US Chamber of Commerce to spend big on 2012 election

May 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

The U.S Chamber of Commerce, which helped Republicans make big gains in the 2010 congressional elections, is planning its most aggressive push yet to send business-friendly lawmakers to Washington in the Nov.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of41
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cleo wrote:
Then explain why all the taxbreaks failed to create jobs during the 8 years that Bush and Company ran the US? And why did they lose some 800,000 jobs per month?
The tax breaks did help, and it's false to claim that 800,000 jobs per month were lost when Bush was President. It simply ain't true.

The facts are these: The tax cuts were implemented in 2001 and in 2003 to spur the economy which reacted quite negatively to the 9/11 attacks. Within several months of the tax cuts being fully implemented, we saw growth return to the economy, and that growth continued at moderate and consistent rate until after Democrats gained control of Congress in January 2007. IOW, the tax cuts did exactly what they were intended to do - they helped pull the economy out of a slump.

During Bush's Presidency, unemployment remained under 5%. Also, when Democrats took control of Congress, the DOW was at an all-time high, gasoline was under $2 per gallon, and the annual budget deficit was around $350 billion even though we were funding two wars.

After Democrats gained control of Congress and began implementing their socialist policies, the budget deficit quadrupled to $1.5 trillion per year, the housing market collapsed, the DOW lost half its value, unemployment skyrocketed, and the price of gas is double today what it was then.

So, to claim that Bush and the tax cuts implemented a decade ago are the cause of our current economic disaster is ignoring the facts.
Also explain the gain of some 2.4 million jobs during the past three years? Not to mention a lower tax rate for all workers, inclduing businesses, passed by Obama.
The job market now is far worse than at any time since the great depression. More people are out of work than ever, and we have record numbers of people living in poverty and on welfare. That's what the Democrats gave us.

As far as Obama lowering tax rates, that's an outright lie. Income tax rates have remain unchanged for almost a decade, and the power to lay and collect taxes is that of Congress, not the President. Obama couldn't lower anyone's taxes even if he wanted to. He tirelessly advocates raising taxes, not lowering them.

Don't be one of the mindless retarded liberals that swallows up whatever the leftist elites in Washington spew out. Use your mind and check the facts. IOW, don't be a gullible dumbass.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
funny how those numbers tip substancially down when you point out that you have to help support all the children born to poor families, including day care, medicaid, food stamps, etc.
pro-life for "white" babies....not for the rest.
Well Cleo, maybe if your race had less than 58% of unmarried births, sometimes in the 4-5-6 children from different fathers, people would also be pro-life for you. Why not clean up your own backyard then you will be free to critize the whites that pay for your mistakes and poor choices through ignorance.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Bush's numbers were actually greater when you took in the some 5,000,000 jobs that were outsourced by companies.
Explain how Obama is anti-business when business taxes are lower than when bush was in office?
We can wait until you hear from Rush.
Forrrrrrrrre score and three and a half years ago, hopey-changey was brought forth into this country.....Since then, we have record unemployment, a GNP of 1.2% in the tank, an economy that has been attacked at the small business level by over budening of regulaitons and taxes that has created a vaccum in hiring. Obama and his minions and Propaganda machine have put out a steady stream of side issues to continually turn the publics mind from the disaster this man of no experience, no job creativity or economic experience has put this country in. The next time Obama and Media Matters creates another fake crisis, just remember what is behind the curtain......and who is keeping it closed.
Cleo

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The tax breaks did help, and it's false to claim that 800,000 jobs per month were lost when Bush was President. It simply ain't true.
The facts are these: The tax cuts were implemented in 2001 and in 2003 to spur the economy which reacted quite negatively to the 9/11 attacks. Within several months of the tax cuts being fully implemented, we saw growth return to the economy, and that growth continued at moderate and consistent rate until after Democrats gained control of Congress in January 2007. IOW, the tax cuts did exactly what they were intended to do - they helped pull the economy out of a slump.
During Bush's Presidency, unemployment remained under 5%. Also, when Democrats took control of Congress, the DOW was at an all-time high, gasoline was under $2 per gallon, and the annual budget deficit was around $350 billion even though we were funding two wars.
After Democrats gained control of Congress and began implementing their socialist policies, the budget deficit quadrupled to $1.5 trillion per year, the housing market collapsed, the DOW lost half its value, unemployment skyrocketed, and the price of gas is double today what it was then.
So, to claim that Bush and the tax cuts implemented a decade ago are the cause of our current economic disaster is ignoring the facts.
<quoted text>
The job market now is far worse than at any time since the great depression. More people are out of work than ever, and we have record numbers of people living in poverty and on welfare. That's what the Democrats gave us.
As far as Obama lowering tax rates, that's an outright lie. Income tax rates have remain unchanged for almost a decade, and the power to lay and collect taxes is that of Congress, not the President. Obama couldn't lower anyone's taxes even if he wanted to. He tirelessly advocates raising taxes, not lowering them.
Don't be one of the mindless retarded liberals that swallows up whatever the leftist elites in Washington spew out. Use your mind and check the facts. IOW, don't be a gullible dumbass.
funny how you neocons keep forgetting to add the interest to the debt due to tax breaks for millinaires, and don't account for one penny of both Iraq nor Afghanistan in the budgets.

