Oops - US Chamber of commerce may be in some hot water

[ironglow]

 once the BP spill began, there was much that could have been done. The prez could have waived the "Jones act" and let the oil skimmer ships from the Netherlands and sundry other places come in and start collecting the oil. he could have allowed the Coast guard to burn off some of the oil. there were many nations ready to pitch in and help...but the prez would not waive the Jones act.
  Of course, the jones act says that only American union members can work at such efforts..and B Hussein owes much to the unions. Evidently having the taxpayers buy gobs of Chrysler and GM ..then giving it to the unions wasn't enough. Apparently union greed knows no bounds.

And why is it all the politician who railed against the GM bailout , are now trying to have their cake and eat it too.
The fact is the Auto bailout worked. GM posted profits and are well on their way to profitability again. Jobs were saved.

Now as far as bailing out the financial sector ... I say we should have let 'em go under.

One Bailout was good (Auto) , the other was bad ( Wallstreet) .  


When it came to stimulus dollars the same politicians dead set against it  and voted against it (on both sides of the isle) , went back to their states and were all to eager to hand out stimulus $$ checks and are now trying to take credit for creating Jobs with stimulus $$ they voted against when they voted no on the hill claiming no Jobs would be created and it would add to our insurmountable deficit.

 All these politicians are just plain hypocrites. JMHO (there are no decent moral men/women left in Washington .



-----
GM posts first quarter gains

For the first time since 2007, GM has posted a first quarter profit. According to the New York Times, GM garnered about $865 million in profits for first quarter 2010.  It posted revenues of $31.5 billion, and cash flow about $1 billion in the positive.  It’s an overall positive sign for the beleaguered car maker, who previously had to ask the government for more than $50 billion in assistance. One year ago, the company posted losses of $6 billion.

Despite the return of GM profits, the company is still heavily in debt.  The loans it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments totaled more than $50 billion. GM has been making obvious positive strides but isn’t completely free yet. At present, the U.S. Treasury still owns more than 60 percent of GM, and those ownership stakes can only be bought by stock offering when the company goes public again. According to the same piece in the New York Times, they will potentially make a public offering by year’s end.

Granted ..not out of the woods and still have some $$ to repay ... but very positive strides.

   Ford refused a bailout and is on much firmer footing than either GM or Chrysler !

[beerbelly]

If GM is doing so well maybe they should pay the money back! I think  they still owe the feds some thing like 62 billion. They say they have paid back their loan, but it is smoke and mirrors, they have paid back nothing.
                              Beerbelly

[Dixie Dude]

What about all the thousands of dollars in "small" donations that came from Europe to Obama.  Also, the Unions who contributed to Dems, gets money from Foreign Unions.  Why isn't anyone saying anything about this?

[scootrd]

Now as far as bailing out the financial sector ... I say we should have let 'em go under.

I disagree. Not bailing out the banks would have been a disaster. Most businesses large and small depend on loans from those banks to buy merchandise to sell. If they go under,or stop lending,the economy grinds to a halt. Without those businesses whether they be large retailers or small mom and pop operations,even more jobs are lost and even more businesses go under. It would have been worse than the great depression.

  The solution however should not have been to bail out the banks. The problem was that sub prime mortgages were pulling banks under. The solution,which would have cost less and done more should have been for the government to buy up any failing sub prime mortgages for a reasonable price. They are not worth face value,but not worthless either. That way,people who invested in these mortgage backed securities (which would now be regulated so you could not create more of these things to exploit the government bailout. In other words,we deal with whats out there,but you cant make any more) . The problem was not that they were even worthless,but that they were over valued and in fact no one even knew their value. If the government would have simply bought the failing ones,the melt down never would have happened. No take overs of banks,no buy outs and no crisis. Im sure someone is going to chime in that it would be a terrible mistake for the government to just let all these sub prime borrowers off the hook and that it would make an incentive for the borrowers to just not pay if they would get to keep their house. I agree 100% and that's why I never suggested such a thing.

 Once the government had bought the loan,then you owe the government,and the best way to handle that would be to craft some rules to let the IRS deal with it. They have the infrastructure to do it. If the government buys your loan that you owed $100k on ,then you would owe the IRS that money. In fact,It could be structured as a 100% tax on the money that was used to pay off the house,which would count as income. It would be up to the IRS,as per the regulations set by congress to determine if you could make payment arrangements, if they were going to seize the house (their version of repossess it) to pay the debt or if it was just not worth the trouble,or if a partial forgiveness was in order. (the house was for instance in a terrible market and in bad shape and it would actually be a net loss to seize it) My preference would be that forgiveness would be very very rare and instead you would have deferment of the debt until the property was sold. The IRS is very good at determining where there is money,and whether you can pay,and is also very good at applying regulations to determine if you meet criteria for things like repayment plans.

