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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.



Holy crap, you have conclusions about what Clinton did and what Republicans did, but can't point to any legislation to show they did this. You can't point to a bill Clinton passed and say how it improved the job market. You just say he did without anything to point to. You say Republican legislation(that Clinton signed) caused the dot com bubble, but you can't point to any legislation that did what you said. Again, you just came to conclusions but cannot point to any proof. You still won't even acknowledge that Clinton has any blame for the Republican bills he signed that you don't like, or that Republicans deserve to share in some of the credit you are giving Clinton for signing their legislation.

Really you astound me. I really thought maybe you would do some sort of research and try to point to some sort of bill or legislation. You can't even describe how Republican legislation lead to the dot com bubble. If you say it was deregulation, tell me how deregulation caused the dot com bubble and somehow forced millions of people to buy worthless stocks and stop paying attention to traditional stock valuation formulas. How did Republican legislation change how people of every walk of life changed how they invested?

It is now quite obvious you didn't do any research to come up with these opinions. Its fine you have your opinions, but you should probably try to have informed opinions backed up by facts and specific legislation. Much like when I told you how most economists attribute the deficit declines in the beginning of Clinton's first term to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1990 passed by Bush Sr. These saving are the actual items that resulting in the cost savings you are giving Clinton credit for at the beginning of his term. I can point specifically to the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans passed and Bill Clinton signed. You can't point to one piece of legislation, and even refuse to look. It is quite sad how you are acting. Closed minded, refusing to do any research or provide specific legislation to back up your claims, while at the same time belittling and demeaning anyone that dares disagree with you........ even while they are providing the exact level of sources and proof you refuse to. Your level of partisanship is not limited to the left, many on the right act the same way. Regardless who it comes from is sad and disgraceful.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by justinsweatt
 



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.


I think you need to look at what happened in 1945. A short term government injection of money into the economy can restart the economy.

What the republicans have done with continued huge federal deficits however will not work.

Our current economic problems have nothing to do with the cost of labor, the vast increases in productivity make labor costs currently lower than ever. You are completely lost in this belief.


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.


The answer is to lower the tax rate on small business. What repubs have created is a system where the middle class and small businesses have wound up supporting ICs through our current upside down tax system. End corporate welfare would be the biggest solution.


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.


No, the problem is that deregulation allowed the finance industry to cook the books, and sell worthless bundled mortgages as legitimate investments. Add in the naked shorting and all kinds of con games being played, and you have a market system ran through pure corruption, which is not sustainable.

A better solution would be to put usury laws back in place, and raise savings interest rates back up to a reasonable level. With all the increases in productivity, average people should be make more money, not less.


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.


Sorry, but if the bundled mortgages had been rated properly, they wouldn't have sold. All of this occurred under a deregulated market, with literally no oversight from the GW admin.


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.


Sorry, but that is simply not true, and the proof is the success of the sixties and the nineties, where properly regulated markets worked far more efficiently.

The free market concept is nothing but unrealistic ideological nonsense, and the economists who preach this garbage aren't worth their salt. Every time deregulation has been attempted, it has resulted in failure.

Third way economics did work. Stream line regulations, make government work as a partner to business, not as some all powered cop. Evenly enforce a fair set of rules, like in professional sports, and the markets will become competitive, and more efficient.

Giant corporations do not want competition, so they sell this free market communism to people stupid enough to listen to these right wing propagandist radio shows. Ever notice how the same people who preach about the free market also push for more and more money to the police state?

Cut taxes on businesses grossing under 10 Mil, provide lower interest rates so that new businesses can raise capital without selling their souls to ruthless investors, and start making the giant ICs pay their own way.

Add to this reasonable trade negotiations that represent the people of the U.S. rather than the corporations, stop sending so much money overseas, cut back on immigration to a reasonable level, end illegal immigration, enforce the regs that prevent corporations from cutting corners for short term profits, crack down on white collar crime.

There are a great many things that our government should do, that is the job of our government to rebuild competitive markets and get our country back on top.



