jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (33 posts)

Why are the Republicans trying to destroy small businesses?

  1. William R. Wilson profile image61
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago
  2. Jim Hunter profile image60
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    Why does the Obama administration hate Tennessee"s small businesses?

    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jul/2 … usinesses/

    1. Dave Barnett profile image60
      Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Corporate puppets, dems and gops. String 'em all up!

    2. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What does that story have to do with the Obama administration?  And what are you doing here, aren't you busy combing the forums for "personal attacks" so you can report people?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not busy doing that, what does the story have to do with the Obama administration?

        "The Small Business Administration (SBA) is a United States government agency that provides support to small businesses."

        who do you think think runs the US Government?

        I will let you know William, that since I was reported for a personal attack, I will be reporting the ones I see.

        It is apparently how some of you roll, so tit for tat.

  3. Jim Hunter profile image60
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    The newest democrat hero Anthony Weiner did this when the dems were in the minority.

    Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)

    Did you ask the same question of democrats who voted no on that?

  4. Studio E profile image61
    Studio Eposted 6 years ago

    Check this out, since no one can get along lets do this, cut the country in half give the democrats the united states of america east ( because they will want the white house ) and give the republicans the united states of america west ( because they will fix that border ) you will have two presidents, two countrys and my prediction will be that within ten years or less the united states of america east will be a third world country with everybody flooding in unchecked while the united states of america west will blossom.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this


      That is really, really...

    2. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How about if the half that wins is allowed to govern as they see fit, since THEY WON, and were ELECTED.

      Allow them to govern without all kinds of childish foot-stomping, obstructing, blocking anything from getting done cry-baby boohoo we lost antics!!!

      It's pathetic what is going on here by the Republicans, who just can't realize that we don't want their governing any more. Vamoose! Shoo.....get with the program that the American People elected.

      They look like idiots and they live ina fantasy land..one where they get to rule all the time, and people continuously bow down to them....it's OVER!

      Reagan is dead. We don't want to spread Christianity all over the globe. We don't care if you're gay or black or Mexican or an alien from Mars!!! We want equal rights and freedom from religious strangling........SIMPLE!

      And we want clean energy and jobs for Americans...HERE in America---your profit margin be damned!

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image91
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well there are other representatives that also won elections in their State. Should they be given a chance to govern also?   They should not count?  You believe in majority rules?

        1. ledefensetech profile image81
          ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          At least while "his" party is in power.  When things change, as they inevitably will, he'll be screaming about how unfair it is that "majority" rules.

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is an assumption on your part. I did not support Bush, but I did not advocate seceding or carrying guns to Bush rallies, or telling my democratic rep to block all Bush legislation.

            You just deal with it, knowing that you don't always get what you want. I guess the Repubs don't know this yet...they still feel they should have their way in everything, regardless of who was elected. Big Babies. And totally un-American sobs.


      2. Studio E profile image61
        Studio Eposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They are govern as they see fit, don't read the bills, pass the bill first then we'll tell you whats in it. bypass the rule of law and push unelected fools in high place's. and i guess you're all grown up now after spending 8 years acting like a child foot-stomping, obstructing, blocking anything from getting done cry-baby boohoo while bush was in office. i guess  you're the idiot that live in a fantasy land.  Things that make you go hummmmmmmmm.

    3. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have a better idea, ship the democrats to France.

    4. readytoescape profile image60
      readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      While idea of session does have allure, I’d suggest the division a bit differently.

      All the Southern States From Arizona moving Eastward, using Arizona’s Northern Border as dividing line across the country adding the States of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina, to a constituency of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina.

      Our side (the South) will also take the entire US Military, since the left holds them in such contempt and low regard.

      This appears to be the fairest division, in that each division will have a Disney Park,
      Disneyland in California, and Disney World in Florida

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Hello no, we won't go!
    I'm designating myself the speaker for the west coast blue states. Those would be California, Oregon, Washington, and sometimes Nevada.
    Ain't no way we're joining the Red States of Amur-ika.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Not to mention the realities that our east coast states are old pros at dealing with newcomers, having been the sites of the original settlers.
    Heck, NY could even put Ellis Island back into the immigration check-in business.

  7. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Back to the OP.  Why do we need to give money to any business, large or small?  If they cannot effectively compete in business, it must be because they don't have a clue as to what they are doing.  Why do we need to prop up failed businesses?  Wouldn't we be better served by encouraging our winners to run?

