barry and Dems Attacking Chamber for UNION Buddies??

[chefdennis]

Hmmm seems that even they admit they have no facts to back up their charge that the chamber is using foreign money to fund republicans, they are going to continue to do so according the barrys "press clown" gibbs...and this guy thinks he knows why...

Got to help those UNION BUDDIES!!!!


Think Bigger: What’s Really Behind Democrats’ Attacks on the Chamber of Commerce

Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)
Tuesday, October 12th at 6:00PM EDT
Think Bigger: What

We have stated on many occasions in the past that union bosses are in control of the federal government and that today’s Democrats are merely a bunch of puppets doing (or attempting to do) labor’s bidding—a de facto Labor Party. For the latest example, one only needs to look as far as the controversy the White House and DNC have stirred up. The demonization of the Chamber of Commerce, accusing the federation of ‘taking foreign donations’ to ’steal our Democracy,’ is but the latest attack in a multi-year campaign to destroy the federation.

This latest round, though, is an attack that is without foundation and one that has many people aghast at the transparency of the false charges.

Despite the fraudulent accusations though, many are also under the belief that this is a new attack on the Chamber, or that it is only being launched because of the election season. First, it is not a new attack. Secondly, it is not only for the election season that the Democrats are attacking the venerable institution. And, lastly, it is not Think Progress that is behind the idea of attacking the Chamber of Commerce, but Andy Stern (former boss of the SEIU, who is still a regular at the White House).


The attacks on the Chamber of Commerce go back to the fight over the union-bosses’ job-killing Employee Free Choice Act. The Chamber, knowing that the union bill would hurt business and create more unemployment, was one of several groups that was vocal in opposing EFCA. In fact, the union-funded group formed to push EFCA, the American Rights at Work, put out a press release in 2007 (when EFCA) first passed the House (it later stalled in the Senate).

After the election of Barack Obama, in the Spring of 2009, when EFCA was still a possibility, the SEIU’s Andy Stern took the lead role in trying to demonize the Chamber of Commerce. Later, when cap & trade and ObamaCare were heating up, it was the Chamber that stood in the way, eventually to be replaced by what the Democrats feared the most, an angry and organized American populace

In fact, last year (prior to joining RedState), we wrote the following:

Last June (and perhaps before), the SEIU launched its campaignagainst the US Chamber of Commerce, largely due to its opposition to the job-destroying and delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act.

As its anti-corporate corporate campaign against the Chamber has progressed over the summer, it has included such Alinsky-likecampaign slogans as “Turn off the Lights at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.”

Enter the White House…

It is well known that the SEIU has put high-ranking union leader Dennis Rivera has been working hand-in-glove on President Obama’s plan to nationalize health care through the so-called “public option.” However, it is still rather disturbing how closely the Whte House follows the SEIU’s lead.

Earlier this month, in what many view as a ‘war on free speech,’ the White House entered the fray, joining the SEIU in attacking the Chamber of Commerce before giving the appearance of easing up when it drew criticism for creating an ‘enemies list.’

While it is one thing for a candidate running for president to pledge allegiance to a particular group (as then-candidate Obama did to the SEIU), it is quite another for the President of the United States to let someone else drive the bus, as the rest of America is shoved to the back.

Although Andy Stern has resigned his role at the SEIU, he is still on the President’s “Deficit Reduction Commission” and ‘recommending‘ public policy, while the SEIU’s Patrick Gaspard is still the White House Political Director.

For those who think this is a last-minute, desperate attempt at trying to salvage the mid-term elections, that’s partially true but, as our friend Kenny S. would say: “Think Bigger.”

While it may not make sense to demonize business during the worst recession in 75 years, they have a bigger agenda to achieve and demonization is the only way they figure they can achieve it. The attacks on the Chamber of Commerce are all about tearing down the largest and longest-lasting institution of business that still stands in the way of union bosses and their puppets in Washington.

This time, though, Americans (and some in the media) have realized that the Democrats are gaming them and, in a bi-partisan manner, are calling them out on it.

*see attached videos at the link above.

 

[chefdennis]

If not to pay them back for the union buddies, why does barry and his minions that are suppose to be on the side of creating jobs attack an organization that is all about business and jobs!?!?


Obama, Democrats Declare War on U.S. Chamber
Monday, 11 Oct 2010 02:18 PM Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten
Obama, Democrats Declare War on U.S. Chamber

With massive midterm losses looming, President Barack Obama is blasting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for accepting foreign donations for its political advertising — a charge that myriad watchdogs and media outlets already have debunked as groundless.

The political battle the allegation has touched off appears to be escalating.

It began at a political rally in Maryland last week, when the president echoed a charge that first appeared in a left-wing blog that the Chamber of Commerce had used foreign contributions to help defray its $75 million campaign advertising budget.

