We should be at 7.5% unemployment

[MaggieMae]

Well I see the Fed is now saying the the high unemployment numbers are here to stay for quite awhile.
Gloomy Fed employment forecast overshadows upbeat GDP data
Gloomy Fed jobs forecast overshadows upward revision on U.S. economic growth - latimes.com
The artice states that the American worker is facing competition from robots, computers and foreign workers.
And as this goes on, the US trade deficit grows.
So instead of putting 100% of the blame on Obama, Free Trade is certainly to blame and of course the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

All of the experts agree that the manufacturing jobs lost during this recession will not be coming back. That means retraining of much of the workforce that has been in limbo these past two years in areas of production that will keep jobs HERE, not THERE. So what industry(ies) will that be? Since the U.S. dragged its feet in pursuing green energy, China now far surpasses us in those endeavors, so what else are we prepared to do that other countries can't do just as well but cheaper? Any answers?

How about a quick question. The USA just spent about a trillion dollars to "Stimulate" the economy and yet none of this re-trainig and no Green industry sprang up.

The economy sucks. The retraining did not happen and the Green industry is based in China.

Care to explain exactly what the Failed Stimulus did do?

Can't you people ever do your own research? Lazy asses--this took 5 seconds to find, since I presume if I had just given a litany from recollection, you would have demanded a link anyway.

Green Recovery Bill Will Deliver Less Pollution, More Jobs through Clean Energy - Environment America

This link details the Department of Energy's issuance of stimulus funding for the projects specified, by state. Details even include which contractors are involved.

Golden Field Office | ProPublica Recovery Tracker

I can't recall the number of times I posted the link to ProPublica.com which closely followed every aspect of the stimulus funding, BY STATE/BY PROJECT, but none of you would ever look at it. Seems it was much more politically advantageous to just continue to yammer away that the stimulus FAILED, period. How stupid. But then stupid people are only capable of absorbing a few snippets that they then believe tells the whole story as gospel.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why are right wingers so fucking stupid? They give Bush a complete free pass on Iraq and and the lies about WMDs and bringing "freedom" to Iraq.

Then they complain and whine that Obama wasn't "perfectly correct".

What the fuck? They prefer the lies? Bush wasn't handed trillions in debt. Democrats didn't help move millions of jobs to China. It was Republicans working with China who gave seminars teaching American business how to move to China on the subsidies and tax breaks Republicans put in place.

Come on people. Stop with the delusions. It's all about "We hate Obama". It has NOTHING to do with his policies.

You're right in an Rdean kind of a way. It has nothing to do with his policies. It's his results that stink up the place.

Whoever runs against him in 2012 needs to ask over and over again if the people are better or worse off than they were 4 years ago. The question was asked and answered in 2010 with regard to the Congress.

Policies mean nothing. Results mean everything. If he's wrong, he's wrong. No amount of saying he's right will drop the unemployment rate to 5%. Facts are stubborn things.

Don't hold your breath. Just what do you think the "New Congress" will do to stop the economy from "sucking"??? I can't wait to see your reply.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is a good time to remind everyone of the historical comparisons:

Obamanomics made things worse. Much much worse than if he had done nothing at all.

Your graph only shows up to 2007, which was the Bush watch.

It feels like that might have been about two years ago. Let's see... When was it that there was some jack ass speaking from the podium of the President Elect.

How's that economic stimulus working out for us so far? Will anything ever be the work of the do nothing, know nothing, claim nothing, think nothing, stand for nothing guy in the White House?

I'll give you one thing. When speaking on foreign soil, he has a way with words in describing the intentions and goals of the past actions of the USA. It's the wrong way, but a way nonetheless. I can hardly wait to see what happens when the China/Korea situation heats up a little more.

Maybe he'll cancel the Olympics. That'll show 'em!

I can see you're one of those assholes who hopes the economy tanks further, hopes that war breaks out between North and South Korea, hopes that our trade imbalance gets worse with China, hopes that the country becomes bankrupt. You can then blame the entire last 60 years on Obama! Won't that be fun for you?

 

[MaggieMae]

So you are saying that the USA cannot compete successfully in the world market? I seem to remember that being said while Carter was in office, too.