tsk.tsk.
Cleo

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The tax breaks did help, and it's false to claim that 800,000 jobs per month were lost when Bush was President. It simply ain't true.
The facts are these: The tax cuts were implemented in 2001 and in 2003 to spur the economy which reacted quite negatively to the 9/11 attacks. Within several months of the tax cuts being fully implemented, we saw growth return to the economy, and that growth continued at moderate and consistent rate until after Democrats gained control of Congress in January 2007. IOW, the tax cuts did exactly what they were intended to do - they helped pull the economy out of a slump.
During Bush's Presidency, unemployment remained under 5%. Also, when Democrats took control of Congress, the DOW was at an all-time high, gasoline was under $2 per gallon, and the annual budget deficit was around $350 billion even though we were funding two wars.
After Democrats gained control of Congress and began implementing their socialist policies, the budget deficit quadrupled to $1.5 trillion per year, the housing market collapsed, the DOW lost half its value, unemployment skyrocketed, and the price of gas is double today what it was then.
So, to claim that Bush and the tax cuts implemented a decade ago are the cause of our current economic disaster is ignoring the facts.
<quoted text>
The job market now is far worse than at any time since the great depression. More people are out of work than ever, and we have record numbers of people living in poverty and on welfare. That's what the Democrats gave us.
As far as Obama lowering tax rates, that's an outright lie. Income tax rates have remain unchanged for almost a decade, and the power to lay and collect taxes is that of Congress, not the President. Obama couldn't lower anyone's taxes even if he wanted to. He tirelessly advocates raising taxes, not lowering them.
Don't be one of the mindless retarded liberals that swallows up whatever the leftist elites in Washington spew out. Use your mind and check the facts. IOW, don't be a gullible dumbass.
funny how my tax rates have gone down with obama....and if you work so did yours..or didn't you get the memo from rush...

i'll give you a hint: social security tax.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
funny how my tax rates have gone down with obama....and if you work so did yours..or didn't you get the memo from rush...
i'll give you a hint: social security tax.
Yes, we know Obama's actions have speeded the bankrupcy of Social Security and increased the fear in older americans. Why didn't he take losers EBT cards instead.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
funny how you neocons keep forgetting to add the interest to the debt due to tax breaks for millinaires, and don't account for one penny of both Iraq nor Afghanistan in the budgets.
tsk.tsk.
You quickly forget the millions Obama created that don't pay much in the way of taxes due to the difference of Unemployment and a real job......since 47% of you beggers don't pay, that also is the bigger part of the problem. 86% of all taxes are paid by 10% of the people. Tell Kerry to go marry another rich widow so he can hide his yachts.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Cleo wrote:
funny how you neocons keep forgetting to add the interest to the debt due to tax breaks for millinaires, and don't account for one penny of both Iraq nor Afghanistan in the budgets.
tsk.tsk.
Individual income tax rates haven't changed in a decade. During Republican control of Congress they funded every program in existence prior to Democrats gaining control in 2007, including two wars, and they only borrowed $325 billion per year.

After Democrats gained control of Congress, they funded all those same programs and the two wars, plus the managed to spend another $1.2 trillion per year on other stuff.

That was my point. Republicans in Congress spend too damn much money, but with Democrats in control spending increases by orders of magnitude!

The facts are clear. Democrats have increased the debt 4 times faster since taking over Congress in 2007 than did the Republicans who controlled Congress for the previous 12 years.

