Originally Posted by Think Blue Count One Tow

I really do understand that. This whole thing is not as complex as you're making it. I've understood it for a while. What you aren't understand is that I don't care what he intended it to do. I don't care if his goal was to stimulate hiring. My personal belief is that we should cut taxes, and a tax credit is close enough.

The reason I've been repeatedly asking "so?" is because it doesn't matter what he meant to do, all that matters is what he's doing. If he does something I like, even with false intentions, it's still something I like. Perhaps it was stupid of him, but I still like it. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Now, I personally think that businesses that aren't doing well should probably fail. Perhaps some are too big or something like that, and personally I don't mind him taking over GM because I'm from Michigan and therefore benefit greatly from it, but the concept of government rescuing every business in distress isn't my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce

Well, as with Flounder, we agree that taxes need to be cut. But Obama is actually raising taxes. Sure he offered the $5K incentive, but those same business owners look at what he has planned, to include the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the Obamacare he came so close to getting, and they only see the mounting red ink that we all have to pay for. Giving one dollar with the left hand while taking two with the right is not a tax cut. We all suffer tax increases, regardless of how Obama and his ilk label them.

Originally Posted by Think Blue Count One Tow

That's just not right. You can't look at something that's good and spit on it because the whole is something bad. Imagine if we took that approach to education. The one kid who has potential gets labelled because he goes to a bad school.

What's more, you can't say "oh we like those" and then turn around and say "no that's not right". If you like something you like it. If your own child were to count to 10 properly you wouldn't slap him in the face and say "that's wrong! You were planning on (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up addition!" Why? Because counting up to ten is an accomplishment that should be appreciated. Go start a thread about how much you hate the tax hikes.

Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce

That's not how it works, and you are not putting much thought into it. Giving one and taking two is a recipe for failure. You cannot ignore the one and praise the other. Using your school analogy, it would be as a child earning one "A" and two "F"s, and you thinking its good.

What do you not understand about a net loss ? Have you ever taken an economics course, or are you still working on that HS diploma ? There is no logic, or experience, evident in your argument.

Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce

That's not how it works, and you are not putting much thought into it. Giving one and taking two is a recipe for failure. You cannot ignore the one and praise the other. Using your school analogy, it would be as a child earning one "A" and two "F"s, and you thinking its good.

What do you not understand about a net loss ? Have you ever taken an economics course, or are you still working on that HS diploma ? There is no logic, or experience, evident in your argument.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Reminds me of how in 1993 our Republican friends were telling us how the Clinton/Dem tax increase was going to result in utter doom for the economy.

Of course they were (yet again) completely wrong on that claim.

Originally Posted by Think Blue Count One Tow

It's better to get one A and two F's than three F's.

What's interesting is that you've just presented an analogy that shows me that you understand, yet you're still disagreeing with me. Maybe you're just more pessimistic than I am?

There is logic to my side, and it's very simple logic, too. I'm in my fourth economics class right now, and that's why I was able to comment on your misunderstanding of supply and demand earlier.

Originally Posted by Think Blue Count One Tow

I really do understand that. This whole thing is not as complex as you're making it. I've understood it for a while. What you aren't understand is that I don't care what he intended it to do. I don't care if his goal was to stimulate hiring. My personal belief is that we should cut taxes, and a tax credit is close enough.

The reason I've been repeatedly asking "so?" is because it doesn't matter what he meant to do, all that matters is what he's doing. If he does something I like, even with false intentions, it's still something I like. Perhaps it was stupid of him, but I still like it. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Now, I personally think that businesses that aren't doing well should probably fail. Perhaps some are too big or something like that, and personally I don't mind him taking over GM because I'm from Michigan and therefore benefit greatly from it, but the concept of government rescuing every business in distress isn't my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Reminds me of how in 1993 our Republican friends were telling us how the Clinton/Dem tax increase was going to result in utter doom for the economy.

Of course they were (yet again) completely wrong on that claim.

Originally Posted by flounder

Well I am glad you understand anyway at least that's good. You can also realize why to most businessmen this is a bad move. The reason it should matter to you is because you would not want your President making bad decisions that way, or shouldn't anyway.
Remember one thing though, it's your money he is throwing away...so much for a sweet rose...aye?