[edit on 1-9-2010 by poet1b]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


I have done a heck of a lot more research than you have done. You are still trying to pretend Reagan practiced fiscal responsibility. Your opening proved you live in denial.

You still clearly don't understand the role of the executive branch in our government. Or more accurately, refuse to recognize what the president of the U.S. is supposed to do.

The president doesn't pass legislation, that is the role of congress. When are you going to realize this.

You demand I write you a book, when you don't even understand the basic working of our government.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


The Deficit Reduction Act of 1990?

You mean the deal forced upon GH by Democrats in Congress, that included a tax increase on the most wealthy, which was highly opposed by repubs?

www.thefiscaltimes.com...


Budget experts now agree that the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which was strengthened in 1993 by another budget deal that was opposed by all Republicans, deserves much of the credit for the subsequent improvement in the deficit, which shrank from 4.7 percent of GDP in 1992 to virtual balance in 1997 and gave us budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001.


Yet you claim that the tax increases could not have solved the problem, when I pointed out the democratic budgets in 93 and 94. Are you admitting you are wrong on this?

The deficit problem had mainly been solved before repubs ever got into the picture.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127
 


The Deficit Reduction Act of 1990?

You mean the deal forced upon GH by Democrats in Congress, that included a tax increase on the most wealthy, which was highly opposed by repubs?

www.thefiscaltimes.com...


Budget experts now agree that the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which was strengthened in 1993 by another budget deal that was opposed by all Republicans, deserves much of the credit for the subsequent improvement in the deficit, which shrank from 4.7 percent of GDP in 1992 to virtual balance in 1997 and gave us budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001.


Yet you claim that the tax increases could not have solved the problem, when I pointed out the democratic budgets in 93 and 94. Are you admitting you are wrong on this?

The deficit problem had mainly been solved before repubs ever got into the picture.


What I said was tax increased do not stimulate the economy. Can they reduce the budget when coupled with spending cuts? Of course. Two different things.

And the quote and link you quoted also gives much of the credit to the legislation Bush Sr signed. So here is basically what you are saying: if Democrats control congress and pass legislation that was worked on with a Republican president, the democrat Congress gets the credit..... but if Republicans control Congress and draft legislation that a democrat president signs, the president then gets all the credit. Do you even realize your hypocrisy?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by johnny2127]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


I don't think the republican congress in the nineties did anything to improve our economy or reduce the deficit. The problem had already been solved before repubs got on board.

I do think Clinton deserves some of the blame for the finance market deregulation he signed. That is being fair, and I stated this earlier in the thread.

I will give one to GH for signing the deficit reduction act bill with the accompanying tax increases, which was opposed across the board by republicans.

Note, prosperity began after the tax increases, and before republicans took control of congress under Newt.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
there's been many times when one or another party has slammed the other for not supporting a bill that addressed this or that....
ya know like "not supporting the troops"....
but well, if one were to check the bill....
ya, there is a little section addressing that issue, but then....
every tom dick and harry in congress has added their little tidbit to it.....mostly irrelevant to the issue....
and well.....maybe one tenth of the money that the bill is spending is going toward that issue, the rest is going to crap we don't need!!!

both parties have played that game.

so, well, I am just wondering what is actually in the bill, and am willing to bet, it's doing more than just providing small business with much needed funding!



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Ask your self if you are a business owner what are the chances the bank is going to give you a loan under this bill. ( Fat Chance) . Now, would you be willing to accecpt a loan from the bank under this bill during these hard times. Lets say you do accecp the loan, buy more inventory, hire more workers etc.. But your product \ inventory is not selling because no one has money to buy it. ( people are cutting back and buying only what they need.)

This is what biusiness owners are looking at. not to mention the new taxes coming up soon. also the obama healthcare fees they may have to pay. So do you really want that loan? Most business owners will not take these loans and ride the hard times. like they have in the past.

