paulg_68 posted:
No need to argue that point now that you've acknowledged that you were lying when you said he bailed out the entire industry.
Do you think it makes a difference to the people whose jobs are saved? Why does it make a difference to the taxpayer?
You're insisting that there are differences, well maybe, but they seem trivial. Why should anyone care about them when they have the same effect on the interested parties?
Yukishiro1 posted:
If you want to fight over whether Obama bailed out the auto industry or specific companies have at it I guess. I'm not really interested.
If you want to fight over whether Obama bailed out the auto industry or specific companies have at it I guess. I'm not really interested.
No need to argue that point now that you've acknowledged that you were lying when you said he bailed out the entire industry.
Yukishiro1 posted:
The oil companies we subsidize are not about to go under.
The oil companies we subsidize are not about to go under.
Do you think it makes a difference to the people whose jobs are saved? Why does it make a difference to the taxpayer?
You're insisting that there are differences, well maybe, but they seem trivial. Why should anyone care about them when they have the same effect on the interested parties?
Nice of you to agree that government can produce jobs. Baby step, yeah, but, at least in the right direction.
Now, if the main reason for giving money to oil companies was to produce jobs and there were several thousand other ways that the government could use that money and create even more jobs, you obviously would be in favor of them?
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman