GOP Blocking Aid To Small Businesses

by Ben Hoffman

Small businesses have put hiring, supply buying and real estate expansion on hold as they wait out the vote on a small-business-aid bill that stalled in the Senate earlier this summer.

The much-debated legislation offers tax breaks and waived loan fees. But it also comes with more divisive components, such as a $30 billion fund that would help community banks give loans to small businesses. Opponents say the fund would be a mini version of the often-criticized TARP large-bank bailout program.

Many small businesses had hoped the legislation would pass the Senate by the end of July. With two weeks left until Congress reconvenes, those firms are in a holding pattern.

“I’m still waiting for Congress to sign off on the bill,” says Amarjit Kaur, who runs a convenience store and gas station in Wood Village, Ore. She leases her property but has a chance to buy it. With the waived-fee provision, Kaur says she could save about $35,000 on her pending loan.

Read more…

It’s a myth that Republicans are “pro” business. They’re only for helping big corporations because that’s where their funding comes from, but it’s small business that drives our economy. They couldn’t care less about the middle class small businessman.

This November, vote for America. Vote Democrat.

63 Comments to “GOP Blocking Aid To Small Businesses”

  1. [This November, vote for America. Vote Democrat.]

    Joke, right?

  2. Just one? The elimination of the “marriage penalty tax” in 2001, which, BTW, unless reauthorized by the current Dems will result again in the tax disparity and an increase in taxes on married couples.

  3. What, too many for you to keep up with?

  4. Censorship? Really?

  5. “Those tax cuts put our country deep in debt. Nobody but a conservative would claim that was good for our country.”

    NO, those tax cuts are not responsible for the majority of our debt….

    From an earlier WaPo article I read, in 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn’t change between 2007 and 2009. Other issues such as the recession, paltry recovery, TARP, Obama’s stimulus have greatly contributed to our country’s debt. Entitlement and new spending as projected under Obama is the main cause of our debt in the future.

    So if Americans keeping more of the money they earn (less taxes)…and using they money in the economy AS THEY SEE FIT…if that is not good for the country, what is?

    Why do you believe that government control of more and more of our money is best? Frankly, I don’t wish for more union bailouts, bank bailouts, ACORN-like funding, and unnecessary local projects….all courtesy of my tax dollars.

    • [NO, those tax cuts are not responsible for the majority of our debt]

      No, your answer is pure right-wing spin. When Bush took office, we had budget surpluses. By his final fiscal year in 2009, his tax cuts had doubled the national debt. You can spin that all you want but those are the facts.

      Bush’s TARP did contribute a lot to the 2009 deficit. The stimulus only contributed about 200 billion dollars to the 1.4 trillion dollar deficit that year, which was Bush’s final fiscal year.

      [So if Americans keeping more of the money they earn (less taxes)…and using they money in the economy AS THEY SEE FIT…if that is not good for the country, what is?]

      How could the enormous debt be good for our country? It’s destroying our country. We’re deeply indebted to communist China. We’re paying some 500 billion dollars a year just on interest on the debt. How the hell is that good for our country?

      [Frankly, I don’t wish for more union bailouts, bank bailouts, ACORN-like funding, and unnecessary local projects….all courtesy of my tax dollars.]

      We elect Representatives to control how money gets spent. If you don’t like what they’re doing, elect different Representatives.

      • ” his tax cuts had doubled the national debt. You can spin that all you want but those are the facts.”

        That is just simply not true. Bush’s tax cuts did not double the national debt. As a matter of fact Bush’s deficit/GDP was well below the average until 2008. For all the talk of Clinton’s “surplus”…it ws never as large as lefties claim. The $7 Trillion swing in deficit from projections in the 2002 through 2011 timeframe (CBO NUMBERS) is largely due to two things: Recessions and bad assumptions on Clinton’s surplus (ie unrealistic 1990’s bubble revenues assumed to last for years and spending levels at the 1930’s levels as % of GDP)to the tune of 33% of that swing…and second, due to entitlement and defense spending to the tune of 32% of that swing.
        Bush’s tax cuts accounted for ONLY 14% of that swing. Hardly a doubling a debt.

        The jump in deficit was largely caused by TARP (pushed by both parties, particulary the majority Democrats who led Congress), recession, and Obama’s stimulus.

        “How could the enormous debt be good for our country? It’s destroying our country.”

        I fully agree. But a government that spends us into oblivion is not the answer either. For all of Bush and GOP/Dem-led Congressional spending of the last decade, Obama and the current Congress are the masters of spending.

        If you believe debt is so dangerous, then I’m sure you disagree with Obama’s numbers through 2020. The deficit/GDP is 6.1% through 2015 with Obama (compared to Bush’s average 3.2%)
        In addition our debt will double from $7.5 Trillion ending 2009 to over $15 Trillion by 2015…and upwards of $20 Trillion by 2020.
        Those are CBO numbers, not mine.

