GOP Blocks Small-Business Lending Bill

[rdean]

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.

You could also use, as an example, the disastrous Bush Tax cuts rammed down the throats of the American people though Republican reconciliation during a time of war.

They added trillions to the deficit. They gave business the money to move to China. There was no offset in spending. The economy created none of the promised jobs.

Because they used the reconciliation process, the tax breaks for the rich are about to expire.

And they want us to believe they are concerned about the deficit? Why would they think we would believe that?

 

[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.

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

Yeah, they have never gotten anything right. And I guess the Dems have gotten everything right. Quite the world of absolutes you live in there.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

You could also use, as an example, the disastrous Bush Tax cuts rammed down the throats of the American people though Republican reconciliation during a time of war.

They added trillions to the deficit. They gave business the money to move to China. There was no offset in spending. The economy created none of the promised jobs.

Because they used the reconciliation process, the tax breaks for the rich are about to expire.

And they want us to believe they are concerned about the deficit? Why would they think we would believe that?

Tax cuts rammed down people's throats? yeah, I see people clammoring daily for higher taxes. Oh that's right.. on everybody else... thank you John Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Timmy Geithner, etc.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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."

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit - BostonHerald.com

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

 

[The T]

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

It was another scheme for a piggy-bank to help those friendly to the Statist Democrats...and especially the UNIONS.

It's stated purpose is already been shown a colossal LIE.

 

[Smartt33]

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.

The Republicans are not against people having money. We are against the continuous extentions of the checks. We want the people to get back to work, and as I pointed out, it was not the republican vote that caused the lending bill to fail. It is government, all parties , that is wrecking the nations economy.

As I understand it, it is not a Republican vote that makes it impossible for the poeple injured in the 9/11 event, it is government. Just take a look at who voted where on that issue. Then look at their stance on everything. It is indeed not a party thing.

It certainly wasn't a Republican event that caused the small business issue to fail. It is big government in all of these cases. We have some good people in DC, but just not many.

So, let's not go off blaming a political party. Take an honest look at the votes and you sill discover that we have allowed big government to take full charge, without the representation of the people. That is why I am hoping we have a lot of virtually unknowns to run for office, and we can get rid of the trash. We need to "TAKE AMERICA BACK." And I am not talking to a political party. I am talking to the people.

 

[Smartt33]

Thomas Jefferson wisely said, ""A government large enough to give you what you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

Today we are seeing just exactly what he was talking about. We need to trim down and purge the mob in DC down to something we can control, which is what the founding Fathers intended. Whatever it takes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rdean]

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.

Yeah, they have never gotten anything right. And I guess the Dems have gotten everything right. Quite the world of absolutes you live in there.

In the black and white world of the right, one party is always correct and the other party isn't.
In this reality, the Democrats haven't always been correct, for sure, but the Republicans have always been wrong. Letting Bin Laden go, Iraq, the Bush Tax cuts, the lies, the scandals, the deceit, the apologies, the name calling. All those prove the Republicans have been wrong about everything for years. Their War on the Middle Class is wrong. Their War on Science is wrong. They are just "wrong".

 

[Jon]

This was a pointless bill. It would have done nothing to help small business. Bonus depreciation already exists. Most business expenses are already tax deductible. These "tax cuts" are really nothing, absolutely nothing. No one would start, continue, or expand a small business based on these provisions.

This bill was simply a measure for the federal government to stake a claim in small banks. Period. If you can't see that, you're stupid.

As has been mentioned, small businesses are NOT looking to borrow money in the first place. They don't want more debt, as they can't afford the interest on it.

If they want to help small businesses, they have plenty of cash in stimulus funds to use. Why don't they fucking spend that before they spend MORE money?

 

[rdean]

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.

You could also use, as an example, the disastrous Bush Tax cuts rammed down the throats of the American people though Republican reconciliation during a time of war.

They added trillions to the deficit. They gave business the money to move to China. There was no offset in spending. The economy created none of the promised jobs.

Because they used the reconciliation process, the tax breaks for the rich are about to expire.

