Senate Small Business Bill Advances

cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Senate Small Business Bill Advances

The Senate advanced legislation to aid small businesses on Tuesday after months of Republican resistance.

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/senate-small-business-bill-advances/

 

 


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline

rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I'm working on starting a

I'm working on starting a small businessSmiling


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Excellent news,

cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Dems pass measures to boost economy

Democratic lawmakers continued to take small bites at economic recovery Thursday, passing legislation to extend small-business loan guarantees and boost lending for home energy efficiency in rural areas.

The small business loan guarantees, which would have more impact on the north country, passed the Senate over Republican objections on a 61 to 38 vote, just as the home energy proposal passed the House with little support from the GOP.

 

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100917/NEWS02/309179949

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cygo wrote:Democratic

cygo wrote:

Democratic lawmakers continued to take small bites at economic recovery Thursday, passing legislation to extend small-business loan guarantees and boost lending for home energy efficiency in rural areas.

The small business loan guarantees, which would have more impact on the north country, passed the Senate over Republican objections on a 61 to 38 vote, just as the home energy proposal passed the House with little support from the GOP.

 

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100917/NEWS02/309179949

 

 

Yeah because the trillion dollar stimulus worked so well and kept our unemployment rate below 8% another 30 billion is really going to help a lot. And since the government has such a great track record with similar programs like Fannie & Freddie where they got involved with lending what could possibly go wrong? In other news, home foreclosures are at an all time high despite government programs and bank bailouts http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68F0JY20100916 but don't mind that, Bama already fixed that. 

 

The few tax reductions in the bill will be nullified when the Bush tax cuts expire and the cost of healthcare skyrockets. It is kind of like the government is taking money away from small businesses and then turning around and loaning it back. I'll make that deal with you. Give me all your money and I will loan it back to you at only 4% interest! How could you pass that up?

 

Since all the economists on capital hill are going to be surprised let me make my prediction. Within a few months all of the funds will be gone because any business out there with outstanding debt is going to refinance ASAP (yes the bill gives out loans for refinancing). They will then be saving a few points in their interest rate and still will not hire because the money they are saving will pale in comparison to rising taxes and healthcare costs. 

 

 

@ Rebecca, good luck on your venture hope it is profitable for you.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cygo

Beyond Saving wrote:

cygo wrote:

Democratic lawmakers continued to take small bites at economic recovery Thursday, passing legislation to extend small-business loan guarantees and boost lending for home energy efficiency in rural areas.

The small business loan guarantees, which would have more impact on the north country, passed the Senate over Republican objections on a 61 to 38 vote, just as the home energy proposal passed the House with little support from the GOP.

 

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100917/NEWS02/309179949

 

 

Yeah because the trillion dollar stimulus worked so well and kept our unemployment rate below 8% another 30 billion is really going to help a lot. And since the government has such a great track record with similar programs like Fannie & Freddie where they got involved with lending what could possibly go wrong? In other news, home foreclosures are at an all time high despite government programs and bank bailouts http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68F0JY20100916 but don't mind that, Bama already fixed that. 

 

The few tax reductions in the bill will be nullified when the Bush tax cuts expire and the cost of healthcare skyrockets. It is kind of like the government is taking money away from small businesses and then turning around and loaning it back. I'll make that deal with you. Give me all your money and I will loan it back to you at only 4% interest! How could you pass that up?

 

Since all the economists on capital hill are going to be surprised let me make my prediction. Within a few months all of the funds will be gone because any business out there with outstanding debt is going to refinance ASAP (yes the bill gives out loans for refinancing). They will then be saving a few points in their interest rate and still will not hire because the money they are saving will pale in comparison to rising taxes and healthcare costs. 

 

 

@ Rebecca, good luck on your venture hope it is profitable for you.

How will taking away the tax cuts from those that didn't need them to begin with be a problem? Do you define middle class as $250,000 per annum?

Or do you think that the richest 1-5% are really investing in the country?

Why do I see the libertarian version of "fuck it all" looking a lot like the GOP attitude of "fuck the middle class and working poor"?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cygo

Beyond Saving wrote:

cygo wrote:

Democratic lawmakers continued to take small bites at economic recovery Thursday, passing legislation to extend small-business loan guarantees and boost lending for home energy efficiency in rural areas.

The small business loan guarantees, which would have more impact on the north country, passed the Senate over Republican objections on a 61 to 38 vote, just as the home energy proposal passed the House with little support from the GOP.

 

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100917/NEWS02/309179949

 

 

Yeah because the trillion dollar stimulus worked so well and kept our unemployment rate below 8% another 30 billion is really going to help a lot. And since the government has such a great track record with similar programs like Fannie & Freddie where they got involved with lending what could possibly go wrong? In other news, home foreclosures are at an all time high despite government programs and bank bailouts http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68F0JY20100916 but don't mind that, Bama already fixed that. 

 

The few tax reductions in the bill will be nullified when the Bush tax cuts expire and the cost of healthcare skyrockets. It is kind of like the government is taking money away from small businesses and then turning around and loaning it back. I'll make that deal with you. Give me all your money and I will loan it back to you at only 4% interest! How could you pass that up?