        Debt/GDP numbers of 90% by 2020 are COMPLETELY unsustainable.

        Spending and mortgaging the futures of our children…and then raising our taxes to personally unsustainable/manageable rates is not the answer.

        “Deeming” a budget passed (as Dems have done this year) is not the answer to controlled spending. NEVER before has a Congress “Deemed” a budget passed so that they can spend to their heart’s content with no documented limits.
        Is that fiscally sound? Do you want your taxes raised while your government spends our money at will with no accountability?…on top of spending money we DON’T have at a rate that will destroy America?

        Massive spending on government-run healthcare is not the answer, payoffs to unions, unending bailouts to business big and small is not the answer, ….the answer is a government that is GREATLY scaled down in size.

        More of the power and the money should be in the hands of the citizen…not the government.

        ” If you don’t like what they’re doing, elect different Representatives.”

        Trust me….me and the majority of Americans WILL be making REAL “America-loving” change in Washington this November.

      • [If you believe debt is so dangerous, then I’m sure you disagree with Obama’s numbers through 2020. The deficit/GDP is 6.1% through 2015 with Obama (compared to Bush’s average 3.2%)]

        The time to control the debt is when the economy is healthy. Without the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts debt would not have grown substantially until the recession hit, which reduced tax revenues and increased deficits. Without the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, we wouldn’t have had the housing bubble or the need to bail out the banks.

      • Ben, sharprighturn is successfully refuting you at every turn. And are you deleting my comments? They seem to be disappearing.

    • “The time to control the debt is when the economy is healthy”

      So I suppose that means Obama assumes (or is orchestrating) an economy that is three times as unhealthy as it is now by 2020….He is increasing the debt by that much.

      Wow, many of us suspect that the America-loathing Obama would love to see America “put in its place” financially and otherwise, but to see one of his kool-aid drinkers admit it is beyond fun.

      “Without the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts debt would not have grown substantially until the recession hit, which reduced tax revenues and increased deficits.”

      Again, not true. Bush’s (and a Republican Congress) defcits increased after 9-11 and tax cuts until 2004. After that, Bush deficits saw a steady decline after 2004 and up until 2008.

      In addition, the debt/GDP ration in the Bush years (37%) was well below the Clinon average at around 43%. Side note: The debt/GDP average only began to decline in the Clinton years after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.

      I’ve already outline ad nauseum that Obama’s debt numbers put Bush AND Clinton to shame.

      • [I’ve already outline ad nauseum that Obama’s debt numbers put Bush AND Clinton to shame.]

        Are you aware that we’re in a severe recession? Context does matter.

      • Why is it that “context” only matters when you need nuance for supporting Obama?

        Your excuse for Obama’a debt continues to be a recession.

        Using YOUR logic….Does this mean that the deficits you keep attributing to Bush in 2009 were justified? We were in a recesssion and “crisis” mode by late 2008.
        If spending/debt is the answer to an “unhealthy” economy under Obama’s watch, why don’t you have the same perspective of Bush’s spending in the latter part of his term?

        Further, with Obama tripling the debt by 2020, will the recession extend until 2020?

      • [Your excuse for Obama’a debt continues to be a recession.]

        Obama inherited an enormous debt. Why do you continue to defend the damage done by the Bush administration?

      • “Obama inherited an enormous debt. Why do you continue to defend the damage done by the Bush administration?”

        Ben, I’m not on here defending anything but the facts and the record….all the while correcting your poor assumptions and wild gyrations around when debt is good or bad….

        I am also marveling at your ability to dodge the questions of Obama’s debt.

      • What specific legislation signed by Obama led to the dramatic increase in the debt?

      • Ben,

        I can list a number of spending items that Obama (and a Democratic led Congress) has put on the table…one of the worst being Obamacare, an unconsitutional entitlement which the majority of Americans wish to repeal.

        In addition, Obama has done nothing to reduce entitlements, but almost everything to increase them. Entitlements are the biggest contributor to debt in the future. As a matter of fact around 55% of Obama’s spending in 2010 is entitlement spending.

        What a fiscal King he is.

        In the mean time, you continue to dodge your inconsistencies on debt.

        I have already laid out the debt picture through 2020 based on OBAMA’s BUDGET. Perhaps you need to re-read what I’ve written and then answer the question….

        “Why is Bush’s debt evil, but Obama’s tripling of it (at least) fiscally sound ?”

      • [one of the worst being Obamacare,]

        Nope, that’s paid for, will reduce the deficit, and most of it doesn’t go into effect until 2013. So, you lie about that one.

        [an unconsitutional entitlement]

        The constitutionality of it only involves the mandate, which will be decided by courts. Lie #2.

        [which the majority of Americans wish to repeal.]

        Nope, while the majority don’t like much of what is in the bill, most are glad it passed. Lie #3.

