The U.S. Chamber of Commerce - The Union of the Wealthy

Calling this group a union gives unions a bad name but they are for all practical purposes a union for the wealthy. The rub is that we end up paying dues to them even if we don't know it and don't wish to contribute to their anti-worker agenda. Read on...

Chamber of Horrors
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce must be stopped. Here's how to do it.
By Eliot Spitzer

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the self-proclaimed voice of business in Washington—has been wrong on virtually every major public-policy issue of the past decade: financial deregulation, tax and fiscal policy, global warming and environmental enforcement, consumer protection, health care reform …

The chamber remains an unabashed voice for the libertarian worldview that caused the most catastrophic economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And the chamber's view of social justice would warm Scrooge's heart. It is the chamber's right to be wrong, and its right to argue its preposterous ideas aggressively, as it does through vast expenditures on lobbyists and litigation. Last year alone, the chamber spent more than $91 million on lobbying, and, according to lobby tracker Opensecrets.org, it has spent more than twice as much on lobbying during the past 12 years as any other corporation or group.

The problem is, the chamber is doing all this with our money. The chamber survives financially on the dues and support of its members, which are most of America's major corporations listed on the stock exchange. The chamber derives its political clout from the fact that its membership includes these corporations. Yet we—you and I—own the companies that support the chamber and permit it to propagate its views. Our passive, permissive attitude toward the management of the companies we own has enabled the chamber to be one of the primary impediments to the reform of markets, health care, energy policy, and politics that we have all been calling for. It is time for that to change.
Cont’ed…

http://www.slate.com/id/2232441/

 

And how much did the unions spend? Just for starters
So, the NEA spent $50 million on political activities and lobbying last year…. http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...raked-in-355-million-from-teachers-last-year/

The review found unions are on pace to spend about $5.3 million in all of 2011.http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._unions_ramping_up_lobbying_spending_in_2011/

The state’s largest teachers union spent $6.8 million on lobbying last year http://sweetness-light.com/archive/teachers-spent-6-8m-attacking-christie

And on and on and on and on......................

 

Lobbying for....wait for it.....wait for it.....WORKERS rights.

Now, since the subject is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce let's see where they rank:

Top 10 Highest Cumulative Lobby Spenders from 1998 to 2011:

US Chamber of Commerce $400,118,500
General Electric $100,741,000
AARP $80,640,000
PG&E Corp $80,500,000
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $77,400,520
Exxon Mobil $75,700,000
American Medical Assn $72,590,000
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $71,672,263
American Hospital Assn $66,020,165
National Assn of Realtors $64,550,173

Not a lot of unions there. What's your favorite comment? Oh yeah, Oops!

 

So you are saying they spent 400,000,000 in 14 years and the is more (worse) that 50,000,000 in one year. Interesting math you have there and I am only using one of the unions I found.

That should qualify as a real big OOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

According to your source, the NEA spent 50 Million on Political Activities and Lobbying for one year. You're assuming it was 50 million during all 14 years and that political activies are the same as lobbying when in reality, they were never defined as such. Interesting assumptions you make.

 

An article by none other than... ELIOT SPITZER! Really? Who listens to him anyway?

 

Actually, all I am assuming is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges when you interject a 14 year total for comparison to one year figures and that includes your OP.

 

I know who the article is by but if you can't dispute what he says, its a little hard to throw out a blanket condemnation with any degree of credibility even while claiming he has none.

 

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

By this, I mean to say that we Americans are in the 'tangled web' created by our own ignorance. We allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that by helping the corporate world run things (through influence in government), they'l help us in return (with higher wages, lower unemployment) when the actual result is they earn enormous profits while eliminating our jobs. It's all about the business of profit. Jobs are irrelevant... those can be found cheaper overseas.

 

With all the uncertainty created by BO's mysterious policies, the hated-filled attacks coming from the left, calls for huge tax increases and the artificially inflated wages brought on by union thuggery is there any wonder why a business wouldn't explore other options? Think about it. We really don't do a very good job creating a welcoming environment for business.....and before you attack me, remember without business there are no jobs for either one of us.

 

Here is the problem with your rather dated view of the business world. At one time a few decades ago, you would be right. However, we are in a global market today but you keep applying yesterday's approach to today as if it were even remotely relevant.
In the current environment, we are being given a choice. Either we weaken environmental protections, worker protections, and give up benefits across the board, or those corporate overlords you worship will simply ship jobs off-shore where they can pay 1 dollar a day, pollute the environment at will, abuse workers to death including children, and pay no benefits of any kind. Then they can ship their products back to this country and sell tainted products at low prices to a population that no longer has the buying power to buy anything of quality. I personally don't like anyone holding a gun to my head in that manner. The Right-winger’s obsession with authoritarianism find this scenario oddly comforting.

