Are we ready for another Contract with America?

[Gill]

Banks have PLENTY of money to lend. There's no shortage. There's a shortage of companies who are expanding and WANTING to borrow money. Throwing more of our money at this problem is not the way to grow business. Getting more money into the hands of Main Street is the way to grow the economy.

You're exactly right. Banks have money to loan and many businesses have job openings, but both are afraid to pull the trigger since there is so much uncertainty with the Obama administration. Taxes are about to rise and health care expenses are about to sky rocket. No one knows the full impact of the healthcare reform package or the bank reform bill that was just passed.

This administration can't figure out why the economy has tanked further since he took office, yet many business leaders are saying that this is the most business unfriendly administration since Carter.

 

[MaggieD]

i work for a bank, and not as a teller. liquidity is a real problem right now, and not just for my bank. and btw, who do you think this bill is FOR? you have an issue with cutting taxes for small business? seriously?

I don't care where you work. The larger problem is finding qualfiied borrowers. Congress' definition of small business and MY definition of small business are two entirely different things, seriously.

 

[liblady]

I don't care where you work. The larger problem is finding qualfiied borrowers. Congress' definition of small business and MY definition of small business are two entirely different things, seriously.

wow...bitch much?

 

[MaggieD]

wow...bitch much?

LibLady, I find your style offensive. Stick to the topic.

 

[ricksfolly]

Some of the goodies:

The legislation would encourage investment in small businesses by allowing investors to exclude 100 percent of the gains from the sale of certain small business stock from their income for tax purposes if the stock is held for more than five years. This policy would help small business owners access more private capital to finance an expansion and hire new workers. >>

Well, okay, but only established small businesses that just need capital, not new start ups with no business background or a realistic business plan.

ricksfolly

 

[cpwill]

You know that is an interesting point you bring there. Just for something to chew on, the average CEO wage against employee in the 1950s was 60 to 1. The average now? 700 to 1. But hey man I get it, you think the trinkle down thing works.

hmmm, but why should i care? only if i was foolish enough to believe that wealth was finite would I think that somehow having one guy earn more would nessecitate that someone else earn less.

CEO Joe's income and style of living certainly has gone up. So has Worker Bob's. The Poor today largely live in conditions that would have been considered solidly middle class in the 1950's and 60's.

as for "trickle down" as applied to taxes.... let me get this straight. do you consider anything less than a 100% tax rate to be "government giving money" to whomever keeps some?

 

[FilmFestGuy]

hmmm, but why should i care? only if i was foolish enough to believe that wealth was finite would I think that somehow having one guy earn more would nessecitate that someone else earn less.

CEO Joe's income and style of living certainly has gone up. So has Worker Bob's. The Poor today largely live in conditions that would have been considered solidly middle class in the 1950's and 60's.

as for "trickle down" as applied to taxes.... let me get this straight. do you consider anything less than a 100% tax rate to be "government giving money" to whomever keeps some?

What decade do you consider to be the best economically? Please answer.

 

[LizardofOz]

hmmm, but why should i care? only if i was foolish enough to believe that wealth was finite would I think that somehow having one guy earn more would nessecitate that someone else earn less.

CEO Joe's income and style of living certainly has gone up. So has Worker Bob's. The Poor today largely live in conditions that would have been considered solidly middle class in the 1950's and 60's.

as for "trickle down" as applied to taxes.... let me get this straight. do you consider anything less than a 100% tax rate to be "government giving money" to whomever keeps some?

So your saying that the poor now love living paycheck to paycheck?

 

[LizardofOz]

What's the difference? Everybody's paying taxes on what they're earning....either at the corporate or the individual level. If a Board of Directors is so enamored with a CEO they're willing to pay what you consider an outrageous sum, what difference does it make to you? When did we turn into the Soviet Union?

Uh-oh someone played the communism card and even had the audicty to bold it as to make their point more valid. You see, this is why we put regulations on board of directors and CEOs so situations like this will not occur.

 

[cpwill]

What decade do you consider to be the best economically? Please answer.

hmmm... tricky; each has their own problems. are we talking about raw improvement in the life of the Average American? overall growth? one with the highest income per capita?

i would say that the general veneration of any decade is as foolish as the general veneration of any individual human being. each has their worthy lessons to learn of What They Did Right and worthy warnings to learn of What They Did Wrong.

