Posted on 01/10/2014 7:04:24 AM PST by xzins
I’m confused myself, but they are a chamber… of commerce, so I assume that their plan to turn America into a one-party Democratic country is really well thought out and not at all like the time the insurance industry and medical associations decided to back ObamaCare in the hopes that short term gains would be worth destroying the Constitution.
Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, declared 2014 the “year of immigration reform,” Wednesday, during his annual state of American business address.
“We’re determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted,” Donohue said. “The chamber will pull out all the stops—through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics and partnerships with our friends in the union, and faith-based organizations, and law enforcement groups, and others to get this job done.”
And if that doesn’t work, they’ll slip them some briefcases full of Zimbabwean trillion dollar bills under the table. But why does the Chamber of Commerce want to legalize 12 million illegal aliens?
Immigration reform was one of several items on the chamber’s agenda for 2014. Other reforms he endorsed included expanding domestic energy production, delaying or repealing the employer mandate under Obamacare, and comprehensive tax reform to lower rates and simplify the code.
The Chamber of Commerce wants to add 12 million illegal aliens from Mexico to the voting rolls… and it wants to lower taxes.
One of these things is not compatible with the other. As the C of C would figure out if it took a closer look at California. It can have lower taxes or it can have illegal alien amnesty.
It can’t have both.
So the Chamber of Commerce has to pick what it cares about more; lower tax rates or illegal alien amnesty.
Donohue also warned that the entitlement crisis is the “most predictable crisis in American history.” By 2023 entitlement spending and interest on the debt will account for 76 percent of government outlays, he said, increasing federal spending to nearly $6 trillion per year.
Even more predictably, adding millions to the welfare class, along with their elderly relatives from Mexico, will drastically increase entitlements spending. And spending in general.
Imagine a new future where Obama and Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio are the future instead of temporary aberrations. Good luck with your entitlements crisis under permanently left-wing rule.
This is why challenging C of C candidates in primaries is justified unless they disavow immigration reform (amnesty) because whether or not the seat is held by a pro-amnesty Republican or a Democrat, amnesty will mean permanent Democratic Party rule in under two decades.
“It’s time for our leaders to act like leaders, to tell the American people the truth,” Donohue said, “and to craft a fair, sensible plan to reform and save these vital programs.”
Donohue laid out a vision to “expand opportunity for all,” and argued immigration reform is vital to that aim.
“Throughout history, immigrants have brought innovation, ideas, investments, and dynamism to American enterprise,” he said. “And in terms of demographics, we need immigration.”
We have immigration. 1 million immigrants a year.
What Donohue means is that we need to have lots of cheap Mexican labor. And he pretends that those same cheap laborers will then bring “innovation, ideas and investments” instead of grabbing every benefit they can get the first chance that they get… and then vote Democrat to lock in those benefits.
Critics of the Senate’s immigration bill have argued that adding millions of immigrants and guest workers will harm the lagging economy and reduce American wages. The “Gang of Eight” bill would add an estimated 30 million additional immigrants to the United States over the next decade at a time when the number of Americans not in the labor force has reached record highs.
I’m sure it won’t be a problem. Not with unemployment insurance for life. Which Donohue absolutely opposes, but which his support for illegal alien amnesty will lead to.
“2013 we liked,” Donohue said. “We made a deal in the Senate, we did that with a cooperative basis with the AFL-CIO, and with lots of other people, then we started working in the House, where I believe we’ve received a very positive response—a different way of doing business—435 people, not just 100 of them.”
“I’ve been encouraged by a lot of the noise and soundings out of the House, and I’m not discouraged when every now and then I wake up in the morning to see a story about some reason it’s not going to work,” he said. “Four hundred and thirty five people have to go home and run for office, and I think we’re going to get this done.”
This may be the final battle for America. If they “get this done”, it’s all over but the shouting.
If this is what you truly believe, you are economically illiterate. Consider this question: Where do the businesses get the money to pay their increased taxes?
The more we lower them on wealthy individuals then the more they spend.
You may wish to look up the facts on the difference between wealth taxes and income taxes. The income tax is a barrier to the accumulation of wealth.
Politicians don't spend public money because they have too much of their own. They spend public money because it buys them power (votes) while leaving their own pile of wealth unharmed.
I'm sorry, but I find your argument simplistic, naive, and wrong.
Donohue is an opportunist. Nothing more and nothing less.
He was the head of the Truck-Trailer Association 25 to 30 years ago. That is an organization of Truck and Trailer manufacturers who lobby against stupid Government rules and regulations (I could tell you quite a story about anti-lock brakes). He was known as “Snow White and the 7-dwarfs” back then because of his snow white hair and numerous staff assistants. He got absolutely nothing done, but he could make a really great speech.
He left there to go to a larger organization and left them to go to the Chamber of Commerce. He has been failing upwards for as long as I have known about him.