 

Since all the economists on capital hill are going to be surprised let me make my prediction. Within a few months all of the funds will be gone because any business out there with outstanding debt is going to refinance ASAP (yes the bill gives out loans for refinancing). They will then be saving a few points in their interest rate and still will not hire because the money they are saving will pale in comparison to rising taxes and healthcare costs. 

 

 

@ Rebecca, good luck on your venture hope it is profitable for you.

Our dept could be paid off very quickly if the top 2% wealthy would stop buying off congress, black mailing congress and pay their share. It is bullshit to say that taxing the wealthy will destroy the economy. It will because all they do is threaten society if they cant hoard like they do.

There is no reason our pay gap has to be 400% difference between the highest paid and lowest paid. Greed is the only reason. Big business only cares about making money. It does not care about quality of life and affordable living and production. Our economy is one big ponzey scheme because of the corporate class.

I am so sick of the crybaby daddy warbucks who whine about not being able to own 5 mansions, or fly on a private jet or eat caviar every day. DONT' hand me this "free market" demand bullshit.

There is a difference between a "free market" and abusive market. A free market and a healthy market should not be squeezing out the middle class making more and more poor people. Even in the middle class people are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills and for their health care.

What is going to end up happening if the rich continue to bitch about paying more is that more and more workers will end up like China's sweat shops.

It is not a matter of "I cant pay" it is a matter for the rich of "I don't want to pay".

Our congress is being paid off by the corporate class and that class is to fucking stupid to see that in the long term if they get what they want NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD WHAT THEY ARE SELLING.

There is no competition. There is merely a monopoly by the big boys who compete amoungst themselves and squeeze out the other classes.

Even Warren Buffet said that he finds it sad that he pays less of a tax rate than his secretary.

If I made 500,000,000 a year and half of that was taken out in taxes do not fucking tell me that I couldn't survive. BOO FUCKING WHOOO.

Creating crappy low paying jobs only creates more poor people. Raising prices without raising wages creates a bigger gap. Our gap is way too huge to sustain our economy long term.

The only solution is to pay off our debt not pass it down to the people who buy the products that keep these companies big.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Go  

Brian37 kicks ass.

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:How will

jcgadfly wrote:

How will taking away the tax cuts from those that didn't need them to begin with be a problem? Do you define middle class as $250,000 per annum?

Or do you think that the richest 1-5% are really investing in the country?

Why do I see the libertarian version of "fuck it all" looking a lot like the GOP attitude of "fuck the middle class and working poor"?

 

I assume you are addressing the part I said about taxing the small businesses then loaning money back to them because I wasn't really addressing taxes. The bill that passed is designed to make loans up to 5 million dollars. You don't get a 5 mil loan if you make less than 250k (and shouldn't). If you think this bill is meant to give loans to middle class people attempting to start a business you are sorely mistaken. The portion set aside for micro loans is relatively small and will only be handled by 20 banks each allowed one million in government money (I am going by the Senate version as it is the most likely to pass). So who is getting fucked? Those of us in the middle class, we pay taxes (at higher rates) but won't be getting any of it back. And if you think we can pay for all of this spending by simply taxing the rich you are also very mistaken. Eventually all of us will end up pitching in but I have covered my views on taxes pretty thoroughly on recent threads. This bill is simply another bailout that will benefit banks and a handful of bureaucratically chosen businesses (those who blow congressmen) and the rest of us get to pay for it. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

How will taking away the tax cuts from those that didn't need them to begin with be a problem? Do you define middle class as $250,000 per annum?

Or do you think that the richest 1-5% are really investing in the country?

Why do I see the libertarian version of "fuck it all" looking a lot like the GOP attitude of "fuck the middle class and working poor"?

 

I assume you are addressing the part I said about taxing the small businesses then loaning money back to them because I wasn't really addressing taxes. The bill that passed is designed to make loans up to 5 million dollars. You don't get a 5 mil loan if you make less than 250k (and shouldn't). If you think this bill is meant to give loans to middle class people attempting to start a business you are sorely mistaken. The portion set aside for micro loans is relatively small and will only be handled by 20 banks each allowed one million in government money (I am going by the Senate version as it is the most likely to pass). So who is getting fucked? Those of us in the middle class, we pay taxes (at higher rates) but won't be getting any of it back. And if you think we can pay for all of this spending by simply taxing the rich you are also very mistaken. Eventually all of us will end up pitching in but I have covered my views on taxes pretty thoroughly on recent threads. This bill is simply another bailout that will benefit banks and a handful of bureaucratically chosen businesses (those who blow congressmen) and the rest of us get to pay for it. 

No, you mentioned the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and how much damage it would do to the country. Yep an influx of income would just mess us up so bad.

So in other words, this bill will benefit those institutions that libertarians want to protect (banks, big business that fellate congresscritters and the wealthy)?

Personally I think the worst mistake Obama is making is trying to save capitalism. Libertarians like dismantling failed systems (or so they claim). How about getting rid of that one?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Our dept could

Brian37 wrote:

Our dept could be paid off very quickly if the top 2% wealthy would stop buying off congress, black mailing congress and pay their share. It is bullshit to say that taxing the wealthy will destroy the economy. It will because all they do is threaten society if they cant hoard like they do.

