all of that aside, did you notice that Obama offered tax breaks for small businesses last night? Care to comment on that?

Basically you are agreeing with my point, if a small business can not add value, can not differentiate, can not compete on price, they fail. What is wrong with that? Why should they continue to be in the market? Who should subsidize their inadequacies in the market if consumers don't want their goods or services? Why?

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

In the last two years I have not made made any profits in my business (I do pay myself a salary), so a tax cut will not help me. I need increased sales and access to credit to fund the increase in activity when and if it comes. He did say he would use TARP money to give to small banks so they can loan to small business. If that happens it will be good, however if it is off-set by a reduction in lending by big banks, what was the point?

tax breaks wouldn't help you? you've been complaining about federal taxes on small businesses for as long as you've posted here

it would seem to me, ace, that your economic metaphysics would leave you in no position to complain about anything any firm does. uncle milty friedman tells us that what firms do is generate profits for themselves and that anything beyond that is outside their competence and so unethical. and we all know how well that worked out empirically----but we're not really talking about the empirical world when we talk "economics" with you---so using your own position to go by, if banks choose to focus their resources on making higher rates of profits for banks to the exclusion of enabling commercial lending to get unstalled, who are you to complain? you should like it. self-interest uber alles and all that.

o and can you riddle me how exactly it is that the discussion about television prices devolved out of a conversation about obama's first year in office?
thanks.

It's not necessarily the case that these small businesses cannot add value, differentiate, or compete on price; it's that it's far more difficult for them to do so because of the disparity in things such as labour resources and purchasing power.

Their failing isn't inherently bad in and of itself. Businesses fail all the time, and businesses who lack competitive ability should probably fail. However, when you compare small business to large business within the same market, I support government measures to give small businesses a hand when it comes to things such as tax breaks/credits, access to capital that would otherwise be denied them, and such things that help keep the market more competitive than it would otherwise. I don't expect the government to necessarily give them handouts, but I wouldn't mind if they were more open to taking less from them than they would larger enterprise...even to scale.

The problem with your position, RB, is that you presume the banks are operating already in a free market. They're not. The govt is already guiding their activities in a myriad of ways. You don't get to determine the terms of the debate that way. Uncle Miltie's world isn't the one that your ideological allies will permit to exist, because there is nothing in it for them.

Not directly. Business is at a point were, in 2010 unless things improve, I will not be a tax payer, I will not be an employer, I won't be buying office supplies, paying rent, etc., based on income I will be in poverty for the first time since college. I will qualify for many poverty based benefits. Like I said I need business to improve, and for that I need the economy to improve. If my potential clients benefit from tax cuts, I will benefit. This is "trickle down", I have experienced it in the past and hope to experience it in the future. Poor people don't need what I sell.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

I guess there is a subtle difference between a complaint and pointing out a need, but there is a difference. Banks can do what they want and if I can come to an agreement with a bank on terms and rates we both win. In a business like mine, if I get an order from a client it may take 45 days to full-fill and another 45 to get paid. In between I have costs and as business activity grows those costs go up significantly before the cash starts to flow in, I need sources for financing to grow.

I would like a government who is neutral at best, or at least allied with my interest. Having a government against my interests is the worst case scenario.

I read what is posted and I follow the flow of the discussion. The relationship with TV's and Obama's first year has everything to do with his lack of focus on the economy. He does not understand what makes the economy work. How and why people buy and sell things is by definition what the economy is. Why did you need me to connect these dots for you? This explanation is not even Econ 101, this is grade school level stuff. So, you chastise me for being simplistic and you chastise me when I don't connect the dots in a simplistic manner so that you can follow. I can't win with you, can I?

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

That is why we need government policy that is fair to all parties. It is more difficult for small business to meet government regulatory requirements, which favors being big. For example if you have to have x number of disabled parking spaces, even if they are not needed, the small business is at a disadvantage and may loose business because customers can not find a spot, while the unused space is available. So on one hand it is commendable that we look out for the disabled, but we have to understand there is a cost.

Only if that were true, but I don't think it is. Government favors big business, big labor and those without, everyone else gets the shaft.

No. He's broken the promise to bring the troops home. Here's the video, "you can take that to the bank."


and then he denies it having said the above...

Cyn, I'm going to direct you once again to PolitiFact on this one. They've done their homework and they're nonpartisan (unlike the cutsey commentary-writer on your first clip there).

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Obama's Campaign Promises that are about Iraq . They list two Iraq-related promises "kept", two "stalled", three (including pulling troops out) as "in the works".

For sure the timelines he laid out as a candidate have passed, but there is homeward motion happening in Iraq. In February 09 he announced a "end of operations" date in Iraq of the end of August 2010. So it's not like his deadlines slipped by without comment.

On Iraq and homeland security, I give Obama a solid C-. I'm not a fan of what he's done there, don't interpret my generally positive view of his presidency so far as a pass on those issues. I think his campaign talk about it was probably more upbeat than the reality of the situation there really lined up with, and I suspect he discovered that pretty quick once he started getting daily briefings. But I'm just surmising.

so if the time line keeps getting longer, it's not "broken" but it's stalled?

Well, they list the Iraq pullout as "in the works".

Watching your videos, you'd think Obama has just quit talking about Iraq and goes "Oop!" anytime someone mentions it. Not so. The current exit date is Aug 31, 2010. The speech where he said that, he acknowledged it's going to be longer than he said.

The article at PolitiFact says all this. Did you click my link? Last time I posted a link to PolitiFact's page checking up on Obama's promises, my experience was that nobody went there. Are we averse to facts in Tilted Politics?

I have read the site, and continue to go there.

