Jim Coons: Republicans: for tax breaks and small businesses, as long as Democrats are against them.
Seriously, what positive reason is there to vote Republican? What ideas do they have, what policies would they enact?
www.nytimes.com
The procedural blockade underscored how determined Republicans are to deny Democrats any further victories.
Cathal Duffy: Why can't Dingy Harry through the Republicans a few amendments?
Cathal Duffy: And by the way... as a small business owner myself, I'm just loving the new health care legislation which now requires that I file a 1099 on every entity I pay more than $600 in a year... I don't need government loans to run my business, I need them to get the hell out of the way.
Rich Cleland: well, Cathal, that was one of the amendments that was being considered before Republicans killed the bill. So you can blame the GOP for that.
Republicans were not being shut out of the debate, they wanted to stop the debate altogether by tacking on amendments that were irrelevant to getting money flowing again to small businesses. Your 1099 reform was sacrificed to keep up the Republican blockade, which is their strategy to keep Congress from doing its job ahead of the 2010 election because they've coldly calculated that scorched earth is a net win for them.
Nuclear loan guarantees? Border security? More welfare for the mega rich? These are contentious issues added to the bill not so they could pass, but so the bill would fail.
Maybe you don't need capital access to keep your own business afloat and hey, why the hell should you care if other small business owners can't keep their doors open and their employees paid. Certainly the megabanks that shut down small business lending and horde the public money they got last year don't care. why should anyone in America give a crap if it doesn't affect them?
Because it does affect all of us. 10% unemployment is not just emotionally and financially devastating to the families without jobs; it keeps those families from spending money in your business which stops your business from spending money in someone else's. That's what makes prosperity contagious.
And if that's not direct enough for you, remember to thank the Republicans when you're filling out all those 1099s next year because they're the ones who wanted to talk about nuclear loan guarantees instead.
Cathal Duffy: Rich, you do raise some good points, even in a harsh tone! I think some republicans are running a "stall everything" campaign, and I disagree very much with this approach. I've always believed you win elections with ideas, not simply by running an "at least I'm not him" campaign. But I also think the Democrats are shutting out any chance of bipartisanship by ruling as a "we won the election so we'll do what we want" type regime. But this issue is much larger than one bill, for example recess appointments according to the President himself and many of his fellow democrats were a usurpation of the constitution merely 2 years ago, now they're just fine... Similarly Judicial appointments deserved an up or down vote according to Mitch and the boys a few years ago and now we can filibuster them as much as we want...
While you do make some good points, some of your other points aren't based in reality in my opinion. Have you ever tried to get assistance from the small business administration who administers the guarantees on these loans? Not exactly the bastion of efficiency... and are you aware that the biggest recipients of the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" are small business owners, the same you claim you wish to help, yet they're all facing the highest tax increase in history because of the President's and the Democrats desire to allow them to sunset at the end of this year.... It is my prediction that if these tax cuts are allowed to sunset, 10% unemployment will look desirable compared to what will become the economic reality.
And let me get this straight, I should blame Republicans for not supporting a mega bill because it contained one amendment that would have negated an absolutely absurd requirement on small businesses, that was put in place by Democrats to begin with under the guise of "We don't need to read the healthcare bill, we'll find out what's in there after it's enacted"... Not exactly sound logic if I'm honest.
Andrew Hosek: Here's what you do to eliminate any hassle: eliminate any and all tax credits but lower the base tax rate across the board.
Rich Cleland: I apologize for the tone. It is a reaction to my disbelief that anyone still considers the GOP as a legitimate public entity operating in good faith with the objective to make America great for everybody instead of acting for the express interests of only a small, powerful, and wealthy elite.
For the record, I don't reserve judgment for Republicans alone. Many Democrats have been enthralled in the snare of money and power set by people who don't care who's in Washington as long as they are in power. But, while I can still identify Democrats who are operating against those interests, it's more difficult to find a steadfast people's Republican these days.
I get bipartisanship that tries to find compromises and test out new ideas that will hopefully make everyone succeed, but I'm curious to know how you engage in bipartisanship with someone who's goal is to get you to fail. "Why yes, in the interest of working together, I think i will drink a little of your poison. Just as a show of good faith." That's insane. And it is a false controversy that the Republicans have ginned up to make hay and cover up their true agenda.
Is it your opinion that the GOP really added nuclear loan guarantees and border security to a small business bill because they thought that was good for the bill?
