> Again, if you examine their public statements and policy documents,
> some of which I reproduced, you'll find that both the Chamber of
> Commerce as well as the National Association of Manufacturers
> supported the stimulus program and are still calling for government
> spending on infrastructure as well as tax breaks and trade initiatives
> by the Obama administration. Their policies and interests are in
> harmony on this particular issue, notwithstanding their hostility to
> other forms of state intervention which hurts their bottom line. You
> know this to be characteristic of capitalism. Why in this case search
> for contradictions that aren't there?
The Chamber supported the 2009 stimulus, but it chose not even to whip it. Compare that to the full-court press it's been doing to get a tax repatriation holiday. If the biz lobbies were determined to get those measures that would maximize their profits, they would be pushing for a giant stimulus package, not just the modest infrastructure bills they've been supporting (much of which just maintain spending rather than increase it). They'd push for hundreds of bns in aid to state and local govts and a full payroll tax holiday (which they currently oppose). If you accept the premise that stimulus would help their raw profits, and that it would continue to help until unemployment went back to a normal level, then it's impossible to credibly maintain they're doing everything they can. Profits are not their only, or even their dominant consideration right now; there's also ideology and the "political aspects of full employment."
SA