Repubicans block Small Biz Bill

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by Janky Red

Helps small businesses some, but really it helps those banks much much more. Banks should not be encouraged to take more risk, and have the govt guarantee debt, hence moving the risk to the taxpayer.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

I respect this -

So what do you propose as a solution to the credit freeze?

reply to post by johnny2127


That was my first thought also, let's get em reved up against Republicans, just the game being played(by both sides).

Originally posted by Janky Red

I respect this -

So what do you propose as a solution to the credit freeze?

Well thats a very in depth and deep question. Much of the reason is that I do think some pain on the part of banks and businesses needs to be felt so that they return to more sound business practices. Constantly borrowing and taking on more debt is not a good thing for individuals, companies and countries for that matter.

However, a healthy business that needs a small amount of capital for something like expansion should have avenues to go to for that. So the basic options are: private capital, public capital or loans. So in my opinion, first you encourage private capital.

One easy idea thats a no-brainer to me:
Right now the govt taxes money coming back into the US at 50%. Basically it encourages businesses and individuals to keep their money overseas. I think this should either be temporarily eliminated or dratically reduced. But at the same time provide stipulations for what that money can be used for to get that tax break. An example would be for hiring, business expansion, investment in other businesses, charity, etc. This provides and immediate stimulus to the economy int he form of hundreds of billions of dollars with no money spent by govt. This is a great example of an idea encouraging private capital.

In terms of public capital, I wouldn't support that very much given the financial problems the US govt is in. It would need to be very limited. Something like govt grants at low or no interest. Cut out the middle man of the bank. But also, I have a hard time supporting much of this given the history or fraud and waste in the business grant system.

Now in terms of helping ease the 'credit freeze' as you call it, thats a tricky question. It has to be done in a way that doesn't put risk on tax payers, doesn't bailout banks, and doesn't encourage more risk taking by banks. So one of the first things, is I think that larger banks need to be broken up. Much like a modern version of the Glass Steagall Act. Much of the reason banks are illiquid is that losses in non related divisions eat up capital in other divisions. If a bank is forced to have limited focus like they used to, and leverage is limited, lending practices are more sound.


[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by Janky Red

I respect this -

So what do you propose as a solution to the credit freeze?

Well thats a very in depth and deep question. Much of the reason is that I do think some pain on the part of banks and businesses needs to be felt so that they return to more sound business practices. Constantly borrowing and taking on more debt is not a good thing for individuals, companies and countries for that matter.

However, a healthy business that needs a small amount of capital for something like expansion should have avenues to go to for that. So the basic options are: private capital, public capital or loans. So in my opinion, first you encourage private capital.

One easy idea thats a no-brainer to me:
Right now the govt taxes money coming back into the US at 50%. Basically it encourages businesses and individuals to keep their money overseas. I think this should either be temporarily eliminated or dratically reduced. But at the same time provide stipulations for what that money can be used for to get that tax break. An example would be for hiring, business expansion, investment in other businesses, charity, etc. This provides and immediate stimulus to the economy int he form of hundreds of billions of dollars with no money spent by govt. This is a great example of an idea encouraging private capital.

In terms of public capital, I wouldn't support that very much given the financial problems the US govt is in. It would need to be very limited. Something like govt grants at low or no interest. Cut out the middle man of the bank. But also, I have a hard time supporting much of this given the history or fraud and waste in the business grant system.

Now in terms of helping ease the 'credit freeze' as you call it, thats a tricky question. It has to be done in a way that doesn't put risk on tax payers, doesn't bailout banks, and doesn't encourage more risk taking by banks. So one of the first things, is I think that larger banks need to be broken up. Much like a modern version of the Glass Steagall Act. Much of the reason banks are illiquid is that losses in non related divisions eat up capital in other divisions. If a bank is forced to have limited focus like they used to, and leverage is limited, lending practices are more sound.


[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

Fair enough, thank you for taking the time! I could agree to this



[edit on 30-8-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by johnny2127


No, you are still completely off.

Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative since Ike, and most modern repubs think Ike was too liberal.

Republicans have been the big spenders for the last fifty years now.

No, the 2009 budget is not shared by Bush and Obama, it is a Bush budget.

Yes, Obama helped get the bailout for the finance Markets because of GW's piss poor handing of banking regulations, overlooking blatant criminal activity.