The key here is not shutting out those who you percieve to be more ingenious and creative than their American Counterparts but rather for their American Couterparts to be more ingenious and creative than they are.

How might we do this as a country and how might the government help this along?

Should the government confiscate 5% of the GDP, impose punitive taxes on the small business owners and tax the estates of the rich to assure that no wealth is passed generationally from one entrepeneur to the next or should the government do everything possible to entice the creative and the ingenious to create and build here in the USA?

You're probably right. Let's just give up and pass the torch to the Chinese. Our turn is over.

How about one of you telling me and others just how the Bush tax cuts "assured" that businesses could expand, when every indicator says they did not serve that purpose? How about one of you trying to explain exactly how those tax windfalls WERE spent? How was it possible, if private industry was so successful during the Bush years, so many were unable to withstand the recession and had to close their doors or do massive layoffs? If they were swimming in black ink as a result of tax cuts, they could have survived.

Last but not least, how about we stop pretending our quality of education can even sustain the next generation of entrepreneurs?

So is it your thesis that we just give up? It sounds as if you are saying that since W was president, the world ended and there is no fixing things. I thought your guys were in charge in Congress since 2007 and in the White House since 2009.

Is Bush still "holding them down"?

Nice diversion from actually RESPONDING TO the questions.

 

[MaggieMae]

It might demonstrate that. That will be a point of debate over the next two years.

Something that it definitely does demonstrate is that the current administration did not understand the size or complexity of the problem, did not have a solution for it, has not figured it out yet and is showing no sign that it either understands the problem or has a solution.

Another thing that is pretty clear is the the American people have noticed that the Emperor has no clothes.

When do you think he'll figure out that the jig is up?

I'm posting this again because I suggest particularly YOU read it. When someone from "your" side has all the answers, please send up flares.

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010

I am a bit confused. You claim unceasingly that the cause of the economic downturn was George Bush. Now you claim that the government has nothing to do with the economy.

It will be impossible for me grasp reality if you don't stick to one theory or the other.

Which is it? Does the government absolutely control the economy as it did when Bush destroyed it or have no impact on the economy as it hasn't as the Big 0 has failed to correct it?

Please let me know.

Didn't read the article, again, did you... What a fucking jerk you are. Years and years of manipulation by the private sector AND the government which has coddled corporatism led to the brink of an abyss. George Bush is faulted because under HIS administration, there was ZERO oversight regarding that manipulation and it was at that point that the big players in the private banking industry took full advantage of that delicious situation. How anyone, ANYONE, at this point in time can argue with the unabashed facts is beyond me.

 

[daveman]

As usual, nothing but childish junk as your response.

Hope! Change! Yes we can!

There. That better?

Hmmm, sounds like Sarah's new mantra.

Hope and change are what ANY new president campaigns on, stupid.

Obama gave us change, all right...but he's failed to deliver on the "hope" bit.

 

[asterism]

OK, I can agree with healthcare reform, I have always been against the mandates, I have always supported elective choices.
But the financial reforms? The main concept of the financial reforms is to protect the consumer. So what is your business and how do the finacial reforms hurt you? Are you part of the financial sector?
And finally, the GM bailout and outsourcing jobs offshore isn't moral at all, so naturally, I'm not happy with that move at all. I'm also not happy with the GOP blocking efforts to take away tax breaks for companies that practice offshore outsourcing.
I got involved with this thread for a simple reason, we can't just blame Obama, as I have stated a multitude of times, this whole recession and all the negatives that go with it belong to be on the shoulders of both parties. I get sick of the left blaming GWB for everything and sick of the right blaming Obama for everything. Sorry folks, there's plenty of blame that needs to be spread around.

All businesses that use capital are affected by the financial reforms because the micromanaging procedures and lack of common-sense policy regarding alternative investments has effectively cancelled my ability to draw operating lines of credit. A bunch of bureaucrats have decided some firms are too big to fail and other firms are too small to know what's best for them.

I agree it's not all Obama's fault, but the changes he enacted that give me an incentive to use a foreign subsidiary are his fault.

