Repubicans block Small Biz Bill

Originally posted by justinsweatt

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by justinsweatt

 

The president can veto the budget, and it will take a 2/3 majority to overcome the veto, which is why most of power is with the presidency. Congress can not authorize spending unless it has been approved by the president. This gives the president a huge say over the budget.

You must be the most programmed tool I have ever seen on a forum. You know nothing about the government, and squawk out right wing talking points like an annoying parrot. I feel embarrassed for you, with the ignorance you spew.

I am not speaking in generalizations, I am telling you how the U.S. government works.

GW and his admin fully supported the bailout of the banks, and lead the way to make it happen. The situation of the federal reserve is a completely different topic.

Do you have anything to say on topic? Have you bothered to read the bill in question?

Are you capable of saying anything at all demonstrating any intelligence?

It was on topic. Right wing points? Since when is finding the failure of Keynesian Economics being applied to our current situation considered to be right wing? Am I wanting Congress and the President to do the RIGHT THING? Yes, but that's hardly what I would call right wing.

You are speaking in generalizations because when faced the example I gave of the evidence of a Republican controlled congress during Clinton's term, and various other examples I've provided, you've glossed over them or met them with silence. You're continuing to pick and choose and any time you start talking about the Economy and money control, especially as it pertains to the bill that you are discussing here, it is always pertinent to bring up the Federal Reserve as they set up the interest rates for the interest on the loans and print the money that we don't have, with almost zero equity I might add, to enable this.

The power is not in the Presidency because I guarantee you that had Bush vetoed the bail out bill, which I know he voted for and which I didn't agree with him with, would have been overturned. Also, there is that thing called Separation of Powers, which I know is pretty much non-existent these days but it should be there in theory. I think I've spelled out that I was not a fan for Bush so I don't know how I can be accused of having "right wing" talking points. Seriously. If you want this to devolve into partisan bickering, you're going to have to discuss the option with someone else. I'm a political athiest, I have no desire to be a part of the Repulicoke or Pepsicrat dual monarchy that has become our "choices".

If you would like to continue to "spew" blame game tactics like a lot of O-Bots do, be my guest. I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your argument that was on topic with an example.

I've read the bill, where would you like me to begin?


[edit on 31-8-2010 by justinsweatt]

I've been down this path with him already. No Republican will get any amount of credit with this guy. Doesn't matter that Clinton's legislation was from Republican's Contract with America. Doesn't matter that they worked together. So to him, everything wrong during the Clinton year is exclusively Republican's fault, even though Clinton signed the bills also. And everything he liked about the Clinton years Clinton alone receives credit even though Republicans passed the legislation to send to him. I was just trying to make the very moderate point to him that Clinton and Republicans should share both credit and blame. Literally, this person of one of the most partisan, closed minded people I have ever come across in my life

reply to post by justinsweatt


I have ignored your posts because you talking in topic points, that have all been proven to be false claims so many times, I am tired the the baloney rhetoric.

My point about the power of presidential veto is dead on, and you have avoided my points about the influence of the Presidents admin in enforcing the laws written by congress. If you are honestly interested in this stuff, then you need to start doing some research on your own. Then you would begin to realize what idiots Rush and the rest of them are.

Point in example, you slam Keynesian economics, but completely miss the fact that while repubs constantly talk about the Chicago School and Mises economics, year after year when they are in power, they practice Keynesian economics with huge government deficits to stimulate the economy.

Point after point I have proven your side wrong with specific references to history, points which you avoid discussing, because it seems, they are realities that you can not face, because your whole political philosophy would unravel.

The bailout was a bill that GW would not have vetoed, because he was the one pushing the bailout. That you want to insinuate the opposite of the reality is proof that the only thing you do is write in talking points. Srew the two party system, it is a failure.

The truth of the matter is that stimulating small business is exactly what the fed should be doing. Small business is the wave of the future as far as I am concerned, and death to the multinationals.

If we can give a trillion to bailout the banks, and trillions to support international trade and the exportation of our once prominent manufacturing industry,,,,,

The fed should give a trillion to small business,

IF only to even the score..

reply to post by johnny2127


And you continue to ignore the historical facts that the U.S. economy turned around, seeing the first real growth in wages in over twenty years, BEFORE the republicans took over congress, and long before they ever passed any of their legislative agenda.

You continue to ignore that republican legislation that began passing in 95, didn't take effect until 96, leading to the DOTCOM bubble that began in 97, that eventually ended the economic prosperity of the nineties.

You continue to also ignore the role of the executive branch in its enforcement of the laws passed by congress, and therefore the role of the U.S. president in steering the U.S. economy.

