GOP Blocks Small-Business Lending Bill

[Political Junky]

Wow, Republicans voted against a help for small business, while they fight for tax cuts for the top 2%.

Republicans block small-business lending bill - Business - Modbee.com

By Stephen Ohlemacher
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's election- year jobs agenda suffered a new setback Thursday when Senate Republicans blocked a bill creating a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for credit-starved small businesses.

The fund would be available to community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to help them increase lending to small businesses. The bill would combine the fund 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, helping to loosen tight credit markets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry.

Read more: Republicans block small-business lending bill - Business - Modbee.com

 

[2Parties]

Zomg republicants hate small business rofl!1111

 

[Trajan]

imho, I think the WSJ is right, its a balls up.

Little TARP, better than the old TARP? Not buying it.




Son of TARP
More politically directed credit, this time for small banks.

President Obama has been trying to rebut the claim that he's antibusiness by promoting something called the Small Business Jobs Act, which would provide loans and temporary tax cuts to small businesses. If you've been paying attention over the last 18 months, you're probably asking, what's the catch?

And sure enough, most of the tax cuts are so narrowly targeted as to be economically trivial. The list includes bonus depreciation, small business expensing and a temporary zero capital gains tax rate for small business start-ups. These would be in place for a year or two and then vanish, which means they'll do little to change business behavior. Only a small fraction of America's 40 million or so small businesses would even qualify for the capital gains cut. But at least all of this would do little harm.

The same can't be said for the most expensive provision of the bill, which creates a new Small Business Lending Fund. Hard as it is to believe, the fund would operate as a new TARP program in which Uncle Sam would take an ownership stake in small banks.

The bill authorizes Treasury to purchase up to $30 billion of stock in small, community banks across the country. The banks in turn would agree to issue as much as $300 billion in loans to small businesses that they wouldn't otherwise lend to. You can bet that many businesses that get the loans will be engaged in not very profitable, but politically correct activities, such as diversity investing and renewable energy. Sound at all like subprime mortgage loans?

Here's the best part: The whiz kids at the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that this program will raise $1.1 billion for the federal government. So there really is a free lunch.

The assumption is that these banks will make such wise loans that they'll make a bundle and the Treasury will get its money back in dividends on its preferred stock. But then why not have Treasury invest $100 billion to leverage $1 trillion in new loans? Or why not $2 trillion? If government-directed investment and lending can conjure such returns, the deficit should vanish in no time.

The false assumption here is that banks are reluctant to lend because they lack the capital. This ignores that small business lending is also down because the business demand for loans is weak. Businesses don't typically expand when Washington is raising dividend, capital gains and personal income tax rates while piling on the new costs of ObamaCare and other regulations.

The tax cut in this bill will provide $12 billion in relief over 10 years. The tax increase that Mr. Obama favors for 2011 would raise what the Joint Committee on Taxation figures will be $600 billion of revenues, about half of which comes from the coffers of small business. So the tax hikes, which are permanent, are about 50 times larger than the tax cuts, which are temporary. And the Obama Administration wonders why some people think this President is antibusiness.

Son of TARP - WSJ.com

 

[Charles_Main]

Just cut their Taxes, Stop throwing Money around.

 

[Smartt33]

Take a look at the numbers. You blame the republicans, but just think about who voted for what.

42 voted for the bill, and I would bet that not all of them were democrats. That would mean that less than 42 voted for the bill.

58 voted againse it, of those, there were 17 democrats. It seems to me that the vote was not just about republicans voting wrong. It seems to me like there may be some things in the bill that may not be healthy for small business.

For one, these would become government loans (by it being government money which always has strings attached).

People going in debt is not always the way for business to start. Why stimulus money for big business and loans for small business? I know, the stimulus money was really loans, but not with any hope of getting the money back.

I am starting a small business, and I have to have cash, but I choose to use $1000 credit to get started. That would not be enough to start most businesses. I will make it work. I am from "old school" America where "you make it the hard way, you earn it."

In any case, with the numbers as mentioned above, you can see that this was not a "Republican" event.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmmm....... No money for the out of work. No money for the people that have sustained injuries during and after 9-11. No money for small business. But keep the tax cuts coming for the very rich. Sound right, far right.

 

[boedicca]

In reality, most small businesses don't want to take on debt that they don't believe they will be able to afford.

Unlike our appalling government.

 

[Charles_Main]

In reality, most small businesses don't want to take on debt that they don't believe they will be able to afford.

Unlike our appalling government.