If you're relying on the services (a misnomer) of one of the big banks, they're not there to help YOU, only themselves. Not only are the big commericial banks not loaning money to small businesses and consumers, they are raising the interest rates and fees on credit cards and lowering credit limits. This is the reason the Glass-Steagall Act should not have been repealed in 1999 as investment banks could not do commercial banking business while it was in effect. Small businesses should move their money to local community banks or credit unions. If not immediately, in time they will be much more obliging when it comes to business loans and/or lines of credit. AND, you won't need to spend hours on the phone trying to reach your banking representative.

I don't rely on the big banks but the small community banks ceased most of their operations lines of credit programs years ago. The financial reform bill now puts private investor organizations into the same boat.

 

[asterism]

What would be a common sense policy regarding alternative investments that would free-up the lines of credit that should be offered with the piles of cash that the US financial system is sitting on?

A policy of not micromanaging and not setting one set of rules for the government and another set of rules for everyone else. Dodd-Frank expands the role of the government to dictate the terms by which virtually any company or subsidiary must operate or be liquidated at the sole discretion of these government entities:

(11) FINANCIAL COMPANY- The term `financial company' means any company that--
(A) is incorporated or organized under any provision of Federal law or the laws of any State;
(B) is--
(i) a bank holding company, as defined in section 2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(a));
(ii) a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors;
(iii) any company that is predominantly engaged in activities that the Board of Governors has determined are financial in nature or incidental thereto for purposes of section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) other than a company described in clause (i) or (ii); or
(iv) any subsidiary of any company described in any of clauses (i) through (iii) that is predominantly engaged in activities that the Board of Governors has determined are financial in nature or incidental thereto for purposes of section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) (other than a subsidiary that is an insured depository institution or an insurance company); and
(C) is not a Farm Credit System institution chartered under and subject to the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), a governmental entity, or a regulated entity, as defined under section 1303(20) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4502(20)).

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Taking this text with the reality that GM's investors were forced to accept terms that were not consistent with the agreements made to them in the event of insolvency creates a higher risk which leads to fewer investments. Also, most small businesses accessing lines of credit for operating capital are made by private investors and there are different mechanisms for oversight already in place but they are not regulated and subject to liquidation at the government's option. This act changes that and in typical government fashion it applies a "one size fits all" approach.

The reason these companies did not get their capital investments and/or hybrid equity-loan allotments is because they are not deemed acceptable risks according to traditional bank methodologies. However, this act requires any umbrella organization by which private investors provide this function to be regulated in the same way as banks are regulated. That means small businesses are again cut out of the financial investment market.

In short, a business plan based on future cash inflows is worth zero to a bank. It's worth the net present value of a risk-based percentage of those inflows to a private investor. In the end it's still just a risk, but bank methodology requires a hard asset (like property or equipment) that is then deemed to have a predetermined and completely arbitrary depreciation schedule while private investors typically view the property and equipment to be parts of the system that will generate the future cash flow and value it based on their understanding how likely it is that the business will succeed. It's two ways of evaluating risk, only the second option is no longer available due to this new government law that's supposed to "protect" us and make us more prosperous.

That's a lot of supposition trying to justify your conclusion that there are one-size-fits all regulations, which is not true. There are any number of exemptions for (and distinguishes clearly made) between big investment banks and small community banks. The bulleted points in this link summarizes those in easy to understand language, itemizing those requirements that do not apply to community banks, as well as added benefits such as the permanent increase in FDIC coverage to $250,000 with only banks with assets of over $10 billion required to pay the added fee for the increase.

Dodd says community banks 'win' with Wall Street reform | This Week in Washington | RESPAnews.com

Why do conservatives continue to throw all support to the big investment houses that truly screwed us over, including you?! It's truly a mystery. Is financial reform a hugely complicated bill? Yes, it is, because it was necessary to unwind a hugely complicated con game perpetrated against the American people and American business. It made a mockery of capitalism.

I posted the text of the bill, you posted the spin of a politician. I can't bring that article to an investor and tell him to loan me money, he's got the text of the bill governing his lending.

I'll ignore your broad brush and mischaracterization. Go ahead, just blame Bush and the greedy corporations. Give the small businesses even more incentive to not hire by raising taxes too.