I just disagree with the idea that a broken promise that he thinks or the site thinks because when I say I promise to do something by a date, and I don't hit it, I've lied or at the very least broken my promise. It doesn't matter what unforeseens and unknowns that jump in to delay and kibosh my project. It's my responsibility to see them or at least plan for them.

I'd rather he say, by the end of my 1st term or something more realistic, but IMO he keeps just pushing the date out.

Ok, so what then?

I don't know in my opinion it's more of the definition of is and sex. Both are kind of silly to try to make one look "right" because they were semantically right.

My point is that he broke the promise....so what? "Gotcha"?

No, just admit that he broke the promise. This includes President Obama.

He did, and he made a new promise. What now?

(One thing to notice in this thread--and I'm not looking JUST at you, Cyn, although you're in there--is that no matter WHAT the guy does, haters gonna hate. In this case, he's pretty much done exactly what Cyn would have asked, but he's still a Bad President and gets No Cookie. I don't know... At what point do you just come out and admit it has nothing to do with the man or his actions, and everything to do with your own view coloring what you see?)

I get to believe that he's a promise breaker and disbelieve the other items on his agenda when he says that he's going to do something. I believe that President Obama is no less a politician than he is, but the "Change I can believe in." I haven't seen. What change? All the important parts that I hoped Mr. Obama would change as he stated he would when I went to the voting polls. The beauty of this country is secret ballot I will no admit to voting or not voting for President Obama, but historically I do not vote for professional politicians, with extreme exception.

If you don't think that important, great.

Again, he's not fulfilled his promise, on key items that he specifically campaigned on, which you dutifully point to this site that lawyers it to "stalled" or some other nonsensical word when it comes to accomplishing something.

You either hit your stated goals or you didn't.

Did h promise Change in the first year. Were the conditions in the country different during his campaign than they were when he took office?

Yes, there are changes that were promised the first year, Closing Gitmo and ending the war, those both meant something to me.

They meant something to me too, but I wasn't naive enough to think that he had all the necessary information he needed to fulfill those promises. It was pretty clear that once he was sworn in, the situation was going to change.

That said, Gitmo is still a travesty and he's completely dropped the ball there.

So how is one a travesty and not the other? Don't both fall under that he could not have "had all the necessary information he needed to fulfill those promises?"

sure, and all that information has meant (re: Iraq withdrawal) is that he couldn't do it as quickly as he'd wanted to. It's still going to happen, though

couldn't you then say the same thing about Gitmo? again, how is one a travesty and not the other? Is travesty reserved for Gitmo because of human rights violations and not the war?

Because to my knowledge, the closing of Gitmo has been completely shelved while troop withdrawal has simply been pushed back

Sigh. Facts, people! ratbastid the broken record part 3:

PolitiFact | Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center - Obama promise No. 177:

One paragraph version: Obama's 2nd-day-in-office order to transfer detainees out of Gitmo got hung up when the Senate denied authorization and funding for it. PolitiFact rated it "stalled" until October 2009, when the House authorized moving some Gitmo detainees stateside for trial, and the promise was upgraded to "in the works". Last month the administration announced that they're working on prepping a new facility in Illinois to put the Guantanamo detainees who need to be kept, and closing the Guantanamo facility.

They also point out that the one year timeframe was something the administration "hoped to accomplish", not, strictly speaking, a promise.

I had a really great rant typed here about how people are more interested in validating their opinion than in the facts, but it wouldn't make any difference anyway, and I didn't like how worked up I got typing it. So let's not worry about that part. Suffice to say, it kind of seems, in this thread, like I'm the only guy at the party who can see that everyone else has their pants on backwards.

seems to me that this is a promise he shouldn't have made, knowing he had no control over whether it could get funded or not. Do I blame that failure on him? No. This promise was broken because the idiotic american people majority has no idea how their own country operates.

Well..... In my view it was broken because Congress is broken.

We could do with a little Unitary Executive right about now, IMO.

Question to liberals. Doesn't it give you major concern every time the Obama administration goes to the "well bush did it too", defense of their actions? From my point of view it seems they give what Bush did more and more credibility. I would think this is disturbing to those who though Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history.

As you will note, again and again, the more left leaning elements of the democratic party, and the more left leaning elements of society in general, have had no problems making their dissatisfaction with Obama public.

Which is why, again and again, these same folks have taken issue to the notion that Obama is some radical lefty.

The point, of course, is that a significant part of the opposition to Obama from the right tries to somehow paint him as a radical, unprecedented, leftist. So "Bush did it" is both an indictment of Obama and of his opposition.

I am sorry, but I recall a very different tone with Bush and his policies as compared to Obama and Bush's policies, why is that? Or, are you suggesting it is just my imagination and that true "leftists" are actually as vocal and full of venom as they ever were with Bush.

First of all, the venom was in many respects exaggerated, especially when we compare both presidents 1 year into their presidency.

Second of all, lying and misleading to start an unnecessary war will logically have different reactions than not being entirely clear or aggressive enough in ending it.

But lying about ending a war by a date certain...
Lying about closing Gitmo...
Lying about enhanced interogation...
Lying about ending "wiretaps"...
Lying about energy policy...
Lying about health care...
Lying about "the brink"...
Lying about open and honest government...
Lying about change...
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

All that's is o.k.????

Let me see you use the words, did Obama lie to get your vote? Was Obama unrealistic regarding his empty rhetoric? What? Was Obama forced to do what he doesn't want to do because the super majority was not enough? Wait, it is all Bush's fault, right?

Who the fuck said it's ok?

Did you not read my previous post, where I discussed how most leftists "have had no problems making their dissatisfaction with Obama public?"

This is either trolling or an inability to read.

You asked why there wasn't the same "venom."
Explaining why there isn't the same venom is in no ways akin to saying "it's ok."

But I'm betting you know that already.

I got carried away, this is not important.