Jackson Jambalaya

Democrats screw small businesses" - this is "news"? Why not just set it in type permanently.

Those first four words should be in quotes together. My bad.

There were two amendments, one Dem and one GOP. Both attempted to address the 1099 issue, and both were voted down. So this is the Democrats screwing small businesses? Why aren't you saying that the GOP is screwing small business, Kingfish? Because you are a partisan hack?

Kingfish, try reading your own writing before coming up with a post title. The results may surprise you.

The Democrats control the Senate. The Democrats wrote section 9006. The Democrats passed it and signed it into law. The Obama administration realizes there is a backlash over this section but instead of supporting repeal, only wants to scale it back some. The Senate said no to that. The Senate also said to to repealing the section.

I just don't get it, it is ALWAYS the GOP's fault but the Dems own the house, the senate by wide majoritys and the white house. The can pass anything they want, without the GOP. So why is it always someone else at fault?

September 15, 2010 12:48 PM

Your grasp at deeper thinking about these issues eludes you my friend, or Donner K, whichever you wish to go under.

"The Democrats control the Senate."

No. False. They passed the bill FIFTY-SIX TO FORTY-TWO. You said so yourself.

But the GOP, strict constructionists all, has declared that 60 votes are now required to pass anything in the Senate.

So, if Kingfish had any honesty here, the post title would be: "Republicans Screw Small Businesses Yesterday."

The revisions took away a lot of the valid objections to the provision, which after all is designed to stop people from cheating on their taxes.

Is tax cheating now approved by Jackson Jambalaya? What other laws do you suggest we violate, sir?

Smarter Republicans, please.

The Dems have finally realized they will be getting routed, and are desperately trying to push through every stupid idea they can while they can (see the DREAM Act - is THAT really necessary for a military budget bill?).

Senate approves small business aid
By Brady Dennis

The Senate on Thursday passed a long-stalled bill aimed at providing the nation's small businesses easier access to credit, the latest effort to create jobs and boost the struggling economy.

The 61-38 vote came just after noon, with two Republicans joining the Democratic majority to give President Obama a legislative victory he has been pursuing for months.

"This bill takes [the] credit crunch head on and helps small businesses access the capital they need through targeted tax cuts, robust incentives for investment and support for entrepreneurship," said Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), saying the measure would help "get Americans back to work."

You think this helps small business?

The main problem is not the credit, it is the DEMAND. Businesses are not going to take on more credit if there is no demand.

By the way, the tax hikes that will take place when the Bush tax cuts expire will hurt successful small businesses.

But, back to your little bill. There is not a problem providing credit to businesses, there is a problem in having enough credit-worthy borrowers just as there is no real problem in mortgage lending right now per se, there are simply not enough credit worthy borrowers and the market has to adjust to that fact.

So in your fantasy world, expiring tax cuts, more 1099 paperwork, and incentives to BORROW more money are "helping" small businesses. Right. How about reducing the paperwork, giving them permanent ACROSS THE BOARD tax cuts, cutting the corporate tax rate, and leaving the lending to the markets? That is what I would call real help. All Congress has done is make it worse.

As I wrote, businsses are not going to borrow in a weak economy. WHY would a business take on more debt when there is no or little demand? Yet you rattle about about your helping small businesses by helping them take on more debt. Yet I'm the hack. Ok.

How will not extending Bush's tax cuts to the top 4% of the richest hurt small business? The OMB just sited that those cuts would add $4 trillion to the national debt if extended.

Tax cuts for the rich (and the cuts for business Obama is proposing) – as with cuts to the wealthy in the past – will do little-to-nothing to restore growth. The reason why is obvious enough: at a time when the masses are tapped out due to continued high levels of unemployment, massive layoffs, and high levels of personal debt, Americans have little incentive to spend without caution. Putting more money into the hands of the public (through a mass public employment program, for example, or other social welfare programs), would help in terms of stimulating spending and economic growth. What will not help are tax cuts aimed at businesses that have no incentive to increase production of goods and services because of the decreased ability of the mass public to afford such goods at a time when everyone is tightening their belts. All that tax cuts for the rich will do is further increase the already appalling depression-level inequality that exists in this country. Besides, business elites have been sitting on a mountain of cash for some time now. If they haven’t invested that money by hiring new workers, there’s little reason to expect that they will do so following another infusion of tax cuts. Corporations like the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer are sitting on more than $26 billion in cash, refusing to reinvest it in job growth. Pfizer isn’t alone either. Fortune reports that non-finance companies in the S&P 500 are holding $837 billion in cash, a growth of 26% since 2009, at a time when the economy limps along and the state mass layoffs for public workers are becoming more common. This level of cash reserves is far outside normal levels from years past, and is unconscionable at a time when these companies should be hiring new workers and focusing on expansion.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/71683

12:32 It sounds like Pfizer is doing exactly what I am doing: holding onto money until I get a better sense of what my tax burden will be, and what the economy in general will be. It's the same reason people are not buying houses now, because they're afraid the value will start dropping and they'll be left upside-down.

10:24 you're either ignorant or lying. The OMC reported that extending the Bush tax cuts FOR EVERYONE will put $3.9 trillion dollars in the hands of private taxpayers rather than the government. They also reported that extending the cuts for only the bottom 97% of the population would put $3.0 trillion in the hands of private taxpayers. Clearly the lion's share of the revenue that your ilk seems to think belongs to the government is already going to the "middle class".

