Repubicans block Small Biz Bill

I think some of this uproar is because Obama and the dems are getting their asses handed to them in the polls and elections are coming up.

He's just looking to make the Repubs the boogieman again.

Please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by poet1b

We have ten trillion plus in debt created by republicans, in order to finance their free market, steal from the poor schemes, and now that the economy has fallen, as predicted, they refuse to do anything to encourage small business.

When Bush took office the national debt was $4 trillion from the Clinton years. When he left office it was $10 trillion, which means he added $6 trillion. Obama has added $4 trillion already, and thats not counting the trillions the Fed has spent at his request.

My point is that Bush spent way too much and Obama is spending even more. Bush was bad, Obama is worse. Republicans lost their small govt, low spending ways under Bush and spent like liberal. No offense to liberals out there, but its always been a distinction..... Republicans are supposed to be for small govt, liberals want bigger govt that takes a more active roll.

Regarding this bill in the Senate, I would need to see what the actual details are. Bills regularly sit in committee for months. So I'd need to see if this bill has been there longer than normal, and if so what the Republican objections are. I'd need to see what the bill actually says. What are the details of the tax cuts? Who gets them? What does a business need to do to get them? Are they targeted just to industries Obama likes or is it for every small business? How are they paying for it, with corresponding spending cuts or new taxes on another source? You have to remember, Obama is a politician also, so you can't just take what he says, minus the details and then flip out.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

I agree. Republicans lost there way under bush. the funny part is liberals blam Bush for all these problems when bush was acting and spending like a liberal himself. lol. in a sence they are blaming themselfs

reply to post by johnny2127


No, GW increased debt by almost $6T, Sept 2009 being the last year of a GW budget, 2010 being the first year of Obama's budget, he has added about a trillion, having inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression from GW..

While repubs talk about small government, they always vastly increase the size of government. U.S. debt has increase the greatest in our nations history under the last 3 repub admins, Reagan, Bush, and Bush.

Don't look at the distraction, ignore what they say, look at what they do.

Originally posted by jerico65
I think some of this uproar is because Obama and the dems are getting their asses handed to them in the polls and elections are coming up.

He's just looking to make the Repubs the boogieman again.

Please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Trying???

Well then, please enlighten me how blocking this bill isn't f****** over small businesses and average Joes! Do you believe blocking this bill did the American people a favor?

If you had a small or medium sized business, how could you vote for a party that just cost you a TON of money during extremely difficult times? The SAME party who also supported bailing out Wall Street and undermining financial reform?

Seriously, forget about who voted for what and which party you normally support...just look at the plain fact that small and medium sized businesses just got screwed over.

If you believe blocking this was a good thing, go visit your local mom&pop shop and tell the owner how great it is that they blocked that bill. I wonder what his reaction will be

[edit on 30-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

Here are the details of the bill, which makes me understand the opposition to it now:

1) This authorizes further bailout of banks, this time small banks by authorizing $30 billion in purchases of preferred stock and 'other assets' of the small banks. Hence why Republicans call this 'TARP light'. This is just another bailout folks.

2) Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to direct a disproportionate amount to business owned by women and minorities by tracking the banks lending to businesses owned by women, veterans, and each ethnic group.

3) Give banks the ability to write off these loan losses. Basically legalizes more of the accounting gimmicks so the banks can hide losses.

4) Gives banks a break on IRS penalties for not reporting profitable transactions by: 'Limits the penalty for failure to disclose a reportable transaction (a transaction determined by the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] as having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion) to 75% of the decrease in tax resulting from such transaction.'

5) Increases the taxes of small business by 7.75%: Increases by 7.75% the estimated tax installment for the third quarter of 2015 for corporations with assets of not less than $1 billion.

6) Republican amendments include additions to border security, a govt spending cap, and lowering estate taxes. All of which the Democrats are opposing.

So, yes many things in this bill should change in my opinion. We all want to help small businesses and individuals that deserve help. But this is just another bank bailout bill that pushes out private capital and gives govt ownership of banks. So I am glad Republicans haven't just rubber stamped it and passed it.

To the OP; you can't just support a bill because Obama says it will help small businesses. You have to look at the details of the bill and ask 'how'. Republicans don't opposes helping small businesses....... the oppose certain provisions in this bill and another bank bailout. As they should.


Congressional Bill Website




[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

I would take a moment to point out the illogical aspects of saying that one cannot blame republicans for what republicans do based upon a democratic majority...

VERY GOOD and UBER LOGICAL, I approve -

SS???

reply to post by johnny2127




Yeah, you are the guy who claims democrats spend more money than republicans when anybody with a minute knowledge of how our debt was created knows that just the opposite is true.