And they want us to believe they are concerned about the deficit? Why would they think we would believe that?

Tax cuts rammed down people's throats? yeah, I see people clammoring daily for higher taxes. Oh that's right.. on everybody else... thank you John Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Timmy Geithner, etc.

When 52% of 2.4 trillion goes to the top 1%, during a time of war, then it's rammed down the throats of the American people. If it was so popular, the Republicans wouldn't have had to use reconciliation.

It's not the Democrats on the side of big business and against the Middle Class. At least Republicans have the sense to stop pretending they want to help the American Middle Class.

 

[rdean]

This was a pointless bill. It would have done nothing to help small business. Bonus depreciation already exists. Most business expenses are already tax deductible. These "tax cuts" are really nothing, absolutely nothing. No one would start, continue, or expand a small business based on these provisions.

This bill was simply a measure for the federal government to stake a claim in small banks. Period. If you can't see that, you're stupid.

As has been mentioned, small businesses are NOT looking to borrow money in the first place. They don't want more debt, as they can't afford the interest on it.

If they want to help small businesses, they have plenty of cash in stimulus funds to use. Why don't they fucking spend that before they spend MORE money?

It doesn't work that way:

INFO: Small Business Jobs Act Legislative Text and Modifications | TradingMarkets.com

Bill creating $30B lending pool for community banks headed toward vote in Senate
\
You gotta wonder, the things Republicans say about business, after all that, "I want to keep my wealth" rhetoric, do they even have any money?

 

[Skull Pilot]

why do we need another spending bill when half of the money from the first so called stimulus bill has not been spent?

Just reallocate that money

 

[Jon]

This was a pointless bill. It would have done nothing to help small business. Bonus depreciation already exists. Most business expenses are already tax deductible. These "tax cuts" are really nothing, absolutely nothing. No one would start, continue, or expand a small business based on these provisions.

This bill was simply a measure for the federal government to stake a claim in small banks. Period. If you can't see that, you're stupid.

As has been mentioned, small businesses are NOT looking to borrow money in the first place. They don't want more debt, as they can't afford the interest on it.

If they want to help small businesses, they have plenty of cash in stimulus funds to use. Why don't they fucking spend that before they spend MORE money?

It doesn't work that way:

INFO: Small Business Jobs Act Legislative Text and Modifications | TradingMarkets.com

Bill creating $30B lending pool for community banks headed toward vote in Senate
\
You gotta wonder, the things Republicans say about business, after all that, "I want to keep my wealth" rhetoric, do they even have any money?

Two links that did nothing to support the purpose of the bill. Regardless of what the bill wants to look like it would do, the result would be it would do nothing. Small businesses DON'T WANT TO BORROW MONEY. Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

 

[boedicca]

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

The only thing Shovel Ready about the Stimulus Bill was the steaming heap of excrement which was the bill itself.

Just sayin'.

 

[rdean]

This was a pointless bill. It would have done nothing to help small business. Bonus depreciation already exists. Most business expenses are already tax deductible. These "tax cuts" are really nothing, absolutely nothing. No one would start, continue, or expand a small business based on these provisions.

This bill was simply a measure for the federal government to stake a claim in small banks. Period. If you can't see that, you're stupid.

As has been mentioned, small businesses are NOT looking to borrow money in the first place. They don't want more debt, as they can't afford the interest on it.

If they want to help small businesses, they have plenty of cash in stimulus funds to use. Why don't they fucking spend that before they spend MORE money?

It doesn't work that way:

INFO: Small Business Jobs Act Legislative Text and Modifications | TradingMarkets.com

Bill creating $30B lending pool for community banks headed toward vote in Senate
\
You gotta wonder, the things Republicans say about business, after all that, "I want to keep my wealth" rhetoric, do they even have any money?

Two links that did nothing to support the purpose of the bill. Regardless of what the bill wants to look like it would do, the result would be it would do nothing. Small businesses DON'T WANT TO BORROW MONEY. Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

Because saying that is retarded. Borrowing money is how business operates.