 The total value of sub primes were about 1.2 trillion dollars. About 10% defaulted,so that's about 12 billion dollars. Compare that to the amount the tax payers lost on the bank bailouts. Perhaps some assistance would have been needed,but nothing like what was done. Of those some could be saved by restructuring becuase it was the crazy terms that were causing the problem. In my scenario,the "restructuring" would be paying the IRS. No more variable rates. You owe taxes and so long as your paying you keep your home. If you dont,the IRS will be coming for you and the feds no longer have to beg the banks to fix the problem while at the same time dumping buckets of money on them. (Why would they restructure the loans,they already got enough money to stay afloat,now in addition to that,they can wring as much money out of the borrowers as they can,while we all foot the bill)

 In short,the most cost effective thing for the US taxpayer would have been for the government to pay off your loan ,tax that income at 100% and have the IRS guided by some rules crafted by congress figure out how best to minimize the losses the program would cause by collecting as much as was feasible while not being totally inhumane and ignoring peoples individual situations. Criminal penalties for not paying this particular tax would be taken off the table so long as there was no fraud involved (if you hid assets and then let your house go into foreclosure to get the government to pay and write it off or you try to hide income to keep your tax payments low,your tax bill is now due in full and if you dont pay, your going get your room and board for the next five years on Uncle Sam) and deferments would be the preferred solution to writing it off. You can imagine the IRS might give you a deferment if your unemployed until you find work. If you sold your house,the IRS would want their money. The best part is,there would be little additional overhead in administering the program becuase the IRS already does these things.

I disagree , If big banks and financial institutions did what they should have done with the $$ maybe I would think differently  ...but they didn't, and I don't. They kept the money and did not free up capital back into the MKT . Instead they parlay it into outsourcing their operations overseas. Wall street awarded bonus , trips etc with tax payer dollars, to the very employees and execs who got us in this mess to begin with., and Mrrussel that bad mortgage paper is still floating round out there , didn't magically evaporate. Large Banks should have never received any kind of assistance, and the local banks who actually do help the mom and pops and small businesses with loans etc.. to keep payroll afloat etc in small companies received non of the intended $$.  - utter failure and a windfall for corporate banking and financial fatcats.

Hello we lost all your money ... can we have some more to replace it so we can do it all over again.
And as you know we are against any kind of future regulation to ensure it doesn't happen again.
and if it does,  we will have to come back with our hat in poor little hands again, and you can reward
our bad behavior all over again. God forbid those poor hedge fund millionaires should suffer.

Auto industry was a hand Up ... wall street and Big banks were just a hand out.  Big Difference  - JMHO


I am also confused with your disagreements

In first sentence of first paragraph you state - I disagree. Not bailing out the banks would have been a disaster.
In First sentence of second paragraph you state - The solution however should not have been to bail out the banks.

Which is my point   -  they should not have been bailed out.

[mrussel]

Now as far as bailing out the financial sector ... I say we should have let 'em go under.

I disagree. Not bailing out the banks would have been a disaster. Most businesses large and small depend on loans from those banks to buy merchandise to sell. If they go under,or stop lending,the economy grinds to a halt. Without those businesses whether they be large retailers or small mom and pop operations,even more jobs are lost and even more businesses go under. It would have been worse than the great depression.

  The solution however should not have been to bail out the banks. The problem was that sub prime mortgages were pulling banks under. The solution,which would have cost less and done more should have been for the government to buy up any failing sub prime mortgages for a reasonable price. They are not worth face value,but not worthless either. That way,people who invested in these mortgage backed securities (which would now be regulated so you could not create more of these things to exploit the government bailout. In other words,we deal with whats out there,but you cant make any more) . The problem was not that they were even worthless,but that they were over valued and in fact no one even knew their value. If the government would have simply bought the failing ones,the melt down never would have happened. No take overs of banks,no buy outs and no crisis. Im sure someone is going to chime in that it would be a terrible mistake for the government to just let all these sub prime borrowers off the hook and that it would make an incentive for the borrowers to just not pay if they would get to keep their house. I agree 100% and that's why I never suggested such a thing.

