Repubicans block Small Biz Bill

Once again, here is a good link on the bill. You can look up the information if you choose.

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

They need to make the money available to small businesses, so that should the opportunity present itself, they can get the funding to expand their business, or start up new businesses.

I believe in the market system, and I think if Obama does his job evenly enforcing a fair set of rules, than our markets will recover and prosper again.

The opportunities are out there, and I think they will come from small business start ups, as always.

reply to post by poet1b


That is the key here, the only reason they will oppose to any other bailouts is because the amount put aside by Obama in the economic stimulus have a balance, no all the economic stimulus has been poured into the economy, Republicans knows that if the win congress they need money to play around.

Once they win congress only the defense will get their money, anything else will get stagnate.

Originally posted by poet1b

Agreed on the ridiculous amount of spending that was guided under a Republican controlled Congress but yet again you ignore the facts of a majority of Democrat party members in office during that time that voted along with the Republicans.

Welfare as we know it germinated under Wilson, expanded greatly under FDR, the racist Truman, and LBJ with the "great society". Clinton was not a welfare reformer and did not want to sign the Welfare Reform Act in 1996 but was begged to do so by Gore because it was popular with the voters.

While I'm not a fan of the legislation that Nixon signed with the 69 Family Assistance Plan. One interesting thing to note with that piece of legislation is that Nixon required that all welfare recipients were required to work except mothers who had children under the age of three. The program died in 1972.

Carter actually inherited his Stagflation from Democrat controlled Congressional houses beginning in 1965 as we tried to implement the "Great Society" and spending on the Vietnam War. Johnson did this deficit spending a la Keynesian Economics, which again rears it's ugly head to show that it does not work. Such a policy increased inflation and reduced employment. The OPEC disaster of the 70s also helped raise inflation due to businesses having to raise their prices to meet the demand for paying higher Oil prices.

Not only didn’t conditions improve, but the big tax hike of 1936 inspired the recession of 1937, the recession within the Depression , and altogether the Roosevelt policies kept the Depression going for eight years. The drag of Roosevelt’s tax policies became so obvious that in May 1938, over FDR’s protests, Republicans and Southern Democrats in Congress forced repeal of the 1936 tax on “undistributed profits” and cut the corporate tax rate. The recession officially bottomed out the following month.

reply to post by poet1b


Would it matter if I provided you links? You're definitely the most closed minded person I've seen on this forum and engaging you in this debate is becoming pointless and ridiculous. I'm not Google. If you want to know where I get my information, I suggest you use a search engine.

If you would like to use this opportunity to dance around and go "I win, I win, I win", go ahead. You win a cookie. But be forewarned you're on ignore from here on out because I just think you're ridiculous.

Just be aware that I'm disengaging from the conversation because I can't stand to discuss these things with pathologically ignorant self aggrandizing a-holes spitting out NYT hack Krugman garbage.

Good luck to you. I hope you don't have children and never hold public office.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by justinsweatt]

reply to post by justinsweatt


Swallow that blue pill if you must, most can not handle reality.

Choose ignorance if you must.

It was under Nixon that welfare was turned into a horrible mess, and that was no accident.

The democrats in Congress had nothing to do with stagflation, it wasn't government driven, but a result of the oil crisis, and the repub admins horrible handling of the oil crisis.

reply to post by marg6043


Solid point, I forget about the bailout money still available.

If repubs get control of congress, it will be by a slim margin, and Obama will still have the veto.

Maybe you are right, that pool of funds will still be available to Obama. Maybe he is smarter than we thought.

Obama does have his own destiny in his hands, and what he does in the next couple of years as the Chief exec of the U.S. will determine his legacy. I hope he succeeds in turning the U.S. around.

reply to post by johnny2127


"If you don't think Republicans did anything to reduce the deficit, what do you think they're balanced budget amendment did?"


forced bush to create a very expensive emergency so that the republicans didn't have to worry about the budget???

Originally posted by poet1b
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 must be delusional or a paid Democrat operative. There is not a single logical person that could say that a law requiring all budgets to be balanced and pay for themselves, did nothing to create a budget surplus at the end of the 90's. Literally that defies logic.

Regarding your Republican spending comment, it depends when you are talking about. When they took back Congress under the Gingrich Contract with America they were very conservative in their spending. When Bush came into office he spent like a drunken liberal, which both Republicans and Democrats helped him with. Bush's largest spending bills had support from both Republicans and Democrats. But yes, Republicans spent too much under Bush. I told you that when I first started responding to your BS thread that you made without even looking into the bill or what the debate was about. How many times do I have to tell you that Republicans lost their way under Bush?