Just CUT THEIR TAXES

mmmm....... No money for the out of work. No money for the people that have sustained injuries during and after 9-11. No money for small business. But keep the tax cuts coming for the very rich. Sound right, far right.

Stop blaming Republicans for the FUCKING 9/11 Bill you disingenuous lying LIBERAL ASSHOLE. GET THE FACTS RIGHTS. The Dems could pass it with 218 votes if they didn't prefer to play Politics with it. So Ignorant asshat Liberals like yourself will Bash Republicans For blocking a BILL that Democrats are Demanding 290 votes on solely so they can Cry about Republicans blocking it.

218 was good enough for Stimulus, Omnibus, Health care, and Financial Reform all of the sudden they evoke the 290 rule and then cry about Republicans blocking the bill when they have 255 votes, including 11 republicans and could pass it with 218.

You fucking Liberal lemmings disgust me.

Anyone is who is not a liberal lemming fuck head like Old Rocks tell me this.

Which is worse, voting against the 9/11 Bill because you do not agree with some of the more controversial parts of it, as most of the Republicans are doing. OR deliberately using a procedural trick to force the need for 290 Votes on a bill you claim you want to pass, just so you can scream about Republicans blocking it. When you could pass it right now today with 218 Votes. The Republicans disagree with parts of the Bill and have the BALLS TO SAY SO. Democrats claim they want to pass it then play silly games to gain political Points.. Give them a few days once they have scored some points LYING ABOUT THIS, they will remove the 290 Requirement again, and pass it with 218.

So who is worse really.

 

[rdean]

In reality, most small businesses don't want to take on debt that they don't believe they will be able to afford.

Unlike our appalling government.

Just CUT THEIR TAXES, and stop blaming Republicans for the FUCKING 9/11 Bill. The Dems could pass it with 218 votes if they didn't prefer to play Politics with it. So Ignorant asshat Liberals like yourself will Bash Republicans For blocking a BILL that Democrats are Demanding 290 votes on soley so they can Cry about Republicans blocking it.

218 was good enough for Stimulus, Omnibus, Health care, and Financial Reform all of the sudden they evoke the 290 rule and then cry about Republicans blocking the bill when they have 255 votes, including 11 republicans and could pass it with 218.

You fucking Liberal lemmings disgust me.

So when Republicans block a bill, it's the "liberals" fault?

What about workers from 9/11 who became ill from the debris of the Twin Towers and Republicans have block them from getting health care? Republicans have blocked that every years since 9/11. Is that the Democrats fault too?

When do Republicans get to do something good for America?

Oh, that's right. No one expects Republicans to do something good for America. They haven't so far. Why start now?

 

[Charles_Main]

In reality, most small businesses don't want to take on debt that they don't believe they will be able to afford.

Unlike our appalling government.

Just CUT THEIR TAXES, and stop blaming Republicans for the FUCKING 9/11 Bill. The Dems could pass it with 218 votes if they didn't prefer to play Politics with it. So Ignorant asshat Liberals like yourself will Bash Republicans For blocking a BILL that Democrats are Demanding 290 votes on soley so they can Cry about Republicans blocking it.

218 was good enough for Stimulus, Omnibus, Health care, and Financial Reform all of the sudden they evoke the 290 rule and then cry about Republicans blocking the bill when they have 255 votes, including 11 republicans and could pass it with 218.

You fucking Liberal lemmings disgust me.

So when Republicans block a bill, it's the "liberals" fault?

YES YOU STUPID FUCK if you paid any attention at all you would know that THE DEMS changed the RULES to require 290 votes on this BILL. Why would they do that? Why when they have 255 votes, and they only actually need 218 to pass it.

One reason, so that FUCKING RETARDS like yourself will go online and CRY ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS blocking a bill, that could be passed right now with 218 votes.

You shameless scum bag partisan Hack.

Democrats are blocking the bill by DEMANDING 290 votes when 218 is the standard. Not that I expect an ignorant lying liberal Lemming such as yourself to ever grasp or Admit that.

Yes all but 11 Republicans are against it, for various reasons, BUT THE DEMS are the Majority and are PLAYING GAMES with the families. They could pass this at anytime, and as I said once they have had their fun convincing DUMB FUCKS like yourself to Cry about Republicans some. They will change the Rules again and pass it with 218 votes.

that fact that you can not see the shameless political ploy that this is, is testimony to how either STUPID or DISHONEST you are.

when The people finally get fed up, and rise up, and there is a bloody revolution in this country. People like yourself on both sides of the Isle will be the first to go. The shameless repeaters of Lies from Both sides. You are the instrument of our Oppression. The agent of Propaganda.