 Once the government had bought the loan,then you owe the government,and the best way to handle that would be to craft some rules to let the IRS deal with it. They have the infrastructure to do it. If the government buys your loan that you owed $100k on ,then you would owe the IRS that money. In fact,It could be structured as a 100% tax on the money that was used to pay off the house,which would count as income. It would be up to the IRS,as per the regulations set by congress to determine if you could make payment arrangements, if they were going to seize the house (their version of repossess it) to pay the debt or if it was just not worth the trouble,or if a partial forgiveness was in order. (the house was for instance in a terrible market and in bad shape and it would actually be a net loss to seize it) My preference would be that forgiveness would be very very rare and instead you would have deferment of the debt until the property was sold. The IRS is very good at determining where there is money,and whether you can pay,and is also very good at applying regulations to determine if you meet criteria for things like repayment plans.

 The total value of sub primes were about 1.2 trillion dollars. About 10% defaulted,so that's about 12 billion dollars. Compare that to the amount the tax payers lost on the bank bailouts. Perhaps some assistance would have been needed,but nothing like what was done. Of those some could be saved by restructuring becuase it was the crazy terms that were causing the problem. In my scenario,the "restructuring" would be paying the IRS. No more variable rates. You owe taxes and so long as your paying you keep your home. If you dont,the IRS will be coming for you and the feds no longer have to beg the banks to fix the problem while at the same time dumping buckets of money on them. (Why would they restructure the loans,they already got enough money to stay afloat,now in addition to that,they can wring as much money out of the borrowers as they can,while we all foot the bill)

 In short,the most cost effective thing for the US taxpayer would have been for the government to pay off your loan ,tax that income at 100% and have the IRS guided by some rules crafted by congress figure out how best to minimize the losses the program would cause by collecting as much as was feasible while not being totally inhumane and ignoring peoples individual situations. Criminal penalties for not paying this particular tax would be taken off the table so long as there was no fraud involved (if you hid assets and then let your house go into foreclosure to get the government to pay and write it off or you try to hide income to keep your tax payments low,your tax bill is now due in full and if you dont pay, your going get your room and board for the next five years on Uncle Sam) and deferments would be the preferred solution to writing it off. You can imagine the IRS might give you a deferment if your unemployed until you find work. If you sold your house,the IRS would want their money. The best part is,there would be little additional overhead in administering the program becuase the IRS already does these things.

I disagree , If big banks and financial institutions did what they should have done with the $$ maybe I would think differently  ...but they didn't, and I don't. They kept the money and did not free up capital back into the MKT . Instead they parlay it into outsourcing their operations overseas. Wall street awarded bonus , trips etc with tax payer dollars, to the very employees and execs who got us in this mess to begin with., and Mrrussel that bad mortgage paper is still floating round out there , didn't magically evaporate. Large Banks should have never received any kind of assistance, and the local banks who actually do help the mom and pops and small businesses with loans etc.. to keep payroll afloat etc in small companies received non of the intended $$.  - utter failure and a windfall for corporate banking and financial fatcats.

Hello we lost all your money ... can we have some more to replace it so we can do it all over again.
And as you know we are against any kind of future regulation to ensure it doesn't happen again.
and if it does,  we will have to come back with our hat in poor little hands again, and you can reward
our bad behavior all over again. God forbid those poor hedge fund millionaires should suffer.

Auto industry was a hand Up ... wall street and Big banks were just a hand out.  Big Difference  - JMHO


I am also confused with your disagreements

In first sentence of first paragraph you state - I disagree. Not bailing out the banks would have been a disaster.
In First sentence of second paragraph you state - The solution however should not have been to bail out the banks.

Which is my point   -  they should not have been bailed out.

 Well,that was not clear,you are correct. I meant that a direct bailout of the banks was a bad idea,for the reasons you mentioned. I think we disagree in a matter of degree. I agree with you that the banks wasted a lot of that money. In other words,they clearly needed far less than we gave them and should have spent everything we gave them on the stuff that was important instead of fattening the wallets of their execs. However,the banks failing completely would have been very bad. What I meant was that standing idly by as the banks failed and saying lets do nothing would have been a poor choice.