Obama also insisted that banks couldn't hand out bonuses if they took the TARP money, which resulted in large amounts of the money being repaid. The result being that Obama reduced the 2009 deficit from what it would have been had GWs policies remained in place.

My point is that almost all of the U.S. federal debt is directly due to Repub admin budgets, so you have absolutely no reason to blame liberals.

I don't see anything in your link that backs up your claim abut the small Biz bill. Can you quote the parts of the bill that do what you claim they do?

What the bill does is provide more backing for business loans to make banks more willing to lend to small business, while giving more tax breaks to small s businesses.

The refusal of Republican politicians to back this bill is a knife in the back of the middle class.

Here is a good link on the subject.

ithinkbigger.com...:small-biz-bill-stalls-in-senate&catid=85:local-news&Itemid=82

The Senate bill is similar to legislation passed in the House of Representatives in mid-June. Key measures in the bill include:

Increased limits and elimination of some fees on Small Business Administration loan programs

A 100 percent capital gains tax break on qualifying small business investments

Bonus depreciation on capital purchases

Extension of carry-back period on general business tax credits

Creation of a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund

The majority leadership in the Senate has tried on several occasions in the past week to halt debate on the bill and bring it to a vote. Despite much GOP support for the bill, Republicans have blocked those efforts because of the tussle with Senate Democrats over amendments. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blames the Democrats for the impasse.

“They’ve been adding either controversial or completely unrelated matters to this bill—all to avoid any real debate and to avoid voting on Republican amendments,” McConnell said in a news release.

Republicans want the ability to add a number of amendments, but Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said he would only allow three, including one repealing a provision in health care reform that would require businesses to file 1099 forms with the IRS when they buy more than $600 in goods from other businesses. That repeal has bipartisan support, but the two parties disagree on how to replace the lost revenue.

Democrats also seem open to considering Republican-backed amendments that would extend tax credits for biodiesel fuel and research and development, but won't allow other GOP amendments, including the estate tax, nuclear loan guarantees, border security, a government spending cap and the expiring Bush tax cuts.

Considering the times, it is low down and dirty for Republicans to hold up this bill on these issues.

reply to post by poet1b

Wake up and smell the coffee, our jobs didn't go to Mexico,..

Oh yeah?...

industryweek.com...
"GM to Build New Vehicle at Plant in Mexico"

Americans couldn't get past their border if they wanted to either!

reply to post by johnny2127

Right now the govt taxes money coming back into the US at 50%.

Could you explain how this is done? This doesn't match what I know.

The U.S. receives the most investment from multinationals, including foreign firms. Investment in the U.S. has, however, dropped under the poor leadership of the GW admin. This is directly due to de-regulation policies which destabilize our markets.

I think you do have some decent ideas in your last paragraph. I think Clinton's third way economics where government is ran to be business friendly, in a way that creates a decent, easy to follow fair set of rules, and therefore a productive environment for business to flourish.

De-regulation has created a system that handles the rules unevenly, handing out favoritism, and turning a blind eye to criminal practices. This creates an extremely corrosive business environment.

reply to post by poet1b


Liberals can be both republican or democrat my friend. Liberal is not a political party. Just as Conservative is not a political party. Republicans are supposed to be small govt and small spenders. I don't know how many times I can tell you that Republicans didn't do that under Bush and lost their way. You just ignore those statements. I stopped calling myself a Republican because of Bush's spending and liberal policies. I am not defending Republicans at all. They were very conservative under Clinton after Newt Gingrich's movement took back Congress. They were very conservative under Reagan when it comes to cutting the budget. The exception under Reagan being the military spending of course.
Link

Liberal economic policies have never worked anywhere in the world. Republicans don't exist in Europe my friend, and their problems are a direct result of liberal economic policies and a population far too dependent on govt. Thats the unintended consequence of liberal economic policies........ far too many people dependent on govt and not enough people being actually productive. Sadly, it is human nature to allow ones self to become lazy and dependent on govt if they are allowed to. Not everyone does this, but far too many do. More than 50% of people in the US pay ZERO income tax. This is liberal in nature, but I am sure you support it. Liberals always do. Which is fine.