BTW, the Bush tax cuts reduced taxes for every taxpayer in America, and it reduced them the most on the poorest taxpayers. They weren't tax cuts for the wealthy, they were tax cuts for everyone.
Cleo

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, we know Obama's actions have speeded the bankrupcy of Social Security and increased the fear in older americans. Why didn't he take losers EBT cards instead.
you mean from those poor crackers who are so stupid to keep voting republican, while claiming to hate the big bad ebil gubermint, but expecting their earned income credit for reproducing with their first cousin mamma daddy? those idiots?
Cleo

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Individual income tax rates haven't changed in a decade. During Republican control of Congress they funded every program in existence prior to Democrats gaining control in 2007, including two wars, and they only borrowed $325 billion per year.
After Democrats gained control of Congress, they funded all those same programs and the two wars, plus the managed to spend another $1.2 trillion per year on other stuff.
That was my point. Republicans in Congress spend too damn much money, but with Democrats in control spending increases by orders of magnitude!
The facts are clear. Democrats have increased the debt 4 times faster since taking over Congress in 2007 than did the Republicans who controlled Congress for the previous 12 years.
BTW, the Bush tax cuts reduced taxes for every taxpayer in America, and it reduced them the most on the poorest taxpayers. They weren't tax cuts for the wealthy, they were tax cuts for everyone.
No.

The wars in afghanistan and in Iraq were NEVER accounted for in any republican budget up to and including when Obama was sworn in January 2009.

Nor did they reflect in the deficit until Obama wrote out his first budget.

Nor did the republican budgets account for interest on tax breaks.

Your facts are at best, wrong. Your take on the whole budget and deficit process is even worse.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Cleo wrote:
The wars in afghanistan and in Iraq were NEVER accounted for in any republican budget up to and including when Obama was sworn in January 2009.
I'm talking about actual expenditures, not projected budgets.

The money spent on the wars, along with every dollar actually spent by the federal government, is reflected in the annual reports of the GAO (general accounting office). When Republicans controlled Congress, the totality of all expenditures, including about $100 billion per year spent to fund both wars, resulted in annual deficits of $325 billion per year.

After the 2006 elections when Democrats gained control of Congress, the total of all expenditures resulted in annual deficits of $1.5 trillion.

Those are simply the facts whether you want to believe them or not.
Nor did the republican budgets account for interest on tax breaks.
There is no interest charged on money that government doesn't confiscate from people. What a ridiculous statement. The only thing government pays interest on is our national debt, which has grown 4 times faster since Democrats gained control of Congress.
Your facts are at best, wrong. Your take on the whole budget and deficit process is even worse.
My facts are the hard financial data reported by the GAO. If you want to ignore that and swallow the lying leftist bullshit like an idiot liberal drone, go right ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us to be so stupid.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
you mean from those poor crackers who are so stupid to keep voting republican, while claiming to hate the big bad ebil gubermint, but expecting their earned income credit for reproducing with their first cousin mamma daddy? those idiots?
FLASH: THIS JUST IN…..OBAMA’S LATESTEST BLAME OTHERS SPEECH In IOWA.......where he is faltering, has been tagged for what it is……….

'A COWPIE OF DISTORTION'

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The wars in afghanistan and in Iraq were NEVER accounted for in any republican budget up to and including when Obama was sworn in January 2009.
Nor did they reflect in the deficit until Obama wrote out his first budget.
Nor did the republican budgets account for interest on tax breaks.
Your facts are at best, wrong. Your take on the whole budget and deficit process is even worse.
you are lying or just stupid as usual. They were accounted for in the 2009 budget that Bush wouldn't sign from Pelosi because it was full of Pork. Obama also refused to sign it and then spent 19% more than the budget from Pelosi called for. To date the liberals haven't passed a budget in 1100 days.....and counting.

Since: Mar 11

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
May 25, 2012
 
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>you are lying or just stupid as usual. They were accounted for in the 2009 budget that Bush wouldn't sign from Pelosi because it was full of Pork. Obama also refused to sign it and then spent 19% more than the budget from Pelosi called for. To date the liberals haven't passed a budget in 1100 days.....and counting.
I'll bet on both lying and stupid.The little racist troll makes lying an art when it comes to her pitiful party.

Since: Sep 08

Placitas, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

The Reich-wing fascistic hate-mongers, race-baiters, and BALD FACE LIARS (C of C, Koch brothers, Karl Rove, ect)will spend well over 1/2 BILLION $$$-most of it untraceable- to demonize the President and Democrats.

This is simply the culmination of the blueprint Lewis F. Powell laid out in his infamous "Powell Memorandum," written in August of 1971. Within a few moths of the memo he was nomiatedto the Supreme Court by Nixon a few months later.

