too?
The liberties you take with the term "substantial" are obscene.
Fern
The liberties you take with logic are obscene. The scenario above is not meant to be an analogy, it's meant to point out that you skipped a lot of information when attempting to suggest that your side can just use the same argument.
It's an all too common theme with conservative arguments around here. Take a valid liberal argument against one thing and try to shoehorn the same argument onto another issue and pretend the two issues are the same.
Lame. But that's all you conservatives have anymore. Lame attempts to justify proven failed policies.
I honestly don't know how you maintain a reputation for being someone worth reading around here when you shovel this shit, Fern. You shovel it just like all the other trolls. It fucking baffles me. Sure, you have some good posts, maybe even a lot of good posts. But posts like these are not uncommon at all.