      A direct payment to the banks was the wrong place to put the money. It worked,sort of. The problem is,there were many possible solutions some better than others and that was probobally the second worst,right after do nothing. Perhaps what I should have said was,doing nothing to stabilize the banks, would have been a disaster. In other words,the idea that we should just let the banks fail and let the markets fix it all would not have been a good solution. I dont disagree in principle that someone needed to be bailed out,but if your going to have to spend money to prop up the system and the choice is to give it to someone to keep them in their home,or give it to the bank so that they can take that persons home and then leave it to decay and have the roof fall in,I know which one I will choose. (which is what happened with 10s of thousands of homes through places like Ohio and Michigan. The banks wont maintain them,wont pay property taxes and seized them and kicked the residents out just to let them literally fall down) Of course that solution would have ended with the banks losing quite a bit of money,but being able to stay afloat,rather than fat bonuses and record profits while the economy was falling apart around them. Remember,the money didn't just evaporate. It ended up in someones pockets.

 In short,I feel that some large government effort was appropriate to stem the cascading failures of the banks. However,I think that the effort should have been directed at the bottom not the top.

[Oldshooter]

Not sure we are still talking about the original post but...........did i hear that while trying to play catchup with this Chamber of commerce thing the Washington Post while investigating, has basically proven that The White house lied about the whole thing. anyone know the scoop?

[ironglow]

If GM is doing so well maybe they should pay the money back! I think  they still owe the feds some thing like 62 billion. They say they have paid back their loan, but it is smoke and mirrors, they have paid back nothing.
                              Beerbelly

  BB;
  We're not getting that money back ! That 62 billion was the shares which were bought up and GIVEN to the unions. Now Obammy wants to put our kids farther into debt to pay the retirement bennies which the union boss thugs DID NOT put into their union retirement funds..

[ironglow]

What about all the thousands of dollars in "small" donations that came from Europe to Obama.  Also, the Unions who contributed to Dems, gets money from Foreign Unions.  Why isn't anyone saying anything about this?

  DD;
  Almost all of the unions have "international" as part of their names..and they are indeed, international.

[ironglow]

Not sure we are still talking about the original post but...........did i hear that while trying to play catchup with this Chamber of commerce thing the Washington Post while investigating, has basically proven that The White house lied about the whole thing. anyone know the scoop?

  Scoot started the thread and even then he said he "wasn't sure" about it !
  Yes it has been proven the White House crew were 'lying through their teeth', but I guess that is "situation normal" for some politicians.
  It has been all over the news (if you watch a station that is not sold to the administration).
  I did explain quite clearly that the C of C is really small business folks and do not do business on an huge conglomerate scale. One would have to be a 'bimbo brain' to fall for that story !
      See guys..what the administration thinks of some of you !

[scootrd]

Not sure we are still talking about the original post but...........did i hear that while trying to play catchup with this Chamber of commerce thing the Washington Post while investigating, has basically proven that The White house lied about the whole thing. anyone know the scoop?

    I did explain quite clearly that the C of C is really small business folks and do not do business on an huge conglomerate scale. One would have to be a 'bimbo brain' to fall for that story !
      See guys..what the administration thinks of some of you !

IG , Here a few that have membership in the US C C.  (not so small business) Massey , IBM, Catapiller, Edward Jones, American Standard, Marriott, New Your Life... Some like Blankeship CEO Massey - sit on board of directors.

Well I will just let all peruse the list ...... I think this story will have many many more spider legs  and news cycle times.. don't see it dying any time soon.


