Why does the USA Chamber of Commerce and Some Multinational Corporations not like Clinton???
Why does the USA Chamber of Commerce and Some Multinational Corporations not like Clinton??? Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it.
By Kevin Stoda, an un-coddled American—and America’s write-in Candidate for Senator in 33 states.
I just came across a series of articles that explains simply why BIG-MONEYED Americans and Corporations are behaving anti-OBAMA and anti- Progressive or Anti-Democrat this 2010 mid-term election.
It is all simply because of “Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it.”
Two sets of publications have just come out reviewing why nearly 10 out of 10 big shots with the USA Chamber of Commerce and other Financial Heavyweights are throwing money against Obama supporters this election Both say the same thing: “Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it.”
Don’t take my word for this data! Read Kevin Drum’s article in MOTHER JONES from yesterday:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/coddling-rich
The article is entitled: “DO THE RICH NEED CODDLING?”
Drum begins by noting, “On a substantive front, after he took office Obama continued George Bush's rescue of the banking system, boosted the economy by passing a stimulus bill, and saved untold thousands of businesses by rescuing GM and Chrysler. His healthcare reform bill was so business friendly it's a wonder the industry didn't keel over in hypoglycemic shock after it was passed. On the rhetorical front, he's taken a few modest shots at the financial industry, but not much more. So what were they all so apoplectic about?”
It seems a paradox to many Americans that the wealthiest corporations cannot take criticism for moving jobs and corporate offices overseas time-and-again. Why take all this money from the government and then try to vote it out of office by spending several billion dollars on key elections to undermine Obama?
The answer is obvious to Drum and me—THE RICH FEEL THEY NEED TO BE CODDLED AND TREATED AS ROYALTY, like the Bush family.
Drum concludes, “What's remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn't anti-business, it is fair to say that he's not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart's desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it's aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it's someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There's no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it's quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich.”
Drum adds, “And that's pretty hard for them to take. So they're apoplectic. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's a ten. Merely refusing to coddle the business community endlessly is all it takes these days.”
By Kevin Stoda, an un-coddled American—and America’s write-in Candidate for Senator in 33 states.
I just came across a series of articles that explains simply why BIG-MONEYED Americans and Corporations are behaving anti-OBAMA and anti- Progressive or Anti-Democrat this 2010 mid-term election.
It is all simply because of “Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it.”
Two sets of publications have just come out reviewing why nearly 10 out of 10 big shots with the USA Chamber of Commerce and other Financial Heavyweights are throwing money against Obama supporters this election Both say the same thing: “Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it.”
Don’t take my word for this data! Read Kevin Drum’s article in MOTHER JONES from yesterday:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/coddling-rich
The article is entitled: “DO THE RICH NEED CODDLING?”
Drum begins by noting, “On a substantive front, after he took office Obama continued George Bush's rescue of the banking system, boosted the economy by passing a stimulus bill, and saved untold thousands of businesses by rescuing GM and Chrysler. His healthcare reform bill was so business friendly it's a wonder the industry didn't keel over in hypoglycemic shock after it was passed. On the rhetorical front, he's taken a few modest shots at the financial industry, but not much more. So what were they all so apoplectic about?”
It seems a paradox to many Americans that the wealthiest corporations cannot take criticism for moving jobs and corporate offices overseas time-and-again. Why take all this money from the government and then try to vote it out of office by spending several billion dollars on key elections to undermine Obama?
The answer is obvious to Drum and me—THE RICH FEEL THEY NEED TO BE CODDLED AND TREATED AS ROYALTY, like the Bush family.
Drum concludes, “What's remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn't anti-business, it is fair to say that he's not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart's desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it's aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it's someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There's no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it's quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich.”
Drum adds, “And that's pretty hard for them to take. So they're apoplectic. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's a ten. Merely refusing to coddle the business community endlessly is all it takes these days.”
posted by Kevin Anthony Stoda at 7:41 AM
1 Comments:
RADICAL RIGHT
The Voter Fraud Fraud
Employing baseless fear mongering about the (no longer existent) ACORN and other liberal groups that are supposedly trying to steal next week's elections, conservative "anti-voter-fraud campaigns are popping up across the country, but their biggest rollouts have tended to be in lower-income areas with large minority populations." From the Illinois Republican Party and Tea Party groups to the right-wing astro-turfing group American Majority Action, a startling number of right-wing groups have rolled out aggressive campaigns to "block Democrats…err, voter fraud, at the polls," as Mother Jones' Suzy Khimm sarcastically noted. While campaigns and political parties have long dispatched trained poll watchers and election judges to the polls to look for irregularities, this year, conservative groups are turning to grassroots activists with little or no training in thinly-veiled efforts to suppress liberal voter participation. Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin announced on Fox News that "we are all voter-fraud police now," while American Majority Action lets anyone with an iPhone become a poll watcher with their Voter Fraud app. While combating fraud is of course important, these supposedly well-meaning efforts have a "chilling effect" on voter participation, notes Gerry Hebert, executive director of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center. Conservative groups tend to target their efforts at communities with large minority or Democratic populations, claiming that fraud is more prevalent in these neighborhoods, with the effect of suppressing Democratic voters and disenfranchising minorities. Other times, groundless allegations of voter fraud are simply used to rile up the base before Election Day and undermine the credibility of opponents, but have the dangerous effect of also undermining voters' faith in the electoral process.
Post a Comment
<< Home