I expect Obama to STFU!

[DiamondDave]

Where and when has Obama stated he wants to force small businesses to take out loans?

I was drawing a parallel between how Obama is handling the banking industry and how he could do the same with small business and job growth. I suspect it is closer to the truth than we may think.

I respectfully disagree. The Fed has helped to prop up the major banks during their time of need. Now, during Main Street's time of need, they are not doing what Obama and many Americans feel is "enough". I guess I don't see the parallel, as small business has suffered under the banks' refusal to lend as well.

feel.. that is the key lefty word....

 

[VaYank5150]

Expect in one hand and shit in the other.. then see which one fills up faster

That is the problem with lefties.. the 'expect' or think it is 'owed'... they are their own business/company... they do not have to do just as you want.... it is their choice whether they lend or what qualifies for their lending.... big mommy government is not there to pat you on the back and wipe your snotty nose after crying about it, though ones like you think it is

Slow down...I completely understand your feelings on lefties and how they want everything given to them, <insert next talking point here>....however. THIS time, I believe it is different. My wife is a Republican, as is her father and they both agree that the banks that took bail out money SHOULD be doing more to help Main Street.

No....

The bank should not be at the government's beck and call
The banks should have the criteria needed to ensure loads are lent to those who can and will repay
We should have never bailed them out in the first placeThe bank can make their own decisions on how to run their business... if they make the right choices they will succeed.. if they don't they will fail... and that is the way it is supposed to be

I agree with this 100%. And I am guessing your thought process now is, two wrongs don't make a right? No pun intended...

 

[DiamondDave]

Slow down...I completely understand your feelings on lefties and how they want everything given to them, <insert next talking point here>....however. THIS time, I believe it is different. My wife is a Republican, as is her father and they both agree that the banks that took bail out money SHOULD be doing more to help Main Street.

No....

The bank should not be at the government's beck and call
The banks should have the criteria needed to ensure loads are lent to those who can and will repay
We should have never bailed them out in the first placeThe bank can make their own decisions on how to run their business... if they make the right choices they will succeed.. if they don't they will fail... and that is the way it is supposed to be

I agree with this 100%. And I am guessing your thought process now is, two wrongs don't make a right? No pun intended...

If that is how you wish to put it... yes...

It would be an additional wrong to have the government dictate who the banks are going to lend to, and how much, and at what rates, etc

 

[VaYank5150]

No....

The bank should not be at the government's beck and call
The banks should have the criteria needed to ensure loads are lent to those who can and will repay
We should have never bailed them out in the first placeThe bank can make their own decisions on how to run their business... if they make the right choices they will succeed.. if they don't they will fail... and that is the way it is supposed to be

I agree with this 100%. And I am guessing your thought process now is, two wrongs don't make a right? No pun intended...

If that is how you wish to put it... yes...

It would be an additional wrong to have the government dictate who the banks are going to lend to, and how much, and at what rates, etc

Just as it was wrong for them to beg the Federal Government to prop them up. Yes?

 

[DiamondDave]

I agree with this 100%. And I am guessing your thought process now is, two wrongs don't make a right? No pun intended...

If that is how you wish to put it... yes...

It would be an additional wrong to have the government dictate who the banks are going to lend to, and how much, and at what rates, etc

Just as it was wrong for them to beg the Federal Government to prop them up. Yes?

yes....

 

[VaYank5150]

If that is how you wish to put it... yes...

It would be an additional wrong to have the government dictate who the banks are going to lend to, and how much, and at what rates, etc

Just as it was wrong for them to beg the Federal Government to prop them up. Yes?

yes....

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I agree with this 100%. And I am guessing your thought process now is, two wrongs don't make a right? No pun intended...

If that is how you wish to put it... yes...

It would be an additional wrong to have the government dictate who the banks are going to lend to, and how much, and at what rates, etc

Just as it was wrong for them to beg the Federal Government to prop them up. Yes?

I don't recall the banks begging the government for help...it seems to me it was the other way around with Bush and Obama's bailouts....I think the government was complicent in the failure of many banks due to the derivatives scandal involving Brooksley Born

FRONTLINE: the warning: interviews: brooksley born | PBS

 

[Misty]

After the banks got their sorry asses bailed out by the government, I doubt they are going to say anything but "thank you, sir, may I have another?".

Many of the banks have paid back their million dollar government bail outs.

The banks got into trouble doing exactly what Obama is asking them to do again. Loan money to people who can't pay it back.

 

[Claudette]

Good posts on this subject. As usual everyone has an opoinon.