 

[asterism]

It is a very misleading graph without a link, and obvioulsy been doctored in pornoshop (Actual graph below).

The stimulus should have been given to the people, but the republicans don't feel you are smart enough to spend money. The whole mess is on Bush's plate, and of course we would know the actual results if we chose to be observant. ie. businesses have accumulated over a trillion dollars that wasn't put into the economy, and several trillion more dollars in the stock market that are not circulating in the economy. The Obama stimulus was a success! The Retard Corps are a FAIL.

Not to interject reality too strongly into your delusions, but the Failed Stimulus was passed a majority of Democrats in the House, a filabuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate and was signed by a Democrat president.

Since it was passed everything about the economy got worse and every factor that might have served to improve the economy has been diminished by the policies of Nancy, Harry and the Big 0. In thier positions, they should have led us with wise and creative methods.

They did not. No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined. That point was November 2.

Blah blah blah...you people are like listening to a fucking broken record.

Prediction and result. Pretty easy to understand and that's why Obama supporters get testy while arguing against the facts.

 

[asterism]

I'm posting this again because I suggest particularly YOU read it. When someone from "your" side has all the answers, please send up flares.

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010

I am a bit confused. You claim unceasingly that the cause of the economic downturn was George Bush. Now you claim that the government has nothing to do with the economy.

It will be impossible for me grasp reality if you don't stick to one theory or the other.

Which is it? Does the government absolutely control the economy as it did when Bush destroyed it or have no impact on the economy as it hasn't as the Big 0 has failed to correct it?

Please let me know.

Didn't read the article, again, did you... What a fucking jerk you are. Years and years of manipulation by the private sector AND the government which has coddled corporatism led to the brink of an abyss. George Bush is faulted because under HIS administration, there was ZERO oversight regarding that manipulation and it was at that point that the big players in the private banking industry took full advantage of that delicious situation. How anyone, ANYONE, at this point in time can argue with the unabashed facts is beyond me.

Perhaps it's that major reforms just aren't that effective. The government can only do so much. Sarbanes-Oxley was said to rid us of Enron and those like it. Then we got AIG, GM, and Goldman Sachs, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

[MaggieMae]

All businesses that use capital are affected by the financial reforms because the micromanaging procedures and lack of common-sense policy regarding alternative investments has effectively cancelled my ability to draw operating lines of credit. A bunch of bureaucrats have decided some firms are too big to fail and other firms are too small to know what's best for them.

I agree it's not all Obama's fault, but the changes he enacted that give me an incentive to use a foreign subsidiary are his fault.

If you're relying on the services (a misnomer) of one of the big banks, they're not there to help YOU, only themselves. Not only are the big commericial banks not loaning money to small businesses and consumers, they are raising the interest rates and fees on credit cards and lowering credit limits. This is the reason the Glass-Steagall Act should not have been repealed in 1999 as investment banks could not do commercial banking business while it was in effect. Small businesses should move their money to local community banks or credit unions. If not immediately, in time they will be much more obliging when it comes to business loans and/or lines of credit. AND, you won't need to spend hours on the phone trying to reach your banking representative.

I don't rely on the big banks but the small community banks ceased most of their operations lines of credit programs years ago. The financial reform bill now puts private investor organizations into the same boat.

I use a credit union, which will still issue letters of credit AND personal loans. The "investors" are the depositors--which is the way it should be.

 

[MaggieMae]

A policy of not micromanaging and not setting one set of rules for the government and another set of rules for everyone else. Dodd-Frank expands the role of the government to dictate the terms by which virtually any company or subsidiary must operate or be liquidated at the sole discretion of these government entities:



Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Taking this text with the reality that GM's investors were forced to accept terms that were not consistent with the agreements made to them in the event of insolvency creates a higher risk which leads to fewer investments. Also, most small businesses accessing lines of credit for operating capital are made by private investors and there are different mechanisms for oversight already in place but they are not regulated and subject to liquidation at the government's option. This act changes that and in typical government fashion it applies a "one size fits all" approach.