Like most sensible people I realize neither I, nor anyone I know, have ever gotten hired and paid by a poor man.

If I'm a business and because of government regulation, the top 4% of my customers have been forced to only buy from me up to a certain number....

... I have expenses I pay and I pay those expenses by budgeting based on what my income is, which was artificially lowered by government intervention...

...then someone comes along and proposes removing the stipulation, would the defenders really say that not extending the stipulations would result in a lower net income for my business?

The U.S. takes in X dollars. How does not adding to that take increase the deficit? Isn't the deficit composed of both income and expenses? Aren't we all adding to the deficit right now because we are not devoting 80% of our income to federal taxes?

What about the 50% of Americans who pay no taxes, are they adding to the deficit because they don't pay taxes?

50% of Americans who pay no taxes??? Have you ever heard of sales tax or property tax. If 50% of Americans are not paying income taxes, that is because they don't make enough income to have to pay because they are already living in poverty or they are so rich that they can find every loop hole in the universe so they don't pay taxes (ever heard of corporate welfare)because they are greedy.

I'll make the assumption you're not ignorant and are simply removing the context in order to generate a straw argument. Sales tax nor property tax have anything to do with calculating the federal deficit.

36% of Americans end up with a zero-tax situation after taking their credits and deductions. They are neither living in poverty or are rich by any definition. Approximately 15% more don't earn enough to file a return. What you might consider poverty level.

But, please, don't allow facts to get in the way of your class-baiting corporate bashing.

Expiring tax cuts hit taxpayers at every level

Here's some pressure for lawmakers: If they don't reach agreement on extending soon-to-expire Bush-era tax cuts, nearly all their constituents back home will get big tax increases.

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

Democrats have been arguing for much of the past decade that tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under former President George W. Bush provided a windfall for the wealthy. That's true, but they also reduced taxes for the working poor, the middle class, and just about everyone in between.

Pelosi said the nation cannot afford to extend tax cuts.

"I see no justification for going into debt to foreign countries to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America," Pelosi said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100916/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts

1) If Pelosi is suddenly so concerned about going into debt she could do what most of us do when our household expenses exceed our income: cut spending (it ain't rocket science).

2) After hearing a never-ending chorus of whining about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" it is beyond ironic to suddenly hear the Democrats praise the soon-to-expire tax cuts as "Obama's middle-class tax cuts". Hypocrites.

3) Today's bumper sticker (above the Tougaloo license plate holder): We don't need a Tea Party. Mississippi has the Klan". When you can't counter an argument with facts, start the ad hominem name-calling.

NO SHIT. If DC can't figure out that our kids are getting fed more Ramen noodles than ever before, you think, someone might stand up and say, "Nothing has really worked since the days of Clinton; maybe we need to reassess what the hell we are doing."

I'm not touting Clinton, Bush Sr. did the same thing Clinton did.... NOTHING. Thank God. It is when any President does something that we begin to get in trouble...

List...

1. Health Care
2. War on Terror
3. Iraq War

Anyone wants to disagree with me, fine. But add up the investment we have spent and are going to spend. We could probably fund MS for a decade with all the money spent. I remember a quote, "a Billion here, a billion there, eventually we will be talking about real money."

When are we going to admit, its not the politicians that got us in this mess? It is the individuals who think that foot-loose and fancy-free is the way to live. For those of us that are conservative, living within our means, conscious of others around us and liberal enough to know that harming the environment at the expense of the future; we are fools. We just let it happen. We will suffer the consequences of other's inability to be responsible. But that is OK.

Time heals all wounds, and it is my belief when those who are yelling the loudest begin to realize, that polarized views of the world will not work and instead embrace compromise; then and only then will we begin to see prosperity again revisit the America Dream.

Done for now. Rant over.

KK

It is so puzzling to see the long explanations how giving money to the poor and raising taxes on the businesses and high income tax payers is the way to stimulate the economy. Who do you think employs the majority of Americans? The socially unfortunate? No, the rich people buy clothes and go out to eat and buy cars and run businesses and put 50 times more money back into the economy than a poor person who gets $1000 over a years time. It is just bizarre thinking to believe that the poor people are going to save the economy. I have never gotten a job from a poor person.....have you???

You are commenting on the poor being the solution 12:06? I did not argue any of your points you mention. Not sure who you are speaking to.

I was speaking to those who have lived off the increased equity in their homes, drove cars beyond their means, and ran up short term debt to the detriment of the overall fundamentals in our economy. If you have something to say about that, I am open to discussion, but your attack on the fact we are in the most impoverished times in many years and that somehow I believe focusing on them is the solution baffles me.

Take another shot.

He also ignores my statement about demand. Why would a business borrow more money when demand is weak? It needs customers and revenue, not debt.

Agreed. I'm not going to grow my business if no one can buy anything. Also, the rich "trickle-down" affect while tempting, takes years, and frankly they are not going to be buying a great deal of my widgets. And the conversion costs of shifting my business to target a high-income discretionary spend is, well, NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I will be extremely cautious of investment that pays a return, sometimes referred to as ROI. If I cannot substantiate my ROI, I'm not investing.

I do have to agree KF that the burden that is being placed on Small Business by the HCR is a huge burden and if you really think about it, its forced investment into an activity that does nothing for the business; it helps the government determine another pool of business transactions to tax.