George Argyros     Billionaire
John W. Bachmann      Partner, Edward Jones
Warren A. Bechtel      Founder of Bechtel Corporation (deceased)
James G. Berges       President of Emerson Electric, 1999-2005
Richard B. Berman       Astroturf spindoctor
Don L. Blankenship    CEO of Massey Energy
Vern Buchanan         Congressman, Florida 13th
Stephen G. Butler       CEO of KPMG, 1996-2002
Andrew Card       White House Chief of Staff, 2001-06
Kimberly A. Casiano    President of Casiano Communications, 1994-2009
Red Cavaney         CEO, American Petroleum Institute
John S. Chens          CEO of Sybase
James W. Cicconi     EVP Legislative Affairs at AT&T
John L. Clendenin       CEO of Bellsouth, 1984-96
Joe F. Colvin          Nuclear Energy Institute
James E. Copeland, Jr. CEO of Deloitte & Touche, 1999-2003
Jeffrey C. Crowe  Chairman of Landstar System
Arthur Culvahouse     White House Counsel, 1987-89
A. William Dahlberg     CEO of Southern Company, 1995-2001
Jack Dalrymple         Lt. Governor of North Dakota
Ronald R. Davenport    Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation
William L. Davis         CEO of RR Donnelley, 1997-2004
Thomas E. Donilon    O'Melveny and Myers
Thomas J. Donohue    US Chamber of Commerce
Trevor Fetter         CEO of Tenet Healthcare
Marion B. Folsom     27-Sep-1976    HEW Secretary, 1955-58
Craig L. Fuller         Washington lobbyist
Walter J. Galvin      CFO of Emerson Electric
Paul E. Glaske        CEO of Blue Bird Corporation, 1992-99
Thomas A. Gottschalk General Counsel of General Motors, 1994-2006
Peter T. Grauer         Chairman of Bloomberg
Roger L. Howe         CEO of US Precision Lens, 1970-86
William J. Hudson, Jr. CEO of AMP Inc, 1993-98
Jon M. Huntsman    Founder of Huntsman Corporation
Orrin H. Ingram II    CEO of Ingram Industries
Alphonso Jackson     US Secretary of HUD, 2004-08
Donald M. James      CEO of Vulcan Materials
James L. Jones         National Security Advisor
Paul W. Jones         CEO of A. O. Smith
Emmanuel A. Kampouris    CEO of American Standard, 1989-99
Matt Kibbe            President and CEO of FreedomWorks
Steve King            Congressman, Iowa 5th
Klaus Kleinfeld            President and COO of Alcoa
Robert H. Krieble       Loctite Corporation
Steven J. Law            American Crossroads
Tom Leppert            Mayor of Dallas
William G. Little            Quam Nichols Co.
Mark Loughridge        CFO of IBM
Frank Luntz            Republican pollster, strategist
J. W. Marriott, Jr.         Billionaire, CEO of Marriott
William T. McCormick, Jr.    CEO of CMS Energy, 1985-2002
Robert B. McGehee        CEO of Progress Energy, 2004-07
Edwin T. Meredith        US Secretary of Agriculture, 1920-21
Michael E. Murphy        Founding partner, D.C. Navigators
Charles Nagel     US Secy. of Commerce & Labor, 1909-13
Dennis M. Nally         Chairman of Price Waterhouse Coopers
Daniel P. Neary         CEO of Mutual of Omaha
George Nolen         CEO of Siemens
Brian M. O'Hara     CEO of XL Capital
Robert E. Patricelli    Women's Health USA
Manuel Perez de la Mesa    CEO of Pool Corporation
Charles J. Pilliod, Jr.         CEO of Goodyear, 1974-83
Richard W. Rahn        The End of Money
(censored word). Raisbeck         Vice Chairman of Cargill
Bert W. Rein             Wiley Rein & Fielding
Ronald A. Rittenmeyer      CEO of EDS, 2007-08
Charles W. Robinson         Deputy Secretary of State, 1976-77
James E. Rogers         CEO of Duke Energy
James E. Rutrough         Chief Administrative Officer of State Farm
Gerald L. Shaheen         Group President, Caterpillar Inc.
Andrew G. Sharkey III      American Iron and Steel Institute
Donald J. Shepard         Chairman of Aegon NV
Allan Shivers        Governor of Texas, 1949-57
Beryl W. Sprinkel    Council of Economic Advisers, 1985-89
Jeffry E. Sterba         CEO of PNM Resources
Sy Sternberg         CEO of New York Life
Edward M. Straw     Former US Navy Vice Admiral
James N. Sullivan     Vice Chairman of Chevron, 1989-2000
Virginia Thomas    Lobbyist, wife of Clarence Thomas
Larry D. Thompson     General Counsel of Pepsi
Steve Van Andel    Amway scion
C. William Verity    US Secretary of Commerce, 1987-89
H. Thomas Watkins    CEO of Human Genome Sciences
Houston L. Williams    CEO of Pacific Network Supply
Ernest J. Wilson III    Dean, Annenberg School for Communication
Dennis R. Wraase    CEO of Pepco Holdings, 2001-09

[ironglow]

Those are individuals, not companies or corporations.

  If you have been following the news you will already know that the bogus claims made by Pres Jumpshot/golf player, have been thoroughly debunked as 'made-up'  $%#@*&^. !
  
    Then too; we must 'consider the source'.  Generally, neighborhood activists do not have a sterling reputation for scrupulous accuracy...

[billy_56081]

Hey scoot, how about we just do aweay with all those large "evil" coorporations. Wouldn't that be a nice dreamy paradice to live in? I bet you could go out to your garden and raise your food, and what you couldn't raise you could trade your surplus for down at the local coop. What a dreamy happy bubbly life you would have. WAKE UP! This is the real world.