        [Why is Bush’s debt evil, but Obama’s tripling of it (at least) fiscally sound ?]

        Lie #4. I never said it was fiscally sound. Accumulating debt during a recession, especially one as deep as this, is justified. When the economy recovers, it should be paid off. Bush ran up the debt at the time we should have been paying it down.

      • Ben, I’ll take these one by one.

        Ben said, “Nope, that’s paid for, will reduce the deficit, and most of it doesn’t go into effect until 2013. So, you lie about that one.”

        On paper, the Obama administration has claimed that Obamacare is “paid for.” However, much analysis and events since the time of its passage will make one question otherwise. In addition to the deficit question, this law will reduce benefits for seniors in order to “entitle” younger Americans with healthcare coverage; it will tax heavily in order redistribute wealth; it currently fines those who don’t choose to participate; and more.

        The goal of Obamacare was supposedly to insure the “uninsured”—but they didn’t “pay for” the 23 million non-elderly people who will remain uninsured by 2019 under Obamacare.

        The reality of Obamacare over the next several years will be telling, if the law is not repealed first.

        One current reality regarding your “paid for” claim directly — Obama’s plan includes at least 2 years of revenue for the plan than the actual expenses in the plan. So we’re paying extra for services that don’t kick in until 2 years later. What a deal! If one of Obama’s “evil corporate titans” tried that, he’d have them rode out of town on a rail.

        First, as a practical matter, this new law, at last count, has added well over 100 new “federal bureaucracies” including commissions, departments, and the like.
        Bureaucracy equals spending equals waste and it gets worse over time. Examples? Just look at other poorly-run government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the Postal Service (to name but a few big ones) to see where this new monstrous bureaucracy leads.
        And remember, that when entitlements such as SS and Medicare were passed…they were “paid for” as well—conversely by 2035 they will consume 50% of spending (and we already know the government is now borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends)

        Now for the other financial wizardry in Obamacare…..

        Obama said he would bend the cost curve “downward”, but this new law spends almost $1 Trillion over the next decade. That seems to bend the cost curve “upward” at a large angle. That money for that cost doesn’t just “appear” somewhere in government…we, the citizens and taxpayers are paying for it….Our “cost curve” definitely spikes upward.

        Obama touted this law would be paid for by Medicare cuts (in fees and the Advantage program) to the tune of somewhere around $500 billion and new taxes (also around $500 billion).

        As for Medicare, Congress has a history of delaying those Medicare cuts and this year is no exception. These cuts begin to be realized at the rate of a 21% reduction starting in 2010. To this day…no cuts have occurred!!!

        Even with this law in effect, the Medicare cuts have been delayed (by Congress) at least until October 1, likely longer if history is any guide. The April delay in cuts alone caused an Obamacare deficit of $6.7 billion according to Forbes. So just how do we realize that revenue if we don’t make the cuts that will supposedly pay for it?

        As for the Medicare Advantage program and private insurers, Obamacare reduces the fees paid to providers, which forces a reduction in benefits to the tune of almost $1000/year per person in the Advantage program. This forces many lower income elderly into other plans. These reductions are set to begin in 2012, long before the rest of the law kicks in.

        (As a side note, Obama has blasted “special interests” since he descended from heaven and onto the scene. But many believe that this Advantage program is taking a beating because Obama made a deal with AARP to gain their support in return. AARP does not provide the Advantage program. You see, the other programs that these elderly will be forced into include AARP’s program that realizes higher margins for AARP. Obama made a deal with “special interest” in return for their support. Likewise, he made a deal with big drug companies to keep their cuts small in return for paid Obamacare advertising and support from those very drug companies.)

        Obama’s rule apparently is “Special interests bad for thee, but not for me.”

        Ahhhh and those increased taxes…… the American citizens are going to be on the hook for around $500 billion dollars in new taxes over the next decade.

        This law created somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-plus new or increased direct and indirect taxes associated with it. Those taxes cover the gamut of businesses, income individuals, devices, and investments.

        You can believe for yourself that Obama and the Dems have created a MASSIVE bureaucracy in Obamacare that, like no other, will produce a surplus. (I’m laughing while writing it.)

        As for me, I believe history; I believe that Obamacare is nothing but a back door to single-payer with the added (progessive) bonus of controlling more of our lives.

        And, yes, the majority of Americans agree with me. See my next comment.

      • Ben said “The constitutionality of it only involves the mandate, which will be decided by courts. Lie #2”

        Other than the mandate, show me in the Constitution where it states that the Federal Government shall tax Americans to the tune of $0.5 Trillion in order to run a healthcare pool, dictate fees and rates for doctors/providers, force purchases of insurance by threat of fines and more?

        Oh, and Obama touted that this mandate was not a “tax increase” while trying to shove this law down our throats.
        From AP 9/09: ” President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said…..” Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”

        Somehow, in defending the mandate in court, the Obama administration has now declared the mandate a “tax” and under the purview of Congress’ power.