Have the BALLS to admit the Fault in your party, I admit the Fault in Republicans. I can not stand you Koolaide drinking Propaganda repeating Liberals who NEVER see the Democrats for what they are as well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What the fucking fuck was Obama Stimulus fund for? I thought was to fund shovel ready projects?

How many times must we double down on the same failed policies?!!!!!

We need more government stimulus like the Titanic needed to hit a few more icebergs

 

[Wicked Jester]

Hmmmm....... No money for the out of work. No money for the people that have sustained injuries during and after 9-11. No money for small business. But keep the tax cuts coming for the very rich. Sound right, far right.

Actually, it's money for the out of work, as long as it comes out of the unused
Stimulus money. It's government backed loans for small businesses as long as the backing comes from unused stimulus money. It's called fiscal responsibility, not MORE money being thrown at the problem.

Christ, liberal spin is fucking laughable.

And lib's just can't seem to figure out why Obama's numbers are tanking across the board. It's becoming quite clear that the idiot couldn't balance his own fucking checkbook, let alone this great countries.

But then, liberals are fucking idiots, so it comes as no surprise.

 

[Charles_Main]

But then, liberals are fucking idiots, so it comes as no surprise.

Many of them are just ignorant lemmings, Or Idiots as you say. But people like Old Rocks and rdean do not get off that easy.

They are not stupid. They know full well the Ploy that is being played with the 9/11 bill by the Democrats, and choose to be good little partisans and repeat the BS STORY that Republicans are blocking the Bill, and IGNORE THE FACT that it was DEMOCRATS who changed the Rules to require 290 votes on this bill.

The reason they claim they did it. Because this bill is controversial. Stimulus, Omnibus, Health care, and Financial Reform were all just as Controversial yet 218 votes were ok on those bills.

Only a fool or a Partisan hack would not admit that what the Dems are doing here is Shameless and far worse than Opposing the Bill on Principle Because it does indeed have some controversial parts to it.

If it is so important stop playing games and pass the bill with 218 votes LIKE EVERY OTHER FUCKING THING YOU HAVE RAMMED THROUGH.

 

[Greenbeard]

The reason they claim they did it. Because this bill is controversial. Stimulus, Omnibus, Health care, and Financial Reform were all just as Controversial yet 218 votes were ok on those bills.

No. You suspend the rules when a bill is not controversial, so that unscrupulous folks can't tack on riders 1) designed to force an embarrassing vote against final passage from the bill's supporters or 2) that couldn't pass without being tacked onto a popular bill whose passage is virtually assured. That's why it requires a supermajority for passage--it's an extremely streamlined legislative process but the price paid for that is a requirement for broad support.

Apparently it was assumed that creating a health fund for 9/11 workers wouldn't be particularly controversial. The leadership seems to have forgotten who they're dealing with.

 

[Charles_Main]

The reason they claim they did it. Because this bill is controversial. Stimulus, Omnibus, Health care, and Financial Reform were all just as Controversial yet 218 votes were ok on those bills.

No. You suspend the rules when a bill is not controversial, so that unscrupulous folks can't tack on riders 1) designed to force an embarrassing vote against final passage from the bill's supporters or 2) that couldn't pass without being tacked onto a popular bill whose passage is virtually assured. That's why it requires a supermajority for passage--it's an extremely streamlined legislative process but the price paid for that is a requirement for broad support.

Apparently it was assumed that creating a health fund for 9/11 workers wouldn't be particularly controversial. The leadership seems to have forgotten who they're dealing with.

LOL they did not have to require 290, and Have CLAIMED they only did it BECAUSE it is controversial not the other way around. They could drop the requirement at any time. They are not bound by any rule to require 290, It was and is a choice to do so. Any claim to the contrary is a blatant lie.

Spin some more.

We should also note the most of the Republican against it, are saying just as with the unemployment bill, that they would support it IF WE PAID FOR IT!!!!!!

 

[Charles_Main]

Apparently it was assumed that creating a health fund for 9/11 workers wouldn't be particularly controversial. The leadership seems to have forgotten who they're dealing with.

No they fail to see the Light. Republican Congressional Offices are flooded Daily with calls from Angry constituents screaming to STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE. It is the number 2 Issue on most Republicans minds below jobs.

If the Dems assume more off budget un paid for spending, FOR ANY REASON. Would not be controversial they are MORONS.

BESIDES this bill has been being fought over in one form or another for 9 YEARS because it has controversial provisions in it. More than 1 Democrat has CLAIMED that they decided to require 290 Votes because it was so contravention. NOT BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

 

[Greenbeard]

No they fail to see the Light. Republican Congressional Offices are flooded Daily with calls from Angry constituents screaming to STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE.