    Let's face it, many people just got plain crazy during the last boom.  It always happens.  Do we really need people who misread the economy that badly to have anything to do with it?  Why is it Peter Schiff, for example, weathered both the 2000-2001 meltdown the the current 2008-? crisis?  Answer:  He had a realistic approach to what was going on in the economy and how to protect himself and his investor's money when it all went south.  Should we be emulating people like Schiff when it comes to rebuilding our economies?

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So we gave all that TARP money to the big banks but we can't make it easier for small businesses to borrow and grow their businesses?

      If you've survived this far into the recession, your business is a strong one.  That doesn't mean you necessarily have the capital lying around to grow your business. 

      How is offering a loan encouraging a business to fail?  They can use a loan to hire new workers, buy more inventory, or do other things that will enhance their profitability, create jobs, and grow the economy. 

      This is a tight credit environment - and that's part of the reason this is a jobless recovery.  Creating business growth will create jobs, which will increase demand, which will increase sales, which will increase tax revenue, etc. etc. etc.

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't support TARP either.  You don't make a good decision by doubling up on a bad one.  I'd also remind you that at the time the TARP funds were made available that the Democrats were in power in Congress, so it must have had so-called bipartisan support.

        As for how can giving loans to businesses be a bad thing.  Well there's one thing I don't see businesses doing right now.  Do you know what that is?  Expanding.  The tight credit market is only a (small) reason.  Do you know what a larger reason is?  Businesses don't know if people are going to be spending money.  Do you know what people are doing right now?  Saving.  Why?  They had too much debt and are busy paying it down.

        I suppose you're not aware that for the last few years of the boom, people were using their homes at ATM machines, do you?  We should have had this correction way back in 2000, but the government opened the credit floodgates which promptly went, not into the stock market as the architects of that plan hoped, but into the housing market, with catastrophic results.

        The problem with the President's so-called plan is that he plans to let the Bush era tax cuts expire, which will cost small businesses 300 billion dollars.  That would go a long way to paying for his insane healthcare bill, wouldn't it?  In exchange for that 300 billion, Obama suggests we give 12 billion in assistance to small businesses.  Well that leaves us with a net loss of 288 billion.  How can you expect small businesses to absorb that kind of loss without destroying about half of the economy?

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Debt is one reason that people aren't spending money.  Another is that 10% unemployment people keep blaming Obama for.  Businesses won't hire, because they don't know if people will spend money.  And people won't spend money because if they still have a job they aren't sure if they can depend on it, or it's only part time, or they didnt' get the promotion they had been planning on, etc. etc. 

          So people don't spend money, so businesses don't hire because they are afraid people won't spend money.  So people don't spend money.............................

          Yes I am quite aware, saw this one coming since 1997. 

          No time to quibble over the details here... I think you are a little bit correct and a little bit incorrect.

          I'd have to look into this further before commenting... links are appreciated.

        2. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And, on further reflection, I don't see how encouraging homeowners to borrow against their own homes so they can buy consumer goods equates to encouraging businesses to borrow money so they can grow their business. 

          The only time it might be a good idea to borrow against your own home's value is if you are going to use the money to add to that value - and even then it is a risky proposition. 

          Small business lending, on the other hand, is lending for the express purpose of adding value to the business.

          1. ledefensetech profile image81
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            William, it's a very simple idea.  If people aren't buying stuff, then how can you expect businesses to make stuff for people to buy?  Is it really that hard a logic chain to follow?

            As for people borrowing against the equity in their home, of course it's a bad idea generally.  But when you force interest rates to almost 0% that means that people are more likely to borrow against the equity in their home because you've just made it less expensive to get credit.  Simple economics.  If you increase the supply (credit) you'll get more demand (loans). 

            Again, businesses aren't taking loans because they can't be sure that if they expand their business that there will be a demand for it, because we have an official unemployment rate of almost 10%.  Unofficially the rate may be twice that, but even if you go with 10% that's still not a good thing.  Couple that with the supposed financial reform bill and Obamacare and business owners cannot say how those things are going to affect them.  Until they can, they're not going to risk their livelihood until they can assess those risks.  Why?  Because if they ignore the risks and bet wrong, they go broke and the business closes.  Why is that logic chain so hard to follow?

  8. girly_girl09 profile image80
    girly_girl09posted 6 years ago

    I don't waste my time in the political forums on here anymore, but this title really called out to me.

    By not supporting a bill that would have been similar to another bailout, it is illogical to argue that Republicans are actively trying to destroy small businesses.