The reason these companies did not get their capital investments and/or hybrid equity-loan allotments is because they are not deemed acceptable risks according to traditional bank methodologies. However, this act requires any umbrella organization by which private investors provide this function to be regulated in the same way as banks are regulated. That means small businesses are again cut out of the financial investment market.

In short, a business plan based on future cash inflows is worth zero to a bank. It's worth the net present value of a risk-based percentage of those inflows to a private investor. In the end it's still just a risk, but bank methodology requires a hard asset (like property or equipment) that is then deemed to have a predetermined and completely arbitrary depreciation schedule while private investors typically view the property and equipment to be parts of the system that will generate the future cash flow and value it based on their understanding how likely it is that the business will succeed. It's two ways of evaluating risk, only the second option is no longer available due to this new government law that's supposed to "protect" us and make us more prosperous.

That's a lot of supposition trying to justify your conclusion that there are one-size-fits all regulations, which is not true. There are any number of exemptions for (and distinguishes clearly made) between big investment banks and small community banks. The bulleted points in this link summarizes those in easy to understand language, itemizing those requirements that do not apply to community banks, as well as added benefits such as the permanent increase in FDIC coverage to $250,000 with only banks with assets of over $10 billion required to pay the added fee for the increase.

Dodd says community banks 'win' with Wall Street reform | This Week in Washington | RESPAnews.com

Why do conservatives continue to throw all support to the big investment houses that truly screwed us over, including you?! It's truly a mystery. Is financial reform a hugely complicated bill? Yes, it is, because it was necessary to unwind a hugely complicated con game perpetrated against the American people and American business. It made a mockery of capitalism.

I posted the text of the bill, you posted the spin of a politician. I can't bring that article to an investor and tell him to loan me money, he's got the text of the bill governing his lending.

I'll ignore your broad brush and mischaracterization. Go ahead, just blame Bush and the greedy corporations. Give the small businesses even more incentive to not hire by raising taxes too.

It was Chris Dodd's bill. So you think he's lying when anyone could point out a "lie" simply by referring to the bill itself? You posted definitions from the bill, period. There are plenty of exclusions and caveats. Plus, it is still a work in progress. Pay attention.

Why do you continue to protect the greedy corporations and "blame" the American people who lost their asses? Now the holding banks (of all the mystery mortgages), including Fannie & Freddie, can't even find the original contracts, and foreclosures have been halted because legally the bank that made the original mortgage can't foreclose without one. Instead, they're buried in the trillions of dollars worth of SECURITIES that your 'innocent' investment banks and fake mortgage storefront operations bundled in order to make a bundle. Yes, I blame them, because I'm not out of my mind.

As for the effect of a tax hike on small businesses, McConnell and his minions continue to distort the facts, which the herd continues to repeat as gospel.

Kiplinger.com

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) calls the Democratic plan a “job-killing tax hike on small business.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly claimed that the tax hike would affect half the small businesses in the U.S.

That’s patently false. Letting all the tax cuts expire would affect half of small business income, but no one is seriously proposing that. The Tax Policy Center has calculated that only 2.5% of those reporting business income on their 1040s go over the $200,000/$250,000 limits and would therefore be affected. And many of the people in those top brackets do not rely on small business income and aren’t about to create new jobs, no matter the tax rate. Many have full-time positions, for example, but earn some independent income writing, speaking or consulting. Many are lawyers or doctors in partnerships.

Emphasis from the Kiplinger letter was mine. And I apologize because you did post a link to the entire bill, but I don't intend to download 1600 pages. If you're so determined, then find the pertinent parts that support your claims (and don't forget the DISclaimers--exclusions-- to some of it).

 

[MaggieMae]

Not to interject reality too strongly into your delusions, but the Failed Stimulus was passed a majority of Democrats in the House, a filabuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate and was signed by a Democrat president.

Since it was passed everything about the economy got worse and every factor that might have served to improve the economy has been diminished by the policies of Nancy, Harry and the Big 0. In thier positions, they should have led us with wise and creative methods.

They did not. No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined. That point was November 2.

Blah blah blah...you people are like listening to a fucking broken record.

Prediction and result. Pretty easy to understand and that's why Obama supporters get testy while arguing against the facts.