Regarding Welfare Reform, you are right that Bill Clinton from the beginning wanted to reform welfare. I never said he didn't. What I said was Republicans worked on it with Clinton and should share the credit. You will not give them a single bit of credit for anything, regardless of how involved they were. Do you realize that fundamentally exposes your extreme partisanship and intellectual dishonesty?

How many times do I have to tell you that all I am trying to get you to see is that both Republicans and Democrats share in the credit and blame for all thats happened?

reply to post by johnny2127


Yeah, he's not getting it. I would just let him engage in discussion with people who only agree with him. It's not worth it and it's just going way off topic. One thing I've learned is that when faced with the facts, people will make excuses for whatever "team" they align themsevles with in our dual party monopoly. You're either Team Democrat or Team Republican and when faced with people who defy that kind of sports like group think you're met with the sort of ignorant consternation as in the posted examples above. I've hit ignore and I'm going to rid myself of this enraging thread.

Originally posted by justinsweatt
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Yeah, he's not getting it. I would just let him engage in discussion with people who only agree with him. It's not worth it and it's just going way off topic. One thing I've learned is that when faced with the facts, people will make excuses for whatever "team" they align themsevles with in our dual party monopoly. You're either Team Democrat or Team Republican and when faced with people who defy that kind of sports like group think you're met with the sort of ignorant consternation as in the posted examples above. I've hit ignore and I'm going to rid myself of this enraging thread.

I know I know. But still I would like to try to help someone open their mind a bit. I used to call myself a Republican until the big govt, big spending policies of Bush. So I left the party, or I should say more accurately, the party left me. Everyone should be independent of thought and not beholden to defending a party. Factually, both parties share blame for the situation this country is in now. We have had both Republican and Democrat Presidents, and Republican and Democrat controlled Congresses, This problem has been building for decades and no one is immune from some blame. Not Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, or either political party. At times, some have been good or some have been disproportionately worse. But anyone that literally tries to assign all blame to one side, and all credit to the other is either paid to make that case, or closed minded and intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by johnny2127


No, I am not a paid democrat operative, there are many things about the democratic party that I do not like. As I said, see my signature below.

Like most republicans, you want to pretend that the GW admin was some how different than the GH admin, or the RR admin, when in fact, since Nixon, the republican party has been horribly corrupt, and consistently have done a horrible job in administrating the U.S. government. By claiming that the GW admin was different from the rest, you are still living in denial.

Cheney worked for all four regimes, and is characteristic of all four regimes.

Yeah, when repubs are in power under a democratic president, they are tight fisted with the money, but when they are in control under a republican president, they spend like school girls with daddy's credit card. This is hypocrisy.

As welfare reform is concerned, this is what you said.

What about welfare reform, which Clinton REALLY REALLY did not want to sign, which dramatically cut welfare expenditures.

I showed that this statement was completely wrong, and you call me a hypocrite because in correcting your slander, I didn't praise the republican party. That is hypocrisy on steroids on your part. This exchange has been typical of the back and forth between us throughout the thread. You post nonsense, I point out that you are wrong, you sulk about it.

Unlike you, I looked at the bill for small biz, I have provided links, and evaluated the bill, and it is well written, and the right move in the right direction.

That republicans do not want to allow this bill to go through to enable small businesses to help get our economy back in gear shows that all the republicans care about is playing spoil sport, following a scorched Earth policy in hopes they can get Palin in the white house in 2012. Apparently, you embrace this agenda.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
The democrats past heath care without a single republican vote. Whats the problem now?

A star for you.

It's all a stage by the liberal media to gain support for the Democrats before the mid-term elections. There's something in this bill, if it exists, that's preventing Republican support. Something that's going to hurt the small business more than help.

What's the bills' #? Couldn't find it here. 111 th Congress

Let's see what we have here. From the Huffington Post?

Small Businesses Are Having An Easier Time Getting Loans, Fed Survey Finds

Jobless Claims Soar as Obama Continues to Shortchange Small Business

Instead of criticizing something that's not there, Obama should be glorifying himself for the first article.