Republicans are the ones who spend like drunken college girls with daddy's credit card.

You provide no links to these claims, chances are they are nothing but more drivel.

reply to post by johnny2127


Could you please provide the bill number that you are referencing here? One of my big beefs with the news and politicians is that theynever really tell us which bill (by number) they are actually talking about.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Yeah, you are the guy who claims democrats spend more money than republicans when anybody with a minute knowledge of how our debt was created knows that just the opposite is true.

Republicans are the ones who spend like drunken college girls with daddy's credit card.

You provide no links to these claims, chances are they are nothing but more drivel.

Buddy I told you Republicans lost their way and spent too much. That is the truth. They are supposed to be for small govt that spends less money. Republicans are not supposed to be for large govt and huge spending. Under Bush they were. I'm not defending Bush at all. I told you Bush increased the debt by $6 trillion. The debt under Bush ended at $10 trillion roughly. The final 2009 budget is shared by Bush and Obama since it overlaps and Bush and Obama worked on the last budget together since he was taking office and part of the transition was working on the 2009 budget together. The both share blame for the 2009 budget.

I don't get what you point is. I am telling you Bush spent too much money. I am telling you Bush added $6 trillion to the debt. Also I am telling you Obama spends even more money. Thats not even a debatable fact, its the flat out numbers. I also laid out the details of the bill which you didn't know and showed this bill is just another bank bailout and forces a liberal agenda on the lending. This bill should be changed and amended before passing


Here a link to the bill for the 2nd time:
Congressional Bill website

[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by poet1b


I agree. Republicans lost there way under bush. the funny part is liberals blam Bush for all these problems when bush was acting and spending like a liberal himself. lol. in a sence they are blaming themselfs

Well that negates any action, glad you mentioned that, bush spends a liberal amount of money and his opponents should blame themselves because the wear the liberal banner!

Thats Awesome, Bush was forced to spend like a Saudi Prince because there are liberal people in the world.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Could you please provide the bill number that you are referencing here? One of my big beefs with the news and politicians is that theynever really tell us which bill (by number) they are actually talking about.

Sure its all the bottom of what I wrote, but here it is again:

Congressional Bill Website

Lending through Small Business Administration programs has plummeted since the end of May, when the SBA ran out of money for breaks that made these loans less risky for lenders and more affordable for borrowers.

This drop in SBA lending has occurred even as Congress explores new ways to expand small businesses’ access to credit.

The economic stimulus bill increased the government guarantee on the SBA’s flagship 7(a) loans to 90 percent from the typical 75 percent. The legislation also reduced or waived fees on these loans as well as 504 loans, which are used primarily for real estate.

As a result of these breaks, SBA lending rebounded after cratering during the credit crisis of late 2008.

Through June 25, the SBA had approved $10.5 billion in 7(a) loans this fiscal year, which began October 1. That’s up 80 percent compared with the same period a year ago.

Lending, however, slowed dramatically in June due to the loss of the higher guarantee and fee waivers.

In May, SBA lenders made about $272 million in 7(a) loans a week. That’s not counting the $732 million in 7(a) loans made during the final week of May, as lenders rushed to get their loans approved before the loan breaks expired.

In the first four weeks of June, average weekly loan volume dropped to $86 million.

President Barack Obama has called for reviving and extending the higher loan guarantee and fee waivers through the end of the year, and the proposal has bipartisan support.

Congress, however, left town for its weeklong Fourth of July break without acting on it. This lack of urgency frustrates SBA lenders.

Tony Wilkinson, president and CEO of the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, criticized Congress for letting “the one stimulus program that was probably working the best” expire.

“Shame on them,” said Eddie Tuvin, vice president of SBA and commercial lending at Capital Bank in Rockville, Maryland. “Why isn’t it a priority?”

Restoring the 90 percent guarantee “would do as much to really juice the recovery as anything,” said Charles Green, a former SBA lender in Atlanta who now advises businesses on financial issues.

Tuvin said 7(a) loans “breezed through” his bank’s approval process when the 90 percent guarantee was in place.

“It was a major factor in the decision of our loan committee to approve several loans that wouldn’t have been made without it,” he said.

Now it’s much harder to get a 7(a) loan approved, he said.

Plus, many borrowers and lenders simply are holding off on SBA loans.

“We have borrowers waiting right now who are willing to create and retain jobs,” Wilkinson said.

The Senate is expected to vote on legislation in mid-July that would restore these SBA loan breaks, as well as establish a $30 billion fund that community banks could tap for small-business lending.

