One simple question regarding Obama's Jobs Bill

For the record I don't support these types of loopholes under any circumstance. However, the loophole is not a disincentive to job creation. My point was that a person already motivated to grow his business will take advantage of the loophole. The person not motivated to grow his business will not be, however, that person might be motivated to grow his business based on the corporate jet subsidy. One is just as bad or good as the other. I prefer a tax system that is neutral. Let the jet owner take the correct tax write-off, let the guy hiring new employees take the correct tax write-off.
--- merged: Sep 19, 2011 4:00 PM ---

I don't need tax credits when my business is losing money. I don't need tax credits in April, when my cash flow is negative today and I need a line of credit now in order to pay people I owe. When my customers are saying they are going to "wait and see" because of Obama his smoke and mirrors jobs bill isn't helpful.

 

ace, look. it's transparent that all you're doing here is trying out a way to restate the only thing you ever say: you don't like barack obama. you don't need any information to get there, so you don't even pretend that it's necessary. it's something beyond mere intellectual laziness. it's an inability to engage with data about the world. you prefer your own simple-minded metaphysical machines. so there's no discussion to be had with you. in this thread, it's been demonstrated that (a) you did not and will not read the bill (b) that you've funadmentally mis-stated what it does and how (c) that even on your own terms, your "arguments" are incoherent and (d) that you seem to imagine it ok to keep talking anyway. like anything goes. none of the above matters to you--the lack of information, the inability to keep facts straight, the incoherence of your position. that's what makes you a caricature. and now, you're even trying to justify being a caricature by saying that it's ok to not know what you're talking about and not making sense logically because it's just your opinion, man. so this has become stupid. congratulations.

 

The banking industry is heavily regulated by government. These regulations can encourage lending or discourage lending. No need to guess what our government is doing. No legislation is needed to fix it. Our government through its agencies are suing the banking industry for billions, leading to uncertainty. Drop the lawsuits. Our government bailed-out these big banks and did not hold them accountable for the needs of the economy....it is crazy....are they clueless in Washington...do they simply not care...are they trying to punish business owners....what is the deal...I don't get it?
--- merged: Sep 19, 2011 4:11 PM ---

True, I don't like Obama. But I have reasons.

In the bigger picture, it is possible for me not to like him and he not impact my life. Obama is hurting my ability to make a living and he is hurting the financial security of my family. I want to understand why he is doing it. If I can understand his issue, I can work to fix it. That is the point. I can not get an audience with Obama, so I post my questions and concerns here. To suggest I am intellectually lazy, lack information or a basis, is a superficial charge without merit.

 

The idea that government lawsuits are responsible for a lack of willingnessn to lend by the banks is ridiculous.

 

I don't know how to respond other than to say everything is relative. If you don't thing the banking industry is heavily regulated, starting with the most basic banking issue of cash reserves, we see the issues in totally different perspectives.

From my point of view he does not need to do anything in this regard. I say let those who fail, actually fail.

No. What I am saying is that if (key word - if) you are going to bailout banks, a deal should be made that is most beneficial to the general economy - not to small special interests in the economy, i.e., Goldman Sachs.

You question is not clear to me - I think it is because we have vastly different points of view on the underlying issue.
--- merged: Sep 19, 2011 6:14 PM ---

If that was all there was, true - but is is not. If you don't think government policy and actions have an impact on bank lending - again I don't know how to respond to this.

It seems to me that you purposefully took a point, twist it a bit, make it sound absurd to prove something. In the real world Bank of America is not only not lending (of course they are lending, but not to the degree where they could or should in my opinion...why do I need to put this qualification in???), but they have thrown up the white flag and they are going to reduce their work force by about 30,000. If they had plans for aggressive growth, they would not have made that announcement. I ask you to ask why? Don't dodge, what is the answer, if not the over-riding issue of poor economic policy from Washington?

 

At least we are starting to engage with real data. Here is some data that saz a lot:



Here is the source of the chart above with more data:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2011/0711/01finmar.cfm

Also, understand that many small business owners prior to the housing crash used second mortgages to finance their business growth - not included in most "small business lending data", not to mention credit cards used as a source of short-term financing - both sources totally dried up for everyone other than "perfect" risks.

 

I have stated that Obama and Washington has created an anti-business environment. Step one is to end that rhetoric. Wall St. is as important to our economy as any other street. Wall St. is not an enemy. These vague attacks have an impact on every facet of the financial sector, the result being people in the industry take the most conservative wait it out strategy possible - at a time when we need them to help prime the pump.

This is just one thing. Do you agree? Do you understand the point? Do you think it is having an impact?

We go in circles on this. I would not have bailed out any bank with tax payer money. If a deal for a bailout is made, then you do a deal that favors the general economy as best you can. You put strings attached to the money i.e. - restructure home loans - lend the money - pay government a better return than you pay Warren Buffett!

Speaking of Buffet he negotiated some deals with banks that made them accountable. In fact some of his deals had almost no down-side - to him. Why didn't Geitner do as well as Buffet? But, again this is not my point - government should not be in the bailout business.