:shrug: early to mid 20's, perhaps. Pre-Big-Government-Hoover, and with the obvious issue of the Tariff.

 

[cpwill]

So your saying that the poor now love living paycheck to paycheck?

i don't know. have you come to grips yet with the fact that you hate freedom and love communism?


hey lookit that! i can create emotionally charged strawmen too! oh geez, if i'd known how easy this is i never would have tried actually debating. thanks for showing me the way, WOlin! :thumbs:


seriously, did that post even have a point?

 

[LizardofOz]

I've noticed a trend my short time on this forum, when a conservative can't conjure up a more valid point, they immediately revert to the days when they were young (I guess 20-30 years ago?) and all the rage was the Cold War. Your point is that apparently we do not need food stamps or things that help people out during economic restraint because somehow they have it even better, although back when you were my age you could quit your job making $12/hr and go down the road and make $16/hr the same day. That apparently, somehow I am better off than you were when you were my age. Is that the point you are making, or is it just like after you eat some tacos and you can't control wtf comes out of that?

 

[cpwill]

:lol:

1. i am 27.

2. i have been 'poor'. i know for a fact that many people don't need food stamps because my family rated food stamps (and WIC and a couple of other things); and we did not take them. didn't believe in them. no it wasn't 'fun', but life is not supposed to be easy; and often it is less rich if it is. we did just fine, we lived beneath our means, stayed debt-free, and saved money for the future. i work full time and she raises (soon to be two) kids full time, and both of us are able to pursue degrees on the side. now, a couple of promotions later i'm bringing in a little over 3 grand a month; and we feel like we're sitting fairly pretty. i will earn significantly more later, and we will be able to do lots of fun things with it (like give it away) because we won't need it. but no aid program got us anywhere; hard work and responsible living did.

3. nobody has to 'live paycheck to paycheck'; everyone should keep an emergency fund of 3-6 months of living expenses at all times.

 

[LizardofOz]

I am sorry I made assumptions about your age, although you come off as any other old man that thinks their **** don't stink.

I commend you for not taking help; I personally believe unless absolutely needed should you take the help and I understand that the system does get played o' plenty but more often than not there is a genuine need for these programs, some of us genuinely get lucky with their living and job situations, others get stuck in a cycle that is difficult to break. Also I just want to point out I have not taken any government assistant once in my life and I think pride is something that keeps millions of Americans that genuinely need it from taking it as well, although I don't think I ever personally needed the help.

As for your third point, I totally agree, but it can be damn near impossible for some to do such. In my own situation, the cost of living got to high, and after living on my own from the age of 18 until now (I am going to be turning 25 soon) I reluctantly moved back in with my family so that I can get back on my feet. Like I said though, no amount of hardwork and good will can keep life from happening, and then those funds you were saving for a rainy day get pissed away in a heartbeat.

 

[cpwill]

I am sorry I made assumptions about your age, although you come off as any other old man that thinks their **** don't stink.

dang straight! i happen to be a young man who thinks his ---- dont' stink! :lol:

I commend you for not taking help; I personally believe unless absolutely needed should you take the help and I understand that the system does get played o' plenty but more often than not there is a genuine need for these programs, some of us genuinely get lucky with their living and job situations, others get stuck in a cycle that is difficult to break. Also I just want to point out I have not taken any government assistant once in my life and I think pride is something that keeps millions of Americans that genuinely need it from taking it as well, although I don't think I ever personally needed the help.

well it's a slippery trap; once you've taken one you continue to justify taking more and more - and i've always found it easy enough to justify what was easiest for me to do, anyway. originally, most people didn't want to take TANF payments either, government workers were actually taught to shame people into it by telling them that if they didn't they weren't providing for their children. Now, it's a multi-generational phenomenon. The introduction of these kinds of 'aid' entitlement programs can be empirically demonstrated over time to increase dependence upon them. programs that make it easy to be poor, sadly, increase poverty.

