If Republicans were truly supporters of capitalism, they would not agree with the government subsidizing a business loss, the free market thing to do would be to let him fall.
A business loss can also be due to one-time capital purchases. This can happen to businesses big and small.
For example consider a household (say $100K total income) where one spouse works a salaried job and the other is self-employed in the tech sector. In early 2000 the self-employed spouse gets a contract to work for a tech firm and has to buy new computer equipment and software to meet the terms of the contract. Later that year the tech firm fails to pay as part of the tech crash. They don't actually go bankrupt that year, so there is the possibility that they will eventually pay (though by 2002 the tech firm has ceased to exist). In the meantime the household is dealing with the lost time worked that may never be paid as well as the expenses required by contract that won't probably ever be recovered. So, there is a business loss in 2000. Since the household files jointly, those actual contract expenses (not the lost time) reduce the taxes for the household, including those withheld by the salaried spouse.
Is that a business subsidy, or recognition that the household functions as a single unit? Should the household potentially face bankruptcy that could be avoided by the tax reduction due to events beyond the control of the household?
