It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Repubicans block Small Biz Bill

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The Republicans CANNOT block anything from happening. They are greatly outnumbered in both the House and the Senate.

I really wish people think and investigate before spouting off propaganda. Congress can pass what they want with out any of the Repubs.

::shakes head::



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
The republican party is always harping about things like religious values, having good moral standards, making good choices, pulling yourself up by you're boot straps and the importance of having good work ethics.

It's more than apparent that the current republican strategy in congress is to obstruct any and all legislation being offered. They have demonstrated that they have no intention whatsoever of constructively participating in the process of legislating. Sounds to me like a direct refusal to perform their elected duties and IMO, we should in turn, refuse to pay them.

Do you think that any of them would pay one of their own employees for not doing their jobs? Their own standard of work ethics demands it!

Never in the history of America has there ever been such an obstructionist movement orchestrated in congress by either party and nothing could possibly be more Un-American.

The current republican party would rather see America fail than to approve any of Obama's policies because they are afraid that his policies might work which would shed a positive light on his presidency and that is totally unacceptable to them. Al Qaeda itself could not inflict more damage on America than the current republican party has. I say, throw the bums out!



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
This is a tricky SPENDING bill that really only amounts to more bailout money for small community banks. Will those banks loan out the money??



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
So the US government wants to encourage banks to lend to people they would not want to lend to under normal circumstances again. Refresh my memory on how the crisis started in the first place... If some people can't get loans there might be a good reason for it.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The problem is that the trillions of tax payer dollars already been poured into the economy and "small businesses" has done nothing to fix the unemployment and the economic woes

Why keep wasting money on something that is not getting any better.

Look what the bailouts has done, most businesses just move their extra investment cash thanks to tax payer oversea.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Trillions of dollars haven't been poured into the U.S. economy, they have been given to the super rich and the IC's. Basically, the U.S. public has had a huge check written on their account and handed out to international bankers.

At least under Reagan, you can see where the money was going, under GW, it just disappeared.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jacob08
 


The problem isn't that these are people that the banks wouldn't lend money to, but that in our current economic state, any business venture is far more risky.

Banks aren't lending and businesses aren't spending because our economy is stalled. The effort is to restart our economy, get people to start new business ventures.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by marg6043
 


Trillions of dollars haven't been poured into the U.S. economy, they have been given to the super rich and the IC's. Basically, the U.S. public has had a huge check written on their account and handed out to international bankers.

At least under Reagan, you can see where the money was going, under GW, it just disappeared.


Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. Remember?

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills. He signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

***********

This doesn't mean I am a fan of Bush, I wasn't and I am still very angry with the way the country was lead while he was in office. But you do very little to actually address the issues of the Banksters, the CFR, global UN Trade agreements, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, tariffs, and other regulatory things that have created more harm than good for local economies. This isn't just affecting the American economy, it's affect all economies around the world due to the regulatory interference from private banking firms. Point of fact: The Federal Reserve raised it's regualtory powers 3% during the presidency of George W Bush. That didn't keep the economic crisis of 2008 from stopping, did it? Little Timmy Geitner was also appointed to the NY branch of the Federal Reserve by GW. Hardly a coincidence that this guy is a bit of a screw up but Geitner has the full support of the DEMOCRATS, especially Obama.

Again, in my opinion, you are speaking in generalizations that missrepresent the facts. This has been a long time coming and it is not party specific.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Just remember that the economy has not been fixed, just been patched.

If the Republicans do not stop the leaching of tax payer money they will have nothing to work with once congress is won in mid term election, because wanted or not they are going to win congress.

As you say most of the money went to the wealthiest in the Nation but also it was money poured to help home owners in distress, states budgets, unions and small businesses.

Sadly Obama financial team is very incompetent and he should have been done with it once the first stimulus didn't returned anything for the economy but more hardships and unemployment.

The people the president has surrounded himself with will help Obama to become a "one time president".



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


They can't, the don't have a super majority anymore. Remember when Bush was in all we ever heard out of congressional republicans was, "Lets just have an up or down vote". When Democrats talked of filibuster, Republicans threaten the "nuclear option". Republicans are obstructing the function of government so they can say the Democrats have failed.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.


This quote from a guy that still doesn't understand that the Republican's couldn't stop this bill if they WANTED too.

It seems that YOU are the one that doesn't understand US politics...

Dem's have president AND congress...they can pass what they want, when they want.

Edit to add: It's quite comical how the Republicans are always the bad guys in US politics, from my news sources...yet, the Republicans have not had nearly as much power as Democrats going back until at least 1945.

Party In Power

[edit on 31-8-2010 by peck420]
Edit...damn spelling

[edit on 31-8-2010 by peck420]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by peck420]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The biggest problem I really see with this is entire government is
1. Republican
2. Democrat

Those 2 words have caused basically a feud where nothing ever gets done for the good of the people. Instead it's something that promotes a party. Is the small business bill a good bill? I don't care who introduced it, why does your party need a pat on the head to do your job. On the flip side, what are the names of the people who didn't support it. this whole tug and pull game we have been playing of republican vs democrats in my opionion is pointless.

If everyone would sit down, worth together and vote in the direction the people have asked of them, I would think they would find they do not have to spend millions of dollars on advertising to get re-elected. All they have to do is their job.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Stop the bill, no, but they can slow down its passage by a great deal, and this has been exactly what the republican have been on every bill, using every rule and trick they can come up with to stop popular bills that are supported by the public.

The republicans have been playing spoiled sport since Obama took over in 2009, in spite of what the public wants. They don't want progress, then want power, and their goal is to keep things going badly so that they can get back into power, and continue robbing the middle class.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

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.


thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.5297:



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
As a Small business owner, which many on this thread are not, while I would welcome more lending, the Obama Administration has done little to nothing to help Small Business. We (Small Businesses) are the engine that drives any recovery, yet we are an afterthought to this Administration, paid attention to only after their stimulus recovery sputters out.

I've succeeded on my own, not because of any help from my Government.

We already have the Small Business Administration Loan Program, as far as I am reading, this bill will encourage banks to lend more to small business by the Govt guaranteeing the loan with a purchase of the bank. I will have to read more about the bill, but it sounds like it is of more benefit to the banks and along the way it allows for looser lending to small business. I would think there are much better ways to help the average small business owner.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Very good post with facts to back it up. I concur that it is a complete stab in the back, but the Republicans are not interested in helping the people right now. They are only interested in stopping every single thing that is put forth by the majority Democrats, people be damned.

They are and have been using every thing they can to stop any bill no matter what it is, including a record number of filibusters and every low down trick or procedure they can think of. They truly believe that it is a way to take back the majority, they care for nothing but power, people be damned.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


And how can they slow it down?

The dems keep LETTING the bill get slowed, yet they don't share in your version of the blame.

The dems COULD force the bill to direct vote, but they haven't?

Why haven't they?

That is a far more relevent question than why republicans are trying to stall.



new topics




 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join