Nope...they're rather shout at the darkness than light a candle.

There's another $100M to fund the Conservative agenda.

Tom Donahue has a history as a big booster of Conservative causes going at least as far back as his days as President of the American Trucking Association.

Lyn,

"This outfit" along with the majority seems to be "annoyed" with the current administration. There "dabbling" in politics doesn't bother me as much as Big Unions "dabbling" in politics. Their members are at least not forced into it.

The three groups that seem to be doing fine, the three that benefited the most from the stimulus are, Big Government, Big Business and Big Unions. Funny thing is, none of the three create the jobs that are needed, that drive the economy.

Small Business creates up to 85% of new jobs. "Progressives" sounds great, sounds like progress, right? The problem is that the "progressives" have no clue about economic progress.

"Progressives" rant about the tax cuts expiring, yet fail to realize that this will effect 2/3s of small business. What's another 4.6%? What is the big deal about itemized deductions and personal exemptions being phased out? So what if capital gains go from 15% to 20%, top rate for dividends from 15% to 39.6%? How dare them claim that Obama's HCR will increase their costs, that the 150 new agencies and committees creating new rules and regulations causes uncertainty? Cap and trade, new EPA power and regulations, on and on.

And "progressives" are annoyed with this "outfit"?

These people are spending $100 million over five years and we hear you people scream. But none of you are screaming about buying an election when SEIU spends $100 million on this years' midtem elections or the AFL-CIO throwing in another $80 million. Our people can spend as much as they want but don't let those evil conservative spend $5. Hypocrisy thy name is DEMOCRAT!!

Hi, Bob - your post is right on!

Lyn, are you annoyed at the Unions and politicians as well? Welcome to my world!

The millions of dollars of union dues - contributed by the workers - are simply funneled to the Democrat party, and the workers have no say. Those dollars would be better spent providing continued insurance benefits during lay offs, job training and relocation services. Or, how about funding unfunded pension plans.....so that when union controlled companies fall into dire straits, we won't have to bail them out again.

Look at elections too. The amount of money flying around campaigns is absurd. Those hundreds of millions could be redirected and easily make a sizable dent in our debt, house hundreds of families, and put thousands of kids through school.

Hi Candice,

Eerie. I just re-read a post of mine to Rick, Ky and realized my patience was getting short. That post was unnecessary and for some reason I thought about Candice, how well you handle it. Wierd to check back and see your post next.

Haven't seen any of your comments lately, hope you have been well.

You need to post more often - You have great comments and ........ I still obviously need the modeling.

Bob, I have to agree with Candice, your post is right on . . . if you are brain dead and only know Republican talking points. Your point about 2/3 of small businesses being affected if the taxes on the top 2% expire has been debunked many times over. Never mind the CBO has shown that HCR will reduce the debt, never mind that health care costs were rising 10x faster than inflation and will no longer do that because of the HCR bill, never mind that hedge fund managers will only pay 15% in taxes on their income while you pay a much higher percentage, never mind Republicans actually originated many of the HCR policies back in the 80s, never mind that Republicans backed and co-sponsored Cap and Trade legislation in the 90s, never mind union members can specifically opt out of letting their dues fund political donations but an employee of a company can not tell their company to not use the profit made by the worker can not support a political campaign, never mind you get paid at the rate you are paid due to unions, never mind you only have to work 40 hours a week due to unions, never mind you have a safe working environment due to unions, never mind . . . well, just never mind.

Matthew,

Your loyalty to obvious failure is to be respected (I'm trying Candice) and I deeply apologize if that statement is some Republican talking point. I will uncharacteristically endeavor to not sound like Sean, Rush, Bill or whomever you think I get my talking points from. (whoever or whomever? you probably have me there and I automatically cede to your judgement/knowledge)

Your observation of my "never minding" the CBO is quite astute, if not brilliantly prescient. I do find the verisimilitude of the CBO's practices such as static scoring in general and the focused abnegation of economic reality and dynamics in particular somewhat fatuous. The CBO's report is a diaphanous tool and political manipulation to carefully exculpate a predetermined agenda.

Likewise, due to the fact that it respectively is 2009/2010, I find the political positions of the 80's and 90's offer little precept and value. Good call again. I paid them no mind because of irrelevance with respect to today's crisis, economic conditions and political reality.

I also never thought to turbidly confuse, or equate dues taken by a union from an employee with an entitlement of an employee to dictate what their company can, or cannot do with its profit. Nice obfuscation attempt.