Our debt is 13 trillion, our GDP is 14.5 trillion. That means if we all put 100% of our income for an entire year we could pay off the debt quickly. Since we all need money to live and have our own debts that is impossible. That is before we even talk about paying for all of the liabilities we have because of our promises with social security, medicare and the new healthcare plan. Even if we took everything owned by the top 5% it wouldn't be enough and I daresay you would be out of a job if we took everything from your employer. So no, there is no quick way. Taxing the wealthy won't destroy the economy and I have never said that although I do find it immoral to expect the wealthy to pay for everything. Overspending will. 

Brian37 wrote:

There is no reason our pay gap has to be 400% difference between the highest paid and lowest paid. Greed is the only reason. Big business only cares about making money. It does not care about quality of life and affordable living and production. Our economy is one big ponzey scheme because of the corporate class.

Yes they care about making money, and that greed has led us to have a rather comfortable standard of living compared to most other countries. Yes, we have several large ponzi schemes going and generally the root of them is government and corporations in bed with government. Which this bill expands by getting the government in bed with more corporations. 

Brian37 wrote:

I am so sick of the crybaby daddy warbucks who whine about not being able to own 5 mansions, or fly on a private jet or eat caviar every day. DONT' hand me this "free market" demand bullshit.

There is a difference between a "free market" and abusive market. A free market and a healthy market should not be squeezing out the middle class making more and more poor people. Even in the middle class people are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills and for their health care.

 

Give me a break. I'm middle class and pay my bills just fine. I'm sick of cry babies who bought homes they could never afford, drive new cars and think they don't need to pay for their own healthcare and expecting me to pay for it while making ludicrous claims that only the "wealthy" will have to pay for it.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

There is no competition. There is merely a monopoly by the big boys who compete amoungst themselves and squeeze out the other classes.

Exactly, the problem is the government getting in bed with big business and bailing them out with taxpayer money. And we continue to do it. Let the big companies fail when they are ran by incompetents. 

Brian37 wrote:

Even Warren Buffet said that he finds it sad that he pays less of a tax rate than his secretary.

See my post about the fair tax. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Creating crappy low paying jobs only creates more poor people. Raising prices without raising wages creates a bigger gap. Our gap is way too huge to sustain our economy long term.

The only solution is to pay off our debt not pass it down to the people who buy the products that keep these companies big.

 

And wouldn't the first step to paying down debt be to reduce spending until it is less than your income? Same thing with the government. Bring spending down until it is below receipts and start paying off the debt. We could start by not making trillion dollar stimulus packages and giving 30 billion in this "small business" bill that strokes political egos more than any economic good. If you leave the market alone it will recover. If you keep spending like a drunken sailor business owners know their taxes will go up eventually and will slow down hiring until they know how much. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

How will taking away the tax cuts from those that didn't need them to begin with be a problem? Do you define middle class as $250,000 per annum?

Or do you think that the richest 1-5% are really investing in the country?

Why do I see the libertarian version of "fuck it all" looking a lot like the GOP attitude of "fuck the middle class and working poor"?

 

I assume you are addressing the part I said about taxing the small businesses then loaning money back to them because I wasn't really addressing taxes. The bill that passed is designed to make loans up to 5 million dollars. You don't get a 5 mil loan if you make less than 250k (and shouldn't). If you think this bill is meant to give loans to middle class people attempting to start a business you are sorely mistaken. The portion set aside for micro loans is relatively small and will only be handled by 20 banks each allowed one million in government money (I am going by the Senate version as it is the most likely to pass). So who is getting fucked? Those of us in the middle class, we pay taxes (at higher rates) but won't be getting any of it back. And if you think we can pay for all of this spending by simply taxing the rich you are also very mistaken. Eventually all of us will end up pitching in but I have covered my views on taxes pretty thoroughly on recent threads. This bill is simply another bailout that will benefit banks and a handful of bureaucratically chosen businesses (those who blow congressmen) and the rest of us get to pay for it. 

No, you mentioned the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and how much damage it would do to the country. Yep an influx of income would just mess us up so bad.

So in other words, this bill will benefit those institutions that libertarians want to protect (banks, big business that fellate congresscritters and the wealthy)?

Personally I think the worst mistake Obama is making is trying to save capitalism. Libertarians like dismantling failed systems (or so they claim). How about getting rid of that one?

I hate the miss use of the word "capitalism". That is the wrong word to use.

Every country "capitalizes" off of something. Saudi Arabia capitalizes off of oil sales. China capitalizes off of labor and production. The only difference is the people and politics that benefit off of it.

The proper terms I would use are "open market" vs "closed market". An open market favors more choice. A closed market is one that benefits fewer and controlled by a few.

We think we have an "open market" in America. But we don't have a healthy open market, for the reasons I said in the prior post.

Untill the CEOs and shareholders learn to take less and put more back into the workers and our government invests in new innovations, we will continue to see the pay gap explode and we will only be able to compete with China if workers here become slaves and work in sweat shops ourselves.

We need to stop buying Hummers and Mustangs. We need to invest in alternative energy. We need to start manufacturing more and export more. We need to pay livable wadges and big business can pay for the health care of it's workers. They just don't want to.