Obama supporters=Bush bashers=Anti-Americans

reply to post by Intelearthling


You mean the short changing of government contracting that allows large corporations to get contracts that should go to small businesses that has been going on since 2003?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Since 2003, over a dozen federal investigations have found large recipients of federal small business contracts like Dell Computer, Boeing, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace (BAE), Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Xerox, Textron, Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications, Titan Corporation, Thales Communications, Ssangyong Corporation headquartered in Seoul, South Korea and Finmeccanica SpA, which is located in Italy with 73,000 employees.

Apparently there is a bill being pushed to fix this problem.

There is one magic bullet that could save the national economy from a double dip recession and create millions of new jobs. H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act, would stop the diversion of small business contracts to large businesses, and redirect over $120 billion a year in existing federal infrastructure spending to the middle class. H.R. 2568 was introduced by Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson (D - 04) and currently has 26 co-sponsors.

I am intimately familiar with H.R 2568. I wrote the original draft of the bill while on vacation in Durango, Colorado during the summer of 2008. H.R. 2568 states the federal government can no longer report awards to publicly traded firms as small business awards. No new taxes, no new spending. This deficit neutral bill will serve as the most significant economic stimulus proposed to date, and would create millions of net new jobs.

Recently, H.R. 2568 co-sponsor Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D - NY - 14) delivered a strong endorsement of the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Who is supporting this bill?

Democrats

It seems that when it comes to helping small businesses, Republicans are all hot air. Rather than actually look at the small biz bill, they would rather turn there backs and support republican politicians who make any and every excuse possible to steal from small business, and the middle class.

reply to post by poet1b


Just out of curiosity, have you read any of the actual bill?

Every reference you've made to the bill is just regurgitating what someone else has told you is in the bill and what you should think about it.

reply to post by WTFover


Yeah, unlike all of those who automatically claim that is the republicans aren't supporting the bill, then there must be something wrong.

How about you?

Have you read it, or do you also blindly follow the right wing, talk radio talking points?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by WTFover

 

Yeah, unlike all of those who automatically claim that is the republicans aren't supporting the bill, then there must be something wrong.

How about you?

Have you read it, or do you also blindly follow the right wing, talk radio talking points?

When it comes down to it, this will get past with heavy Republican support. I hope some things change in this bill. But regardless, in the end it will be passed, because Republicans and Democrats are both lackies to Wall St and the banks.

Originally posted by johnny2127
When it comes down to it, this will get past with heavy Republican support. I hope some things change in this bill. But regardless, in the end it will be passed, because Republicans and Democrats are both lackies to Wall St and the banks.

And, like every other piece of economic salvation legislation passed since the last quarter of 2008, it will not accomplish what we are being told it will. Because, just like the rest of them, it is like carrying water to a fire in a colander. By the time you get to where it's really needed, there is nothing left. (not my analogy, but I can't remember where I heard it to give credit)

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by johnny2127
When it comes down to it, this will get past with heavy Republican support. I hope some things change in this bill. But regardless, in the end it will be passed, because Republicans and Democrats are both lackies to Wall St and the banks.

And, like every other piece of economic salvation legislation passed since the last quarter of 2008, it will not accomplish what we are being told it will. Because, just like the rest of them, it is like carrying water to a fire in a colander. By the time you get to where it's really needed, there is nothing left. (not my analogy, but I can't remember where I heard it to give credit)

Exactly. In actuality, it will benefit those banks more than the small businesses. The OP chooses to make this about the 'evil' Republicans. This is BS. I don't doubt that Democrats want to help small businesses, but they are've been advised the best way to do this, is this bailout of a bill. All it does is bailout small banks, and the small side effect is helping a couple small businesses. Both sides are beholden to Wall St.

reply to post by johnny2127


If republicans are going to support this bill, then what are they waiting for?

If you read the link, that describes the changes, or more accurately riders, republicans are holding out for, you will see that those changes are not aimed t all on rules that makes sure small businesses, and not banks get the money.

The difficult part about making sure that the money goes to small businesses, instead of the banks, will be in how the Obama administers the plan.

Personally, I don't trust either side, but someone has to start doing something.

Right now it looks like things are only going to get uglier and uglier.

It's all a stage by the liberal media to gain support for the Democrats before the mid-term elections. There's something in this bill, if it exists, that's preventing Republican support. Something that's going to hurt the small business more than help.

OR, FAR more likely is the Republicans are posing 'against' because that is the safest, easiest approach for a minority party with no real voting power (for now, at least)

Obama supporters=Bush bashers=Anti-Americans

Mmmmm. Yummy hyperbole.