Said Obama: "So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won't tell you where the money for their ads come from."

The Chamber immediately denied the report, explaining that its strict accounting procedures keep foreign and domestic contributions separate.
Denunciations that the allegations appear groundless have spanned the political spectrum.

The New York Times on Monday stated flatly in a news article: "The Democrats have offered no evidence that the Chamber is using foreign money to influence the elections."

On Sunday's "Face the Nation" program, White House senior adviser David Axelrod conceded that the administration has no facts to support its claim, while not backing off on the president's implication that the Chamber may have violated U.S. laws.

When ABC host Bob Schieffer asked whether he had any evidence to support the charge, Axelrod shot back: "Well, do you have any evidence it's not [true] Bob?"

Schieffer's replied by asking Axelrod: "Is that the best you can do?"

The allegations against the Chamber, even as the administration tries to assure job-generating corporations that it is pro-business, appear to be part of a larger Democratic effort to alter the political dialogue in the closing weeks of the campaign.

Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has asked the IRS to investigate groups, such as the Chamber, that do political advertising. Also, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has called for a Federal Election Commission probe into whether the Chamber is using foreign donations to influence domestic politics.

Also, the Democratic National Committee has released a new ad castigating the Chamber as "shills for big business." The ad depicts a thief snatching a woman's purse in a parking garage.

"They're stealing our democracy, spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress," a narrator says in the ad. "It appears they've even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections."

The Wall Street Journal shot back in its lead editorial Monday: "Democrats are unleashing government power to silence their political opponents. Instead of piling on, the press corps ought to blow the whistle on this attempt to stifle political speech. This is one more liberal abuse of power that voters should consider as they had to the polls."

Republicans and business leaders are firing back as well.

Former White House Press Secretary and Fox News commentator Dana Perino tells Newsmax that Democrats are beginning to look desperate in the face of bad poll numbers.

"It sure isn't looking good," she says, "and it gets worse every day. And their desperation and [the] lashing out from the White House is — or should — be beneath them."

"Desperate, partisan attacks are a transparent attempt to distract voters from the issue America cares most about: job creation," wrote R. Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive vice president for government affairs, on the Chamber website. "Now is not the time for political stunts, as the American people are rejecting politics as usual."

Obama himself appeared to back down somewhat Sunday at rally in Philadelphia, slamming Republicans for being beholden to moneyed interests while stopping short of alleging a violation of U.S. law.

But he did so by raising more questions about foreign influence in U.S. elections.

"They are being helped along this year by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads . . . just attacking people without ever disclosing who's behind all these attack ads," Obama said of the GOP. "You don't know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."

The latest remarks of Axelrod and Obama appear designed to put the pressure on the Chamber and other pro-business campaign advertisers to reveal which companies are contributing to their ad campaigns. The Supreme Court's January ruling in the Citizens United case allows organizations such as trade associations to run independent advertising for or against candidates — even within 60 days of an election. The advertising can be paid for through anonymous donations.

Companies seek to keep their political activities anonymous to avoid boycotts by left-wing organizations that could hurt their businesses. When Target Corp. recently donated $150,000 of support to a group that ran advertising for Minnesota GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, MoveOn.org accused it of being anti-gay and started a boycott petition.
Some analysts say Obama and Democrats appear to be trying to shift the campaign's focus off of the president's policies and the dismal economy.

 

[Oilerman1957]

Geez, and here I thought the job losses have been occurring for the last 15 yrs, dang Obama and the unions.

 

[layoutshooter]

Geez, and here I thought the job losses have been occurring for the last 15 yrs, dang Obama and the unions.

Job loses have be going on for a LOT longer than 15 years. The biggest reason? Not China or Mexico. It is changes in production methods and an over shift from heavy industry to tech jobs. We, as a nation, have NOT kept up very well with this. We, politicians, unions and the population in general, keep waiting for the "good ole days" to return. Not going to happen. Our education system is out of date. Our overall thinking is out of date. Far too much control of things by government is making matters FAR worse. That INCLUDES Obama and Co.

 

[chefdennis]

Job losses to foreign countries is because of the ignorant tax policies and Regulations of the US FED GOV.....

 

[layoutshooter]

Job losses to foreign countries is because of the ignorant tax policies and Regulation of the US FED GOV.....

That too is a major contributor to the problems. Our tax structure in this country is VERY anti-business. Our government IS driving jobs away. It my very well be deliberate.

 

[chefdennis]

Yea its just from a BLOG....