With regard to your last 5-6 "never minds" I do. The unions had their place and served a purpose 50+ years ago. They appear to me, as evidenced by their dramatic decline/history, to have served their true purpose and now serve little more than a political purpose of the Democrat Party. Without this symbiotic relationship of the unions providing incredible sums of money to the DNC interests, busing protesters into tea party gatherings, phone banks, etc. and the DNC's artificial resuscitation of unions, the unions be the thing of the past they should be.

Most liberals that respond try to tell me what I think. You told what I didn't think/think of. Pointless, but refreshing nonetheless.

Thanks for your comments, Matthew.

Ah, never mind that last comment.

According to a National Federation of Independent Business survey, 50% of small business owners who employ 20 to 250 workers fall into the top two income tax brackets. So while President Obama claims to be "for" small businesses, it is the small business owners that will be hurt by the coming tax increase. Four of five new jobs created are created by small businesses. If small businesses are paying more money in taxes, if they are uncertain of the insanity that might be forthcoming from the policies of this administration, they will not create jobs. These are not Republican talking points, they are facts.

The Health Care legislation has already caused insurance companies to raise rates, and I believe the CBO has backed off on its original estimates about reducing debt.

Unions had a place long, long ago when working conditions were unsafe and workers were exploited. Now, they've become too powerful politically. They've caused plants to shut down and jobs shift overseas. They may serve some purpose in some areas but the dues that could be used to actually assist members in these very hard times are instead being directed to the pockets of the Democrats.

Bob,

I've not posted much lately. Many of the discussions here have been the same over and over. Some have been ones there was no point in getting involved. I had to stay away from my keyboard because I, too, found myself losing patience and feeling pushed over the edge to the right. In keeping with my effort to be somewhat open minded and respectful, I deleted more than a few before posting. The "car in the ditch" talking point was going to make my head explode.

I've been following along, however. It does make me smile to read your posts - especially the ones when you're trying to be nice - many times under difficult circumstances.

It's good to bump into you tonight.

You two are real pieces of work. Patting each other on the back and continuing to repeat, without proof, Republican talking points. No matter how many $10 words you use (which impresses no one), Bob, and no matter how many times you try to spin it, the fact remains that all either of you have done is use, literally, Republican talking points that have been disproved.

Take your small business taxation statement, Candice. That one was debunked over 2 years ago. Here is the link: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html Do try to keep up, Candice.

What are you getting mad at, Candice? People not believing your factual misstatements? Your inability to state real facts?

And Candice, please tell me when health care insurance premiums or costs have not been going up. Can you do that? Otherwise, you are using something that was happening even if the HCR bill was not passed to prove how bad it was to pass the HCR bill. First off, that is just dumb and second, why do you want to withhold health care from people? Why do you want over 45,000 people to die each year simply because they do not have health care? Are you really that heartless?

Oh, Matthew.

A classic Democratic talking point is that 45,000 people die each year because they do not have health care. If you looked up that study, you will find that the conclusion were based on extrapolating data that couldn't identify whether or not the small group of people sampled died because they didn't have insurance or didn't access health care, or whether they would have died anyway, and whether or not they didn't have insurance temporarily or by choice. It's a flawed study, Matthew. It's not credible.

No, I'm not heartless actually. (Another Democratic talking point, Matt!) There's some provisions of the legislation I actually agree with.

However, I believe we were talking about taxes, economic policy and small business. It's in those areas that I actually have experience. Since I have real life experience I tend not to gather links to support my experiences. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean my statements aren't true.

I wasn't really mad. Mostly bored. Aggravated, yes. Seems to me that the catch phrase of the day or week or month and the "car in the ditch" analogy was replacing original thought. Plus the analogy is a misrepresentation of the actual facts -- which I can provide for you, if you'd like. Although, I have a feeling though that if facts were presented you might not believe them anyway. Repeated misrepresentations get a little annoying. I'm sure you've felt the same way many times.

I'd much rather have a discussion that's not laced with cliche's but rather honest and heartfelt opinion based on the real world.

So, yes, I like "talking" with Bob, and Rick, and B. Honest, and Leon, and some others who like to have respectful discussions about issues we agree on and a lot of times disagree. I might like talking with you too. Who knows?

Come on -- I was pretty impressed with Bob's post. Almost had to get my dictionary out, but very impressed.

Matthew,

Thanks for the Fact Check link. That pertained to McCain's claims during the campaign and was about then-Senator Obama's tax policy back then....which is different than what we are talking about now. Many (not all) of the arguments refuting McCain's claims were pretty lame. Regardless, it is 2 years old or more and is irrelevant now.