        From IBD: “According to Obama’s Justice Department, the individual mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority.”

        Which is it? And does it break Obama’s tax pledge of “no taxes for those making under $250K” or not?

      • Ben said “Nope, while the majority don’t like much of what is in the (Obamacare) bill, most are glad it passed. Lie #3.”

        Nope back at ya. I’m sorry but the American people are not with you on this.

        Rasmussen, 4/2010. 58% favor repeal (including 50% who believe that strongly.)

        CBS Poll: 4/2010: 53% Disapprove of Obamacare’s passage

        CNN Poll: 6/2010: 56% Disapprove of Obamacare’s passage.

        Rasmussen, August 28, 2010: 54% of likely voters wish for repeal, (including 46% of them who believe that strongly.

        Rasmussen, August 28, 2010: A majority has favored repeal of the legislation in every single week since it became law.

      • Ben said: “Lie #4. I never said it was fiscally sound. Accumulating debt during a recession, especially one as deep as this is justified. When the economy recovers, it should be paid off. Bush ran up the debt at the time we should have been paying it down.”

        I have shown you time and again that OBAMA’S BUDGET accounts for a tripling of the debt between 2009 and 2020 up to at least $20 Trillion…..recession or not.

        At what point should Obama “pay it off” instead of tripling the debt? If he intends to, it is not reflected in his budget numbers.

        Obama’s debt numbers are not just about a “recession”.

        And I might add, that I don’t believe this country should be running the kind of debt it has over the last ten years…. recession, financial crisis or otherwise.…..and I believe that a tripling of that debt over the next ten years, as Obama proposes is distrastrous.

        Further I don’t see any big spending programs of Bush that Obama is cutting (with any significance). (Defense doesn’t count since it was projected to decrease anyway and Obama/Dems try to gut the military every chance they get anyway.)

        If you want to say Bush’s debt included 2002 – 2009, then his average debt over 8 years was $4.9 Trillion. The average debt held in Bush’s term (excluding the exceptional year of 2009) makes it even lower at $4.5 Trillion.

        Obama’s projected debt (for an 8 year term, equivalent to Bush’s years in office) from 2010 – 2017 is $12.8 Trillion.

        SUMMARY
        AVERAGES – Bush (2002-2009) and Obama (2010-2017)
        Bush Debt – $ 4.9 Trillion
        Obama Debt – $12.8 Trillion
        % Obama over Bush – 261%

        Bush Deficits – $443 Billion
        Obama Deficits – $982 Billion
        % Obama over Bush – 222%

        Debt at end of term Bush – $7.5 Trillion
        Debt at end of 2017 Obama – $16.4 Trillion
        % Obama over Bush – 219%

        As far as Bush’s spending, I believe that much of his spending was unjustified as well, particularly without budget cuts in other areas. The Medicare Drug Program, No Child Left Behind, and subsidy programs to name a few.

        But, of course, much of Bush’s spending (Health, Education, and handouts) are the same areas in which Democrats and Obama believe the government should play the prominent role. So as far as that goes, I don’t understand why Democrats get so upset about Bush’s spending. He (and GOP/Dem Congresses) spent like Dems wanted to and….well….now they are (on steroids).

  6. As far as small business, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs are met or they did not want to borrow.

    In other words, small business is not urgently seeking the credit that Obama is pushing.

    Currently the economy is in the tank and businesses are not expanding because of that….not because they are waiting for some credit/lending bill they don’t need.

    Businesses are trying to make payroll and stay afloat in a tough economy. Perhaps Obama and Dems are trying to do to small business what they are doing to the country…..operate with debt and (maybe) pay it all back later.

    Not a great business model…nor government model.

    • Oh, so now you’re against tax cuts? Or are you just against tax cuts for the middle class?

      There are indeed many businesses seeking startup financing. Targeted tax cuts will stimulate hiring and bring jobs back to America.

      Read the article.

      • Ben,
        Not against tax cuts….just against the Obama’s rhetoric that the evil Republicans are stalling his bill and this bill is the ONLY thing businesses are waiting on to move forward.

        In addition to the bill’s efforts at tax cuts, a large portion of the bill addresses credit. As I said before, it is not abundantly clear that “credit” is needed to boost small business. The economy is weak and getter weaker. Previous bailouts have not made it better to this point.
        Why should we believe more spending is the answer?

        You also forgot to mention that the Republicans tried to add several amendments, including more tax cuts, that were shot down by Reid.

      • [this bill is the ONLY thing businesses are waiting on to move forward.]

        Nobody made that claim.

      • You said, “Nobody made that claim.”

        The very first paragraph of the article that you cited states it.

        “Small businesses have put hiring, supply buying and real estate expansion on hold as they wait out the vote on a small-business-aid bill that stalled in the Senate earlier this summer.”