Support your claims other than WE WON, and you won't get a blah blah blah reply. It's a fucking no brainer. Your "facts" are weak. Understand that, for a change, and they don't get stronger just by dis'ing Pelosi, Reid and the Big O. Why don't you begin by reviewing some of the background regarding how the bill got signed, and the many hours of committee conferences held that got it to where it ended up? Bob Corker was bending over backward to draw Republicans into an honest debate, other than the Shelby JUSTSAYNO bullshit. And what did he get for his efforts? An accusation by Republican leadership that he needed to toe the line and stop trying to make deals. What the fuck do McConnell and Shelby they think Senate debate IS? So Corker eventually drank the poison too and voted against it, although he didn't want to. THAT'S what the Senate chamber has come to. And because of this ridiculous behavior, it's not going to change in January because Democrats will be just as pissed and in the same type of JUSTSAYNO mood. Happy?

 

[MaggieMae]

I am a bit confused. You claim unceasingly that the cause of the economic downturn was George Bush. Now you claim that the government has nothing to do with the economy.

It will be impossible for me grasp reality if you don't stick to one theory or the other.

Which is it? Does the government absolutely control the economy as it did when Bush destroyed it or have no impact on the economy as it hasn't as the Big 0 has failed to correct it?

Please let me know.

Didn't read the article, again, did you... What a fucking jerk you are. Years and years of manipulation by the private sector AND the government which has coddled corporatism led to the brink of an abyss. George Bush is faulted because under HIS administration, there was ZERO oversight regarding that manipulation and it was at that point that the big players in the private banking industry took full advantage of that delicious situation. How anyone, ANYONE, at this point in time can argue with the unabashed facts is beyond me.

Perhaps it's that major reforms just aren't that effective. The government can only do so much. Sarbanes-Oxley was said to rid us of Enron and those like it. Then we got AIG, GM, and Goldman Sachs, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So that simply proves that the SEC failed to abide by its own new regulations which were the result of Sarbanes-Oxley. Christopher Cox admitted as much when he said the SEC simply looked away from auditing the mortgage securities bundling game.

 

[asterism]

If you're relying on the services (a misnomer) of one of the big banks, they're not there to help YOU, only themselves. Not only are the big commericial banks not loaning money to small businesses and consumers, they are raising the interest rates and fees on credit cards and lowering credit limits. This is the reason the Glass-Steagall Act should not have been repealed in 1999 as investment banks could not do commercial banking business while it was in effect. Small businesses should move their money to local community banks or credit unions. If not immediately, in time they will be much more obliging when it comes to business loans and/or lines of credit. AND, you won't need to spend hours on the phone trying to reach your banking representative.

I don't rely on the big banks but the small community banks ceased most of their operations lines of credit programs years ago. The financial reform bill now puts private investor organizations into the same boat.

I use a credit union, which will still issue letters of credit AND personal loans. The "investors" are the depositors--which is the way it should be.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about, otherwise you would know that credit unions have never given businesses operating lines of credit that they cannot collateralize or sell. Draw up a plan to open a used car lot (used cars are in higher demand than new ones right now) and see if the credit union will loan you $200K to start it.

 

[asterism]

That's a lot of supposition trying to justify your conclusion that there are one-size-fits all regulations, which is not true. There are any number of exemptions for (and distinguishes clearly made) between big investment banks and small community banks. The bulleted points in this link summarizes those in easy to understand language, itemizing those requirements that do not apply to community banks, as well as added benefits such as the permanent increase in FDIC coverage to $250,000 with only banks with assets of over $10 billion required to pay the added fee for the increase.

Dodd says community banks 'win' with Wall Street reform | This Week in Washington | RESPAnews.com

Why do conservatives continue to throw all support to the big investment houses that truly screwed us over, including you?! It's truly a mystery. Is financial reform a hugely complicated bill? Yes, it is, because it was necessary to unwind a hugely complicated con game perpetrated against the American people and American business. It made a mockery of capitalism.

I posted the text of the bill, you posted the spin of a politician. I can't bring that article to an investor and tell him to loan me money, he's got the text of the bill governing his lending.