[scootrd]

Hey scoot, how about we just do aweay with all those large "evil" coorporations. Wouldn't that be a nice dreamy paradice to live in? I bet you could go out to your garden and raise your food, and what you couldn't raise you could trade your surplus for down at the local coop. What a dreamy happy bubbly life you would have. WAKE UP! This is the real world.

Billy your always seem to be on the defensive to me, I am not taking sides on this issues except to state , there should full disclosure as to who is funding ALL political ads, As I have stated from the beginning of this thread they may or may not have done anything wrong , but without full disclosure of where $$ come from for these ads we don't know as Americans who is playing in our American politics. My only other comment is why would I or any beck supporters want to donate they're hard earned $$ to an entity who supports Outsourcing of American jobs overseas . If my own mother supported outsourcing of American Jobs I would be on the other side of the fence with her as well.

I do find it interesting a lot of large company CEO's either sit on the board or are members.. hmm wonder where their call centers are?  Bangalore India would be my guess.

[ironglow]

  That wild accusation against the C of C was leveled by Axelrod, the DNC jabberwocky, right here;
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T24gsn89AAE&feature=player_embedded#!

   Now, wild accusations are easy to make ans any idiot can do it. However, providing PROOF to back up such accusations aree a bit more difficult, Schiffer gave Axelrod a chance to lay out his case when Schiffer inquired if he could offer any PROOF that the C of C had funneled any foreign money in..
   Bonehead asks "Can you prove there wasn't"?
  Well, bonehead Axlerod, In this country and by this constitution, a person is ASSUMED INNOCENT until he is Proven guilty..so proive away.
  Any man with any character will not accuse unless he has the proof already..if he doesn't have PROOF in hand..he's just another CHEAP LIAR.

  That being said, I doubt the public is very interested in that subject. John Q. Public wants a job, a thriving economy and a secure family. He DOESN'T WANT unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare (which none of those voting for, read),  He doesn't want the Constitution shredded, doesn't want the usual freeloaders catered to while the real working man gets stomped upon.
  Have you noticed the health insurance rates climbing toward the sky and co-pays increasing ? This morning's news said it has jumped 47% in the last couple weeks in Connecticuit.
   He also doesn't like the $3 trillion debt BHO has dumped upon us...with NO positive results to the jobs, economy or our freedom.


 These are the things competing politicians should be debating the REAL state of the nation..but when it comes to those subjects, the spineless, liberal losers have no ammo in their guns.

[scootrd]

  That being said, I doubt the public is very interested in that subject. John Q. Public wants a job, a thriving economy and a secure family. He DOESN'T WANT unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare (which none of those voting for, read),  He doesn't want the Constitution shredded, doesn't want the usual freeloaders catered to while the real working man gets stomped upon.
 

I'm John Q. Public , I wanna Know , The US C and C helps companies outsource our Jobs overseas that's part of their charter.
contributes to a less thriving economy and less American Jobs.


I also may not be a big proponent of the new Healthcare program , But I like some aspects,

Like a child diagnosed with an expensive illness can no longer be  told no treatment because the insurance co refuses to pay.
Like folks with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied Heathcare anymore. Two aspects I do like.  
Like children can now stay on parents INS until they are in their 20's. I think most parents trying to make end meet will find this quite helpful.

[beerbelly]

People in their 20s are not children! They are adults, and should pull their on weight! If you want to support a worthless kid of yours that will not work, go ahead. But don't take my money to support the bum!

[scootrd]

People in their 20s are not children! They are adults, and should pull their on weight! If you want to support a worthless kid of yours that will not work, go ahead. But don't take my money to support the bum!

That point makes absolutely no sense. Parents having the opportunity to keep their children on their own INS policies longer while they are in college or just starting out in life helps keeps them off the uninsured rolls (which would affect your money and your premiums) and lowers everyone's premiums.   - totally illogical statement BB.

[billy_56081]

People in their 20s are not children! They are adults, and should pull their on weight! If you want to support a worthless kid of yours that will not work, go ahead. But don't take my money to support the bum!

That point makes absolutely no sense. Parents having the opportunity to keep their children on their own INS policies longer while they are in college or just starting out in life helps keeps them off the uninsured rolls (which would affect your money and your premiums) and lowers everyone's premiums.   - totally illogical statement BB.

WOW pass the kool aide.

[scootrd]

comon Billy , there ya go being defensive again , rather than trying to explain the logic of your last comment ..you attack the individual. So predictable... but I guess when you don't have logic or facts on your side that's all ya got. So, hang in there stick with your  one liner empty comebacks.

a few of the doner's uncovered ..still think its mom and pop

Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation's financial regulations.

