It wasn't a misleading interpretation of your argument. You didn't have an argument. You had bullspit drivel that anyone with enough brain energy to find the "on" switch of a computer would recognize to be false at face value. Bailouts have happened but if someone is stupid enough to think that the government will bail them out if they fail then they're too stupid to be rich in the first place. I didn't like bailouts, either, but to pretend they're common place and done just to prop up the rich is ridiculous. You know better.
I don't need a strawman to ridicule your statements. Ridicule is the natural result of making ridiculous statements.
Government "back up" isn't limited to bailouts, although relevant industries receive more than indicated by the attention grabbing 2008 recession.
A few years ago the European Union was going to initiate a policy to wean themselves off their historical dependence on foreign financing and crediting companies, a policy that would adversely affect companies like Visa in the United States because it would lose them European markets while sponsoring an international, European-based competitor in developing Asian, South American, and African markets (the places where long term financing is most lucrative). Also, places where European nations would develop an advantage thanks to pre-existing historical, political, and economic ties. The United States government lobbied them to stop that from happening, to ensure that international financing remains centered in Wall Street.
Or, the Canadian and American governments signed decades spanning trade agreements so that American pharmaceutics supplied Canada with cheap products in exchange for acknowledging American drug licenses in Canada so that Canadian pharmaceutics wouldn't develop as competitors in the North American market. They
THEN outlawed importing medicine into the United States so that cash strapped Americans could enjoy the same medication at a cheaper price. This is the pretty much the same thing as saying that only rich people are
legally allowed to enjoy the benefits of globalism. Pharmaceuticals can take advantage of the international jobs market, but Americans can't take advantage of the international health care market.
For that matter, globalism itself only works because the United States invests trillions of dollars into maintaining international security. We keep other regions of the world at peace, but only the rich receive an economic benefit from that; whatever stingy benefits the middle class receives are lost in the expense while bleeding jobs and wages.
Or the airlines, or subsidies, or whatever.
All of these things cost money and put economic strain on ordinary Americans.