Here's something I don't get, and maybe you can answer this for me since you seem to be one of the people that are confusing me: how is it that some people are so engaged in politics (whether that entail taking the time to call a Congressman or post on a political message board) and yet simultaneously so uninterested in politics? Why do those things and yet not take the time to skim even a summary of the bill or the CBO score?

A title paying for the bill was added (yes, in the last week):

Title III. Revenue Offset – Limitation on Treaty Benefits for Certain Deductible Payments

Under current law, certain payments (principally dividends, interest, and royalties) made by US-based entities to a parent company based overseas are subject to a 30 percent withholding tax. That requirement customarily is reduced or eliminated when the payment is made to a country with which the US has a tax treaty. Companies with parents based in tax haven countries are able to effectively bypass the withholding tax by routing payments through an affiliate in a tax treaty country, which then transfers the funds to the parent company. The provision would limit this practice by retaining the withholding tax on certain deductible payments (principally interest and royalties) to a foreign-based affiliate unless the tax would be reduced under a treaty if the payment were made directly to the company’s parent corporation.

This provision is identical to a provision that passed the House of Representatives on March 24, as part of H.R. 4849 by a vote of 246-178. The House also approved the provision in November of last year as part of H.R. 3962 by a vote of 220 to 215. The provision is modified from a previous version approved by the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 2419 (110th Congress) by a vote of 231 to 191 (with 19 House Republicans joining 212 House Democrats in support) to ensure that foreign multinational corporations incorporated in treaty partner countries will not be affected by this provision. This provision is estimated to raise $7.433 billion over 10 years.​

What does the CBO say about that?

Based on a review of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, as transmitted to the Congressional Budget Office on July 27, 2010, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase both direct spending and revenues by $7.4 billion over the 2011-2020 period, resulting in no net impact on the deficit over that period (see Table 1). [...]

Title III would change tax provisions that in some cases allow a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation to avoid U.S. withholding tax on payments to a related subsidiary in a country that has a tax treaty with the United States. Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that the change would increase revenues by about $7.4 billion over the 2011-2020 period.​

In table form (that net change in deficit =0 over the 2010-2020 period at the bottom right would be the key):

Opposing this bill because you want to "stop spending money we don't have" is a way of saying "I'm paying attention but not that much."

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wow, Republicans voted against a help for small business, while they fight for tax cuts for the top 2%.

Republicans block small-business lending bill - Business - Modbee.com

By Stephen Ohlemacher
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's election- year jobs agenda suffered a new setback Thursday when Senate Republicans blocked a bill creating a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for credit-starved small businesses.

The fund would be available to community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to help them increase lending to small businesses. The bill would combine the fund 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, helping to loosen tight credit markets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry.

Read more: Republicans block small-business lending bill - Business - Modbee.com

Yeah.. the bill, known affectionately as "Son of TARP".

Your premise is flawed... businesses are not credit starved. They are not seeking to borrow. This is what Obama is trying to address, which is to have the government take ownership stakes in small banks which were not invoved in the meltdown and dictate that they lend money and who they lend to (can you say "Green" businesses, MINORITY businesses, etc.).

Good for the Republicans.. maybe they are finally getting it right.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

But, this is what happens when you have Marxists in power.. they seek a command and control economy, where the government dictates the markets... hence the $41,000 electric car that goes 40 miles that nobody save a few Hollywood elites wants.

Laughable.

 

[rdean]

Wow, Republicans voted against a help for small business, while they fight for tax cuts for the top 2%.

Republicans block small-business lending bill - Business - Modbee.com

By Stephen Ohlemacher
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's election- year jobs agenda suffered a new setback Thursday when Senate Republicans blocked a bill creating a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for credit-starved small businesses.

The fund would be available to community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to help them increase lending to small businesses. The bill would combine the fund 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, helping to loosen tight credit markets. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry.

Read more: Republicans block small-business lending bill - Business - Modbee.com

Yeah.. the bill, known affectionately as "Son of TARP".

Your premise is flawed... businesses are not credit starved. They are not seeking to borrow. This is what Obama is trying to address, which is to have the government take ownership stakes in small banks which were not invoved in the meltdown and dictate that they lend money and who they lend to (can you say "Green" businesses, MINORITY businesses, etc.).

Good for the Republicans.. maybe they are finally getting it right.

Republicans getting something right? Well, I guess there's always a "first" time. I just don't think it's "this" time.