There is no reason a pound of meat(any kind) should cost 5 bucks a pound. There is no reason a gallon of milk should cost more than a gallon of gass. As rich as this country is, it is bullshit for the corporate class to say they cant. They are just jaded selfish assholes.

It is not about being against wealth, it is about the gap and the only people in this country who can do anything about that gap don't seem to want to.

The banks and drug companies and oil companies are holding our economy hostage because the pricks at the top care more about their mansions than the people they sell their products to.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No, you

jcgadfly wrote:

No, you mentioned the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and how much damage it would do to the country. Yep an influx of income would just mess us up so bad.

The damage that allowing the tax cuts to expire would be a slowing of the economy. When you raise taxes the economy slows temporarily. Since our stated goal is to get the economy going I believe it would be a bad time to raise taxes. As I have stated in other posts I believe our whole tax system needs an overhaul because the middle class currently carries the brunt of the tax burden. Economically speaking the tax rate does not have a huge effect on the permanent well being of the economy as long as it is not so large as to discourage working. In the short term, tax hikes cause the economy to slow. So if you decide that paying off the debt is worth accepting a slow down in an already slow economy fine, make that argument. As I have stated before I believe controlling spending should be our first priority and changing the tax rates should wait until the economy recovers because I don't want to see more people unemployed. What annoys me is the dumb politicians who say raising taxes on those evil rich people won't affect the economy. It will and we can predict exactly how much and the politicians know that. It may be necessary to raise taxes to pay off our debt. I'm not as hard line on that as many on my side but when we do it let us be honest with ourselves and know the consequences. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

So in other words, this bill will benefit those institutions that libertarians want to protect (banks, big business that fellate congresscritters and the wealthy)?

Where do you get that idea? Libertarians don't want to protect anyone. We were the ones out there screaming let the bastards go bankrupt. Capitalism is a dog eat dog system and it is good and healthy for businesses to fail. Republicans and democrats joined together to bail them out. And yes, this bill will help them even more.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Personally I think the worst mistake Obama is making is trying to save capitalism. Libertarians like dismantling failed systems (or so they claim). How about getting rid of that one?

I would hardly call what he is doing as saving capitalism. In a free capitalist market GM would be bankrupt, a bunch of mortgage investors would have lost their shirts and there wouldn't be a bunch of corporations sucking on the government teat. The government loaning money to businesses can hardly be called capitalist. The government outlawing private student loans isn't capitalist. The new healthcare bill isn't capitalist. Exactly what has Obama done to protect capitalism?

Although, to be fair, the move away from capitalism began a long time ago so it isn't all Bama's fault. But the man certainly has no love of capitalism, read his book. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: We need to

Brian37 wrote:
 

We need to start manufacturing more and export more. 

Why?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:. Since our stated

Quote:
. Since our stated goal is to get the economy going I believe it would be a bad time to raise taxes.

Yea, because the corporate class will black male the public and cry that they can't afford it.

I wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class or poor. I would give tax incentives on all size businesses who hire and pay more and keep jobs here. I would give tax breaks to business who provide health care. I would give tax incentives to invest in fuel technology and for car companies to stop producing gas hogs and manufacture alternate fuel sources to get us off middle east oil. I would give tax breaks for companies that manufacture here.

What big business does instead of the right thing and pay their share, when they get taxed they pay off lawmakers to find loopholes and hide their cash overseas and what taxes are left over they pass on to the consumer. And when they make a big mess and fuck up we pay for it.

I don't want to hear any whiny asshole sitting in a boardroom about how the middle and poor classes are to blame. Big business is fucking up our economy and they don't give a shit who they run over.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
What are effective corporate

What are effective corporate tax rates at now, compared to other times in U.S. history?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:What are

mellestad wrote:

What are effective corporate tax rates at now, compared to other times in U.S. history?

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

This link shows the tax rate for the highest earning tax bracket back to the beginning of corporate income taxes although currently the highest taxed bracket is corporations that earn between 100k and 335k which are taxed at 39% because they can't afford lobbyists while the 18 mil plus pay 35%. 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
WalMart is pissed

Whatever will they do?

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No, you mentioned the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and how much damage it would do to the country. Yep an influx of income would just mess us up so bad.

The damage that allowing the tax cuts to expire would be a slowing of the economy. When you raise taxes the economy slows temporarily. Since our stated goal is to get the economy going I believe it would be a bad time to raise taxes. As I have stated in other posts I believe our whole tax system needs an overhaul because the middle class currently carries the brunt of the tax burden. Economically speaking the tax rate does not have a huge effect on the permanent well being of the economy as long as it is not so large as to discourage working. In the short term, tax hikes cause the economy to slow. So if you decide that paying off the debt is worth accepting a slow down in an already slow economy fine, make that argument. As I have stated before I believe controlling spending should be our first priority and changing the tax rates should wait until the economy recovers because I don't want to see more people unemployed. What annoys me is the dumb politicians who say raising taxes on those evil rich people won't affect the economy. It will and we can predict exactly how much and the politicians know that. It may be necessary to raise taxes to pay off our debt. I'm not as hard line on that as many on my side but when we do it let us be honest with ourselves and know the consequences. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

 

So in other words, this bill will benefit those institutions that libertarians want to protect (banks, big business that fellate congresscritters and the wealthy)?