 

Let's see if I got this straight. In your scenario, either we weaken environmental protections and worker protections or corporations will ship jobs off-shore and abuse workers to death. So, which would you prefer?

For the record, I'd prefer weaker environmental and worker protections than dead off-shore workers...

 

I don't know man. Nobody can be that stupid....can they?

Profit...not people.

 

Oh, think about it Tom. The next time you're digging through trash cans trying to find something to sell at the pawn shop, please consider hiring an additional person to help you search. You can share the profit of anything you sell so instead of making, say, $10 on an old DVD player, you split the profit with your helper and each of you make $5. You've just employed a worker and helped the economy! Well, not really since only $10 is going to be put back into the economical cycle between the two of you, but we won't get into that; it might confuse you. But, you'll get $5 worth of food and so will your helper. Of course, the extra $5 you would have earned had you gone dumpster diving by yourself would have replaced the broken wheel on your tricycle. But, that's OK, you can work a little harder tomorrow to earn the needed money. Or you could hire an illegal alien to help you dig through the trash and only have to pay him $2 instead of $5 thereby giving you more money (or diminishing your workload as a ratio to your money earned depending on how you want to look at it). But, don't forget that the government is going to force you to give them some of your money for humanitarian medical needs (naturally!) in case you get bitten by a rat or rabid animal while foraging at the bottom of the dumpster.

I'll even make you an employment offer, Tom. I'll give you $5 per day... no wait... act now and I'll double the offer to $10 per day... to forage through our community dumpster. You can even keep anything of value you find. Now, that's a heck of a deal for you. But, act quickly... as soon as Obamacare really kicks into gear I'll have to withdraw my offer of employment (or if you're currently on payroll, I'll have to fire you and hire someone to work cheaper).

So, really think about it, Tom. You said, "profit... not people". Well, I'm proving you wrong. I won't make one red cent on this deal, but I'll be helping you out. So there, I'm not thinking about "profit", I'm thinking about "people".....

View attachment 245

 

Well, how very republican of you. Couple of issues with your scenario though. First, you're imagining that me, as an employer, would be splitting my earnings 50/50 with my employee (assistant). Employers (A), would never share such a high percentage of income with any employee, and (B), employers don't work. They punch in numbers on their laptops and extract. So...to gain a more realistic picture of what it is you are describing, we need to amend some things. Let's take that imaginary 10 bucks for the dvd player. Me, as an employer, would receive 98.8 percent of the generated funds. So...12 cents would be my assistants cut. The rest would be mine, because I earned it, and it's MINE (even though I went fishing while my employee dug in the dumpster). 12 cents for him and $9.88 for myself. Next, I'll go with the wealthy employer's (your) idea, and go the illegal alien route, because that's what rich f***s do, and because 12 cents is simply too much to pay anybody for any work, because it's all mine to begin with. So, I'll downsize and fire the overpaid employee, and look for 3 or 4 illegals and collectively employ them for half the price. Now if anybody squawks, I'll just pack up all my marbles and my dumpsters and go to some other poor destitute country that will appreciate my 6 cents (did I say 6?? I meant 4...have to make the books look good and cater to my Wall street pals).
Now that we have a more realistic picture of how it actually is, I will comment on your offer.
As dimwit Sarah would say, "Thenx, but no thenx". Several reasons. 1) I would never work for you, and I refuse to work for slave labor wages. 2) You're a republican and a ruthless, heartless criminal by default, and I couldn't, in good conscious, work for you without pure disdain. That doesn't create a good working environment. Lastly, when you and your kind get sucked straight into Hell in the very near future, I want to avoid the strong, tornado like, air flow that will be sucking you and yours down into the abyss. (I would like to be close enough to watch however).

 

Interesting opinions there, Tom. If that is really what you believe, I don't wonder about your conclusions. But answer me this. If it is so easy to become an employer and they do not work, why don't all the employees become employers?

 

Because somebody has to actually work?

 

So they are working out of the goodness of their heart just because they see the problem when no one works? Somehow, I do not think I could find any "workers" who would not, at the drop of a hat, quit working immediately if they could be paid for "not working".

 

I can't think of anybody that wouldn't take being paid for doing nothing over being paid for doing something. That's why the lottery is so popular.

 

You mean we actually agree on something! Wonder of wonders!