Government policy currently is not going to achieve their stated goals. I think they either have lied about their real goals or they are unaware of their incompetence. To my friend, Roach, I believe government is almost always incompetent (even when they don't lie about their stated goals) when it comes to trying to micro-mange the economy, free market forces are most efficient - from your friendly neo-capitalist pig, Ace.

 

how is the statement "obama...has created an anti-business environment"--which means nothing empirically, btw---different from "i don't like obama"?

they aren't different.

for example, obama has done almost nothing to regulate finance since he came to power. this administration has neither investigated anyone for the derivatives fiasco, nor has it imposed any new regulations. they haven't reimposed glass-steigal, for example, which would at this point be a reasonable move by any standard. geithner in particular is largely a tool of the financial interests that are concerned about being regulated.

there have been minimal new regulations passed in other areas. the obama administration is basically a bit to the right of the clinton administration. so most all of the "anti-business" horseshit you traffic in is based on nothing but ultra-right wing fantasy. there's no reason to take it seriously.

if there's a problem, it's that people like you believe such nonsense despite it's lack of empirical correlates. so maybe among the more real problems afoot in the united states is that people think as you do, ace, and that they, like you, aren't appealing to facts in order to construct their infotainment shells.

btw: i can't imagine being interested in your arbitrary assumptions about your imaginary "government" and your equally imaginary "free market forces". you haven't a grasp on basic factual reality. so your "deductions" are useless.

 

I agree that both statements have no objective meaning or measurement. All we can really do is look at results. Regardless of my opinions or my feelings, I have been saying that lending to small business has dried up (another vague statement), but we can look at data and then we can ask the question about the cause. My point of view is clear. I have experienced the impact. I have looked at the data. I have come to conclusions. What have you done?

More data:

On the issue of business being less willing to take on debt - this requires some detailed analysis on its own. The superficial response to this is that business is down due to demand and business is just paying down debt. Looking at the impact of businesses directly and indirectly connected to real-estate can account for much of this, while other businesses are being severely limitied by the lack of access to capital to grow.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/16/smallbusiness/small_business_lending/?section=money_latest

 

The decline in small business lending is due, in part, to the Republicans blocking additional funding for the SBA's primary lending (loan guarantee) program since the first quarter of 2010 (when the funds were depleted).

The Republicans also blocked a program outside of the SBA that would have contributed an additional $30 billion in loans and $12 billion in tax breaks targeted to small businesses.

 

In my experience and this is not uncommon - I had a LOC (line of credit) frozen with no notice, payments were not in default I had the LOC since almost the start of my business. I had credit cards with single digit interest rates, go up, with about 30 days notice, to over 20%.

Yes, I stopped borrowing. Was it by choice? No.

I paid down debt. Was it by choice? No.

Has it had an impact on my ability to stay in business? Yes. This almost put me out of business.

Has this impacted my ability to grow? Yes. Now that I have weathered the storm, I have no access to cash to grow - so growth has to come from ongoing operations which will be slow growth.

If I had access to capital would I hire anyone? Yes.

Multiply my experience by, let's say about millions of other small businesses (there are about 28 million businesses in the US), what do you get?
--- merged: Sep 19, 2011 9:46 PM ---

You mean programs that are, temporary, small, and have virtually no impact, like this:

Or this ineffective program:

http://www.google.com/search?q=number of small businesses in us 2011&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Please be clear on your position on this subject, first is it a problem or not?

 

The Small Business Lending Fund Act created included numerous provisions to ease and expand credit to small businesses AND to provide tax incentives for small business job creation.

Here is a summary of the provisions:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/what-the-latest-senate-small-business-jobs-bill-offers/

After blocking it for months, it finally passed last year with ONE Republican in the House and TWO Republicans in the Senate voting for it.

A program of $30 billion new funds (aside from funding the SBA loan guarantee program) could leverage quite a bit more....10:1?

So you dont like SBA loans or other temporary small business lending programs or temporary tax incentives, yet you offer no alternative.

Given that you think the latest recession is no different than previous recessions (despite the fact that more private sector jobs were lost between 07 and the first quarter of 09 than the four previous recessions combined) and will correct itself, its no surprise that you dont have any constructive alternative other than to blame Obama and the Democrats.

 

I find it ironic that the guy who constantly parrots the ideals of the Tea Party (including "the government shouldn't spend what they don't have" and "the government should have let the banks fail") is running a business in the red and is complaining that the government won't let him spend money he doesn't have.

 

Pretty sure that banks are still loaning money to people who are deemed credit-worthy. Sorry if you can't get a line of credit, Ace. But if you're as forthright with the banks as you are with us about your customers' unwillingness to do business with you in this economy, then the banks probably have justification for not wanting to loan you money.

If I were a small business person, I'd be pissed about being used as a rhetorical cudgel by people who are actually more concerned with protecting the tax interests of their largest campaign contributors than they will ever be about small business owners. "Won't somebody think of the small business owners!" is the new "Won't somebody think of the children!"