Where do you get that idea? Libertarians don't want to protect anyone. We were the ones out there screaming let the bastards go bankrupt. Capitalism is a dog eat dog system and it is good and healthy for businesses to fail. Republicans and democrats joined together to bail them out. And yes, this bill will help them even more.

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Personally I think the worst mistake Obama is making is trying to save capitalism. Libertarians like dismantling failed systems (or so they claim). How about getting rid of that one?

I would hardly call what he is doing as saving capitalism. In a free capitalist market GM would be bankrupt, a bunch of mortgage investors would have lost their shirts and there wouldn't be a bunch of corporations sucking on the government teat. The government loaning money to businesses can hardly be called capitalist. The government outlawing private student loans isn't capitalist. The new healthcare bill isn't capitalist. Exactly what has Obama done to protect capitalism?

Although, to be fair, the move away from capitalism began a long time ago so it isn't all Bama's fault. But the man certainly has no love of capitalism, read his book. 

 

 

Outlawing private student loans?

Oh, you mean making sure that people can only get government loans from the government instead of through a private bank that can add on an interest rate to what the government wants?

So that students and parents only have to pay 3-5% interest instead of 10-12%? Those socialist bastards!

The new "healthcare" bill is eminently capitalist. It's not a healthcare bill. It's a health insurance bill which add the government as a competitor. I thought capitalists liked competition in the market - it's not like the government is a threat to anyone's bottom line.

As for loaning money to the "too big to fail" boys - you and I are in agreement. The problem is that you also see that there are some things in the country that are "too small to succeed".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:. Since

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
. Since our stated goal is to get the economy going I believe it would be a bad time to raise taxes.

Yea, because the corporate class will black male the public and cry that they can't afford it.

I wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class or poor. I would give tax incentives on all size businesses who hire and pay more and keep jobs here. I would give tax breaks to business who provide health care. I would give tax incentives to invest in fuel technology and for car companies to stop producing gas hogs and manufacture alternate fuel sources to get us off middle east oil. I would give tax breaks for companies that manufacture here.

What big business does instead of the right thing and pay their share, when they get taxed they pay off lawmakers to find loopholes and hide their cash overseas and what taxes are left over they pass on to the consumer. And when they make a big mess and fuck up we pay for it.

I don't want to hear any whiny asshole sitting in a boardroom about how the middle and poor classes are to blame. Big business is fucking up our economy and they don't give a shit who they run over.

 

So you agree that big business paying off lawmakers to get loopholes is a problem but believe they should get tax breaks (loopholes) for all the things you mentioned? I don't think the tax code should be used to selectively give certain companies tax breaks but not others. 

 

Of course the cost gets passed to the consumers. Businesses have absolutely no money except the money they get from consumers. Every penny they have comes from consumers who have VOLUNTARILY purchased their product or service at the price the business asked. If you think a big business is ripping you off don't buy their products. Of course, when the government gets involved and uses tax payer money to subsidize businesses then suddenly the consumer has no choice. We are paying for companies like GM even if we don't own a GM vehicle because our government decided GM is "too big to fail". So when I consciously decide not to buy a GM product (which hasn't produced quality for about 10 years) and they start to fail my Congressman reaches into my pocket and takes out money to hand it to them. So you are right. Big business is fucking up our economy, and the government is helping them. 

 

As for my statement that raising taxes will cause the economy to slow, it has nothing to do with businesses intentionally slowing it. When you tax you are taking money out of the market. Less money in the market means a slower economy. Even if the government turns right around and puts it back into the market a certain amount is taken to pay for all the bureaucrats to manage, collect and track all that money. Since bureaucrats do not produce anything the economy slows. If the government uses it to pay off our debt of which much of it is held overseas our economy slows. No matter how you cut it, when you raise taxes on ANYONE the economy will slow because you are taking money out of it. It isn't a matter of evil businessmen wanting to get back at Obama for raising their taxes, it is simple economics 101. Now as I said, that doesn't mean you should never raise taxes. Just recognize that when you do, it will affect the market. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The new

jcgadfly wrote:

The new "healthcare" bill is eminently capitalist. It's not a healthcare bill. It's a health insurance bill which add the government as a competitor. I thought capitalists liked competition in the market - it's not like the government is a threat to anyone's bottom line.

How can any business that requires a profit to continue compete against an entity that uses force to take money and can run for years with massive losses? Especially when the government mandates that you must cover someone with preexisting conditions ie you must pay the medical bills for someone you know will be a net loss to you before they buy your insurance. The eminently capitalist way would be to deregulate the industry so insurance companies compete against each other. Currently, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. What we have going on now is very far from free market capitalism.

jcgadfly wrote:

As for loaning money to the "too big to fail" boys - you and I are in agreement. The problem is that you also see that there are some things in the country that are "too small to succeed".

No, I just believe that small companies can succeed without government help. And since government "help" tends to take the form of helping larger companies the small companies would do much better without the government in the way. Ideally, the government should play the role of a referee ensuring a fair game, right now the government is picking sides. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
But if we help WalMart, we

But if we help WalMart, we help China, which then helps the world economy.