    Quite the contrary.

    There are other proven ways to stimulate and support small business growth, rather than increase lending. Tax incentives for small business owners are key - do you have any idea what a self-employed/small-business owner has to pay in taxes?

    Why would Republicans seek to destroy one of the most amazing opportunities afforded to citizens in our country? They've been lobbying for small business owners and the self-employed for years. By not supporting this bill, they were continuing their undying support of small businesses, certainly not seeking to tear-down what they've spent countless hours working on. Legislators may not always be totally logical, but they're not that far gone.

    A bill like this would do more harm than good. Small businesses have a large failure rate; we have a high enough level of bankruptcy as it is. I foresee government sponsored increased lending to small businesses as a precursor to even more instances of bankruptcy! This is parallel to the loans that families were given for housing loans that couldn't really afford them. Those loans were predatory in their very nature; these loans are similar - people are desperate in these economic times and it can be so damaging to make a major financial decision when you feel as though you have no other option. Why continue to reward banks for making poor loan decisions as to who they lend to?

    Here is a viable idea - pump that money directly to already existing small business owners in the form of tax credits and other incentives. This will still encourage new small business growth and increase the success of already established businesses. In turn, these businesses can hire more employees and provide them with greater benefits.

    1. ledefensetech profile image81
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with most of this except for the tax credit part.  If you're going to exclude people from taxes, it had best be across the board.  One of the unintended consequences of those tax credits would be so save some of the poorly run companies that would otherwise fold because they can't control their costs and run a business profitably.  Anything that you do to change the profitability equation is a bad thing.  Lightening people's tax burden, however, is always a good thing.

    2. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      See my response to LE above - also, there's nothing wrong with tax credits, but they aren't by themselves enough.  Businesses need capital to grow - to buy new equipment, inventory, hire new salespeople... tax credits won't cut it.

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Capital is not supplied by government debt, it's supplied by savings and investment.  That's why the stimulus spending failed.  Of course the government listens to their economists, not economists who might actually have a clue, so there you go.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You might be interested to see how GDP and government spending have grown hand in hand over the past 70 years.  Our current economy would not be possible without government spending - on basic infrastructure like interstates, the post office, police departments, courts, etc... and in more direct ways like paying manufacturers to fulfill various defense contracts. 

          In fact, after comparing the growth of the national debt with the growth of the GDP, I am tempted to say that the American economy *is* government spending. 

          Is that a good thing?  Not sure, not going to argue about it today.

  9. Don Simkovich profile image59
    Don Simkovichposted 6 years ago

    This is well-written girly_girl. Thanks for writing a well-structured, logical argument.

  10. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    this forum's title makes a huge mistake.

    Why do people think that "small businesses" are somehow awesome and in need of my tax-dollar-subsidy?

    The truth of the matter is that if people WANT small businesses, then they can GO to them and BUY the stuff that's there.

    I won't, however, because I like being able to go into one store to find anything I want!

  11. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    As to the expiration costing 300 billion:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03287.html

    I'm under the assumption that Zakaria got his info from the CBO. 

    http://taxes.suite101.com/article.cfm/e … o-cost-you

    Contrary to what some people would have you believe, everyone's taxes are going up:

    The problem is that many small businesses fall within the higher tax breaks.  You know those who make over 250,000 a year.  A group which includes, oddly enough, farmers.  Do you really want to see farmers lose their farms?  Or doctors lose their practices, for that matter?  Simple economics.  If you take more in taxes you make it that much harder to live.  When you couple that with the insane bills the Dems have passed, which dwarf anything Bush did, then you're heading for a real problem.

    Fact is, the only reason entitlement programs are passed is to buy votes.  We cannot afford that sort of thing anymore.

  12. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Tell mom to give up her prescription drug entitlement....go ahead...I dare you!!!

    And SS while you're at it.
    And Medicaide.
    And the subsidies for oil and gas .
    And paying farmers NOT to grow.
    And Michelle Bachman can give back the $250,000 she took.
    And even the Pentagon said they don't need so much.
    Stop funding Israel.
    Stop giving Israel weapons that cost a fortune from our taxes.
    Stop giving business a tax credit for advertising.
    Stop giving big business a tax credit to move business overseas.......OOOOOPS. Pelosi and the Dems just did that. Hooray!!!!!

    On and On and On it goes. You like some, we like some....
    And you won't give yours up by a long shot!!!!  IMO

    1. ledefensetech profile image81
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Keep believing that.  Must be nice living in la la land.