Recess appointments? Blah. I won't get into this except to say that not all are created equal. Making a recess appointment to put a butt a seat that has been vacant for over a year is not the same as making a recess appointment because you can't get enough votes to make a guy who wants to destroy the UN our national representative to that body. And anyway, this has a direct corollary to my point above about the GOP calculation that Republicans win when government fails. Keeping organizations headless is a great way to make sure that happens.
What happens when you spend decades electing people who say the government is the problem? They get into office and prove themselves right. You tell me the SBA is inefficient. Fine. Is the rational response to abolish it? When the car is broken do you throw it away saying, "anyway, cars were a bad idea." ?? Efficiently or inefficiently, it is helping people. And it could have probably helped more if it wasn't for border security.
Taxes. So the story goes, if we don't continue the Bush tax cuts, the economy will fail. That sounds like extortion! The same extortion scam they used to ram through the cuts in the first place. If we don't cut taxes on the wealthy, we won't have any job growth. Well, we cut taxes for the wealthy and job growth was flat for a decade and wages did not keep up with inflation even though workers squeezed out sizable increases in productivity.
Taxpayers making at or under $250K annually will not have their taxes raised. If a "small" business is making more than that, I say, great, they've had a break for 10 years, hope they used it well because the people simply can't continue to subsidize their affluence.
Also, it can be very effective for politicians to use talking points like "the biggest tax increase in history" unburdened from the necessity of context. The current tax rate is lower than when Reagan was in office. Capital gains taxes at their current level are a joke. Hedge fund managers have sweetheart tax deals they bought out of congress. Should we not rectify that disparity? Is restoring balance to the system impossible if it requires actually making things fair?
Banks have a problem. They are still carrying a ton of bad debt on their books. To mitigate the effect of this on their books and limit shareholder outrage, they have invested the huge sums of money the american people lent to them into treasury bonds. Which is great for them because they have a steady return rate and so the holes on the balance sheets are harder to see.
This works out well for everybody...on wall street. Banks are protected, but they don't loan any money to small businesses because they need it to keep their books looking balanced. The American people get a great deal because they are now on the hook to pay interest to the banks on the treasury bonds that were bought with interest-free taxpayer money in the first place.
The SBA may be inefficient, but i don't think it's bank-malicious. It doesn't shock me that the government, in attempting to address this problem, would try to use the tools at it's disposal to accomplish what the private sector is refusing to do for itself...to the detriment of millions of its citizens.
The health care bill was bipartisan. It included a lot of provisions that Republicans have traditionally supported for decades (it has mandatory insurance, tort reform, exchanges, and hey, it's not single-payer). It just doesn't look bipartisan because, when it came time to work together for America, the Republicans went back to their calculators. If you remember, there was no room to fix anything in the bill because of obstruction from business interests (who have influence on both sides, to be sure) who wanted to be allowed to continue their assault on us unincorporated citizens.
I think what guided my tone most sharply was the sense i got from your response that if it doesn't affect you, it's not your problem. These are our problems. Corporations and the individuals who run them want you to keep your eye on your own prise. They cloud the information channels with noise and distraction to keep people from finding out how much they have co-opted the government for their own money trough. They shout "Highest tax increase ever," "death panels," and "un-American President" so that people won't have time to stop and take stock of the situation to see who's running off with the silverware.
The Republican party governs by fear and promotes selfishness. They tell me that if i don't give in and keep subsidizing the wealthy, i may lose my job. Well, people lost their jobs anyway.
You tell me, what have the Republicans done for America in the last decade?
Cathal Duffy: ?"because the people simply can't continue to subsidize their affluence. " A tax cut from 36% to 33% means "the people" subsidize "their" affluence, What exactly do you call the 50% of the population that pays ZERO federal income tax? Who's subsidizing who? You want small businesses to create jobs, yet you want small business owners to pay higher taxes... Good luck with that economic policy.
"Pass my stimulus package or unemployment might go above 8%"... Govern by fear? Extortion?
Rich Cleland: so wait. 50% don't pay any taxes and that's bad, but we should extend the bush tax cuts so they can continue to not pay any taxes which would be good?
Cathal Duffy: I'll take your refusal to answer the question "who's subsidizing who" as an admission of defeat. Good day, I've enjoyed it.
Rich Cleland: Good one. I missed the rules about "no-answer-backs." :)
Actually, I wanted let you clear up that problem in your logic before I continued...though I admit i am defeated.
