by god - check this out!, page-88

Matey, just a couple of things (so as to clear your thinking).

You clearly apply rules of logic to others but then act, say things as if they do not apply to you. Read the paste below - from your post and have a good think about what you have said.

You say that another poster cannot prove to you that the action which Rudd took saved us from going into recession (maybe depression), and here you are right in that he cannot prove so. But likewise you cannot prove the opposite. Yet immediately after having a go at this poster you turned aound and did exactly same thing that you had a go at him about.

How do you know for certain that the Australian economy was not in danger of collapsing? How do you know if the action taken by the government did or did not prevent it occurring? You do not know (and this goes for all us) for certain. Therefore your claim is nothing but bull dust. There is only one way we could learn if the economy could/would collapse in the absence of action and that is if the action had not been taken
Anyway, as I have said, have another read of your post.

Those who back the government's decision to take action do so not from a standpoint of knowing, or imagining for that matter, they back the decision because they believe in risk management. They hold to the view that it was better to take action even if it may not have been needed because the risk that the economy would go south was to great to take.

"Talk about head in the sand.You can't prove to me that anything Rudd did actually improved things. ......
Head in the sand?Let me repeat,WE were never in any real trouble.Our banks were strong our economy was strong.Our real estate market was strong.WE were only ever in an imagined danger"