The bill is a bail out for the banks, there businesses too. think about that.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SJE98
 


or it's just a last ditch effort for a bailout of the politicians....


you have a point though....
america, as well as the rest of the world have been spooked for a few years now..
although, I don't think that the things that obama has done (like obamacare) is what spooked them. they were plenty spooked before obama took office. Personally, I see all these things that are set up to happen in 2012 and beyond, and kind of have this feeling like.....ummm.....it will never happen....life as we know it will cease to exist by then....

and, I think they know this......obamacare is just an empty promise that they know they won't have to deliver....so why not go ahead and promise it. heck, go ahead and promise them the moon, the gov't will have gone bankrupt and america will be gone by then anyways.....

but , ya, it's just too unstable at the moment, no one knows what to expect next.....
we are on emergency shutdown.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by dawnstar]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by johnny2127
 


I don't think the republican congress in the nineties did anything to improve our economy or reduce the deficit. The problem had already been solved before repubs got on board.

I do think Clinton deserves some of the blame for the finance market deregulation he signed. That is being fair, and I stated this earlier in the thread.

I will give one to GH for signing the deficit reduction act bill with the accompanying tax increases, which was opposed across the board by republicans.



If you don't think Republicans did anything to reduce the deficit, what do you think they're balanced budget amendment did? Also keep in mind Clinton tried to fight the balanced budget amendment at first then relented due to overwhelming support from the public. So you really don't think the balanced budget amendment helped the deficit?

What about welfare reform, which Clinton REALLY REALLY did not want to sign, which dramatically cut welfare expenditures. How can you possibly argue that didn't help the deficit? It cut spending. Just as the balanced budget did.



Note, prosperity began after the tax increases, and before republicans took control of congress under Newt.


You are connecting two unrelated items. There is no cause and effect relationship between the two. Under your hypothesis, the economy should have been great under Carter when top tax rates were over 70%. Tax increases do not stimulate the economy. No economist has ever even tried to assert that before. Increasing taxes has always been about one of two things; 1) increasing revenue for govt spending, or 2) making the wealthy pay their 'fair share' as liberals call it. Literally, the idea of tax increases stimulating the economy has never been forward by any economist. At best, raising taxes in a healthy economy can be absorbed. In a poor economy it hurts the economy. Thats economics 101 my friend.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes you are right they are slowing the bill out until mid term elections.

Already the Republicans have a plan to save as much money from the economic stimulus still lingering around and stop other bills that will increase the deficit.

But they can not stop the already ongoing spending that was part of the Bush and now Obama administration.

They can do cuts and appropriations but right now is actually nothing else to cut but the defense budget and we know that in our nation run by corporate interest that is the money gravy train of the Bush war pushing era.

Most of the Defense budget ends in the hands of private defense contractors and not the military directly.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.



Long dreamed deregulation that Clinton signed and did not Veto. As you've said previously, the President could have vetoed those bills but he didn't. Clinton went a long with it. So why don't you give him credit where credit is due are are you going to continue to be a political hack and a pepsicrat stooge?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
[edit on 1-9-2010 by poet1b]

Our current economic problems actually HAVE A LOT to do with cost of labor. It is because of stimulus regulation, wage regulation, the health care mandate, and new finance rules that are making it almost impossible for small businesses, or even big businesses, to take the normal chances that entrepreneurship has created in the past. They don't know what the bottom line is going to cost in a year when the new taxes and health care mandates kick in so they are holding on to their money to make sure that they can still maintain a profit and keep the operating costs in the black as well.

1945 was successful because of stimulus cuts not stimulus spending. Government spending went from 84 billion to 30 billion in 1945 alone. WWII was over. 10 million people were released into back into civilian life from the military and almost all of the economic controls put forth by the Hoover and FDR administrations were lifted. Why did this happen? Labor markets corrected themselves by the lack of monetary stimulation AND the lack of intervention on behalf of the government. In other words, unemployment will start falling not because of the stimulus spending, but in spite of it. And just as the stimulus money created few if any new jobs, its withdrawal will destroy few if any jobs. To be sure, some specific jobs will be lost, but others will be gained as the negative effects of government borrowing are eased somewhat. The stimulus efforts of modern times, perhaps most notably that of Japan during the 1990s, which actually led to reduced economic growth and long-term higher unemployment, show the futility of the Obama administration's current approach.