I'll ignore your broad brush and mischaracterization. Go ahead, just blame Bush and the greedy corporations. Give the small businesses even more incentive to not hire by raising taxes too.

It was Chris Dodd's bill. So you think he's lying when anyone could point out a "lie" simply by referring to the bill itself? You posted definitions from the bill, period. There are plenty of exclusions and caveats. Plus, it is still a work in progress. Pay attention.

Why do you continue to protect the greedy corporations and "blame" the American people who lost their asses? Now the holding banks (of all the mystery mortgages), including Fannie & Freddie, can't even find the original contracts, and foreclosures have been halted because legally the bank that made the original mortgage can't foreclose without one. Instead, they're buried in the trillions of dollars worth of SECURITIES that your 'innocent' investment banks and fake mortgage storefront operations bundled in order to make a bundle. Yes, I blame them, because I'm not out of my mind.

As for the effect of a tax hike on small businesses, McConnell and his minions continue to distort the facts, which the herd continues to repeat as gospel.

Kiplinger.com

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) calls the Democratic plan a “job-killing tax hike on small business.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly claimed that the tax hike would affect half the small businesses in the U.S.

That’s patently false. Letting all the tax cuts expire would affect half of small business income, but no one is seriously proposing that. The Tax Policy Center has calculated that only 2.5% of those reporting business income on their 1040s go over the $200,000/$250,000 limits and would therefore be affected. And many of the people in those top brackets do not rely on small business income and aren’t about to create new jobs, no matter the tax rate. Many have full-time positions, for example, but earn some independent income writing, speaking or consulting. Many are lawyers or doctors in partnerships.

Emphasis from the Kiplinger letter was mine. And I apologize because you did post a link to the entire bill, but I don't intend to download 1600 pages. If you're so determined, then find the pertinent parts that support your claims (and don't forget the DISclaimers--exclusions-- to some of it).

I showed you the pertinent parts. You are now claiming that there is stuff in the bill that proves my point wrong, but you aren't going to bother to find it. Also, you undermine your credibility when you accuse me of continuing "to protect the greedy corporations" when all I did was disagree with your view on public policy and the actual law that has been passed.

You asked, I answered. You then attacked me and told me to go find the part you agree with since you won't. Sorry, discussion about the bill is over. Nice job.

 

[asterism]

Blah blah blah...you people are like listening to a fucking broken record.

Prediction and result. Pretty easy to understand and that's why Obama supporters get testy while arguing against the facts.

Support your claims other than WE WON, and you won't get a blah blah blah reply. It's a fucking no brainer. Your "facts" are weak. Understand that, for a change, and they don't get stronger just by dis'ing Pelosi, Reid and the Big O. Why don't you begin by reviewing some of the background regarding how the bill got signed, and the many hours of committee conferences held that got it to where it ended up? Bob Corker was bending over backward to draw Republicans into an honest debate, other than the Shelby JUSTSAYNO bullshit. And what did he get for his efforts? An accusation by Republican leadership that he needed to toe the line and stop trying to make deals. What the fuck do McConnell and Shelby they think Senate debate IS? So Corker eventually drank the poison too and voted against it, although he didn't want to. THAT'S what the Senate chamber has come to. And because of this ridiculous behavior, it's not going to change in January because Democrats will be just as pissed and in the same type of JUSTSAYNO mood. Happy?

I'm happy that the group of so-called "experts" who made things worse no longer have the ability to do so. Other than that, I'm pessimistic about how much good the government can do to "fix" the Economy. It didn't work. The lack of results wasn't because the wrong people were in charge, the lack of results was because the wrong economic view was being used. Garbage in = garbage out. You can blame the Republicans for not going all the way all you want, but that doesn't change the results and who was driving the "change." Those aren't "weak" facts at all.

Reality has collided head on with the predictions of the Keynesians. Time for less of that mess.

 

[asterism]

Didn't read the article, again, did you... What a fucking jerk you are. Years and years of manipulation by the private sector AND the government which has coddled corporatism led to the brink of an abyss. George Bush is faulted because under HIS administration, there was ZERO oversight regarding that manipulation and it was at that point that the big players in the private banking industry took full advantage of that delicious situation. How anyone, ANYONE, at this point in time can argue with the unabashed facts is beyond me.

