feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

GOP blocks small biz lending bill

(43 posts)
  • Started 4 years ago by Vitalogy
  • Latest reply from missing_kskd

  1. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,072

    I thought the GOP was the party of small biz?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38469644/ns/business-small_business/

    Senate Republicans blocked a bill to increase small business lending Thursday, dealing a setback to President Barack Obama's jobs agenda.

    The bill would create a $30 billion government fund to help community banks increase lending to small businesses, combining it with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses. Democrats say banks should be able to use the lending fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans to small businesses, helping to loosen tight credit markets.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 09:58 AM #
  2. dodger

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 960

    Vitalogy: where does the money come from? Maybe it's not so much blocking a bill as asking the question: "how do we pay for this?"
    Why is that not a responsible question? Oh wait.....here comes the usual: "what about the illegal war GEORGE W BUSH got us into" line..... silly me.
    By the way for a really good read from a strong Conservative who HATED the GWB policies:

    (dang link didn't work but basically he wrote an op-ed piece about the rx drug program and blasted the Bush admin for putting it into motion.)
    These are all FINNNNEEEE programs.....how do you brilliant economists propose we pay for it.....meanwhile can you also figure out how to get us out of the current debt oh and can you make the dollar worth something again? Let's tackle those first shall we?

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 10:50 AM #
  3. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,710

    If you read the piece, the cost didn't seem to be the issue this time around. It looked to me like the GOP got into a snit over not being allowed to hang their "christmas ornaments" on the bill.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:05 AM #
  4. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,068

    "how do we pay for this?"

    By ending the Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. Remember that during that halcyon period of the 1950's, the top marginal tax rate was 91% - and this was while we were in the middle of spending on a cold war, revitalizing our education system after Sputnik, and spending billions creating the Interstate Highway System.

    Why such a high marginal rate? Because moderate Republicans (Yes, I'm talking Eisnehower) knew that it was better for America if businesses reinvested their money in the company than to bleed it off in exorbitant CEO salaries. That high marginal rate dissuaded companies from paying stupidly high salaries.

    Those higher tax rates also paid for the infrastructure that businesses depended on to have a successful and profitable bottom line.

    And that's how we pay for it - by taxing those that can pay the tax. In the end, it's the only way government pays for anything.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:08 AM #
  5. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,072

    Dodger, did you bother to read the article? The government would create a $30 billion dollar fund that would allow small banks to leverage up to $300 billion in loans to small businesses. Lack of credit for small business is one the biggest issues we have right now.

    When small business has access to capital, they hire people and expand! Doesn't the GOP care about jobs or small business owners? Apparantly not.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:40 AM #
  6. dodger

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 960

    How about removing restrictions on HOW small businesses do business and let THEM determine what is best for their individual business? Then let them invest without restriction in their own businesses. Plus, a $30 billion dollar fund coming from WHERE? The gubmint can establish all the funds they want, again, WHERE does it come from? yes I read it Vit. All of it.
    Get back to me when you understand economics better.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:50 AM #
  7. You and Rand Paul should go bowling.

    Perhaps you could spend some time between frames romanticizing about the good ole’ days when the Federal government had no positive or substantive role to play in much of anything.

    Ah, 1789. It was a good year.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 01:24 PM #
  8. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,072

    Dodger, it sounds like you're the one that not only has no clue on economics, but even less of a clue in how small business works. This comes as no surprise after our discussion about 66 and 67 though. You just don't get it.

    Removing so-called restrictions (which is a right wing fantasy that doesn't exist anyway) doesn't do squat unless that business has access to capital. How many businesses can operate with access to capital? None! How many start ups start out with no loans? None! When business has access to capital, they buy goods, they hire people, and that's how an economy works my friend.

    The right wing continues to annoint themselves the champions of small business, but when it comes down to putting your money where your mouth is, the GOP is once again the Party of No.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 01:52 PM #
  9. dodger

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 960

    "NO". Yep, in the words of Groucho Marx: "whatever it is, I'm against it".
    So Vit, what have we learned from 66/67? You want to show me the increased revenue....oh wait, we actually have DECREASED tax revenue, see ya can't tax people who don't have it and you can't tax a biz that's not here anymore. So, just as I said back then, this was a job killing and business killing tax.
    As usual, you are the Dodger. WHERE are you getting the $30 billion? As usual the Democrat is the party of KNOW as in I DON'T KNOW.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 02:08 PM #
  10. dodger

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 960

    PS: on a similar note: since our leader said he wasn't gonna tax us little people who make less than $250k, can you explain:

    Title IX Revenue Provisions—Subtitle A: Revenue Offset
    "(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

    Starting in 2011—next year—the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be
    increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided.

