• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.

Bad jobs report today? Economy slowing?

New posts
I've been watching this for quite some time and the reason why there hasn't been anything more accomplished for small business is partisan bickering.

WASHINGTON ? A $30 billion government fund would be available to community banks to increase lending to small businesses under a bill passed by the House Thursday as congressional Democrats tried to revive their election-year jobs agenda.
House Democrats projected that banks would use the fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans to small businesses, helping to loosen tight credit markets. Republicans called the bill another bank bailout that would do little to increase lending to small businesses.
The bill passed by a vote of 241-182 as congressional Democrats struggled to balance election-year concerns about high unemployment with voter complaints about the rising national debt. Only three Republicans voted for the bill.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where Democrats tried to round up support for legislation to renew pieces of last year's economic stimulus bill. The measure would combine jobless aid for the long-term unemployed, aid to cash-strapped state governments and the renewal of dozens of popular tax breaks for businesses and individuals.
Congressional Democrats began the year with an aggressive agenda of passing a series of bills designed to create jobs. One has become law, offering tax breaks to companies that hire unemployed workers. Others stalled as lawmakers, after hearing from angry voters, became wary of adding to the national debt, which stands at $13 trillion.
House Democrats emphasized that their small business bill would not add to the debt, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Banks that tap the $30 billion fund would issue preferred stock to the Treasury Department, paying dividends based on how much they increase lending to small businesses. The more they lend, the lower the payments. The stock would have to be redeemed within 10 years.
President Barack Obama said the lending bill "marks a new and significant step toward getting small businesses the financing they need to start up, expand and hire more workers."
The bill would provide $2 billion to assist states in their efforts to increase loans to small businesses. It would also authorize the Small Business Administration to match up to $1 billion in private investment in small startups.
"In a world where revolutionary new products are conceived in dorm rooms and companies are started in garages, we need new ways of meeting businesses' capital needs," said Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business.
Republicans said the bill offers no guarantee that small business lending will increase.
"It's really just another bank bailout," said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C. "What you are doing is, you're creating government."
The bill will now be merged with a package of tax breaks to encourage investment in small businesses that passed the House on Tuesday. The package, which goes to the Senate as one bill, would provide about $3.6 billion in tax breaks over the next decade.
Long-term investors in some small businesses would escape capital gains taxes. New small businesses could take larger tax deductions for startup expenses.
The bill includes tax increases that would offset the tax cuts and pay for the lending bill. The main tax increase would limit taxpayers' ability to avoid gifts taxes by setting up trusts known as Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts, or GRATs.
Across the Capitol Thursday, Senate Democrats easily turned back a Republican effort to cut money from the president's economic stimulus package and other government spending to pay for an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to doctors.
Republicans were on the losing end of a 57-41 vote on the measure, which would have cut stimulus dollars and other spending to finance a six-month extension of unemployment checks for people who've been out of work for more than six months.
The vote came as Senate Democratic leaders tried to shore up support for a scaled-back version of their jobless aid bill, which would renew parts of last year's economic stimulus package.
Obama renewed his push for the measure last weekend, warning that "hundreds of thousands" of state and local government jobs could be lost without $24 billion in Medicaid money to help states balance their budgets and $23 billion more to prevent layoffs at local school districts around the country.
The Senate bill includes $24 billion for Medicaid, but none for teachers. The bill would add $55 billion to the deficit over the next decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.
"It's moving in the right direction but it's not there yet," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a key GOP vote sought by Democrats.
It may be a smart move because most business owners do not like going to the SBA for loans. They'll look for private financing or borrow from family or their retirement funds. You also probably had the larger Banks lobbying against giving funds to community Banks because they are afraid they will bolster their balance sheets with the money instead. I do not know if this includes credit unions, but many more people are using their local community banks and credit unions.
Whether this will work or not is yet to be seen. Many people would be skittish to start up a new business in this economic climate; and the ones that are currently in business who need money may not be using it to increase their production or update old equipment.

Is cutting taxes the answer, I do not know. I do know Nydia Vasquez is an idiot and shouldn't be a Rep., never mind Chairman of the Small Business Committee.:blink:
 
I've been watching this for quite some time and the reason why there hasn't been anything more accomplished for small business is partisan bickering.

I have a simple question on the content of that article:

House Democrats projected that banks would use the fund to leverage up to $300 billion in loans to small businesses,

There's nothing in the bill that compels the banks to borrow and use this money. It actually forces any bank that wants to use the money to give up some ownership and control in their bank to the government.

Banks that tap the $30 billion fund would issue preferred stock to the Treasury Department

The banks have seen how interested the government is in the compensation plans of businesses that they have their fingers in. Why would the banks suddenly use this money to help small business and invite the government in?

I think that the key phrase of the article and the only basis of this projection is captured at the very beginning:

A $30 billion government fund would be available to community banks to increase lending to small businesses under a bill passed by the House Thursday as congressional Democrats tried to revive their election-year jobs agenda.

"Projected" to help small business isn't much of a commitment in my book.
 
Last edited:
Turns out I have a second question.

Hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out big banks and Wall St but only $30Billion to help the sector that creates almost all new jobs in America?

What's up with that?
 
As an owner of two small businesses with a total of about 100 employees I can tell you that the main reason I'm not hiring is due to the looming tax increase that will hit on January, 2011. I haven't had to lay anybody off due to the fact that the wages I've paid my employees have remained level (they would rather have a job than a raise) and the fact that I've lead with my heart and not my head.

I fear that 2011 will be nightmare. Art Laffer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal recently. I think that he got it exactly right.

Arthur Laffer: Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse - WSJ.com


I would love to hear from other small business owners as to why they are not hiring.
 
As an owner of two small businesses with a total of about 100 employees I can tell you that the main reason I'm not hiring is due to the looming tax increase that will hit on January, 2011. I haven't had to lay anybody off due to the fact that the wages I've paid my employees have remained level (they would rather have a job than a raise) and the fact that I've lead with my heart and not my head.

I fear that 2011 will be nightmare. Art Laffer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal recently. I think that he got it exactly right.

Arthur Laffer: Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse - WSJ.com


I would love to hear from other small business owners as to why they are not hiring.

I have hired some, but I'm trying to limit it and use sub-contractors who only get paid when they work and who I don't have to lay off. I had to do a couple of rounds of layoffs and a round of wage cuts last year and I don't want to do that again.

Regarding the article (which I agree with) I see how people can accelerate many things to avoid the tax increases, but that seems like an awfully harsh way to avoid the increase in estate taxes....:D
 
I and two of my best friends aren't hiring because we already closed.
 
As an owner of two small businesses with a total of about 100 employees I can tell you that the main reason I'm not hiring is due to the looming tax increase that will hit on January, 2011. I haven't had to lay anybody off due to the fact that the wages I've paid my employees have remained level (they would rather have a job than a raise) and the fact that I've lead with my heart and not my head.

I fear that 2011 will be nightmare. Art Laffer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal recently. I think that he got it exactly right.

Arthur Laffer: Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse - WSJ.com


I would love to hear from other small business owners as to why they are not hiring.
Arthur Laffer usually does get it right.
 
Arthur Laffer usually does get it right.

Laffer's vaunted supply side economics has questionable record at best.

Under Reagan and Bush2 it succeeded mightily in raising federal deficits.

Remember Reagan backed away from supply side economics, his SS tax increase was by the largest peacetime tax increase in history. I remember it well because I had a lot of seasonal workers...and paid more taxes.

Reagan also raised gasoline taxes and estate taxes because he was a pragmatist, I guess. But he definitely increased taxes.

Bush2's tax plan HAD to expire in 2010 - the option was soaring deficits that why it was written with a sunset provision.

Of course, we may have nothing to worry about Vice President Cheney said that "deficits don't matter".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arthur Laffer usually does get it right.

From the article:

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Roth conversion is far from being a no-brainer.

For some people it makes sense for others it doesn't.

A generalization like this one is imprudent and ill-advised.
 
I have a simple question on the content of that article:

There's nothing in the bill that compels the banks to borrow and use this money. It actually forces any bank that wants to use the money to give up some ownership and control in their bank to the government.

The banks have seen how interested the government is in the compensation plans of businesses that they have their fingers in. Why would the banks suddenly use this money to help small business and invite the government in?

I think that the key phrase of the article and the only basis of this projection is captured at the very beginning:

"Projected" to help small business isn't much of a commitment in my book.

They are claiming that is not TARP related, but you can't put lipstick on a pig. However, although small business is the crux of our economy, would you personally feel comfortable with our government handing out money to make potentially risky loans without any form of being able to get that money back? What they could have done was increased the program to the SBA instead where, it's my understanding, that the loans are guaranteed up to 90%. However, as I stated above, the statistics show many existing business owners will not go to the SBA, but will be more inclined to go to community Banks. I do not have default figures on SBA loans, but they are being utilized, but those loans are not easy to get. Also, it was suggested by Obama to go the SBA route and increase the loan size and include commercial loans, but Nydia Vasquez balked at that claiming " "With loan defaults on the rise, we should not base our strategy on increasing the size of the least stable SBA lending program," Velazquez said. "SBA Express has acted as nothing more than a giveaway to Big Banks and expanding it will neither further economic recovery, nor create new jobs." But she wants to go the "no, this is not TARP route". :roll:

Frankly, I think it was brilliant to make her Chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business, since she has NEVER owned a business; unless you call frequenting bodega's in Queens business experience. :sarc:

I do not think this Bill will pass muster with the Senate and the revised Bill will most likely include other incentives, like making the gains on small-business stock acquired through next year tax-free, limiting penalties for violating tax shelter rules and increasing the deduction for start-up expenses to $20,000.

I guess my question to business owners would be: If you got a large tax deduction, would you use it to hire more employees? or what would you do with the money to increase your business so you could? or is the reality of a tax decrease that it will just go back into the owners pocket for a rainy day or buy more umbrellas for rainy days?
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top