      • It doesn’t say it’s the “only” thing they’re waiting for.

  7. A plurality of Americans said they would prefer Republicans to leave the new healthcare law alone and not repeal any parts of it, a new poll found Tuesday.

    Given the option to name the sections of the healthcare law they would most like to see the GOP repeal, 42 percent said they would leave the bill alone and repeal no parts, a new “60 Minutes”/Vanity Fair poll found.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/100753-plurality-want-gop-to-repeal-no-parts-of-health-reform-law

    SRT, you’re getting all your information from right-wing sources that are biased. They’re looking at worst case scenarios, lying about some of it, and only the bad parts of the bill. While far from perfect, there is a lot of good in the bill and there is a lot of abuse by private insurance companies. Most of us are paying through the roof because private insurers are gouging the hell out of us.

    You don’t mind lining the pockets of these health insurance CEOs who get paid millions a year and profit from denying coverage. Some of us think profit should be taken out of insurance like all other developed nations in the world have done. You have a right to your opinion but you should be honest in your argument rather than spinning the facts.

    • Ben said, “SRT, you’re getting all your information from right-wing sources that are biased. They’re looking at worst case scenarios, lying about some of it, and only the bad parts of the bill.”

      If you consider these “right-wing, biased” sources…then..well…you found me out; I confess—-Investor’s Business Daily, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Tax Policy Institute (Brookings/Urban Institute), Forbes, Obama’s Office of Management and Budgets (OMB), Atlanta-Journal Constitution, CNN, CBS, Rasmussen, Orlando Business Journal, and Obama’s own words.

      Most of these are considered “centrist” at best…liberal leaning on many others….hardly bastions of right wing bias.

      I referenced every one of these in compiling data, analysis and information on Obamacare…. most of which was shared in my comment to you.

      As far as your “poll”….I don’t particularly consider a poll that starts with “….. many Republicans have vowed to repeal President Obama’s health-care-reform law” …..as unbiased.

      And you have the gall to call me a “right-wing” biased liar…and you cite VANITY FAIR as a legitimate poll? Hello.
      I cited 5 or 6 varied polls …done OVER TIME…they all say Americans don’t want Obamacare in large numbers.

      Ben said, “Some of us think profit should be taken out of insurance like all other developed nations in the world have done.”

      Well, Ben not everyone has a socialist mindset like you….It is not the place of our government to “take the profits” out of ANYTHING!….and “other developed nations’ don’t have something called a United States Constitution. I don’t give a fig about what “other countries” do on healthcare…our system, flaws and all, is the best in the world (without Obamacare).

      Ben said, “You have a right to your opinion but you should be honest in your argument rather than spinning the facts.”

      You have a right to your opinion also…but you should be able to back it up with facts instead of blind support for a President and Congress that wishes to alter our country into something we don’t recognize…while trashing our Constitution.

      And, a lesson for you in the future….when you can’t refute a fact…accusing the other person of lying at every turn is the cheap way out…but then again, you may have learned from the best…our President.

      • [blind support for a President and Congress that wishes to alter our country into something we don’t recognize…while trashing our Constitution.]

        That’s pure right-wing propaganda. There are some things that indeed should be left to the private industry, like making TVs, computers, cars, machinery… But there are things that are necessities that need to be well regulated or even run by the government. Health insurance is one of them. Even with insurance, many people have been bankrupt or denied treatment because the insurers are only interested in profits. In this case, OUR government needed to do something, and it has (to some extent) with the health insurance reform bill.

      • Ben, you still haven’t told me where in the Constitution it appears that the “government shall run healthcare” and “government decides who can make profit”…..waiting.

        If calling this administration out on their far left, anti-Constitutional agenda is “right wing”…then you would likely have to admit that this country is a “right wing” country.
        Less than half of this country approves of the job Obama is doing and Congress’ approval has hovered in the 15-20% for months on end.

        You, my friend, are in the minority.

      • [Ben, you still haven’t told me where in the Constitution it appears that the “government shall run healthcare” and “government decides who can make profit”…..waiting.]

        It doesn’t say anywhere that government shall NOT run health care. The majority favored a public option for health insurance before the debate turned political.
        http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health

        Politics ruins everything and everything is political to right-wingers.

      • Ben said “It doesn’t say anywhere that government shall NOT run health care.”

        It also doesn’t state that the government can murder its citizens. Are you also for that?

        BTW, the Founders didn’t set out to define every last item that our federal government could NOT do. They set to define what it COULD do, with all else falling to the power of the states. And last time I checked, Obamacare is a federal mandate for healthcare over-riding the powers of the states.

        Ben said, “The majority favored a public option for health insurance before the debate turned political.”

        Let’s just assume that your NYT reference is not skewed…you know because that NYT is so fair and centrist and stuff. (LOL—and you call my sources biased.)
        Once Americans saw Obamacare, its costs, its sheer control and power, they wanted none of it. But it was shoved down our throats by hook or by crook….and with large doses of hard ball politics from the Left.