I will agree with you that GW's administration did little to repair the situation by not dealing with the problem of derivatives, hedge funds, and forcing banks in good standing to purchase toxic assets from higher risk institutions. You can't have that kind of risk taking, spending programs AND greatly reduced taxes. It would be better to reduce taxes and REDUCE SPENDING. While I also sort of agree with your misguided pseudo anti WTO black bandana NO CORPORATE WELFARE thing, I think you should seriously look at how much taxes are being accrued from the top 10%.

Deregulation does not allow the finance industry to cook the books. Human beings with greed and no understanding of a Free Market do. That's like saying stimulus money killed my dog. Prove it. This is extremely false and extreme HUBRIS. Notice that the regulations that were still in place during the 70s and 80s did nothing to stem the tide of natural contractions in a monetary fiat currency based economy. You are going to have your ups and downs. With more intervention, the more painful the down is going to be. Also, the SEC and the Congressional Finance officers did absolutely nothing to prevent the S&L fallout and not to mention the cannibalizing of our financial system via the complete abject failure of Lehmann Brothers. Also, a lot of con games are created by Giant Corporate goons like Goldman Sachs (great donator to Obama and financial creater of such judicial stooges as Elena Kagan) because they have NO IDEA what capitalism, free market or sane monetary policy is.

If you look at the history of the Federal Reserve since 1980, you will see that mandated interest rates do not work. This sort of policy is what was enacted in Japan during the 90s and it leaves your economy wide open to hyperinflation, which is EXACTLY what happened in Japan. They are still in the hole that they may never crawl out of because of such policies. So no, that is not a better solution.

As far as your assessment of deregulation of the housing issue under GW is patently and completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac legislation through Congress was primarily put through during the 90s, specifically 1999 with the repeal of the Glass Steagell Act that was signed by one democratic president named William Jefferson Clinton. While there were Republicans like John McInsane that went along with that ponzi scheme, like I've said before Clinton could have vetoed this. I would also like to point out that while some regulation is good, it's not deregulation that is bad. The problem is that our regulatory practices grew 3% over the course of the W years through the Federal Reserve, which they have said as much from data that they provided. We haven't had an unregulated market in this country since 1913, with the invention of the Federal Reserve Banking system, and all of those regulatory cannibalistic world banking practices have made our banking system in this country much more volatile than "Safe". There is no such thing as a safe fiat currency economy. It's NOT Possible. We don't know if deregulation has ever failed because WE HAVE NEVER HAD TOTAL DEREGULATION IN THIS COUNTRY. The closest we got was pre and post Civil War times until 1913 with the invention of the Creature of Jekyll Island. There is no such thing as fair rules just like there is no such thing as liberty in the assurance of safety.

Yes, I do notice that the Becks of the World do give money to the police state but SO DO THE DEMOCRATS. NEWS FLASH! They vote for FEMA camps, they vote for civil liberty abuses like FISA and use private sector contractors to mine data on civilians. They do things like putting people in "protest areas" 4 miles away from their convention. The erosion of liberty is a bipartisan mission.

The government can create confidence in the market by stepping the F out of the way. That way failed in the 30s and 40s and it will fail again.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


Don't forget another problem.

That other problem in America is called greed a corporate run governemnt that rather than let our economy fall and bounce back is helping itself at the expenses of tax payer money to keep the wealth of the elite.

Stealing from the tax payer in the name of "bailouts" and it seems that is not way to stop.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The one thing that you can slam the Republicans on during the 90s is the proposed Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. That is should have passed but thanks to one Republican wad, that didn't happen. Things would be A LOT different right now if that had gone through.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


Don't forget another problem.

That other problem in America is called greed a corporate run governemnt that rather than let our economy fall and bounce back is helping itself at the expenses of tax payer money to keep the wealth of the elite.