Where do they get their money to pay their increased taxes. That is crazy. Their taxes have been reduced. They have lower rates then at any time since Truman. When government is 35% of the economy and the Dem's can hand out public money to clientize business just like they do the poor and public employee unions where do you think they get a lot of their money? From the government! Again when government becomes a greater source of income then taxes are a burden then they no longer care about limiting public spending. Politicians may spend public money but the establishment GOP has become a partner in them spending money. They do nothing to stop it because they no longer find the taxes burdensome compared to what they get from government. Talk about me being naive if you and the rest of us conservatives don't wake up to new paradigms and dynamics in what is happening we will be buried faster then you think.
Now you’re lapsing into amnesia.
You are advocating increasing their taxes. YOU are advocating that they pay more.
Corporations do not pay taxes - they pass the extra costs onto their consumers, or if the extra costs are high enough, they go out of business.
You also seem to conflate unions and businesses. That’s a boat load of serious confusion.
Sorry - but you are economically illiterate. And politically naive.
Then why does business fight taxes so much? Of course they pay them. True their may be some that they can pass on but business fights taxes because basically they pay them.period. If they are going to spend more then why shouldn’t the people who run this country pay for it. That makes perfect sense to me. Then when they stop spending we can lower their taxes. That seems fair tome as well. We as conservatives (myself included) made a serious mistake in lowering corporate and upper class taxes with out seeing a reduction in spending. The more we have lowered their taxes the fewer wealthy Republicans their are and the more feckless the remaining ones have become. They think they can pass amnesty and not pay the price for the demographic changes they are committing we should show them they are wrong.
These morons do not understand taht the labor won’t be cheap once they’re legalized. Do they suppose that a legalized alien will continue to work for the same wages as an illegal?
I’m not going to try and disabuse you of your untrue beliefs. As I said before, you are economically illiterate.
I will, however, point out to you that you are using the exact class warfare language the dems use about business and “upper class” taxes.
Have a good day.
As far as being economically illiterate you have to pay when you spend. Since the political class refuses to cut spending they will just have to pay for It. If that is class struggle so be it. We are dealing with a new realitry and that is that the rich are now the socialists and the rest of you are just going to have to get used to it.
Studies have backed up what you're saying jospehm. As soon as they're legal they stop picking crops and gardening for rich liberal elites... and they start competing with American who have been here legally for decades.
The only jobs Congress 'protects' is their own... It's almost impossible to run against an incumbent because the little sh*ts wrote laws making it impossible. Congressmen - left and right - read those bills....
You really need to separate your economic thoughts from your political ones. I am a business owner. If my costs, including taxes, rise to the point where I cannot support my business, then I have to either raise my prices or go out of business. There is no other choice.
With regard to the political side, I’m amused at you lecturing me on what needs to happen. You need to get over yourself.
Securing the border is a national priority - for sovereignty reasons.
Reducing spending is a priority, but “we the people” cannot directly affect it. The RINO class of republican has shown an unwillingness to reduce spending - only (at best) to reduce the rate of increase in deficit spending.
With respect to the media, you are begging to have the government broach the first amendment. If the media is to be forced to be fair by the government, then the government gets to decide what “fair” is, and regulates the content that the media can present. That is not possible with a valid and vibrant first amendment.
If we want a fair media, then we the people need to push the media in a more neutral direction, but NOT through government.
I;m sorry if these truths do not fit into your fantasy of what government should be. But they are truths nonetheless. If you wish to, you can rant at me further in this thread, but I will likely not respond unless you actually start to answer the questions already posed to you (another liberal tactic), and if you start to ask sensable questions.
I suspect we agree on a number of issues, FRiend. But I also know that you seriously misunderstand economic reality.
Which we do not have. There is a blacklist in effect against conservatives and ideas that leftists do not like. Government today helps enforce the rigid leftwing ideology in the media.
I don’t think that government is directly involved with the blacklisting - that is a product of the media culture (which is corrosively liberal).
Most conservatives do not gravitate toward media as a vocation. Many liberals - including flaming liberals - do.
It will be all over but for the shouting.
It might be too late already.
It ain’t 12 million either. It’s 12 million, plus their extended families etc etc
bump
Leftists in the media will not hire conservatives, they seek out other leftists to give jobs to.
If the conservatives made any gains in media, the government will shut it down
Maybe.
It is yet to be proven.
Even Fox News is gravitating leftward, but it appears to be an evolutional process.
The whispered attempts at a “fairness doctrine” in the past are more directly related to government interference - and they haven’t become bold enough yet to actually enact the beast.
Long march through the institutions.
It didn’t happen by accident.
I don’t disagree. I just think that assertions of probability should be separated from assertions of fact.
There is not a shadow of doubt that leftists purposely hire other leftists and keep conservatives out of the media.
I think it was Investors Business Daily who tested this in their company, and yep the person did hire less qualified people because he agreed with their politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.