Again, this isn't about Republicans versus democrats. This is about that liberal economic policies, whether coming from Republicans or Democrats, do not work. Bush spent way too much money. Obama is spending even more. Both spend or spent like liberals. Neither are conservative. Get it? Economically, govt needs to become much more conservative. I am not talking about social issues. I am talking about economic ones. I don't care if conservative economic values come from democrats or republicans, but they need to come none the less. But if someone doesn't CHOOSE more conservatism in govt, it will be forced upon us, just as it has with austerity measure in Europe.

This bill you post and blindly support is constructed the same way as TARP. The philosophy is to increase lending by recapitalizing the bank with tax payer dollars. They buy the bank's stock and buy assets from them. I agree with the tax cuts in the bill, not the bailing out of banks. I also don't like monitoring and forcing disproportionate lending to women and minorities just because they are minority groups. Also, legalizing accounting gimmicks so banks can hide losses and seem more healthy than they are is wrong as well.


[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

reply to post by On the Edge


Yes, but many Mexicans are very loyal Chevy customers.

GM is paying back the loans to the U.S. government, and investing far more in the U.S..

media.gm.com...

Fairfax will become the primary source for the next generation of the Malibu. Detroit Hamtramck, which builds the Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS, will be equipped to build the Malibu as well, ensuring that Chevrolet can meet market demand.

Detroit Hamtramck will also build the Chevy Volt electric vehicle with extended range, which launches this year. On March 31, the plant celebrated a major milestone, the building of the first pre-production Volt on the regular assembly line.

The Malibu-related investments of $136 million in Fairfax and $121 million in Detroit Hamtramck will include facilities, machinery and equipment, and tools.

Since the launch of the new GM last July, the company has announced investments of more than $1.5 billion at 20 facilities in the U.S. and Canada. These investments restored or created more than 7,500 jobs, and they demonstrate a strong commitment to GM’s future and to the United States and Canada.

This is more legislation that republicans opposed that has helped our economy.

I don't see how anyone who has bothered to learn the facts could vote republican. But hey, many of those people support Palin, and Quayle's kid just got elected to congress by the family of family values, even though he stated that his moral compass was so broken he couldn't find the parking lot.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Right now the govt taxes money coming back into the US at 50%.

Could you explain how this is done? This doesn't match what I know.

The U.S. receives the most investment from multinationals, including foreign firms. Investment in the U.S. has, however, dropped under the poor leadership of the GW admin. This is directly due to de-regulation policies which destabilize our markets.

I think you do have some decent ideas in your last paragraph. I think Clinton's third way economics where government is ran to be business friendly, in a way that creates a decent, easy to follow fair set of rules, and therefore a productive environment for business to flourish.

De-regulation has created a system that handles the rules unevenly, handing out favoritism, and turning a blind eye to criminal practices. This creates an extremely corrosive business environment.

What I am talking about is money from the US that moves overseas and then comes back in. That money is taxed at 50%. Money from foreign companies or citizens is not taxed when it comes in though. I am talking purely about encouraging money that is the property of US companies, trusts or individuals being encouraged to come back to the US in return for stimulative actions.

By the way, if you have noticed, I never have ripped on Clinton. Economically I think he was a fairly good President. I'm not playing team sports with the stuff buddy. I don't root for one side and rip on the other. Bush sucked economically, Obama is worse, and both republicans and democrats were terrible the whole time.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by On the Edge

 

Yes, but many Mexicans are very loyal Chevy customers.

GM is paying back the loans to the U.S. government, and investing far more in the U.S..

media.gm.com...

Fairfax will become the primary source for the next generation of the Malibu. Detroit Hamtramck, which builds the Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS, will be equipped to build the Malibu as well, ensuring that Chevrolet can meet market demand.

Detroit Hamtramck will also build the Chevy Volt electric vehicle with extended range, which launches this year. On March 31, the plant celebrated a major milestone, the building of the first pre-production Volt on the regular assembly line.

The Malibu-related investments of $136 million in Fairfax and $121 million in Detroit Hamtramck will include facilities, machinery and equipment, and tools.

Since the launch of the new GM last July, the company has announced investments of more than $1.5 billion at 20 facilities in the U.S. and Canada. These investments restored or created more than 7,500 jobs, and they demonstrate a strong commitment to GM’s future and to the United States and Canada.

This is more legislation that republicans opposed that has helped our economy.

I don't see how anyone who has bothered to learn the facts could vote republican. But hey, many of those people support Palin, and Quayle's kid just got elected to congress by the family of family values, even though he stated that his moral compass was so broken he couldn't find the parking lot.

