Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
|
While it is rather complicated, a strong case can be made that the U.S. government did not make money on the TARP bailout, and in fact lost billions.
See: wallstreetonparade.com/20. . . This aside, the intention of TARP was to prevent a total collapse of our nation’s financial system. Arguments exist pro and con whether the bailout was in fact necessary, and whether our economy would have collapsed without it; the point is, it was not done with ‘conscious benevolence’ as those making the case for our government assuming the burden for all outstanding student loans. However, keep in mind, if such action was implemented it would not be ‘free’ but would come at a tremendous cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Tax dollars are fungible, and funds expended for this purpose would otherwise be used for myriad alternative functions. Whether using tax-payer dollars to relieve student loans makes sense depends on your perspective, and is essentially a value judgment. It is not a matter of logic. Thus, the question of unintended consequences is not relevant to this issue, and I see no fallacy here. |
answered on Sunday, Aug 21, 2016 02:27:25 PM by modelerr |
Comments |
|