Candice, since it is obvious from your comments that you either did not read the article or did not understand what you were reading, I have pasted the relevent part of that article below. Your statement about how many small businesses would be affected is directly addressed. Your talking point is outdated, Candice, and no matter how you try to spin it, it is just wrong. Your tactic of just dismissing facts if they don't fit your needs is pretty common. Here is the relevent part (don't be afraid to ask questions if you don't understand something):

From a Factcheck.org article linked to in a previous post in this thread.

McCain is right about one thing. Many small-business owners would indeed see their taxes go up if Obama is elected and raises the top income-tax rates. According to a survey from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, about eight out of 10 small-business owners responding to the poll report that they are organized legally in a way that would require them to pay taxes on their business income as individuals, rather than as a corporation. But since Obama's plan wouldn't affect those making less than $250,000 for couples, or about $200,000 for singles, we need to estimate how many would fall into those high-income categories.

Obama's plan, according to his economic policy director Jason Furman, would return the top two federal income-tax rates to what they were before Bush lowered them. In addition, Obama would adjust the income-tax brackets to ensure that no married couple making under $250,000 or single filer making under $200,000 would pay the top rates.

The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. Based on the number of taxpayers who now report any sort of business income on their returns, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,608 taxpayers with business income, or business losses, will fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009, when any Obama tax changes would first take effect. Not all of those can properly be called "small-business owners," however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business.

It is also not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers. In 2004, the Tax Policy Center found that hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers who had business income from partnerships or subchapter-S corporations (whose owners pay taxes as individuals) did not claim any tax deductions for employee expenses. For all these reasons we judge that the actual number of small-business employers who would face higher tax rates under Obama is probably far below 663,608, and certainly a far cry from McCain's ridiculously inflated 23 million figure.

As to your previous post, give me a break. What a self-righteous bunch of clap trap. I showed how your 'facts' are wrong so instead of proving them correct (which you know you can't) you attack me as using your tactics.

No, Candice, we can not have a debate because you do not use facts and your tactics use faulty logic. You have this 'holier than thou' attitude that people actually laugh at in private discussions. You are looked upon with pity because you really believe the BS that you spout on here every time you post, Candice.

Chris, educate yourself. The Chamber has very little to do with big business or big banks. They do not need the Chamber. Big business and banks have their own lobbyists to lobby and campaign directly to Congress and government. The national Chamber of Commerce is the main lobbying arm of small business in this country. You know small business, those guys the President is trying to stimulate. Small business has hired 80% of the new jobs in the private economy over the last 25 years. They are also the people being screwed by this administration. Over 50% of these businessmen are going to see their taxes go up in January. But the Dems want them to hire!!

I wonder if the money they collect will be in a "chamber pot" (bedpan for those of you not old enought to remember)

Supporting business is one thing , supporting liars is another.

He will do that as soon as you get the Democrats to stop costing small businesses billions in new government regulations, billions in new mandates such as health care reform, and billions in increased taxes. They usually want to stand up and say something when they are being screwed. They can't stop sitting on the dough when your people will be charge them these billions in regulations, mandates, and taxes. You get to pick. Your party can have regulations, mandates and taxes or they can have new jobs. Not enough money for both.

I watched a good part of President Obama's speech in Ohio yesterday and I have to say I was stunned. I was stunned to hear him go on about how he supports businesses, free markets, entrepreneurs and individual responsibility. His friendly, hand picked crowd even looked somewhat confused.

I would have been thrilled to hear these thoughts from the President, except his actions and policies are in direct conflict of his speech. So, who's deceiving who?

Candice, Bartlett, IL

I watched a good part of President Obama's speech in Ohio yesterday and I have to say I was stunned. I was stunned to hear him go on about how he supports businesses, free markets, entrepreneurs and individual responsibility. His friendly, hand picked crowd even looked somewhat confused.

I would have been thrilled to hear these thoughts from the President, except his actions and policies are in direct conflict of his speech. So, who's deceiving who?

I am stunned you ever watched it and thought yourself to not be deceived.

Matthew, what has been passed? Let's try Health Care Reform, Financial Regulation, and increased taxes. There are thousands of new regulations which affect the everyday operations of every small business. Many of these regulations are strictly designed to give government agencies information and control over operations of small business. Two of the simple ones will cost me about $10,000 each. We haven't even gotten into health care reform in just the cost of reporting alone. Then we have the tax increases. Congressmen and Senators didn't even read the Health Care legislation. Why do you think none of them are running on it for re-election. They are just now discovering all the nasty little amendments and clauses in this bill. This administration and the Democrats are very, very anti-business. Now their chicken are coming home to rooster. You guys passed this stuff now you have to live with the results.

Ray W., quite frankly, I do not believe you.

What 'thousands of new regulations which affect the everyday operations of every small business' are you talking about, Ray? Show me.