My folks ran a small busiiness for years. They never borrowed unless they were expanding. Along with the expanding they hired. Not much of that going on today.

I don't believe the banks will start lending until they get some idea of what the current administrations plans are. I think thats it in a nutshell. One minute the banks are being villified the next they are being asked to start lending during very iffy times and being told they are partners and needed. KInd of a Catch 22 if you ask me.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Good posts on this subject. As usual everyone has an opoinon.

My folks ran a small busiiness for years. They never borrowed unless they were expanding. Along with the expanding they hired. Not much of that going on today.

I don't believe the banks will start lending until they get some idea of what the current administrations plans are. I think thats it in a nutshell. One minute the banks are being villified the next they are being asked to start lending during very iffy times and being told they are partners and needed. KInd of a Catch 22 if you ask me.

Trust me on this...bank ARE NOT holding onto their money because they can...they just refuse to get into the same situation they were in with the bad loans they got bailed out of...it's understandable from their point of view to have strict creditworthyness standards...secondly...small businesses are just not expanding right now because of the huge hit they are expecting from mandatory government run healthcare that's possibly coming down the pike. How can you take out a million + dollar loan, hire 5 new staffers when there is ZERO demand for your product or service AND you just got told you must pay for ALL of your employees health insurance or face fines into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. How would a business repay the loan? ....from a business's point of view..taking out a loan is like shooting yourself in the head....it would be financial suicide.

 

[Claudette]

Good posts on this subject. As usual everyone has an opoinon.

My folks ran a small busiiness for years. They never borrowed unless they were expanding. Along with the expanding they hired. Not much of that going on today.

I don't believe the banks will start lending until they get some idea of what the current administrations plans are. I think thats it in a nutshell. One minute the banks are being villified the next they are being asked to start lending during very iffy times and being told they are partners and needed. KInd of a Catch 22 if you ask me.

Trust me on this...bank ARE NOT holding onto their money because they can...they just refuse to get into the same situation they were in with the bad loans they got bailed out of...it's understandable from their point of view to have strict creditworthyness standards...secondly...small businesses are just not expanding right now because of the huge hit they are expecting from mandatory government run healthcare that's possibly coming down the pike. How can you take out a million + dollar loan, hire 5 new staffers when there is ZERO demand for your product or service AND you just got told you must pay for ALL of your employees health insurance or face fines into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. How would a business repay the loan? ....from a business's point of view..taking out a loan is like shooting yourself in the head....it would be financial suicide.

I have to agree with you. Good post.
This is what I meant by the uncertainty of what this Administration is doing. Hell, if I owned a business I wouldn't expand or hire until I knew if all the bs thats being proposed is going to come to pass. All this bs is going to be a job killer big time. I can understand why banks don't want to lend if they are uncertain if they are going to land in the same boat they just got bailed out of.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I wish America would pull it's collective head out of the sand and realize that there will be absolutely NO BENEFITS from this government run healthcare that's coming for at least 3 years +. BUT you will have your taxes raised on January 1st 2010 to "pay" for it. The money collected from US will be used to pay for the Stimulus GRANTS...that's right folks GRANTS that are NOT to be repaid to Obama's Treasury. Then in 2013 when the government run healthcare takes effect, if passed, we will have to go on a borrowing spree the likes of which hasn't ever been seen. WHY does everyone see articles on the national debt doubling under Obama's reign?....now you have your answer.

Now..who can name one program where the government actually keeps the money in that fund over the years to cover the expenses related to that program? This is NOT a trick question.

 

[VaYank5150]

I wish America would pull it's collective head out of the sand and realize that there will be absolutely NO BENEFITS from this government run healthcare that's coming for at least 3 years +. BUT you will have your taxes raised on January 1st 2010 to "pay" for it. The money collected from US will be used to pay for the Stimulus GRANTS...that's right folks GRANTS that are NOT to be repaid to Obama's Treasury. Then in 2013 when the government run healthcare takes effect, if passed, we will have to go on a borrowing spree the likes of which hasn't ever been seen. WHY does everyone see articles on the national debt doubling under Obama's reign?....now you have your answer.

Now..who can name one program where the government actually keeps the money in that fund over the years to cover the expenses related to that program? This is NOT a trick question.

I don't mean to sound as if I am splitting hairs, but are you now willing to acknowledge that after 3 years, this healthcare legislation will have positive effects?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I wish America would pull it's collective head out of the sand and realize that there will be absolutely NO BENEFITS from this government run healthcare that's coming for at least 3 years +. BUT you will have your taxes raised on January 1st 2010 to "pay" for it. The money collected from US will be used to pay for the Stimulus GRANTS...that's right folks GRANTS that are NOT to be repaid to Obama's Treasury. Then in 2013 when the government run healthcare takes effect, if passed, we will have to go on a borrowing spree the likes of which hasn't ever been seen. WHY does everyone see articles on the national debt doubling under Obama's reign?....now you have your answer.