Oh well

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cygo wrote:But if we help

cygo wrote:

But if we help WalMart, we help China, which then helps the world economy.

Oh well

And your point is?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The new "healthcare" bill is eminently capitalist. It's not a healthcare bill. It's a health insurance bill which add the government as a competitor. I thought capitalists liked competition in the market - it's not like the government is a threat to anyone's bottom line.

How can any business that requires a profit to continue compete against an entity that uses force to take money and can run for years with massive losses? Especially when the government mandates that you must cover someone with preexisting conditions ie you must pay the medical bills for someone you know will be a net loss to you before they buy your insurance. The eminently capitalist way would be to deregulate the industry so insurance companies compete against each other. Currently, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. What we have going on now is very far from free market capitalism.

jcgadfly wrote:

As for loaning money to the "too big to fail" boys - you and I are in agreement. The problem is that you also see that there are some things in the country that are "too small to succeed".

No, I just believe that small companies can succeed without government help. And since government "help" tends to take the form of helping larger companies the small companies would do much better without the government in the way. Ideally, the government should play the role of a referee ensuring a fair game, right now the government is picking sides. 

1. When the businesses that require a profit already have more money than the government, I don't think it will be that hard for them to compete. As for "paying the medical bills for someone you know will be a net loss to you" I do that now when some dumb fuck decides that it's his right not to buy insurance. I get to pay for his libertarian ass.

2. Insurance trusts need to be busted - perhaps having the government as a player can make that happen. I don't think so as the gov't isn't going to be a big enough player. In fact, they're acting as an insurance broker for the private corps.

3. Small businesses can succeed without gov't help? You realize that half of all startups fail in the first year even with the help, right? How is "Fend for yourselves, fuckholes" going to be more beneficial? I agree again that they shouldn't be picking the big companies over the small ones. I just can't see how the "don't help anyone" solution is effective.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The new "healthcare" bill is eminently capitalist. It's not a healthcare bill. It's a health insurance bill which add the government as a competitor. I thought capitalists liked competition in the market - it's not like the government is a threat to anyone's bottom line.

How can any business that requires a profit to continue compete against an entity that uses force to take money and can run for years with massive losses? Especially when the government mandates that you must cover someone with preexisting conditions ie you must pay the medical bills for someone you know will be a net loss to you before they buy your insurance. The eminently capitalist way would be to deregulate the industry so insurance companies compete against each other. Currently, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. What we have going on now is very far from free market capitalism.

jcgadfly wrote:

As for loaning money to the "too big to fail" boys - you and I are in agreement. The problem is that you also see that there are some things in the country that are "too small to succeed".

No, I just believe that small companies can succeed without government help. And since government "help" tends to take the form of helping larger companies the small companies would do much better without the government in the way. Ideally, the government should play the role of a referee ensuring a fair game, right now the government is picking sides. 

1. When the businesses that require a profit already have more money than the government, I don't think it will be that hard for them to compete. As for "paying the medical bills for someone you know will be a net loss to you" I do that now when some dumb fuck decides that it's his right not to buy insurance. I get to pay for his libertarian ass.

2. Insurance trusts need to be busted - perhaps having the government as a player can make that happen. I don't think so as the gov't isn't going to be a big enough player. In fact, they're acting as an insurance broker for the private corps.

3. Small businesses can succeed without gov't help? You realize that half of all startups fail in the first year even with the help, right? How is "Fend for yourselves, fuckholes" going to be more beneficial? I agree again that they shouldn't be picking the big companies over the small ones. I just can't see how the "don't help anyone" solution is effective.

Right, it is not either or with me. If big business wants smaller government and less regulation they would actually pay less if they did the right thing on their own. But when they run the economy into the ground what do they expect the other classes to do?

And as far as small business failing, the two light main street where I work has a food joint across the street that has shut down TWICE in the past year and sold twice in the past year. Next to it is a consignment shop, currently, which before, was another failed food joint, and before that was another business. There is an empty  furniture store next to us. A long time stake place shut down two blocks down the street. A long time mom and pop hardware store next to it, shut down, and plenty of un rented space in all the small strip shops in my town.

Its funny that small business owners unfortunately think they have more in common with Wal Mart than they do the workers that work for them. Their inability to compete and high cost of doing business is because the corporate class undercuts small business.

Our economy is becoming a slave to the McDonnalds and Wal Mart class. I feel lucky to have a job at the mom and pop shop I work at and will never ever again in my life work for any corporate goon.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. When the

jcgadfly wrote:

1. When the businesses that require a profit already have more money than the government, I don't think it will be that hard for them to compete. As for "paying the medical bills for someone you know will be a net loss to you" I do that now when some dumb fuck decides that it's his right not to buy insurance. I get to pay for his libertarian ass.

The largest losses in the medical field are medicare patients, most of them are not libertarians. Interestingly enough I just spoke to my brother yesterday who works for a large hospital. He said the hospital had the most patients ever last month but still lost $5 million mainly due to the government not reimbursing them for the full cost of all the medicare patients. But if you want to give medical bill collectors more power to go after unpaid bills I'm with you. If you can't pay your medical bills and didn't have insurance you should be forced to go bankrupt and every penny you own should go towards paying your bill. If we ditch medicare and make the old farts pay for their own medical care you solve a good portion of our current problems.