        Ben said, “Politics ruins everything and everything is political to right-wingers.”

        Yes, darnit, those lefties always play by the rules and politics is NEVER their focus. If those darn bigot, right-wingers would just “Stop the Politics”…/sarc off

        I have no empathy for those who ASK to play in politics. Obama ASKED for the job of President and Pelosi/Reid slobbered all over their consitutents awaiting their turn at grand power. Politics is part of the deal.

        Oh, and the American people are also part of the package. Resorting to calling them bigots, classifying them as terrorists, racists, and Islamophobes when they disagree shows the smallness of the individuals doing the name calling.

      • So you’re saying that Medicare and SS are unconstitutional? How about interstate highways? I don’t think there’s anything in the Constitution that says the federal government can build highways. How about national parks?

      • Ben,

        Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        We are a Federalist nation with shared powers between the nation and the states. Whereas our nation existed for many years with the narrow interpretation of what the federal and state govts can do, since the 1930’s, we have “progressed” quickly to a nation that has muddied the the roles of the state and federal government– giving, unintended powers to the federal government.

        I believe our Founders intended the more narrow role for the Federal Government. They did not intend for our Federal Government to tax everything that moves in order to redistribute that property through healthcare control, retirements funds, federal education system, confiscating national land in the name of “National Parks”, and much more.

        That type of power breeds corruption, loss of liberty, and waste and it has on a grand scale! Our Founders knew that tyranny all too well.

        Technically, yes, Medicare and Social Security ARE unconstitutional. National Parks, also. Interstate highway system could be narrowly construed as a “general welfare”, and therefore Constitutional.

        Do I believe that Federal encroachment on the States roles and our liberties will be solved overnight, or even in my lifetime? No, not likely.
        But, as a Constitutionalist, I believe that our country should move in the direction of limited federal power at every turn.

      • What if whatever state you live in decided to pass single payer health care? Would you support their right to do that?

      • Ben,

        According to the Consitution, power not outlined for the Federal Government falls to the people and the states.

        If the people want and pass government-run healthcare in a state, from all that I understand, it is likely their right to do so. (But I could be convinced otherwise, although I’m sure it won’t be by you 🙂

        The real question, if they have the right, is “should they”?
        State governments are not free from the temptations of tyranny by power, confiscation, waste, corruption and more. The more power that people allow their governments to have, the more those governments will take. That is a lesson of history, for sure.

        Ideally, healthcare/Insurance is best left to the free market — not state or federal government.

        Can states do it? I think so.
        Should they? No.

      • [Ideally, healthcare/Insurance is best left to the free market — not state or federal government.]

        I agree with that but obviously it’s not working. Insurance costs have skyrocketed over the past 10 or so years and there’s a lot of abuse while health insurance CEOs are making millions, some 10s of millions a year. Many people can’t afford insurance.

        Your ideals are simply that: ideals. It’s not how things are in the real world.

  8. Wow Ben. You’ve been schooled.

    • No, she stated her ideology. I’m more of a realist.

      • Ben,

        If realist means someone who can’t back up his ideas with the facts and the Constitution, then, yes, you are a realist.

      • Yes, I do back up all my ideas with facts. You look only at how you can make Democrats look bad and Republicans look good. Republicans have no ideas other than deregulation and tax cuts and those are what have destroyed our country.

        I took a look at your blog. You are one hate-filled sheep. You hate Obama, not for what he’s done, but for who he is.

      • Ben said, “You are one hate-filled sheep. You hate Obama, not for what he’s done, but for who he is.”

        No, Ben, I don’t hate Obama. I hate what he is doing to this country.
        I also think he is, at the same time, highly unqualified and very much against the ideals and traditions that made America great. Yes, I believe he is anti-American in his views.
        But hate him? No.

        If you don’t like the Constitution, free markets, and Capitalism, then say so, but don’t try to hide under a cloak of “realism”.
        Government regulatory control over mass markets is not free nor Capitalism.
        And your idea that our money belongs to the government first and “allowing” us to keep more of it, via tax cuts, has to be counted as spending….well, none of that was the intent of our Founders. Money we earn is OURS, not the government’s first. If we give less of it to the government, then they have to spend less…..simple.

        Were the Founders idealists or realists?
        By your judgement, they were hopeless “idealists”. Of course, look where that got us!
        If they had followed your ideas of “realism”, they would have cowered under the King, and said they weren’t controlled enough and didn’t pay enough taxes.

      • [By your judgement, they were hopeless “idealists”. Of course, look where that got us!
        If they had followed your ideas of “realism”, they would have cowered under the King, and said they weren’t controlled enough and didn’t pay enough taxes.]