As for your third point, I totally agree, but it can be damn near impossible for some to do such.

it takes time and discipline. but it's a great feeling of security to have (in my case, what i feel we need) $10,000 always between yourself and mr murphy. my car got totalled, and insurance took it's sweet time the same week a washer crapped out and i had to take a cross-country (well, cross-south-east) week long trip; and i just paid cash for the whole thing without worrying where the money was going to come from or how i was going to pay for it.

we were able to save that, and we were able to start an IRA for ourselves and an ESA for our son.

In my own situation, the cost of living got to high, and after living on my own from the age of 18 until now (I am going to be turning 25 soon) I reluctantly moved back in with my family so that I can get back on my feet. Like I said though, no amount of hardwork and good will can keep life from happening, and then those funds you were saving for a rainy day get pissed away in a heartbeat.

sometimes you have to do what you have to do; when i was deployed i moved my wife and son back with her folks; though that was more for sanity than money (though it did help save on the money side as well).

but hitting hard times doesn't mean that you should support programs which make it harder for us to get back in gear again; and massive deficit spending and endless extensions of unemployment benefits etc. serve to do just that.

 

[MaggieD]

well it's a slippery trap; once you've taken one you continue to justify taking more and more - and i've always found it easy enough to justify what was easiest for me to do, anyway. originally, most people didn't want to take TANF payments either, government workers were actually taught to shame people into it by telling them that if they didn't they weren't providing for their children. Now, it's a multi-generational phenomenon. The introduction of these kinds of 'aid' entitlement programs can be empirically demonstrated over time to increase dependence upon them. programs that make it easy to be poor, sadly, increase poverty.

it takes time and discipline. but it's a great feeling of security to have (in my case, what i feel we need) $10,000 always between yourself and mr murphy. my car got totalled, and insurance took it's sweet time the same week a washer crapped out and i had to take a cross-country (well, cross-south-east) week long trip; and i just paid cash for the whole thing without worrying where the money was going to come from or how i was going to pay for it.

we were able to save that, and we were able to start an IRA for ourselves and an ESA for our son.

sometimes you have to do what you have to do; when i was deployed i moved my wife and son back with her folks; though that was more for sanity than money (though it did help save on the money side as well).

but hitting hard times doesn't mean that you should support programs which make it harder for us to get back in gear again; and massive deficit spending and endless extensions of unemployment benefits etc. serve to do just that.

CPWill. Wow. What a great post, honestly. You, sir, embody a 'certain something' that we don't see enough of in the USA. Thank you for your service.

 

[LizardofOz]

dang straight! i happen to be a young man who thinks his ---- dont' stink! :lol:



well it's a slippery trap; once you've taken one you continue to justify taking more and more - and i've always found it easy enough to justify what was easiest for me to do, anyway. originally, most people didn't want to take TANF payments either, government workers were actually taught to shame people into it by telling them that if they didn't they weren't providing for their children. Now, it's a multi-generational phenomenon. The introduction of these kinds of 'aid' entitlement programs can be empirically demonstrated over time to increase dependence upon them. programs that make it easy to be poor, sadly, increase poverty.



it takes time and discipline. but it's a great feeling of security to have (in my case, what i feel we need) $10,000 always between yourself and mr murphy. my car got totalled, and insurance took it's sweet time the same week a washer crapped out and i had to take a cross-country (well, cross-south-east) week long trip; and i just paid cash for the whole thing without worrying where the money was going to come from or how i was going to pay for it.

we were able to save that, and we were able to start an IRA for ourselves and an ESA for our son.



sometimes you have to do what you have to do; when i was deployed i moved my wife and son back with her folks; though that was more for sanity than money (though it did help save on the money side as well).

but hitting hard times doesn't mean that you should support programs which make it harder for us to get back in gear again; and massive deficit spending and endless extensions of unemployment benefits etc. serve to do just that.

It's great that you were able to do that, and awesome that you were/are in the service, however it is definately a lot easier to save like that when Uncle Sam is helping you out (be it in the armed forces or other means) or when you have the help of your parents. My situation before, I moved out when I was 18 with no money saved, straight into college and quickly learned the folly of my ways. Previously my parents couldn't really help, and even now they can't help much.

