Senate Passes Small-Business Bill

[Throckmorton]

...and shame on Democrats for not working with Republicans to reach a good solution for America. Don't be so stingy, there's plenty of shame to go around.

Are you joking? Republicans oppose anything and everything, because it's smart politics for them. Why would they change their modus operandi?

 

[EagleKeeper]

At the present time, Obama/Dems seem to be unable to do anything right (fix what is broke).

So by opposing what the Dems are doing, they can avoid the responsiblity of the screwups.

As the Dems stated in Nov 2008; they do not need/want the Repubs to get their agenda through to revampt the country.

Well at this point; they have suceeded pushing their agenda; has it worked? That is for time and the voters to tell. At present, the economic indicators point to unsuccessful policys as measured by the promisses made.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you joking? Republicans oppose anything and everything, because it's smart politics for them. Why would they change their modus operandi?

Yeah...I'm joking...haha. Democrats shouldn't give Republicans the time of day and vice-versa...that's how our government should be run. /s

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Also, this bill is long enough that there may be something in there which controls the maximum lending amount according to a formula like what I suggested, meaning it isn't discretionary. Are you sure there isn't something like that in there?

- wolf

I believe the maximum amount a bank can receive under this bill is based on the bank's capital (size)

Also, under the senario you proposed, a bank accepting less than 10%, even when using 100% of the funds for SB loans, could never acheive the discount rate. So, I hope their not following this model.

I'm very rushed for time, but I still think the multiplier effect/leverage possibility for the lending amount exists (I.e., get $1 million in capital, and have the ability to lend $10 million more). I'll check into this later, if true it has major ramifications.

In other words, take your example of the bank who has historically lent only 5% to small business (historically means the 4 quarters preceeding the enactment of the bill actually), and let's say that this amount is $100,000,000 in the case of a particular bank. The government could decide to infuse only say, $10,000,000 into that particular bank, right? Hence, in order to achieve the threshold to reduce the dividend from 5% all the way to 1%, the bank has to increase it's small business lending by 10% to $110,000,000, that means the bank would have to lend everything they got to small businesses to achieve the lowest possible dividend. What I'm saying is that this can be controlled by first looking at the individual bank's balance sheet and lending accordingly, no?

 

[Craig234]

Well at this point; they have suceeded pushing their agenda...

No, they haven't. They've gotten a bit past. Look up the long list of bills passed by the House and blocked by Senate Republicans. (and sometimes a handful of corporate Democrats).

 

[dmcowen674]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

(However, unless it's exactly the same as the House version it will be revised again in the Joint Committee process.)

Fern

Looks like only bad thing is that interest paid on the loan is NOT tax deductible.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No, they haven't. They've gotten a bit past. Look up the long list of bills passed by the House and blocked by Senate Republicans. (and sometimes a handful of corporate Democrats).

So it would seem that some Senate Democrats do not feel that what is being pushed down the publics throat is acceptable.

They are willing to stand up against the party framework and the potential trouble that may result from doing so.

 

[manimal]

Excuse me? We're a swing state, at least we don't vote blindly every bloody election like most states. We're quite moderate.

We also have one of the best public education systems in the country. So you can go slander some other state, we do pretty well here.

I didnt mean to paint all of Iowa in that stroke Dekasa sorry, I meant the republican primary voters in Iowa have traditionally voted social conservative despite their economic interests...

 

[Craig234]

So it would seem that some Senate Democrats do not feel that what is being pushed down the publics throat is acceptable.

They are willing to stand up against the party framework and the potential trouble that may result from doing so.

It's not an argument to just use a pejorative phrase 'what is being pushed down the throats'.

And they aren't getting in enough trouble, their voters tend to be right-wing.

When you have 1 or 2 or 3 Democrats in the Senate who side with Republicans, you and others on the right fixate on it too much.

It simply explains why the Democrats need to go to extremes compromising trying to get a couple more votes to get 60, it's not some important issue with the Democrats.

When the recent bill to help small business passed the Senate after easily passing the House, and had two Republican votes, the rest of the Republican no votes are a lot more important.

The point was, you are wrong in saying 'the Democrats have passed their agenda'. A bit has.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's not an argument to just use a pejorative phrase 'what is being pushed down the throats'.

And they aren't getting in enough trouble, their voters tend to be right-wing.

When you have 1 or 2 or 3 Democrats in the Senate who side with Republicans, you and others on the right fixate on it too much.

It simply explains why the Democrats need to go to extremes compromising trying to get a couple more votes to get 60, it's not some important issue with the Democrats.

When the recent bill to help small business passed the Senate after easily passing the House, and had two Republican votes, the rest of the Republican no votes are a lot more important.

The point was, you are wrong in saying 'the Democrats have passed their agenda'. A bit has.

And what was Reid, Pelosi and Obama stating on 10 Nov 2008.

We do not need the Republicans to change America! <paraphrased>

Now they are realizing that their vision if not what the American public wants and apparently even some Democrats consider it unworkable. Have the Dem leadership burned to many bridges?

November will tell.