Loss of Manufacturing is the Federal Government’s Fault

ELVISNIXON.COM: Loss of Manufacturing is the Federal Government

Anne Marie Cox of Catholic News Service (CNS) reported on the president during his recent campaign swing through four states. On September 29th President Barack Obama visited a Mid-West family in a Des Moines, Iowa neighborhood and spoke to a group assembled in backyard lawn chairs. The local parish priest, Father Michael Amadeo of the Holy Trinity School, was the last one to pose a question. The priest shared a story about a parishioner. Apparently the 55-year-old father had lost his manufacturing job over one year ago and the family was struggling. The priest asked what the president’s economic policies would do in the next year to help people in that circumstance. If anyone were looking for hope, however, they might as well have phoned a call center in India.

President Obama responded that many of the manufacturing jobs simply will not return, because modern factories are so efficient and require fewer workers. Moreover, some jobs are moving overseas where wages are cheaper. His concluding advice was for the unemployed man to keep his skills honed and to be ready when the economy finally turns around again. The president plugged clean energy as a promising business alternative and then left. Not only was the president less than empathetic to the priest’s question or the plight of unemployed man, his administration has got its economics all wrong and government policies are sure to drag this recession all the way to Kingdom Come.

The following analysis is taken from Tom Pauken’s excellent book, Bringing America Home (2010). In it he details those policies behind our nation’s marked economic decline. A central reason for huge trade deficits and the shift of economic power from Main Street to Wall Street is a business tax system that gives private-equity moguls incentives to take imprudent risks with the companies they control. In this respect, they have a distinct advantage over owners of U.S. companies who would like to run their businesses in a tried and true conservative fashion or pursue capital accumulation-based strategies, but find that our tax structure “disincentivizes” them. The United States has a corporate income-tax rate of 35 percent. That rate is an economic incentive for financiers to load a company up with high levels of corporate debt in order to avoid taxation. It is a no-brainer—you can write off debt on your taxes, but savings and investments get taxed heavily. No rational businessman would want his company to accumulate significant savings if the interest on those savings is taxed at 35 percent.

American businesses that have their plants and employees in the United States also do not operate on a level playing field with our trading partners or competitors. Every major trading country in the world except for the United States provides a tax advantage for domestic manufacturers. Even as other countries have removed tariffs over the past four decades, they have been careful to put into place value-added taxes or VATs that provide their companies with a significant economic advantage over foreign businesses. Austin business economist David Hartman has developed data on the effects of a border-adjusted VAT. Starting with France in the mid-1960s, European countries began adopting border-adjusted VATs that now average 19 percent. All Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, made up of over 30 developed countries—all except the United States, that is—have since adopted VATs or their equivalents averaging 18 percent. As a result, U.S. goods carry the full burden of federal, state, and local taxes, plus an added tax averaging 18 percent when they are shipped to foreign markets. To make matters worse, foreign goods that are shipped into the United States enjoy an 18-percent VAT abatement—yet are subject to none of the taxes imposed on U.S. manufacturers.

It really is small wonder that so many big companies have moved their manufacturing outside the United States. It is more of a wonder why the rest haven’t gone! The hollowing out of our manufacturing base and the resultant unemployment and regrettable socio-economic inequalities that have been produced, were predictable. They were caused by the federal government’s regressive tax and trade policies. The president shows every indication of perpetuating the same policies of what Doug Ingram has called a design for “exporting prosperity.” In the past ten years the United States has lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs. Obama did not start the problem, but Obama’s deficits after less than two years in office already exceed President George W. Bush’s after eight years. Unemployment is stuck at nearly ten percent and is likely to remain there for two more years. The Democrat Congress, for the first time in recent memory has not even passed a part of the proposed budget out of committee for the fiscal year that already began. In other words, the president honestly can’t give much hope to the priest in reply to his question. Either the president doesn’t know what to do in the next year, or else his intent is for more of the same that got us in this mess in the first place.

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary and is currently Chairman of the Central Texas Tea Party.



Then take a look here at the unfair advantage foreign countries have..

Currency Wars ! | The Big Picture

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes, government policy IS costing us jobs, LOTS of them, but it is only a contributing factor.

Example: "concasting"

When I worked at Great Lakes Steel most of the steel was poured into ingot molds, allowed to cool, then re-melted and then cast in to large "bars" to be cold rolled into auto steel. They put in a "concast", continuous casting, machine. That by passed the ingot stage and poured the steel directly into the slab for rolling. That cost several hundred jobs at our mill alone. It saved a LOT of money in both labor and energy costs. It is a safer, better way to produce slab steel. Of course the union fought it tooth and nail. No way is it good to modernize. Time marches on.

 

[chefdennis]

Absolutely machines have replaced manual labor, but its been that way since the industrial revolution....when advances in machines can do the sane thing a man can do more productively and and cheaper any busines is going to go that way and if they didn't then they won't be in busines long as their competition will kill them...