Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!
* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.
|
Fact checked: Short answer: |
answered on Friday, May 30, 2025 06:33:43 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
The first sentence begins with what seems like a hedge. Saying that no one's hand's are truly clean could be a preemptive defense against someone countering this argument with information about Republican politicians. But the most agregious part is the mention of the last two administrations. This would probably be ad hominem (guilt by association) or package-deal fallacy , as the argument they'll provide for this is something that happened at the end of Biden's term, at which point Obama was out of office for nearly 8 years, so he would have had nothing to do with this. There is an assertion of fact, that the Department of Energy gave out $93 billion in loans during Biden's last 76 days in office. Which, I don't know whether that number is accurate, but it fails to specify whether these loans were fully created within that 76 day window, or whether the funds had been allocated over a longer timeline and simply dispersed during that time. Or, whether this was a decision made in full by Biden and his DOE, or if those funds had been allocated by Congress with the help of Republicans. Another instance of this being vague is that "many" is used to describe the number that did not have business plans or financial projection. If $93 billion in loans were allocated, this could be split among an extremely large number of projects, so "many" mean something like 100 out of 100,000 projects. There's also no indication that this is even a requirement. For instance, if money was loaned to homeowners to install solar panels on their roof, there would be no reason for them to have this information. The main argument seems to be based on a false equivalence . They point out that loans were dispersed, and treat that as equivalent to tax money being given away. This ignores the fact that loans, typically, get paid back with interest, so this isn't the waste of tax money, theft, or large addition to the debt that they claim it is. There's a claim made about lack of transparency, but no specific claim made about misuse of the funds. |
answered on Friday, May 30, 2025 08:52:46 AM by Mr. Wednesday | |
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|