I lead you to water, and you refuse to drink.

reply to post by poet1b


You keep trying to make things about Republicans versus Democrats. Its getting pretty absurd. Keynesian economics is not Republican or Democrat. Its a failure both parties have tried. You literally seem like a paid democratic operative because you are so closed minded to even considered Democrats have done anything wrong or Republicans have ever done anything good. It is completely illogical to think that way. In actuality, both parties have done both good and bad things. Both parties share blame for this economic crisis. Its overly simplistic to blame one person or one party for the situation we're in. If someone actually tries to make that point, they are either paid to say that, misinformed, or illogical

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

And you continue to ignore the historical facts that the U.S. economy turned around, seeing the first real growth in wages in over twenty years, BEFORE the republicans took over congress, and long before they ever passed any of their legislative agenda.

You continue to ignore that republican legislation that began passing in 95, didn't take effect until 96, leading to the DOTCOM bubble that began in 97, that eventually ended the economic prosperity of the nineties.

You continue to also ignore the role of the executive branch in its enforcement of the laws passed by congress, and therefore the role of the U.S. president in steering the U.S. economy.

I lead you to water, and you refuse to drink.

Name the Republican legislation that lead to the dot com bubble. Name the bills. Explain their impact.

Originally posted by poet1b
You continue to ignore that republican legislation that began passing in 95, didn't take effect until 96, leading to the DOTCOM bubble that began in 97, that eventually ended the economic prosperity of the nineties.

Are you refering to legislation that the DEMOCRAT president could have VETOED, as the republicans did not have enough numbers to get a 2/3rd's vote?

Just checking.

Edit for the record.

1995: President - Democrat
Congress - Republican (52/100)
House - Republican (230/435)

[edit on 31-8-2010 by peck420]

I should invest in a dictionary...and spell check.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by peck420]

Here is a perfect example of my reply. Again, everyone goes off tangent to choose democrat or republican. And the real issue gets buried on this squabling that is absoultely of no use to the small business bill or the american people.

reply to post by frimilden


Yeah, this republican congress has broken all the records on obstructionist tactics, with no concern what so ever for revitalizing the economy.

They refuse to pass new legislation, and provide no new ideas, only the same ole failed dereg policies.

What a surprise that the people who back Palin, back this spoil sport refusal to seek new solutions. It is hard to believe that they can't even do something for small business.

If you look at their reasons for blocking this bill, its all about trying to force their same ole failed agenda back on the US public.

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

Well, it seems it's a little hanky panky on both sides, as usual.

The Rs want to deny the D's any political victories before the November elections.

The D's are actually the ones that are stalling this vote because they are limiting the R's to 3 amendments. The R's want more amendments.

Meanwhile, America suffers.

reply to post by peck420


Yeah, I agree, the democrats have not done what they need to do to move legislation forward. Our two party system is a joke.

We need a third party that could completely take control.

reply to post by poet1b


Well...more than 2 parties isn't so glamourious.

Example: Canada

We have more than 3 parties and this has led to an even more "useless" government.

Don't get me wrong, it has it's perks, but the problem is how we let government officials use us "Joe Public" to further their personal gains.

Until the governments have actual reason to FEAR the public, that they "swear" to represent, we will be stuck in this slow, swirly ride down the toilet.

reply to post by poet1b


Since you obviously are ignoring my request, I will ask again. Please provide the bill and legislation Republicans wrote that lead to the dot com bubble. Provide the names of the bill and explain their impact please. Then if you can somehow come up with those, explain why bill Clinton deserves no fault for them since he signed them.

reply to post by peck420


YEP, the banking deregulation bills that were part of the Contract on American, which Clinton should never have signed. That was the biggest mistake of his presidency. The idea was to allow U.S. banks to be more competitive against the larger European banks, but he should have insisted on far more safe guards. Clinton does share a part of the blame for going along with the foolish dereg plan that was the beginning of the end of nineties prosperity.

The direction we should be taking right now is anything and everything to promote small businesses.

Maybe that could be the theme of the third party we desperately need in this country.

reply to post by johnny2127


You never heard of Newt's Contract on America, er, "Contract with America"?

law.jrank.org...

I think you are just trying to play games.

This stuff isn't hard to find.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

You never heard of Newt's Contract on America, er, "Contract with America"?

law.jrank.org...

I think you are just trying to play games.

This stuff isn't hard to find.

Poet1b, I referenced the Contract with America, so yes I know it. That was not a single piece of legislation though. That was multiple pieces of legislation. Tell me which bills lead to the dot com bubble from within the Contract with America. Which ones? Tell me which bills lead to the dot com bubble and what their impact was. And I have said multiple times, Bill Clinton signed all those bills, so explain why he bares no responsibility for what you don't like within those bills

[edit on 31-8-2010 by johnny2127]

Duplicate



[edit on 31-8-2010 by johnny2127]

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by poet1b

 

Stop spreading disinformation about only Republicans being stooges for Wall Street.

When was that written?