Dow Chemical gave $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed new rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has helped wage a national campaign to limit the ability to sue businesses.

Another large foundation donor is a charity run by Maurice Greenberg, former chairman of insurance giant AIG. The charity has made loans and grants totaling $18 million since 2003.

More recently, News Corp. gave $1 million to support the chamber's political efforts this fall; Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of News Corp., said it was in the best interests of his company and the country "that there be a fair amount of change in Washington."

/This is the same Rupert Murdoch that outsourced software Jobs to North Korea/  

The chamber has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads.

I would think TEA Party would be more upset about this  -  isn't one of the behaviors they are rallying against is all this secrecy relating to who is really controlling Washington?.

Fact is large corps are outsourcing all our American Jobs overseas and one of their vehicles to do so is through the  US. C of C.

I'm sure more spider legs a coming to this story.

[ironglow]

Has Obama revealed how much help he has received from George Soros and all his foreign investments ?

[scootrd]

Has Obama revealed how much help he has received from George Soros and all his foreign investments ?

Don't know but I wish he would. Should be full transparency

[scootrd]

Has Obama revealed how much help he has received from George Soros and all his foreign investments ?

I'd like to know about that...got a link?

.

TM7  -  New York Times ran the piece this week Article appeared 2 days ago. Media has now picked it up.
Interesting in 2008 47 big company entities donated over 1/2 of all $$ taken in by Chamber.  

Pretty soon it will be ....

We The Conglomerate of the United oligarchy of America , in Order to form a more perfect corporate society , establish deregulation, insure outsourcing, provide for our common bottom line , promote Our conglomerates general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of special interests for Ourselves and our individual corporations Posterity, do ordain and establish this oligarchy for all the United corporate interests of America.

[ironglow]

Has Obama revealed how much help he has received from George Soros and all his foreign investments ?

I'd like to know about that...got a link?

.

TM7  -  New York Times ran the piece this week Article appeared 2 days ago. Media has now picked it up.
Interesting in 2008 47 big company entities donated over 1/2 of all $$ taken in by Chamber. 

Pretty soon it will be ....

We the conglomerate of the United oligarchy of America , in Order to form a more perfect Conglomerate , establish deregulation, insure outsourcing, and provide for the common corporation, promote Our conglomerates general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of special interests to Ourselves and our conglomerates Posterity, do ordain and establish this oligarchy for the United corporate interests of America.

  You want a link..here's one which shows that Soros not only funds Obama, ...he OWNS him;

  http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/01/27/awaiting-the-soros-obama-sotus-the-state-of-the-re-making-america-revolution/

[ironglow]

  Here we see that Soros not only funds supporting organizations (such as Moveon.org) and other phony "one world govt" schemes..he even furnishes officers fro Obama's administration;
  http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obama-official-led-soros-fund

[scootrd]

 Here we see that Soros not only funds supporting organizations (such as Moveon.org) and other phony "one world govt" schemes..he even furnishes officers fro Obama's administration;
  http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obama-official-led-soros-fund

It's not two wrongs make a right here , its two wrongs make a wrong..
This isn't mommy vs Daddy. If daddy does it  -it's ok , If mommy does it -it's not ok .
It's not ok no matter whose doing it.

this is the selling of America. Or at least the buying up of America for a select few.

Transparency needs to be had by all.

[ironglow]

Here's an example of Soros sneaking money through to Obama and getting his super-rich friends to provide money also.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/soros_obama_and_the_millionair.html

  The Republicans are bad enough, but the Democrats have an absolute stench about them! Soros makes no bones about his efforts to destroy the sovereignty of western nations, particularly the US.
  Perhaps some will remember when Chelsea Clinton got married, her folks showed up at the wedding. They didn't stay at Motel 8...they stayed at the home of Soros' son and his spouse. Some of the festivities were held at the Soros home.
   The Dems..chumming with a billionaire family bent on destroying America as we know it. No surprise then when B Hussein said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" our country..the dems ate it up.
      Quite honestly, except for a few very small details..I figure the America we were handed down by our forefathers.. was a beautiful thing long before Obama was even a gleam in a Communist Kenyan's eye.

    Transparency could start right there...  The major difference between BHO and his dog Bo      ....Bo has papers..