It will be impossible for insurance companies to compete. The current law requires that every person purchases insurance. Since we live in America and we have a little thing called the Constitution the government does not have the power to force you to enter a contract with a private company. It will most likely be ruled unconstitutional. When you take that provision out, what is to stop you from purchasing insurance only when you go to the doctor? The law requires the insurance company covers you no matter what. If people are buying insurance the day they go to the doctor the insurance companies will go bankrupt. The only ones that will survive will be the large ones that have deals with unions and the government. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Insurance trusts need to be busted - perhaps having the government as a player can make that happen. I don't think so as the gov't isn't going to be a big enough player. In fact, they're acting as an insurance broker for the private corps.

Agreed. And why do they exist now? Because the government regulated them into existence. Right now the industry is regulated state by state. To sell insurance inside a state an insurance company has to be cleared by the state insurance board. In many states you only have a couple of companies to choose from. Other states you have many choices and substantially lower premiums. It is illegal for you as an individual to purchase insurance across state lines. Since the whole point of the commerce clause was to prevent this type of situation congress could pass a simple one page law allowing insurance companies to sell nationwide and suddenly you have a lot of competition. No government program needed.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Small businesses can succeed without gov't help? You realize that half of all startups fail in the first year even with the help, right? How is "Fend for yourselves, fuckholes" going to be more beneficial? I agree again that they shouldn't be picking the big companies over the small ones. I just can't see how the "don't help anyone" solution is effective.

So what if they fail? When you invest in a new business you are taking a huge risk. The reason they fail is because they are doing something wrong. The reasons are limitless. Maybe someone thought it was a good idea to build a taco stand but it turns out no one in the area likes to eat tacos for lunch. So the business fails, should we use government money to keep a taco stand that no one eats at  open? Maybe someone thinks they have a great idea for the next version of beanie babies but can't get enough people to buy them at a high enough price, should we use government money to subsidize them? I worked for a recording studio for a minute the owner invested a ton of money but had no idea how to make a profit. The music sucked never got sold and he closed down. Should we use taxpayer money to keep him in operation? Other businesses shut down voluntarily. Sometimes people start doing it and decide it isn't for them. Starting a business is a lot of unpaid work.

It isn't a oneshot thing. Many times a business fails and the owner learns from their mistakes and starts again creating a better business. I had an uncle who ran a restaurant into the ground. He changed a few things and opened a new restaurant at a new location which he sold for a comfortable retirement sized profit a few years ago. If his first restaurant was kept afloat he never would have learned his lessons and would not have the success he has today. Failure isn't the end of the world. 

As for the "don't help anyone" solution being more effective, read my post on the robber barons. When people invest their own blood, sweat and tears they care a lot more about the outcome. That is where the entrepreneurial spirit comes from. A free capitalist market relies on inefficiency and failure being punished and efficiency and creativity being rewarded. When the government gets involved the result is encouraging inefficiency and removing the penalties for failure. When people are getting money from the government they simply don't care about it as much and will spend in unwisely or worse, use it to pad their own pockets while running the business into the ground. 

If someone has a good business idea and implements it their business will be successful. If someone has a bad idea they will lose all their money. I have the option of investing in new businesses and watching my fortunes rise or fall with the company. If I invest in a bad company I lose my money. Why should the government take my money then send it to businesses that I believe may have bad ideas? What gives you the right to take my money to invest in someone else's startup business? And at the end of the day, I wouldn't invest in a startup company where the owner is spending all their time applying for government help. If that is their focus I am willing to bet that they will eventually fail. I'll invest in the company where the owner spends time developing and implementing their business plan. Remember, the only way the government can "help" is by first taking money (and thereby hurting) someone else. And don't come back and say well the millionaires will pay for it. There aren't enough millionaires and they don't pay for it. Those who make 75-300k pay for it which happens to be the income range a lot of modestly successful small businesses fall into. So you are taking money from a successful small business to support their competition.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
That's $30 Billion for Small Businesses

After months of Republican resistance, the US Senate passed laws to help small businesses with a $30 billion government loan fund.

The bill passed 61-38

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Since we

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since we live in America and we have a little thing called the Constitution the government does not have the power to force you to enter a contract with a private company. It will most likely be ruled unconstitutional. When you take that provision out, what is to stop you from purchasing insurance only when you go to the doctor? The law requires the insurance company covers you no matter what. If people are buying insurance the day they go to the doctor the insurance companies will go bankrupt. The only ones that will survive will be the large ones that have deals with unions and the government. 

 

Does this mean that the requirement for auto insurance is also unconstitutional?  I know of people who only purchase auto insurance after they get a ticket for not having it and then they let it expire after showing proof of insurance to the judge. 

True, they are not able to purchase auto insurance to post-accident repair their auto, but most of these people are driving beaters that are junk yard material.

You are already paying for people without medical insurance.  The public hospitals, by law, must treat anyone who shows up, insurance or not.  And so the hospitals inflate their costs to the insurance companies to help cover these people.  Which inflates insurance costs.  We are all paying for people who can't afford health care, now, today, via the "free" market.  Do get over it.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Our dept could

Brian37 wrote:

Our dept could be paid off very quickly if the top 2% wealthy would stop buying off congress, black mailing congress and pay their share. It is bullshit to say that taxing the wealthy will destroy the economy. It will because all they do is threaten society if they cant hoard like they do.