    The party of YES really knows how to say YES, BEND OVER!

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 02:11 PM #
  11. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,072

    Oregon will collect more under 66/67 than without, which means LESS of a deficit. Are you that stupid or do you just not understand basic arithmetic? And by definition, both 66/67 taxed the people that have it. Those that don't, don't get taxed. Again, simple facts. As for it killing jobs, again, not true. The taxes have not been in place long enough to affect today's employment picture. Oregon's unemployment rate will go down if small business could borrow money to hire and expand business. This is what that $30 billion would do. It would allow banks to then leverage to lend up to $300 billion. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

    And as for paying for it, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealhty should take care of it just fine.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 02:43 PM #
  12. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,072

    "PS: on a similar note: since our leader said he wasn't gonna tax us little people who make less than $250k, can you explain:"

    "Starting in 2011—next year—the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be
    increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided."

    Do your research before you post garbage like this.

    Factcheck.org: FALSE
    http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/

    Snopes.com: FALSE
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/hr3590.asp

    Vitalogy.com: YOU'RE AN IDIOT!
    http://www.vitalogy.com/conservative/idiots

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 02:45 PM #
  13. I try not to exaggerate things and try and be diplomatic and benefit of the doubt - but WHY is it that Conservatives are in constant need of correction? I mean about the facts. Not theories or ideas or " I wonder if it would work to try it this or that way " - but just the constant errors. Man.

    Can I just ask nicely and have them stop being wrong so much?

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 02:55 PM #
  14. Fox News said it was true. I R confused.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 02:56 PM #
  15. Well shit - I've done that with CNN reports too. But I don't think I spout it as true so long after I've been shown that I was wrong.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 02:57 PM #
  16. There are entire websites devoted to doing nothing other than correcting the inaccurate, misleading, and/or provably untrue things that appear on Fox News with great regularity.

    Not opinions; facts.

    I'm unaware of a similar phenomenon being necessary for the so called "liberal" media.

    Or as I like to refer the other side of the ideological spectrum: The informed.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 03:03 PM #
  17. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,826

    "How many start ups start out with no loans? None!"

    I did. My business runs 100% on cash.

    The business has NO debt. And no line of credit, credit cards etc.

    If I need a piece of equipment, I pay cash for it or I don't buy it. Gas for the vehicle...debit card.

    And that's the way I plan on keeping it.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 07:53 PM #
  18. Sky-

    We've basically been doing that for over 17 years. We are debt free and holding our own during this down time.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 07:58 PM #
  19. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,719

    You two are very, very, very lucky.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 08:56 PM #
  20. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,888

    We are debt free and holding our own during this down time.

    Yeah, but there is the issue of health insurance -- you've decided to forgo that. One bad stroke and you're finished. You'll use up all your equity & savings in less than 4 years, then you'll be flat broke, with no income (stroke, remember, speech.) and having to apply for medicaid to continue your health and rehabilitation needs. I can't put my family at that kind of risk.

    I wouldn't advise anyone to take your route to being debt free. Its a huge gamble plus you have to multiply that risk by the number of members in your family. Better to still owe half the balance on a mortgage and have insurance (and still have a house) than what you're doing. Once you get hit with a major medical condition and get wiped out fiancially, there's no redo to re-earn all that income, no college funds for your kids and your choice of assisted living centers or nursing homes are limited to the ones that accept medicaid.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 08:57 PM #
  21. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,719

    I'm very lucky that I get my HI through work. If I didn't Id be screwed.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 09:01 PM #
  22. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,639

    They (conservatives) need correcting because they need the bullshit to be true to support the ideology they've bought into.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 09:12 PM #
  23. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,826

    "Yeah, but there is the issue of health insurance -- you've decided to forgo that."

    And that is Chris's choice and it should remain that way.

    He should not be forced to buy insurance that he doesn't want.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 09:42 PM #
  24. "He should not be forced to buy insurance that he doesn't want."

    Nobody will force him to buy insurance.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 10:12 PM #
  25. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,826

    Obummer's new plan says that you have to have health insurance.

    That's forcing him to buy insurance.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 10:19 PM #
  26. "Obummer's new plan says that you have to have health insurance.

    That's forcing him to buy insurance."
    The plan says that if you can afford health insurance and don't buy it, you'll pay a fine. You are not required to buy the insurance.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 10:27 PM #
  27. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,639

    Absolutely correct. The fine is to cover the costs we all bear for uninsured people.

    There were better ways to do this. We got this one, largely because the GOP didn't support anything better, and the Democrats didn't have a large enough majority of non-coin operated members to do anything better.