Powell's memorandum was distributed by the National Chamber of Commerce to its membership under the heading "CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM, ATTACK ON AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM," http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php... )

If you haven't read it, by all means do. It is a chilling, detailed plan for deconstructing democracy in the U.S. Even more chilling is how carefully, methodically, and systematically the well-heeled "1%" has successfully implemented the plan by subverting the electoral process and every essential institution of our democratic society.

Since: Mar 11

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
May 25, 2012
 
PlacitasRoy wrote:
The Reich-wing fascistic hate-mongers, race-baiters, and BALD FACE LIARS (C of C, Koch brothers, Karl Rove, ect)will spend well over 1/2 BILLION $$$-most of it untraceable- to demonize the President and Democrats.
This is simply the culmination of the blueprint Lewis F. Powell laid out in his infamous "Powell Memorandum," written in August of 1971. Within a few moths of the memo he was nomiatedto the Supreme Court by Nixon a few months later.
Powell's memorandum was distributed by the National Chamber of Commerce to its membership under the heading "CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM, ATTACK ON AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM," http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php... )
If you haven't read it, by all means do. It is a chilling, detailed plan for deconstructing democracy in the U.S. Even more chilling is how carefully, methodically, and systematically the well-heeled "1%" has successfully implemented the plan by subverting the electoral process and every essential institution of our democratic society.
Sorry to be the one to tell you this,but I will,Obama and the democrats demonize themselves without any help from the right.Com e on P.B. and be truthful,do you believe 1/2 of the spam you post or are you that crazy and anti-American? Just asking.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
May 25, 2012
 
PlacitasRoy wrote:
The Reich-wing fascistic hate-mongers, race-baiters, and BALD FACE LIARS (C of C, Koch brothers, Karl Rove, ect)will spend well over 1/2 BILLION $$$-most of it untraceable- to demonize the President and Democrats.
This is simply the culmination of the blueprint Lewis F. Powell laid out in his infamous "Powell Memorandum," written in August of 1971. Within a few moths of the memo he was nomiatedto the Supreme Court by Nixon a few months later.
Powell's memorandum was distributed by the National Chamber of Commerce to its membership under the heading "CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM, ATTACK ON AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM," http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php... )
If you haven't read it, by all means do. It is a chilling, detailed plan for deconstructing democracy in the U.S. Even more chilling is how carefully, methodically, and systematically the well-heeled "1%" has successfully implemented the plan by subverting the electoral process and every essential institution of our democratic society.
yada yada yada
Cleo

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
May 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>FLASH: THIS JUST IN…..OBAMA’S LATESTEST BLAME OTHERS SPEECH In IOWA.......where he is faltering, has been tagged for what it is……….
'A COWPIE OF DISTORTION'
shouldn't you be out selling life insurance to some poor idiot who's too stupid to realize that insurance is a scam?
Cleo

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
May 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>you are lying or just stupid as usual. They were accounted for in the 2009 budget that Bush wouldn't sign from Pelosi because it was full of Pork. Obama also refused to sign it and then spent 19% more than the budget from Pelosi called for. To date the liberals haven't passed a budget in 1100 days.....and counting.
And exactly when did we get into those wars, dimbulb? And the first time its in a budget just happens to be Bush's last?

idiot.
Cleo

Marquette, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
May 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm talking about actual expenditures, not projected budgets.
The money spent on the wars, along with every dollar actually spent by the federal government, is reflected in the annual reports of the GAO (general accounting office). When Republicans controlled Congress, the totality of all expenditures, including about $100 billion per year spent to fund both wars, resulted in annual deficits of $325 billion per year.
After the 2006 elections when Democrats gained control of Congress, the total of all expenditures resulted in annual deficits of $1.5 trillion.
Those are simply the facts whether you want to believe them or not.
<quoted text>
There is no interest charged on money that government doesn't confiscate from people. What a ridiculous statement. The only thing government pays interest on is our national debt, which has grown 4 times faster since Democrats gained control of Congress.
<quoted text>
My facts are the hard financial data reported by the GAO. If you want to ignore that and swallow the lying leftist bullshit like an idiot liberal drone, go right ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us to be so stupid.
Wrong punkin. Bush's wars were never accounted for, since they were funded off book.
The government is paying interest to China for the tax breaks, even a simpleton like you should have gotten that memo.
I'd rather be a talking point liberal than a brain dead republicant.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of41
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••