 

Agreed....  The most under utilized word concerning our political process is Collusion.... It circumvents the democratic process, and it is the opposite of Capitolism.... It also allows the far Left & Right to argue over the Merits (or lack thereof) of "Capitolism"...while the left are really making the case for socialism, and the Right for Corperatism....

I submit This recent piece of legislation which past unanimously in the Supreme Court: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/25scotus.html

Both political parties are complicit in this.... Both benefit. ... Both Suck. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Does this mean that

cj wrote:

Does this mean that the requirement for auto insurance is also unconstitutional?  I know of people who only purchase auto insurance after they get a ticket for not having it and then they let it expire after showing proof of insurance to the judge. 

No, for two reasons. First, owning auto insurance is only required to drive on public roads. Since the roads are public the government is able to regulate the requirements to use them which includes auto insurance, certain physical requirements for the vehicle, working lights etc. If you don't want to buy auto insurance don't drive a car on a public road. With the health insurance law you must own health insurance simply because you exist. Legally speaking that is a huge difference. Second, you are only required to buy auto insurance to protect OTHER drivers. You are not required to have auto insurance to cover damages to your own vehicle. So the requirement makes sense. If you are driving on a public road your actions may put others at risk so you must have insurance to cover any damage you may cause them.

cj wrote:

You are already paying for people without medical insurance.  The public hospitals, by law, must treat anyone who shows up, insurance or not.  And so the hospitals inflate their costs to the insurance companies to help cover these people.  Which inflates insurance costs.  We are all paying for people who can't afford health care, now, today, via the "free" market.  Do get over it.

The medical field is not a free market and thats why we have so many problems with it. If you go to a hospital you get treated regardless of your ability or willingness to pay. In a free market all the people who show up in the emergency room with a cold would have to pay for it or be turned away. If you go to the supermarket and take food without paying for it they won't let you take it out the door. You have to pay for everything else you require to live and if you steal it you go to jail, why should medical care be any different?

If we aren't going to give hospitals the same freedom a supermarket has to turn away people who can't or won't pay then we need to give them a lot more power to go after those peoples assets. But again, half of all unpaid bills are from medicare and medicaid because our government doesn't pay the bills they promised to pay. I'm sure everything will be just peachy when the government starts paying everyones bills.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I'm sure everything will be just peachy when the government starts paying everyones bills.  

 

It would be a lot easier to have discussions with you if you didn't keep throwing out comments that are just plain wrong.  The new system is NOT a single payer system.  All of those insurance companies are still privately owned, they may set the cost of their premiums according to their own business models.  The government won't be selling or paying for insurance, it will just be subsidizing insurance premiums for those who can't pay the market rate.  This is not socialism, it is not single payer, it is not ..........

And surprise, surprise, most people who go to the emergency room for treatment have an emergency.  Not a cold.  No one goes to a hospital emergency room unless they have to.  I still don't have a pdf reader installed after my pc crashed, so you will have to look up the details yourself.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/ervisits.htm

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Beyond Saving

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I'm sure everything will be just peachy when the government starts paying everyones bills.  

 It would be a lot easier to have discussions with you if you didn't keep throwing out comments that are just plain wrong.  The new system is NOT a single payer system.  All of those insurance companies are still privately owned, they may set the cost of their premiums according to their own business models.  The government won't be selling or paying for insurance, it will just be subsidizing insurance premiums for those who can't pay the market rate.  This is not socialism, it is not single payer, it is not ..........

And surprise, surprise, most people who go to the emergency room for treatment have an emergency.  Not a cold.  No one goes to a hospital emergency room unless they have to.  I still don't have a pdf reader installed after my pc crashed, so you will have to look up the details yourself.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/ervisits.htm

My argument is that the healthcare bill will necessarily lead to a single payer system because most health insurance companies will go bankrupt. So when that happens what will the government do? The most obvious answer is to create a single payer system. The big gov folks will come out and say "See the free market failed, we need government" and people will be mad after paying a boatload of money to insurance companies that go belly up. I doubt the politicians will throw up their hands and say whoops we messed up and need to undo what we did. I probably should have made that more clear but I wasn't really trying to compose an argument against healthcare in my post just illustrating one of the reasons I believe insurance companies will go bankrupt. I really hope I am proven wrong but how can an insurance company possibly survive when people don't buy insurance until they need to collect?  

Did I say most people who go to the emergency room have a cold? If I did that isn't what I meant. (Although according to the stats you provided 10% of emergency room visits are non-urgent so some people go who don't have to) I don't really care why people go to the emergency room as long as they pay for it. If you can't pay for it right away you should set up a payment plan. We already have a program to insure those who are truly destitute, it is called medicaid and many states also have similar programs, so mostly what we are really talking about with the uninsured are people who have some money but choose not to buy insurance (including yours truly). If you have money and no insurance and you go to the emergency room you should pay for it. If you own a cell phone and/or pay for cable tv you have money.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Where' the total NO-ness when you need it?

Have Republicans blinked?