[scootrd]

Here's an example of Soros sneaking money through to Obama and getting his super-rich friends to provide money also.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/soros_obama_and_the_millionair.html

  The Republicans are bad enough, but the Democrats have an absolute stench about them! Soros makes no bones about his efforts to destroy the sovereignty of western nations, particularly the US.
  Perhaps some will remember when Chelsea Clinton got married, her folks showed up at the wedding. They didn't stay at Motel 8...they stayed at the home of Soros' son and his spouse. Some of the festivities were held at the Soros home.
   The Dems..chumming with a billionaire family bent on destroying America as we know it. No surprise then when B Hussein said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" our country..the dems ate it up.
      Quite honestly, except for a few very small details..I figure the America we were handed down by our forefathers.. was a beautiful thing long before Obama was even a gleam in a Communist Kenyan's eye.

    Transparency could start right there...  The major difference between BHO and his dog Bo      ....Bo has papers..

IG ..I'm not argguing with you ..I agree there is stench everywhere. It's time it is cleaned up. Lets start with all donations to corporate ads must have full disclosure. Lets continue further that all donations period must have full disclosure .. I as an American want to be able to follow the monies trail and see what entities are investing in the political outcome of our elections.  This is not a bias towards a single party , this should apply across the board. Americans need to know.  I do not want China or any other country or a few billionaires subverting U.S elections and buying our politicians votes, or trying to sway our voting.

[ironglow]

  I agree with you, I would like to see complete transparency but I doubt very much that we will get it, certainly not from the two major parties, they have been entrenched too long !
  If the Republicans truly wanted to do something with their "pledge to America" they would have added a few points to their pledge;
 
A) Term limits..not term limits on a voluntary basis, because we only lose the honorable ones then..but term limits for ALL.
  Presidents can live with it, why not congressmen ?

B) No lobbyists allowed on capital hill and not allowed to even talk to members of congress.

C) All laws that apply to the citizen shall apply also to congress.

D) No 'gravy train' retirement packages for members of congress..pay into SS and that's all you get.

    Now those rules would have some teeth and get them elected...but at least they have done SOMETHING. By contrast the Democrats have proimised only a RADICAL TRANSFORMATION of our country which most of us respected and loved, before BHO's policies started in.

  Perhaps something like the Tea Party is our only chance..I have attended their rallies and discussed with many of them. Their ideals are much closer to our founding father's ideals than anything going today. Although there is no formal 'membership' my ideal conform more closely to the Tea Party and that is where I find my political identity. No "racism"..not tolerated, negative signs are by those trying to smear the TP image.
  Attend a couple of their rallies..don't listen to the lies from the major media nor the political 'elites' of the major parties.

[ironglow]

  I posted sites from American Thinker, Smart Girl politics, Big Journalism and if you follow the link I suggested, it led to the NY Times.
  Today's link is from Free Republic and it is especially revealing in that the article was written in 2004..showing the many ways in which Soros has supported B.Hussein..directly and indirectly.
  It predicts the announcement Obama made concerning his intended "brownshirt army"..because that's what Soros did to topple other (east European) countries.
  As one reads the article, written in 2004, nobody knew who the Democrats would nominate for the top spot in 2008. Free Republic did their research however and found out that whoever they nominated, he/she would be Soros' puppet.
  For everyone here, if you have a moment read it...you will say, "How did they know that ion 2004"? You will see Soros' program being put into effect by the Obama administration, day by day.
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173004/posts

[scootrd]

I also agree with A, B,C,D

I am just sick and tired of the China's of the world manipulating their currancy, not allowing fair free trade and Buying America, influencing our politicians ,

And someone please explain to me how GE, Exxon , Bank of America , and Citi paid 0$ in corporate taxes last year .. that's right 0 $$$

In fact, GE recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Exxon paid no taxes and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.” None.... Zip ....Naada.. the big goose egg.

Yet our politicians claim the taxes corporations are paying are too high. Heck I paid more in taxes than some of the biggest corporations in America because they have the loopholes... They paid 0 $$$$... what more break do they need to keep jobs here.

I saw a great piece on caterpillar , because of Chinese tariffs. Caterpillar has been forced to build their product in China. If they built in America and imported into China they would be socked with 30% additional costs through tariffs. Where is the free trade their? and what does China do , they keep buying up our Debt , our US treasury.  We are going Bust , where they are going Boom.

This goes to the heart of what I'm talking about. The selling off of America, Jobs , outsourcing etc...

China's on a Mission and it's against our best interests.. and I want to know where the monies being donated to US C and C are coming from.

and if you want to read the Article Forbes published it last week

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam

Disgusting