Sorry to keep repudiating what you say, but GM didn't really pay back their loans. They paid their govt loans with TARP money. So yes, they announce they paid off their loans early, but its not true in actuality. Their govt loans were charging higher interest. So they paid off govt loans........ with money they borrowed FROM the govt at a lower rate.
Source

reply to post by johnny2127


Sorry, but republicans were not fiscally conservative under Reagan, or the first Bush, as well as the second, or under Nixon.

Yo keep awnting to pretend that the spending policies of the republicans are only a recent transgression, when they go back decades.

Deficit reduction under Clinton began before Gingrich ever took over Congress. Gingrich created the foolish de-regulatory policies which created our current economic crisis.

Europe has their problems, and they are too liberal for me, but Germany is doing quite well right now.

Iceland and Ireland followed foolish free market policies, and their economies collapsed from those foolish far right market schemes.

You need to wake up the reality, that Reagan's voodoo economics is just as bad as socialism and communism.

Clinton had it right. Apply some common sense, and learn to go with what has been demonstrated to work.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Sorry, but republicans were not fiscally conservative under Reagan, or the first Bush, as well as the second, or under Nixon.

Yo keep awnting to pretend that the spending policies of the republicans are only a recent transgression, when they go back decades.

Deficit reduction under Clinton began before Gingrich ever took over Congress. Gingrich created the foolish de-regulatory policies which created our current economic crisis.

Europe has their problems, and they are too liberal for me, but Germany is doing quite well right now.

Iceland and Ireland followed foolish free market policies, and their economies collapsed from those foolish far right market schemes.

You need to wake up the reality, that Reagan's voodoo economics is just as bad as socialism and communism.

Clinton had it right. Apply some common sense, and learn to go with what has been demonstrated to work.

And again, for the umpteenth time, this isn't about Republicans or Democrats. Clinton was NOT liberal. Clinton deserves some of the credit yes, but you have to remember, Clinton was signing Gingrich's legislation. So you want to blame Gingrich for the things you don't like, but give Clinton credit for the good ones. Come on, be realistic and fair here. Its shared credit and blame. Additionally, the early deficit reduction under Clinton was actually from Bush 1's 1990 deficit reduction legislation that was a 5 year plan. And no I do not think Bush 1 was a good President. But blame and credit should be assessed fairly, not based on which party you belong to. You seem to be playing flat out team sports style politics here. You rip on everything Republicans do, give them zero credit, then defend everything Democrats do while assessing them no blame. Not very intellectually honest.

reply to post by johnny2127


That is quite a twist FAUX news and the other propaganda sites are trying to place on GM paying back the money, but GM isn't getting new loans to pay back the money.

The report is that GM paid back the money, with the money they borrowed in the first place, at least that is what I understand from the whole twisted logic that is being put out. I think they finally lost a spring or something and went off the deep end.

reply to post by johnny2127


Clinton undid Reaganomic, raised taxes on the rich, and started regulating business in a fair and reasonable way, which stimulated job creation and economic expansion, and nothing GH or Gingrich ever did had anything to do with that. The economic grow was in place before Gingrich even took power in the House. GH's plan was running our country into the ground.

What Gingrich did was deregulate the finance industry which created the stock market boom, and our current crisis, along with many other.

Clinton's biggest mistake was agreeing to Gingrich's deregulation schemes, but that was a compromise bill. For signing the deregulation laws, Clinton deserves some of the blame, but most of it falls on the repubs who put Gingrich into power.

You continue to cling to the propaganda nonsense.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

That is quite a twist FAUX news and the other propaganda sites are trying to place on GM paying back the money, but GM isn't getting new loans to pay back the money.

The report is that GM paid back the money, with the money they borrowed in the first place, at least that is what I understand from the whole twisted logic that is being put out. I think they finally lost a spring or something and went off the deep end.

Um, but that is true. If GM used every single cent they made the past 2 years they couldn't have paid off the loans. This is Fox News spin, and I fully expect you to admit you're wrong about this one when reading this below. From the testimony of Neil Brofsky, who is the Special Inspector General for TARP:

On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. During his testimony Mr. Barofsky addressed GM’s recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings. Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” ....

Furthermore, Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8K filed by GM with the SEC on November 16, 2009, seems to confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multi-billion dollar escrow account at Treasury—not from earnings. [...]