 

[Jon]

It doesn't work that way:

INFO: Small Business Jobs Act Legislative Text and Modifications | TradingMarkets.com

Bill creating $30B lending pool for community banks headed toward vote in Senate
\
You gotta wonder, the things Republicans say about business, after all that, "I want to keep my wealth" rhetoric, do they even have any money?

Two links that did nothing to support the purpose of the bill. Regardless of what the bill wants to look like it would do, the result would be it would do nothing. Small businesses DON'T WANT TO BORROW MONEY. Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

Because saying that is retarded. Borrowing money is how business operates.

You do realize that many banks are hoarding cash waiting on the day that businesses and individuals are ready to borrow again, right? Do you know ANYTHING about the current levels of cash in this country? Something tells me no.

Small businesses are looking for ways to generate cash, a steady source. Borrowing is a temporary fix to a permanent problem for most small businesses. As soon as they see that consumers are ready to spend again and that they can generate permanent sources of cash, they are NOT going to obligate themselves to more debt.

 

[Greenbeard]

Small businesses DON'T WANT TO BORROW MONEY. Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

The mid-year economic report released on Wednesday by the National Small Business Association disagrees with you:

NSBA has been asking small-business owners if their business had been impacted by the credit crunch since early 2008. In February 2008, 55 percent responded that it had. In August 2008 that number jumped to 67 percent, and continued to rise to 69 percent in December 2008 and hit a high of 80 percent in July 2009. Despite a slight easing in December 2009 down to 78 percent, the number today is back up at its highest point. Eighty percent—four out of five—of small business owners report that their company has been impacted by the credit crunch.

The availability of capital is a critical component to business growth and job creation for small businesses. Since 1993, when NSBA began asking these questions, there has been a direct correlation between access to capital and job growth—when capital flows more freely, small businesses add new jobs.

Among small-business owners for whom capital availability has been a problem, 44 percent state that they have been unable to grow or expand the business, and 20 percent state that they have been forced to reduce their number of employees. Perhaps even more worrisome is the growth in small businesses that report they are unable to increase inventory to meet demand—up from seven percent in December 2009 to 12 percent today. This means that, although growth opportunities exist for these businesses, they are being held back by a lack of capital.​

 

[Meister]

I think until Obama's policies are in full light your going to see a hesitation from businesses to go out on a limb on anything. I can't blame them.

 

[Zander]

How anyone can blame "Republicans" for failure to pass legislation when the Democrats have huge majorities in the House and Senate is beyond me. Doctor "heal thyself"........

 

[rdean]

Small businesses DON'T WANT TO BORROW MONEY. Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

The mid-year economic report released on Wednesday by the National Small Business Association disagrees with you:

NSBA has been asking small-business owners if their business had been impacted by the credit crunch since early 2008. In February 2008, 55 percent responded that it had. In August 2008 that number jumped to 67 percent, and continued to rise to 69 percent in December 2008 and hit a high of 80 percent in July 2009. Despite a slight easing in December 2009 down to 78 percent, the number today is back up at its highest point. Eighty percent—four out of five—of small business owners report that their company has been impacted by the credit crunch.

The availability of capital is a critical component to business growth and job creation for small businesses. Since 1993, when NSBA began asking these questions, there has been a direct correlation between access to capital and job growth—when capital flows more freely, small businesses add new jobs.

Among small-business owners for whom capital availability has been a problem, 44 percent state that they have been unable to grow or expand the business, and 20 percent state that they have been forced to reduce their number of employees. Perhaps even more worrisome is the growth in small businesses that report they are unable to increase inventory to meet demand—up from seven percent in December 2009 to 12 percent today. This means that, although growth opportunities exist for these businesses, they are being held back by a lack of capital.​

It's pretty obvious that conservative lenders are holding back hoping to hurt Obama.

They had an orgy of deregulation under the Republicans and were able to squeeze trillions out of the American Middle Class. They think if they can get Republicans back into to office, they can "finish the job".

They don't seem to understand a strong and financially sound Middle Class is "good for business". All they know is "Get it while you can".