Or are you one who thinks that criticism of the Republicans automatically makes one a Democrat?

such thinking is simple-minded, in case you hadnt noticed

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by poet1b

 

Stop spreading disinformation about only Republicans being stooges for Wall Street.

When was that written?

Or are you one who thinks that criticism of the Republicans automatically makes one a Democrat?

such thinking is simple-minded, in case you hadnt noticed

No, which I'm sure if you read further you would see my complete and total distaste for the Republicans and what I rightly called out as corporate dual monarchy. Perhaps you should go back through and take a gander at some of what I had to say. I'm not the one inferring the case that the Democrats are less evil than the Republicans like some other members of this community.



[edit on 31-8-2010 by justinsweatt]

Keynesian Economics challenges the view that automatic stabilizers actually do work in a free market economy. The theory is under the misguided view that stimulus packages can erase the effects of a recession. There have been studies from economists on all sides that show that social programs actually fail to increase consumer spending due to the emerging burden of higher taxes in order to pay for the programs suggested. Most of the policies that would be put forth by the bill in question in this thread would not only allow ridiculous regulation but it would also make the small banks a slave to larger government intervention based on social earmarks instead of actual gain in financial stability and the accruing of capital. These small banks would wind up being pawns in a destabilization scheme that would make them vulnerable to cannibalistic intrusive Federal policies that could lead to them being taken over and ultimately their demise, creating the very same toxic bubble Congress would lead to believe they are leading the country away from like Pied Pipers. It is my opinion that this is not the case. Had that actually been true, we wouldn't have bailed out Wall Street in the first place.

The policies that are actually being thrown around are nothing new and are throw backs to misguided attempts during the Great Depression that actually did not work. As a point of fact, many of these social policies will increase the burden of cost of labor and would create the adverse effect of greater unemployment. I have no problem with making an even playing field for small business, however I believe that this bill will create an atmosphere that will throw these companies into higher tax brackets that will undo any sort of stimulus that the Government is hoping to achieve by such actions that would raise their taxes and also cannibalize any sort of profits they may achieve through the enforcement of other social programs. When you start raising the tax rate through mandated growth and through actions included in this bill, you will have a negative effect that will discourage entrepreneurship and it will discourage risk-taking in the future, especially when it comes to small business that are actually profitable. They will hold on to that money like rabid badgers and will take a wait and see approach to the situation. Such a situation can create a very dire economic atmosphere.

Why did the banks have such "toxic loans" at the beginning of this debacle? It was due to regulatory practices put forth by the Government, regardless of party affiliation. The banks were encouraged by Congress to purchase hedge funds, derivatives, and the government intervened and urged the banks to lower their lending standards across the board. That's all fine and good but again, we have a situation where the very powers that be are encouraging small businesses to live beyond their means. I think the current economic state should be a great example that the road to hell is the one paved with the best intentions but continues to fall completely flat and miss the mark.

The other problem is through the implications of some of the proposed insurance polices in the bill. These proposals are there to "ensure" the safety of the stimulus money but we have seen in the past that such proposals fail because they have no real way to make a value on the investment, which is what happened with sub-prime mortgage lending and also took out Lehmann Brothers. Even with all of the regulatory powers invested in the past few years, such "fail-safes" did not help with the issue. If anything, because there was no real way to value the loan after it had been defaulted, such interventionist policies making matters WORSE.

Any economist worth their salt will tell you that any fiscal stimulus usually ends up slowing economic recovery instead of speeding the process up. Look at the infrastructure provisions in the bill. Infrastructure is historically the first to get the stimulus money because of it's ready made availability. What they don't tell you though is that is usually not the case due to the federal and state regulations and hurdles that you have to go through just to get the money and it's usually too little too late in the process. During normal times, these projects are usually not approved because of their wasteful nature and it reduces overall economic efficiency. Also, the bailout of firms has proven that you lose all economic freedom in the process, which is exactly what will happen to these small businesses if they actually go through with the passage of this bill.



[edit on 31-8-2010 by justinsweatt]

reply to post by johnny2127


Sure, just as soon as you send me $20K to dig through the archives for the research on that book you want me to write.

Here is the short version. Pay attention, because like many repubs, an you are clearly swinging from that side of the plate, and you have problems with the time line.

Clinton took office in 93, his first budget went into place in Oct of that year, regulations that had not been enforced for over a decade began to be enforced, companies began hiring, wages went up, and the economy got back on the right track for the first time since 75.

The whole internet development was just beginning, it didn't really get going until 95, along with cell phones and a whole lot of other technology.

In 95 the economy had already restarted.

In 95 republicans took over congress and began their long dreamed deregulation, many bills were passed, most with compromises.

Now the beginning of the dotcom boom was a market exploding, but the banking deregulations kept it in overdrive after it should have settled down, just like the housing market and oil speculation.

These are the basic facts.