    We do our civics, take some seats, and that can and all will change.

    Had the progressives had a larger share, we would have easily seen a much better plan, that features significant cost reduction pressure. As it stands right now, the costs will be well distributed, but not checked by competition.

    At least everybody ends up covered, and we get an awful lot of uninsured people who are not covered, covered. It's costly, but better than not doing that, as those "trips to the emergency room" are very, very expensive for everybody.

    But, you don't have to buy in. Absolutely not required at all. No jail, no death panel, just a small fine to help cover the cost of caring for those who don't buy in, instead of having those that do buy in, pay for it through their ever increasing premium costs.

    No matter what is done, unless we flat out just let people die, this costs us. The sooner we all get that, the sooner we can restructure what is started so that it actually works for us, cutting all the costs, allowing our nation to much better compete with most others, who do get how this all works.

    It's not legal to force the insurance from a private corporation. It is however legal, to tax or levy a fine to carry social costs, and that is exactly what was done.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 10:32 PM #
  28. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,826

    "The plan says that if you can afford health insurance and don't buy it, you'll pay a fine. You are not required to buy the insurance."

    Yeah, and you're not required to abide by the speed limit either. You'll just pay a fine.

    It's a crock of crap and it stinkith much.

    Hopefully it'll be repealed long before it ever takes effect.

    I'll have no part of Obozo's plan.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 10:54 PM #
  29. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,888

    Somebody said: And that is Chris's choice and it should remain that way.

    Well, duh, I didn't say he had to buy insurance, did I? He was making a point of being "debt-free." By not paying a typical $650 a month for family health insurance its an easily said way to be "debt free." Car insurance? Ha, forget that, save $150 month there. Homeowners insurance w/ flood and insurance coverage? Forget it, another $75 bucks a month . . .

    I'm already saving $875 a month -- nearly 10K a year and I'm "debt-free."

    Yet, if things go wrong as a result of forgoing any one of the three types of insurances I mentioned, society likely pays the tab in the end.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:00 PM #
  30. "Hopefully it'll be repealed long before it ever takes effect."

    May I suggest that you not hold your breath? The GOP will never repeal the law for the same reason they will never overturn Roe v. Wade. Political suicide.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:01 PM #
  31. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,888

    I wonder if skybill's no-cost start-up business includes health coverage?

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:01 PM #
  32. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,826

    "I wonder if skybill's no-cost start-up business includes health coverage?"

    Nope. I have no health insurance right now. And as long as Obozo requires me to have it, I won't.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:09 PM #
  33. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,888

    OK, if you have to go to an ER, please stay out of Kaiser's Sunnyside Medical Center.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:18 PM #
  34. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,826

    Not a problem. I wouldn't got to Kaiser if I was dying.

    Posted on July 29, 2010 - 11:30 PM #
  35. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,719

    Please stay out of any hospital in the United States then.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 01:15 AM #
  36. Skep...I think in a back handed sort of way you're concerned about my family. Well thanks.

    I am well aware of the decision my wife and I have made over the years. We have already been through a couple of medical challenges that even required two ambulance rides for three members of my family at 3am a few years ago. We had medical bills for that and two ambulance bills. Talked to all parties involved, asked for some discounts, got some, and then did monthly payments until the bills we paid off. Which they were in less than a year.

    My problem is not Obama's plan, my problem is the insurance companies. They have been scamming us for years. When I read stories here about some of you forking out $600-$1200 a month in premiums and then I read where that didn't even cover enough of your expenses, and your out of pocket is now 20 percent of the actual medical bill, I say we need a better way of running things.

    Medical insurance is NOT healthcare. It's robbery.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 11:05 AM #
  37. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,710

    Medical insurance is NOT healthcare. It's robbery.

    AMEN to that! It's legalized extortion. If this were a pulp novel, they'd call it a "protection racket."

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 11:18 AM #
  38. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,826

    "Medical insurance is NOT healthcare. It's robbery."

    ALL insurance is robbery.

    Their business model is; "We'll take as much of your money as we can and when you need some of it back we're going to fight you all the way"

    Its insurance companies Obozo should be working on changing, not healthcare.

    Oh wait, Insurance companies donate to political funds...So hands off.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 11:18 AM #
  39. Sky- By law I need auto insurance. By law I need homeowners insurance. I have life insurance. I actually find these to be reasonable because I only have one house, one car and one wife.

    Medical insurance is a different bag to me. It's like paying into a big dark hole and it doesn't do anything for you in the long run.

    I would love to see medical insurance companies run like credit unions. The board of directors are unpaid volunteers whose job is to get me the best rates and services than regular insurance. Accountability is stronger and I can vote them out if I don't like the direction I think they are going. I have more control of my money and how its used to give me quality healthcare.

