Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Sep 19, 2013.
Even when they agree with you?
Even when they make a good point. I'm not going to like them just because they say something that I should agree with. That's the big difference between us two.
Besides that... I never chose a side on this issue. :wave:
You said something about "liking" them or believing them?
I see now....you only believe those who you "like".
Do you even understand what you say?
I think the issue here is that, to the degree the article is asserting that the whole point of the loan restructuring was to create tax credits, it's pretty clearly wrong.
I think the independent points that 1) the loan restructuring amplified the capital loss the government lending program suffered and 2) those losses were compounded when the investment firm that controlled Solyndra was able to carry their own losses forward into a holding company and use them as tax credits are both correct.
It pretty clearly wasn't the government's goal to create the carryable loss, however, or else it wouldn't have been the one to point out the fact that losses were being carried forward for tax credits and try to stop it. The argument that they are evil genius enough to have intentionally allowed these tax credits to be created, but simultaneously incompetent enough to publicly point out their own evil plan and try to stop something that they wanted to happen in the first place doesn't pass the smell test.
I think the system is in need of a fix. It's far from perfect, but I wouldn't toss it out and start over either. The whole tax credits versus tax deductions are a distinction that people get confused with all the time..