Which regulations will cost you $10,000 and why? Could it be you were doing something you should not have been doing?

What tax increases? Everyone, including you, Ray, are paying less in taxes than you have ever paid. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

You know that the Congressmen and Senators did not read the HCR bill? How do you have this knowledge, Ray? Did you ask every single one of them?

A lot of talking points with nothing to back them up is not a convincing argument, Ray. Come back when you have done your homework and are more prepared.

Ray W.

They are just now discovering all the nasty little amendments and clauses in this bill. This administration and the Democrats are very, very anti-business. Now their chicken are coming home to rooster. You guys passed this stuff now you have to live with the results.

Ray, the nastiest is we knew the insurance companies would go up on prices before the law would go into effect. Read about it somewhere on the web.

That has nothing to do with the President and everything to do with greed and exploitation from the Insurance industry. It also reads very well as a knock on the President's healthcare plans at Fox and other Obama bashing websites.

Beverly,

Of course insurance rates were going to go up. If you own a business and you're told you can't raise prices after a certain date, wouldn't you scurry and raise prices now while your window of opportunity was open? As a business owner, you'd have to since you've no way of knowing what the future holds or how new rules are going to impact your business.

This happened with Financial Reform as well. Congress enacted new rules for credit card companies and told them the rules would take effect in 4 months. The companies hurried and raised rates on everyone to hedge themselves against the future, thereby hurting the people Congress was supposedly trying to protect.

I knew this would happen. You probably knew this would happen. Either Congress is too collectively oblivious to the way business and the world works or they intentionally gave insurance companies and financial firms that window to take advantage of. Which do you think it was?

Candice, here i've always thought of you as a Voice of Reason. I see that's Not entirely True.Don't know about Your Insurance, but mine has been raising astronomically, without HCR.

I'll see if it continues to raise, or levels off, my hope is the latter.

My Wife, a Republican, also a Nurse, knows this can't continue or she'll be priced out of a JOB.

When NONONE can afford HealthCare, No need for Nurses, Plain & Simple!

So where you been living!

Hi, Rick,

The news of the day has been insurance companies raising rates and citing the new legislation as the reason. I think my scenario/argument is valid. --- and reasonable.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hs5iSi0N8rCakYwO28ufsVP1b7qAD9I4L3TG2

My insurance rates have been relatively stable over the years. I guess I'm fortunate to work for a good company that kicks in quite a bit of the premium.

Health care costs are absurd, I agree. I happen to agree with the portion of the bill that requires folks to have insurance. One of the reasons costs are so high is that those paying have to cover those who don't. Ultimately this should have brought costs down. The amount of funds held by health care facilities to write off unpaid bills is unbelievable. (I have a hospital facilities director friend). I'm sure your wife has more insight on that.

Insurance companies can't simply raise rates at will. The state regulators have to approve and allow it. I wonder why the regulators are approving 14% - 20% increases now.

Businesses will use legislation they don't like to increase fees and rates if they can get away with it-- which is what Congress allowed them to do when they structured these bills. That was my point.

There's always a need for good nurses. Republican? How does that work out at home? My husband has a tendency to turn Democrat on me- but only part of the time. :0)

So they were citing the HCR bill this year. What were their excuses for all of the years before that? How about just during the 8 years prior to 2009? What was their excuse for raising premiums as much as 10x the cost of living rate? Their statement and, therefore your use of their statement to oppose the HCR bill is specious.

Try using your brain and not just parroting Republican talking points. The very fact that you use the 'Democrat' [sic] party in your posts reveal that you are just parroting Rush Limbaugh and the Republican talking points.

I don't listen to Rush. He's a bit extreme for me.

and when 3/4 of the small businesses in this country have had to close. What are you going to tell all the unemployed people. WE MEANT WELL!!

And you know this will happen how, Ray?

Jomama

Think Progress caught up with one of the attendees, who confirmed that Marathon Petroleum arranged a bus to bring over 50 of its employees to the rally.

Now you know that's a shame when a company has to exploit it's employees

So Hillary and Congress approved of the use of force for "Daddy's Honor"?

I guess either they are morons, or you are.

BTW - Still no comprehension of the definition of the word mission, Rickie Boy!

I guess either they are morons, or you are

Nope, You Are, Bobbie!

OK - My bad.

Maybe, when the revolution comes, the Chamber will spend some of that loot they collect in dues to defend the oppressors from the wrath of the commoners that will FAR outnumber them by that time.

Now, THERE'S some 'socialist left-wing looney' chat to chew on, ME Firsters- not the soft core 'socialist' ideas you accuse the President of, day in and day out.

Fools.