    I pay everything out of pocket, ask for discounts. I had an x-ray done a number of years ago. When I went to pay for it they asked if I had insurance. I said no. The attendant said.."then its $37." I asked how much would have I paid if I had insurance. She responded "$97" Oh and then theres that paper work too.

    When I have talked to all my healthcare providers and asked them what is easier for them, working with insurance companies or people who pay out of pocket. Everyone said people who pay out of pocket.

    We've asked all our healthcare providers, "Who are the easiest insurance companies to work with?" That question gets a variety of answers and there is always plenty of, well really none of them.

    We have also asked, "Who gives the best coverage for the premiums people pay?" Again-it varies and not one really stands out.

    I have had medical insurance agents in my house giving me all the statistics and different plans. I've tried a few but within a year I stop them because it was a waste of my money.

    The AMA (of which only about 20 percent of doctors actually are members of but yet they have strong lobbying abilities) the pharmaceutical industry, and medical insurance companies, have created the absolute worst healthcare system on the planet. Run by greed and keeping people sick to keep their palms greased.

    Again-It's not Obama's plan that's the problem. He's just running up against a machine that doesn't really want to change.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 11:41 AM #
  40. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,072

    "My business runs 100% on cash. The business has NO debt. And no line of credit, credit cards etc."

    That's great Bill. But what if you wanted to expand and hire a few people? Or you need more equipment or supplies? Our economy depends on small business people hiring others. If everyone just worked for ourselves, our economy would suffer. Growth is the name of the game, and to grow, you need access to capital.

    Chris, technically speaking, you are not required by law to carry homeowner's insurance if you own your home outright. That's usually a requirement by the lender. But of course, anyone choosing to not insure a fully paid for home is a fool beyond measurement.

    I think what Skep is saying is that by not having health insurance, you have a liablity that could cost you dearly. Insurance is about limiting your liability should disaster strike. You have life insurance for the very small chance you die young so your family can stay in the home and survive without your income. You have homeowner's insurance to cover any losses on probably your biggest asset. You should have some sort of catastrophic health coverage that caps your potential liability should something major happen. As an example, a neighbor down the street who was self employed hit his head on the concrete in a freak accident and was in a coma for 4 months. No insurance. They lost their house and he's no longer able to work, so he's lost his business too. Granted, health insurance would not have saved his business, but it would have covered his medical expenses so they didn't have to go bankrupt and lose their home.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 02:09 PM #
  41. Vita-

    Believe me I have heard every scenario in the book of what ifs. The ones getting screwed the most in this country are people who have insurance.

    Are we taking chances? Sure. And as much as you believe it is to lower my liability in case of a catastrophic medical event, its more about the insurance companies assets.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 03:02 PM #
  42. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,888

    Chris, I've seen up close some older family members -- people who owned their homes, had cash in the bank and had no debts and but had poor health coverage eventually lose it all over time and go on medicaid because of piling medical bills for "typical" old age problems -- broken hip, minor heart attack et al. Their 70-80's were not pleasant as it could have been.

    In your case with zero health insurance, you'd be forking out most of your saving & equities if any one of these things happen before you're eligible for Medicare (You ARE planning to pay the $109 for Medicare, aren't you? Its a heck of a deal!)

    Maybe you've got it planned -- signing the title of your house over to one of your kids who HAS health insurance, who knows, but I'd hate to be 70, disabled and unable to work, living in a crappy apartment with the highlight of my day being Meals-on-Wheels showing up. Too many Americans are there.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 03:32 PM #
  43. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,639

    As for not getting anything, I think that's not true at all. Had I been able to get insurance, when Mrs KSKD fell ill, I would still have a home.

    The idea that everybody can save up for health care isn't viable. It's too much money and too wide of a variance.

    This is why we have insurance. What you get for insurance is the ability to endure some risk, without having to keep your money locked up, unable to be used.

    A very simple example of this would be posting a 50K bond with the State of Oregon to avoid paying for Auto Insurance. It's not practical to expect everybody to do that.

    Health care works this same way.

    The problem is private insurers segmenting the market, driving up costs, and keeping fat margins, adding no value. I get that part Chris. Private insurers keep about 30 percent of the money, and do NOTHING for it.

    Medicare, by contrast, keeps a few percent. That's a 10x cost difference.

    What we need to do is distribute the risk in larger, or a national pool, and get rid of that 30 percent nobody gets any value for. Then, funding health care costs everybody the least over time.

    From there, people can make choices and we can lower those costs even more.

    Posted on July 30, 2010 - 04:02 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.