Now..who can name one program where the government actually keeps the money in that fund over the years to cover the expenses related to that program? This is NOT a trick question.

I don't mean to sound as if I am splitting hairs, but are you now willing to acknowledge that after 3 years, this healthcare legislation will have positive effects?

Of course...but at what cost to our children and our country?

 

[VaYank5150]

I wish America would pull it's collective head out of the sand and realize that there will be absolutely NO BENEFITS from this government run healthcare that's coming for at least 3 years +. BUT you will have your taxes raised on January 1st 2010 to "pay" for it. The money collected from US will be used to pay for the Stimulus GRANTS...that's right folks GRANTS that are NOT to be repaid to Obama's Treasury. Then in 2013 when the government run healthcare takes effect, if passed, we will have to go on a borrowing spree the likes of which hasn't ever been seen. WHY does everyone see articles on the national debt doubling under Obama's reign?....now you have your answer.

Now..who can name one program where the government actually keeps the money in that fund over the years to cover the expenses related to that program? This is NOT a trick question.

I don't mean to sound as if I am splitting hairs, but are you now willing to acknowledge that after 3 years, this healthcare legislation will have positive effects?

Of course...but at what cost to our children and our country?

I am SO going to sound like a liberal....HOWEVER, if my daughter has to pay so that other peoples' children who are not as fortunate as she is, get the care they need, then yes, I am OK with that and I hope my daughter will be too, when she is old enough to understand.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't mean to sound as if I am splitting hairs, but are you now willing to acknowledge that after 3 years, this healthcare legislation will have positive effects?

Of course...but at what cost to our children and our country?

I am SO going to sound like a liberal....HOWEVER, if my daughter has to pay so that other peoples' children who are not as fortunate as she is, get the care they need, then yes, I am OK with that and I hope my daughter will be too, when she is old enough to understand.

Please. please reconsider having children.

Actually, at the rate we are going, our kids kids will be determined by the state and not by our kids. They will have people like you to thank for that. Unless people like me stop you.

 

[VaYank5150]

Of course...but at what cost to our children and our country?

I am SO going to sound like a liberal....HOWEVER, if my daughter has to pay so that other peoples' children who are not as fortunate as she is, get the care they need, then yes, I am OK with that and I hope my daughter will be too, when she is old enough to understand.

Please. please reconsider having children.

Actually, at the rate we are going, our kids kids will be determined by the state and not by our kids. They will have people like you to thank for that. Unless people like me stop you.

Oh Lord....is this where the conversation about your gun rights starts?
<insert sarcasm here>

 

[saveliberty]

I am SO going to sound like a liberal....HOWEVER, if my daughter has to pay so that other peoples' children who are not as fortunate as she is, get the care they need, then yes, I am OK with that and I hope my daughter will be too, when she is old enough to understand.

Please. please reconsider having children.

Actually, at the rate we are going, our kids kids will be determined by the state and not by our kids. They will have people like you to thank for that. Unless people like me stop you.

Oh Lord....is this where the conversation about your gun rights starts?
<insert sarcasm here>

Actually I am a gun rights advocate. However, I don't own a gun. I have no need of one yet. To date my best weapon has been whatever the other guy brought, because I end up with it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I don't mean to sound as if I am splitting hairs, but are you now willing to acknowledge that after 3 years, this healthcare legislation will have positive effects?

Of course...but at what cost to our children and our country?

I am SO going to sound like a liberal....HOWEVER, if my daughter has to pay so that other peoples' children who are not as fortunate as she is, get the care they need, then yes, I am OK with that and I hope my daughter will be too, when she is old enough to understand.

We have programs in place already...like Medicare and Medicaid...if insurance reform was passed and a law making it mandatory for all working Americans to have health insurance, opening up Medicare to unemployed persons as part of their benefits I could live with that...but another trillion dollar entitlement program and the fraud that's associated with it will double our national debt by 2019 according to CBO estimates before Obama called that guy into his office for an ass chewing. I don't want that burden placed on my kids.

 

[antagon]

President Obama urges bankers to help boost economy - Dec. 14, 2009

This is what I would tell Obama if I was a bank. I would tell them to shut the fuck communist asswipe and I am only obligated to obey constitutionally legal laws of the government and after that you can go kiss my fucking ass.

thats why youre not a bank.