When these criticisms were put to GM’s Vice Chairman Stephen Girsky in a television interview yesterday, he admitted that the criticisms were valid:

Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money?

Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true, but a year ago nobody thought we’d be able to pay this back.

Website Link for Source

So GM admits it paid for it with money borrowed from the govt, and their SEC filings show it came from borrowed money from govt. So are you going to admit you were wrong about this one now or are you that partisan?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Clinton undid Reaganomic, raised taxes on the rich, and started regulating business in a fair and reasonable way, which stimulated job creation and economic expansion, and nothing GH or Gingrich ever did had anything to do with that. The economic grow was in place before Gingrich even took power in the House. GH's plan was running our country into the ground.

What Gingrich did was deregulate the finance industry which created the stock market boom, and our current crisis, along with many other.

Clinton's biggest mistake was agreeing to Gingrich's deregulation schemes, but that was a compromise bill. For signing the deregulation laws, Clinton deserves some of the blame, but most of it falls on the repubs who put Gingrich into power.

You continue to cling to the propaganda nonsense.

Do you understand that Clinton couldn't just 'do' something as you claim. Congress, run by Republicans, had to pass the legislation and then Clinton had to sign it. None of the deregulation you attribute to Gingrich couldn't have been done without Clinton's signature on the legislation making it law. None of the economic policies you attribute to Clinton could happen without republicans passing it. Balanced Budget Amendment? Republican legislation Clinton passed. Welfare reform? Republican legislation. Clinton raised taxes marginally, in other words very minor. Raising taxes doesn't stimulate the economy, so tell me specific legislation Clinton passed before Gingrich that stimulated the economy. Do you understand that? Do you know the US legislative process?

I am not trying to tell you that Republicans deserve all the credit or that Clinton doesn't deserve any. I am try to say that they share the credit and blame since they had to work together. The US legislative process necessitates that Congress has to pass a bill AND the President has to sign it. So you can't blame something you don't like on Republicans, when Clinton signed it. Nor can you give Clinton all the credit for Republican legislation he passed. They share it

[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

Just to keep score here.

Dems vs Repubs=Americans lose

Johnny vs Poet= Johnny 6 Poet 0




The WHOLE problem is liberal, fiscal irresponsibility. Period.

A debt based system only grows into exactly what we have. When you have NO savings and borrow imaginary, signature created currency, what does anyone expect?

You create currency from NOTHING and expect the economy to grow? Pfffft.

Only fiscal responsibility and sound savings would have stopped this when it started. When the debt and credit bubble began, was when the car went off the road. Both parties have been running in the ditch for decades.

Sooner or later the culvert had to be hit.

The stupidity of THINKING that expanding the debt and credit bubble further to dig us out, has to be the STUPIDEST action since Roosevelt's actions during the first great depression.

Yeah, a small business bill. Yeah, that is what this is. PFFFFT!

[edit on 30-8-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]

reply to post by johnny2127


That is still paying back the money borrowed.

If you borrow a hundred bucks from someone, not use the money, and then pay them back with the same hundred dollar bill you borrowed, that is still paying the money back.

If you have any evidence that GM still owes money to the U.S. government, then provide it, because all you are is regurgitating propaganda nonsense. So part of the money used to pay back the fed is from an account the GM never touched.

It isn't nearly as twisted as the way the banks paid back the money, borrowing the money from other sources, after the crisis having passed, at higher interest rates to pay off exec bonuses, and then claiming they were forced to borrow the money. Now that is sleazy.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

That is still paying back the money borrowed.

If you borrow a hundred bucks from someone, not use the money, and then pay them back with the same hundred dollar bill you borrowed, that is still paying the money back.

If you have any evidence that GM still owes money to the U.S. government, then provide it, because all you are is regurgitating propaganda nonsense. So part of the money used to pay back the fed is from an account the GM never touched.

It isn't nearly as twisted as the way the banks paid back the money, borrowing the money from other sources, after the crisis having passed, at higher interest rates to pay off exec bonuses, and then claiming they were forced to borrow the money. Now that is sleazy.

Ok, this just shows you not only don't do research but you aren't going to the links I'm posting for proof. GM has more than one govt loan. Not just TARP. Bush gave them a series of loans as well. They paid off one loan with money from another loan. So your analogy of borrowing $100 and paying back with the same $100 bill isn't the same. A more proper analogy is paying your mortgage with a credit card. They still owe the money