Chances for the Small Business Jobs Act are good since it cleared a procedural hurdle by a 66-33 vote before the Fourth of July recess.

That doesn’t mean the SBA loan breaks will be restored anytime soon, however.

The Senate bill differs in many respects from the House’s version.

That means the Senate and House would have to hash out their differences before sending the legislation to the president for his signature. That could take weeks, or even months.

Even though the Senate bill increases the size limits on SBA loans—something lenders have long pushed for—Wilkinson would rather see Congress first pass a simple extension of the higher guarantee and fee waivers, and then work out a more ambitious bill.

Financial regulatory reform also awaits a final vote in the Senate.

The legislation aims to end “too big to fail” bank bailouts by imposing new capital and leverage requirements and creating an orderly system to liquidate large financial firms that fail. It also regulates over-the-counter derivatives and creates a new consumer watchdog for financial products.

Critics fear the bill could hurt the availability of credit to small businesses. Tuvin expects banks may cut back their lending as a result of the additional costs and regulations they would face as a result of the legislation.

Green fears the bill could lead to more bank consolidation, because it would make it harder for smaller banks to be profitable.

Green, however, thinks small businesses could benefit from the bill’s new consumer protections, since many business owners rely on credit cards and revolving lines of credit.

www.portfolio.com...

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Could you please provide the bill number that you are referencing here? One of my big beefs with the news and politicians is that theynever really tell us which bill (by number) they are actually talking about.

Sure its all the bottom of what I wrote, but here it is again:

Congressional Bill Website

Apologies.. in my haste I missed it.. was staring right at it, too, just didn't *see* it.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Could you please provide the bill number that you are referencing here? One of my big beefs with the news and politicians is that theynever really tell us which bill (by number) they are actually talking about.

Sure its all the bottom of what I wrote, but here it is again:

Congressional Bill Website

Apologies.. in my haste I missed it.. was staring right at it, too, just didn't *see* it.

No need to apologize at all. We all do it. Just wanted to post the actual details of the bill so people could decide if they actually support it in its current form or not. Someone shouldn't just hear a politician say'This bill will help small businesses' and then support it without looking at the details. First you have to see how, then you have to decide if you agree with those actions, then you have to decide if it'll work, and lastly what the unintended consequences may be. As they say, the devil is in the details...

Originally posted by johnny2127
Here are the details of the bill, which makes me understand the opposition to it now:

1) This authorizes further bailout of banks, this time small banks by authorizing $30 billion in purchases of preferred stock and 'other assets' of the small banks. Hence why Republicans call this 'TARP light'. This is just another bailout folks.

2) Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to direct a disproportionate amount to business owned by women and minorities by tracking the banks lending to businesses owned by women, veterans, and each ethnic group.

3) Give banks the ability to write off these loan losses. Basically legalizes more of the accounting gimmicks so the banks can hide losses.

4) Gives banks a break on IRS penalties for not reporting profitable transactions by: 'Limits the penalty for failure to disclose a reportable transaction (a transaction determined by the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] as having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion) to 75% of the decrease in tax resulting from such transaction.'

5) Increases the taxes of small business by 7.75%: Increases by 7.75% the estimated tax installment for the third quarter of 2015 for corporations with assets of not less than $1 billion.

6) Republican amendments include additions to border security, a govt spending cap, and lowering estate taxes. All of which the Democrats are opposing.

So, yes many things in this bill should change in my opinion. We all want to help small businesses and individuals that deserve help. But this is just another bank bailout bill that pushes out private capital and gives govt ownership of banks. So I am glad Republicans haven't just rubber stamped it and passed it.

To the OP; you can't just support a bill because Obama says it will help small businesses. You have to look at the details of the bill and ask 'how'. Republicans don't opposes helping small businesses....... the oppose certain provisions in this bill and another bank bailout. As they should.


Congressional Bill Website




[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

How is it a bailout??? It is a loan program which involves risk, please explain that to me. From what I can gather it provide incentive to borrow and loan money, now if wether or not you believe in such interference is debatable, however your characterization as a bailout is erroneous IMO.

I see tax incentives and some things that might make borrowing more attractive

Please explain -

I am learning me the bill and we can do this, thanks

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by johnny2127
Here are the details of the bill, which makes me understand the opposition to it now:

1) This authorizes further bailout of banks, this time small banks by authorizing $30 billion in purchases of preferred stock and 'other assets' of the small banks. Hence why Republicans call this 'TARP light'. This is just another bailout folks.





[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

How is it a bailout??? It is a loan program which involves risk, please explain that to me. From what I can gather it provide incentive to borrow and loan money, now if wether or not you believe in such interference is debatable, however your characterization as a bailout is erroneous IMO.