        No, actually, most Loyalists were conservatives.
        https://drudgeretort.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/loyalists-who-fought-with-the-british-against-our-founding-fathers-were-conservatives/

        But, since that doesn’t fit the right-wing narrative, you spin it until it does.

        You believe that some guy about 2,000 years ago was born to a virgin mother and was resurrected three days after his death. You you believe that by believing that, you get to go to some imaginary place after you die.

        Your view of politics is equally irrational.

      • Ben Said, “No, actually, most Loyalists were conservatives.”

        Speaking of spin….I didn’t even mention Loyalists.
        I was referring to YOUR view of “realism”.

        Your “realism” advances more taxation, excuses for debt, forced equal outcomes, central economic planning, stifling regulations, and, apparently, a lack of respect for the Bible and its principles.

        By contrast, the Founders, like me, were idealists (in your definition). They believed in God and/or the moral principles of the Bible, small government, freedom, capitalism, unalienable rights, justice, equal opportunity instead of equal outcomes, and more.

        As for Jesus Christ, you don’t have to believe in Him nor do you have to believe in His salvation plan or His moral principles.

        But, according to our President’s own words, Obama is a Christian. Does that also make him irrational?

      • [Your “realism” advances more taxation, excuses for debt,]

        No, my realism advocates a balanced budget. You don’t cut taxes without cutting spending first, and you certainly don’t start wars and cut taxes at the same time. Your party is fiscally reckless.

        [forced equal outcomes,]

        Nope, that’s what you’re told to use as a talking point, as well as calling Obama the messiah, saying we’re becoming socialized, and quite a few other mindless proclamations.

        [central economic planning,]

        And that’s a bad thing?

        [stifling regulations,]

        Deregulation was the primary cause for the collapse of our economy. A free market economy fails every time.

        [and, apparently, a lack of respect for the Bible and its principles.]

        The Bible is just a compilation of writings from some 2,000 years ago. People who take those writings literally are pretty irrational. We have advanced since those days and have a better understanding of the world around us through science.

      • “No, my realism advocates a balanced budget.”

        Tell it to your Democratic friends, who didn’t pass a budget this year for the first time in history.
        And tell it to Obama, whose budget numbers triple the already staggering debt by 2020…..caused by his soaring spending.

        “Your party is fiscally reckless.”
        I believe the Republicans biggest issue was overspending on entitlements, which are the biggest contributors to debt. And Obama is advancing the entitement debt on steroids.

        If the Bush tax cuts were so bad, then why are Dems considering an extension?
        A 2008 Heritage studys states, “”Heritage research shows that just allowing the 2003 tax cuts to expire (thereby increasing capital gains rates to just 20% instead of the 28% that Obama wants) would cause employment to shrink by 270,000 by 2011, GDP to fall by $44 billion by 2011, and personal income after taxes to decline by $113 billion by 2011.”

        Doesn’t seem all that positive to insert a record tax increase now does it?

        Bottom line, Ben…It is clear that you put your faith in the Democratic Party, Socialism, Government control of the economy, debt spending on entitlements, and your government as God.

        I, and most other Americans believe as our Founders did…We put our faith in the individual, freedom, free markets, low regulation, fewer entitlements, fiscal responsiblity, and God.

      • [I, and most other Americans believe as our Founders did…We put our faith in the individual, freedom, free markets, low regulation, fewer entitlements, fiscal responsiblity, and God.]

        As with God, you need blind faith to believe that free markets work because there is absolutely no proof that it does, unless you favor a plutocracy, which may be the case.

  9. “You look only at how you can make Democrats look bad and Republicans look good.”

    That’s so funny Ben. And you don’t look only at how you can make Republicans look bad and Democrats look good? Blind to your own bias.

    • Republicans have done a lot of damage to our country and little good. I don’t need to lie or spin the facts to make Republicans look bad. And they’ve done little good. When I asked you what they have done for the good of our country in the past 30 years, all you could come up with was the tax cuts which put our country deep in debt.

      Democrats have done some good things and some bad. Just like with the health insurance bill. There’s some bad in it and some good. You have to weigh the good against the bad. To get something all good out of Washington is rarer than an honest Republican.

  10. [When I asked you what they have done for the good of our country in the past 30 years, all you could come up with was the tax cuts which put our country deep in debt.]

    You only asked for one, remember? I can come up with plenty but you’ll just say, “You lie!” or some other sill retort. And…they did not put our country in debt. Tax cuts don’t do that. Spending does. Tax cuts increase revenue. Go back and study a bit of economics.

  11. BTW, that was Ed commenting as F & L.

    • Republican Economist Asks “Retraction” – But Our Facts Stand

      Official statistics still show most US families lost income in 2002 even after taxes, despite misleading GOP claim to contrary.

      http://www.factcheck.org/republican_economist_asks_retraction_but_our.html

      • Ben,

        The facts show that over time tax revenues have very little variance in relation to tax rates… Since 1952, inflation-adjusted revenues as a % of GDP remain fairly steady over time at just below 20%.