It definately is good to see other younger people be more concerned about finances as there are few and far between. Most people my age I guess dream about sports cars, and $500 sunglasses, I dream about buying stocks and CDs. Hardwork definately pays off in the long run, but especially in the instance of single moms, these things help out.

 

[Josie]

*sigh*

Okay. I have a little bit of energy now. cpwill and Gill are obviously much smarter about economics, small businesses, taxes, etc. than I am.

 

[liblady]

LibLady, I find your style offensive. Stick to the topic.

and i find yours childish and uninformed.

 

[liblady]

You're exactly right. Banks have money to loan and many businesses have job openings, but both are afraid to pull the trigger since there is so much uncertainty with the Obama administration. Taxes are about to rise and health care expenses are about to sky rocket. No one knows the full impact of the healthcare reform package or the bank reform bill that was just passed.

This administration can't figure out why the economy has tanked further since he took office, yet many business leaders are saying that this is the most business unfriendly administration since Carter.

hey there...care to quote the many business leaders who said that? thanks.

 

[Gill]

hey there...care to quote the many business leaders who said that? thanks.

OK....

"Business is ambivalent about the Obama administration. I think the jury is still out," said Cam Fine, head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, noting he had seen proposals favorable to his industry turned into legislation.

"You hear administration officials speak very favorably about business and wanting to spur business conditions and then at other times the rhetoric is very harsh. So I think it's, right now, kind of a guessing game."

Obama irks business community with policies, tone | Reuters

"There's been a lot of uncertainty around what direction we're going to go with healthcare," Jim Owens, chairman and chief executive of Caterpillar Inc, told a press conference ahead of a two-day meeting of the Business Council, a group of about 100 U.S. chief executives in Florida last week.

"If Congress and the administration can move forward together with more clarity around ... taxation and fiscal policy, I think that would be also helpful."

Obama irks business community with policies, tone | Reuters

The growing tension between the Obama administration and business is a cause for national concern. The president has lost the confidence of employers, whose worries over taxes and the increased costs of new regulation are holding back investment and growth. The government must appreciate that confidence is an imperative if business is to invest, take risks and put the millions of unemployed back to productive work.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Obama needs to stop baiting business

Mr Immelt also had harsh words for Barack Obama, US president, lamenting what he called a “terrible” national mood and expressing concern that over-regulation in response to the global financial crisis would damp a “tepid” US economic recovery. Business did not like the US president, and the president did not like business, he said, making a point of praising Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, for her defence of German industry.

Read more: Jeff Immelt Unscripted: China Screws Foreign Companies And Obama Hates Business


More ????

 

[liblady]

OK....


Obama irks business community with policies, tone | Reuters


Obama irks business community with policies, tone | Reuters


FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Obama needs to stop baiting business



Read more: Jeff Immelt Unscripted: China Screws Foreign Companies And Obama Hates Business


More ????

which quotes say that business leaders think this is the most unfriendly atmosphere since carter? which ones? thanks, i won't hold my breath.

from your post:

This administration can't figure out why the economy has tanked further since he took office, yet many business leaders are saying that this is the most business unfriendly administration since Carter.

 

[Gill]

which quotes say that business leaders think this is the most unfriendly atmosphere since carter? which ones? thanks, i won't hold my breath.

from your post:

If that's your best retort Ms "business owner", then you are finished.

Once the darling of everyone, this administration now seems to be at odds with everyone, fussing, feuding and defending itself. Not since Carter have we had a White House so divorced from public opinion.

The White House Against The World - IBD - Investors.com

Adios. :2wave:

 

[Dittohead not!]

1994 Contract with America:

Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
Limit the terms of all committee chairs;
Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
Require committee meetings to be open to the public;
Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
Guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

What other points should be included?

that balanced budget amendment from the past contract,
term limits,
a cap on campaign expenditures,
strict rules on "gifts' from lobbyists

among no doubt some others

What should be the penalty for failure?

loss of office and a sentence of living on minimum wage for a year.

Are we ready for that THIS year? 2012?

Nope. It's possible that the Republicans could propose another contract, just like they did last time they weren't in power, but it will again be swept under the rug once they do get back in power.

 

[American]

I believe the government already has a contract, The Constitution.

That one only applies to conservatives and libertarians.