I see tax incentives and some things that might make borrowing more attractive

Please explain -

I am learning me the bill and we can do this, thanks

Sure no problem. By purchasing bank preferred stock and 'other assets' they are recapitalizing the banks. Exactly how TARP worked. As I am sure you know, TARP is the bank bailout everyone seems to hate. This is the same exact mechanism. Give the banks money by buying their stock and bad assets. The tax breaks are good in this bill though. I just don't think anymore taxpayer dollars should go in the coffers of banks, small or large. They made bad loans and lost money. Taxpayers shouldn't bail them out. I want to help small businesses, but not through another version of TARP that they name something more marketable.

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by johnny2127
Here are the details of the bill, which makes me understand the opposition to it now:

1) This authorizes further bailout of banks, this time small banks by authorizing $30 billion in purchases of preferred stock and 'other assets' of the small banks. Hence why Republicans call this 'TARP light'. This is just another bailout folks.





[edit on 30-8-2010 by johnny2127]

How is it a bailout??? It is a loan program which involves risk, please explain that to me. From what I can gather it provide incentive to borrow and loan money, now if wether or not you believe in such interference is debatable, however your characterization as a bailout is erroneous IMO.

I see tax incentives and some things that might make borrowing more attractive

Please explain -

I am learning me the bill and we can do this, thanks

Sure no problem. By purchasing bank preferred stock and 'other assets' they are recapitalizing the banks. Exactly how TARP worked. As I am sure you know, TARP is the bank bailout everyone seems to hate. This is the same exact mechanism. Give the banks money by buying their stock and bad assets. The tax breaks are good in this bill though. I just don't think anymore taxpayer dollars should go in the coffers of banks, small or large. They made bad loans and lost money. Taxpayers shouldn't bail them out. I want to help small businesses, but not through another version of TARP that they name something more marketable.

In reading it I do not see it that way, reason being is TARP was intended to Recapitalize
banks, this appears to be an attempt to recapitalize small business using smaller banking institutions as the surrogate and facilitator. By my calculation that is not the
same motive or function TARP embodied... Allegedly TARP was an attempt to recapitalize after complete and total over leveraging... The more I read the more this appears to be an attempt to facilitate loans, by creating incentive from lender and borrower alike, by mitigating risk.

I can understand your opposition, but IF "help" or loans is the game the alternative is
direct GOVERNMENT loans, which would actually be socialism heavy. Besides eliminating all usury standards, I just don't know what would motivate lenders otherwise... ultimately am not sure how to get this aspect of the credit market flowing when everyone is terrified of the risk in such a climate.


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

Originally posted by Janky Red

In reading it I do not see it that way, reason being is TARP was intended to Recapitalize
banks, this appears to be an attempt to recapitalize small business using smaller banking institutions as the surrogate and facilitator. By my calculation that is not the
same motive or function TARP embodied... Allegedly TARP was an attempt to recapitalize after complete and total over leveraging... The more I read the more this appears to be an attempt to facilitate loans, by creating incentive from lender and borrower alike.

(Sec. 108) Makes appropriations to pay the costs of $30 billion of capital investments in eligible institutions, including the costs of modifying such investments, and the costs of administering the capital investments program

TARP did the same thing. They thought that by recapitalizing banks it would lead to more lending and hence and economic recovery. Hasn't turned out that way. All it did was move many bad assets on to the taxpayer balance sheet. If you remember, TARP originally was just going to buy bad assets, hence the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). But then they changed it to direct recapitaliztion of banks by buying stock and 'other assets'. Same as this plan. They allowed bank to not have to realize their losses and write them off. Same as this plan.

(Sec. 103) Establishes in the Treasury the Small Business Lending Fund, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury to cover purchases of preferred stock and other financial instruments from eligible institutions (Small Business Lending Fund Program). Limits the aggregate amount of purchases to $30 billion.

Now the question is, will this bill if enacted exactly as it is result in more lending to small businesses? Sure I bet it would to some businesses. Then the next question you have to ask is whether there is a better way to do it. Then you have to ask what the unintended consequences would be. I contend that we should not use the same model as what TARP turned into to stimulate small business. 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 don't claim to be an expert on these things but how is anything being blocked when Congress is out of session until September 13?

Originally posted by JMech
I don't claim to be an expert on these things but how is anything being blocked when Congress is out of session until September 13?

Its just political pandering. The house passed the bill at the end of June. Congress adjourned on July 30th for their break until September 13th. Which means its been in committee in the Senate for 1 month. Hardly some big stall. Took the House 6 months to pass it and Democrats can pass whatever they like there.