Perhaps it's that major reforms just aren't that effective. The government can only do so much. Sarbanes-Oxley was said to rid us of Enron and those like it. Then we got AIG, GM, and Goldman Sachs, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So that simply proves that the SEC failed to abide by its own new regulations which were the result of Sarbanes-Oxley. Christopher Cox admitted as much when he said the SEC simply looked away from auditing the mortgage securities bundling game.

So the result is what exactly? Looks to me like the SEC structure is the same but now has more power than ever before. As an analogy, consider this: If lack of enforcement by the Police is the reason current local laws are ineffective, do new laws fix the problem?

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't rely on the big banks but the small community banks ceased most of their operations lines of credit programs years ago. The financial reform bill now puts private investor organizations into the same boat.

I use a credit union, which will still issue letters of credit AND personal loans. The "investors" are the depositors--which is the way it should be.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about, otherwise you would know that credit unions have never given businesses operating lines of credit that they cannot collateralize or sell. Draw up a plan to open a used car lot (used cars are in higher demand than new ones right now) and see if the credit union will loan you $200K to start it.

Not true, and that's because at least a portion of the money in a letter of credit has been deposited. Funny you should mention a used car business, because that's what my brother-in-law has. I'm not sure if he still uses a credit union, but he did when car sales were booming. Now he's gone strictly to used trucks and snow removal equipment. When he did use the credit union, he initially had to put up the whole deposit to work against (his payroll, etc.), but after he established reliability and a good sales record as well, he then got extensions which were financed by the credit union. Usually with a letter of credit, the credit union, or any bank, isn't looking at any collateral.

 

[MaggieMae]

I posted the text of the bill, you posted the spin of a politician. I can't bring that article to an investor and tell him to loan me money, he's got the text of the bill governing his lending.

I'll ignore your broad brush and mischaracterization. Go ahead, just blame Bush and the greedy corporations. Give the small businesses even more incentive to not hire by raising taxes too.

It was Chris Dodd's bill. So you think he's lying when anyone could point out a "lie" simply by referring to the bill itself? You posted definitions from the bill, period. There are plenty of exclusions and caveats. Plus, it is still a work in progress. Pay attention.

Why do you continue to protect the greedy corporations and "blame" the American people who lost their asses? Now the holding banks (of all the mystery mortgages), including Fannie & Freddie, can't even find the original contracts, and foreclosures have been halted because legally the bank that made the original mortgage can't foreclose without one. Instead, they're buried in the trillions of dollars worth of SECURITIES that your 'innocent' investment banks and fake mortgage storefront operations bundled in order to make a bundle. Yes, I blame them, because I'm not out of my mind.

As for the effect of a tax hike on small businesses, McConnell and his minions continue to distort the facts, which the herd continues to repeat as gospel.

Kiplinger.com

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) calls the Democratic plan a “job-killing tax hike on small business.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly claimed that the tax hike would affect half the small businesses in the U.S.

That’s patently false. Letting all the tax cuts expire would affect half of small business income, but no one is seriously proposing that. The Tax Policy Center has calculated that only 2.5% of those reporting business income on their 1040s go over the $200,000/$250,000 limits and would therefore be affected. And many of the people in those top brackets do not rely on small business income and aren’t about to create new jobs, no matter the tax rate. Many have full-time positions, for example, but earn some independent income writing, speaking or consulting. Many are lawyers or doctors in partnerships.

Emphasis from the Kiplinger letter was mine. And I apologize because you did post a link to the entire bill, but I don't intend to download 1600 pages. If you're so determined, then find the pertinent parts that support your claims (and don't forget the DISclaimers--exclusions-- to some of it).

I showed you the pertinent parts. You are now claiming that there is stuff in the bill that proves my point wrong, but you aren't going to bother to find it. Also, you undermine your credibility when you accuse me of continuing "to protect the greedy corporations" when all I did was disagree with your view on public policy and the actual law that has been passed.

You asked, I answered. You then attacked me and told me to go find the part you agree with since you won't. Sorry, discussion about the bill is over. Nice job.

Thank you! Just keeping it honest.