Look. The government made a deal with you and everybody else who got those tax cuts. The deal was that tax cuts skewed to favor wealthier people would pay for themselves in increased tax revenues from economic growth. We the government fronted the cash for this little social experiment.
Results. The last ten years have not been good for the economy. They have not been good for job growth. They have not been good for wages. And they have not paid the government back for its investment in this scam.
Ok. Ha ha, jokes on me, you took my money. I get it. Good one. Better luck next time and all...
Now, I'm not asking for you give it back, but I think it's ok to ask you to stop taking it.
That 50% is as much people who don't make enough money to pay the government as it is people who make too much to pay the government. And the latter costs us way more.
while you're grousing about the people below you getting too much from you, you can bet your small business bottom dollar that there are big corporations out there, maybe competing with you, that pay less. And they vote Republican, too.
You want to know who subsidizes? It's both of us. We are both paying the system to beat us. If not in taxes or brand name shoes, then in some other way. If not now, then for everyone we will care about until the end of this country.
Take this as my admission of defeat. It is again clear to my why I cannot win. I'll even swear that I would like to see 20 more years of Republican leadership in this country. 20 years of GOP rule would do more for the progressive cause than 200 years at the hands of the Democrats.
Andrew Hosek: Rich, with regards to the "social experiment" of employing the Laffer Curve, there isn't an economist in the world who would agree with you that it doesn't exist. There is some debate as to where the curve lies, but good luck finding anyone that denies it exists.
The last ten years being 'not good for the economy' has little to do with the 'social experiment' that began roughly 30 years ago. It has much more to do with a Federal Reserve that pushed lax monetary policy, creating bubbles all over the map.
You and I can wholeheartedly agree that subsidizations are a problem. You would fight them on the grounds that they "harm the little man". I would fight them on the grounds that they create bubbles... Tax breaks are not subsidies, by the way--in principle nor effect. Eliminate tax credits but lower the base tax rate to a flat percentage and no special interest group can dominate anything, as well as you'd find increased productivity across the board...
Both parties are the problem, Democrats and Republicans alike. I have no allegiance here. The problem we often face is laying blame. We're more defensive of party and some supposedly high principle than we are of any sort of science of economics.
Side note: With regards to the myth of "all the wealthy being Republican", this is utterly false. Take a look on JSTOR in the political science section for studies on this matter. You'll find the commonly perpetuated myth thoroughly quashed by the numbers.
Rich Cleland: As I said, you win. Give us more and heaps of it.
However, I'm sorry for suggesting all rich people are republicans. That was not the point that I was trying to make, nor is the idea you construed from it relevant to my argument.
I am sorry my intent was poorly expressed; though, I think you may have misquoted me there.
Andrew Hosek: ?"...big corporations out there, maybe competing with you, that pay less. And they vote Republican, too."
The implication, given the whole conversation about the half that DON'T pay was that the wealthy/"Corporate America" all vote Republican
Rich Cleland: like i said. i'm sorry i was not clear. When i said that people vote Republican, I mistakenly thought it was understood that I didn't mean all the people, especially considering the inherent weakness of such a patently false argument and the fact that it was not necessary for me to claim it to make my point.
Nevertheless, I understand why you might think i did. I wasn't clear enough, so you misunderstood.
If you want me to explain my actual point further, feel free to message me.
Jim Coons: Wow... I forget to check facebook for a day and shit goes crazy!
My point with this was less the substance of the proposal (though I can't believe there are actually people who think the bill itself was a bad idea), and more the wholly disingenuous political wrangling perpetrated by the GOP here. (I'm repeating Rich's first comment here, but with the point of bringing the conversation back from the economics of it, toward the politics of the vote.) In point of fact, there was a bill up for a vote that contained a number of provisions that Republicans have called for over the past months. It was voted down not because they disagreed with it, but because they weren't allowed to offer irrelevant amendments. I'm choosing my words carefully here, so I mean it when I say: that's a mega-shitty move. Incredibly shitty. Both for the people who needed the benefits provided by this bill, and frankly, on the level of ethics. It's deceitful, cynical, and endlessly shitty.
I'd love to find someone to disagree with me here so I can argue with them. Please?
Jim Coons: PS - on the GOP's aforementioned shittiness, see the post from today about Andrew Weiner's floor speech, when the GOP blocked a vote to provide medical benefits to 9/11 first responders (which really happened - again, try to defend that one, I dare you).