Stealing from the tax payer in the name of "bailouts" and it seems that is not way to stop.



Agreed.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
What are the democrats not telling us.

How many amendments and how much pork barrel spending is tacked on to this bill.

I lost track of how many times the democrats have hid unpopular laws tacking them on bills like this just to get the laws on the books and at the same time complained that the GOP was blocking the bill.

The democrats have tacked a number of gun control laws on bills like this just to get them passed.

We need to research what is really hidden in this bill before we pass judgement.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 



what do you think they're balanced budget amendment did?


Absolutely NOTHING!

Once republicans got back complete control of government they went right back to their deficit spending ways, and dumped several trillion more onto the economy.

Where have you been the last ten years.

As far as welfare reform is concerned, Clinton came into office as a welfare reformer, having done so in Arkansas. The only battle was over how welfare would be reformed.

You keep citing all these distorted facts, and continue to ignore all the major points that prove you wrong.

Points you should be aware of;

Welfare as we knew it was created under Nixon, with the very idea in mind of fooling people into supporting a police state. Yeah, Nixon and the people under him were that devious, and the republican operatives to this day are that devious. The created the welfare state.

Carter inherited stagflation from the Nixon admin, and it was his policies that brought the problem under control.

The upper tax rate was up in the 70% ranges since the thirties, and our economy did quite well in the fifties and especially the sixties with those tax rates. It was under Nixon that everything went to hell.

Taxes need to be raised to make the super rich pay their fair share, which they currently don't. Both of our best economic periods in our nation have been when the rich paid higher taxes.

People who DO NOT engage in interstate and international commerce should pay very little federal taxes.

WHERE DOES MOST OF OUR FEDERAL GOV SPENDING GO?

Overseas civilians and military support for international commerce.

Medicaid which subsidizes illegal immigration.

Laws to prevent fraud, protect intellectual property rights, keep corporations who deal with large amounts of toxics from dumping those toxics into and onto our air, land, and water.

Sadly, you probably buy into this nonsense that these government actions on the last point aren't needed, and that kind of thinking is why we are in the economic state we currently are in.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


Sorry, but people were making more money in the nineties, and our economy did just fine. In fact rising wages in the nineties led to economic growth. You are barking up the wrong tree with this. Maybe you could post some links that back up your claims?

As far as your claims about 1945 are concerned, fed deficit spending did drop at the end of WW II, because we were no longer fighting WW II, but the economic stimulus had restarted the economy. As far as your other claims, opposite to everything I have read. Taxes were very high on the super rich, and unions were strongly supported, as well as regulation of business.

Do you have any links to back up these claims?

As far as taxes on the top 10% of earners goes, this is what you need to consider.

Only the top 0.1% could be considered rich, the rest are upper middle class, who are paying too much in taxes, while the top 0.1% pay far too little in taxes.

Once again, All of you who spout this nonsense about the free market need to wake up to the reality that there is no such thing. It is idealistic drivel.

Get rid of the laws that prevent fraud, and fraud will run rampant. People will cheat and steal when given the chance, and when the government does nothing to stop the looting, everyone becomes a crook. That is what happened since Newts finance deregulation.

You claims about the economy before 1913 is pure fantasy, the economies of the times were constant boom bust. It is not the rosy picture you see.

The markets failed in the twenties, because of lack of regulation under the years of Coolidge. The market did not recover until massive spending for WW II jump started the market. The regulations put in place under FDR allowed the U.S. economy to continue to flourish, and a strong middle class developed in the U.S..

These were times of our best prosperity. Clinton proved in the nineties that we could still have that prosperity.

Here is some history of the U.S. economy.

economics.about.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Yep, and if republicans get control of the house, they will do nothing for small business, and return to pursuing their free market fantasies.

As far as Republicans saving money, that ain't gonna happen, never has, and never will. They say one thing, and do another, and the last three decades are proof of that.

If repubs get control of the House, maybe they will actually do something about illegal immigration.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join