        See this chart with source data from OMB and IRS from 2007.
        http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/~/media/Images/Reports/bg2001/bg2001chart4_lg_1.ashx

        With higher taxes, the tax base is lowered which, in turn, lowers revenue. With lower taxes, the tax base increases. The above chart at the link indicates the way to increase revenues is through growth in GDP.

        Growth in GDP (economic growth) occurs with lower personal, business, and investment taxes; clear expectations for tax law; cut/halt government spending; less regulation; and enhanced trade.

      • No, you’re told to use % of GDP as proof but tax cuts without cutting spending increase the debt every time. Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in the tripling of the debt and Bush’s tax cuts doubled the debt. We are so deep in debt right now, we’re paying nearly 1/2 a trillion dollars a year just on interest on the debt, and much of that money is going to communist China. Funny how you right-wing sheep are all outraged that we’re “being socialized” but you don’t mind all that money going to a communist country that’s guilty of horrendous abuses of its citizens.

        Tax increases (within reason) have little negative effect on the economy and can actually have a positive effect when the taxes penalize companies that ship jobs overseas. As we saw during the 90s, taxes were increased and the economy soared. And we had a balanced budget to boot.

      • Ben said “No, you’re told to use % of GDP as proof but tax cuts without cutting spending increase the debt every time. ”

        I agree that spending needs to be axed in many areas…and taxes should be reduced. But the historical GDP comparison is completely valid and it does indicate that growth is key. Tax increases DO NOT, as a rule, spur economic growth, they spur government growth.

        You have argued that tax cuts are bad….. now some Dems want to extend the Bush tax cuts (which, BTW were across the boards cuts…not just for “the rich” as Dems/Obama partisans claimed for the last 7-8 years)

        AND Obama, in election season, now wants tax cuts coupled with more outrageous spending in his latest bailout.
        Where’s the tax cuts coupled with spending cuts?

        They don’t seem to be listening to professor Ben on this.

        Ben said, “We are so deep in debt right now, we’re paying nearly 1/2 a trillion dollars a year just on interest on the debt, and much of that money is going to communist China.”

        I am the one arguing against the debt, remember? You are arguing that Obama’s debt is great in a recession….so I guess you fall into the “being fine with China” category.

      • [I agree that spending needs to be axed in many areas…and taxes should be reduced.]

        Do you have any sense of logic at all? Cutting spending will result in higher unemployment. That may be fine when the economy is strong, but that’s the last thing we need right now. See the connection? And taxes have never been lower than they are right now.

        [Tax increases DO NOT, as a rule, spur economic growth,]

        Nobody said they did. Why do you have to lie. Oh, yeah, that’s the only way you can make your argument. Taxes have little effect on economic growth, one way or another. Demand drives consumption, which drives economic growth.

        [some Dems want to extend the Bush tax cuts (which, BTW were across the boards cuts…not just for “the rich” as Dems/Obama partisans claimed for the last 7-8 years)]

        Nope, you’re lying again. Obama has proposed retaining the Bush tax cuts for the middle and lower classes and only letting the tax cuts expire for the upper 2%.

        [AND Obama, in election season, now wants tax cuts coupled with more outrageous spending in his latest bailout.]

        Investing in our infrastructure is outrageous? You right-wingers have a strange sense of loyalty.

        [You are arguing that Obama’s debt is great in a recession…]

        Nope, you’re lying again. I never said it was “great.” I said it was justified.

        You’re a pathological liar, as are most right-wingers.

      • Ben,
        It is tough to have an intelligent conversation with you.

        Your inability to debate facts without slandering the other person is stifling.

        The “liar” meme is pretty old, too….and shows the smallness of your arguments.

        As long as you don’t delete my comments, I believe the facts and views I’ve presented state my case, of America-loving conservative, pretty well.

        Judging your statements, I’d say they represent present day liberal, progressive, Democrats as well….and judging by the polls, their views and actions are not looked too highly upon today.

      • [Your inability to debate facts without slandering the other person is stifling.]

        I have no interest in debating facts. Facts are facts. Contrary to what right-wingers believe, facts are not open to debate.

        To right-wingers, if a fact doesn’t have a right-wing spin, it has a liberal bias. Since the NY Times doesn’t spin the news to the right, they think it’s a liberal newspaper. Same with the Washington Post.

        Republican ideology is based on lies. Reaganomics can’t be “proven” as a viable policy without lying.

        People who “want to get back to the Constitution” only want to get back to the parts of the Constitution they like. You never see them show an interest in all the violations of our Constitution by the Bush administration because it’s only important when they think a Democrat is violating it.

        You never heard any right-wingers voicing concern about the deficit when the Bush administration was exploding the debt. It’s only when it’s happening with a Democratic president that they’re outraged.

        Right-wingers only care about their party and their ideology. They could care less about our country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: