Fuck its silent in here.......

[Chuck to Chuck]

I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations.

Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

[Quality Start Machine]

I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations.

Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

something something Oasis something something rimshot.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!

[Bort]

At any point is anyone going to correct the quote tags?

DPD.  I did.  http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg226601#msg226601

Yeah. Sorry. I should have noticed that. Damn cold medicine.

[powen01]

Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!

Sweet.  Stuff that banks used to do...

[morpheus]

I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations.

Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

No one denies the complete inability of GWB to say no to spending, Chuck.  Your multiple statements about the veto pen do not get stronger because they are repeated.  Now, to make sure I follow your logic: Dem majorities from 2007-2009 ramped up spending vertically.  GWB signed off on them in 2007-2008 and Obama in 2009.  Therefore, all GOP Congressmen are to blame, even more than the Dems who signed off on the increases, because...?  Profit?

Those dots are connected as well as any Rosenbloom screed could connect them.  You didn't even bother to watch the Friedman video I linked, did you? 

[Oleg]

I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations.

Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

No one denies the complete inability of GWB to say no to spending, Chuck.  Your multiple statements about the veto pen do not get stronger because they are repeated.  Now, to make sure I follow your logic: Dem majorities from 2007-2009 ramped up spending vertically.  GWB signed off on them in 2007-2008 and Obama in 2009.  Therefore, all GOP Congressmen are to blame, even more than the Dems who signed off on the increases, because...?  Profit?

Those dots are connected as well as any Rosenbloom screed could connect them.  You didn't even bother to watch the Friedman video I linked, did you? 

How is it possible that you make Internet Chuck be correct?  I'll just go ahead and bold the part you seem to be ignoring.

[morpheus]

Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!

Sweet.  Stuff that banks used to do...

The supply of credit to small businesses is fine.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET201008.pdf

Overall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

[morpheus]

I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations.

Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

No one denies the complete inability of GWB to say no to spending, Chuck.  Your multiple statements about the veto pen do not get stronger because they are repeated.  Now, to make sure I follow your logic: Dem majorities from 2007-2009 ramped up spending vertically.  GWB signed off on them in 2007-2008 and Obama in 2009.  Therefore, all GOP Congressmen are to blame, even more than the Dems who signed off on the increases, because...?  Profit?

Those dots are connected as well as any Rosenbloom screed could connect them.  You didn't even bother to watch the Friedman video I linked, did you? 

How is it possible that you make Internet Chuck be correct?  I'll just go ahead and bold the part you seem to be ignoring.

DPD.  I am not ignoring that point.  I am arguing with Chuck's "Especially the GOP" line, which doesn't appear to have any basis in fact or logic.

[powen01]

Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!

Sweet.  Stuff that banks used to do...

The supply of credit to small businesses is fine.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET201008.pdf

Overall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

Exactly my point.  Why tax us more to pay for this when private industry is already doing it?  And if you insist on greasing the wheels of lending, why waste the overhead on the administration of this lending when you could just do the same shit with tax credits to small businesses or banks?  I understand this type of project in a developing country, but here in the US?  What's the point?  Why is it good to pull this potential business from the market?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Overall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

[morpheus]

Overall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

[Oleg]

Overall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Overall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

The bill passed today by a 237-187 vote. That would be Republican votes.  0.

So much for helping small business.

Feel happier?

[Oleg]

Overall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

The bill passed today by a 237-187 vote. That would be Republican votes.  0.

So much for helping small business.

Feel happier?

I didn't mean I was in a shitty mood because of the bill...I was just updating my general mood for everyone.

No Republican votes is least surprising something something (are we still running with this meme?).