On Sunday's Up w/ Chris Hayes, we'll examine the praise political leaders shower on "small business" as the engine of economic growth, and we'll investigate what really qualifies as a "small business." Also: According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, the most important issue for voters in this election is the economy. The second most important? Social issues, which were glaringly absent from Wednesday's presidential debate. The candidates failed to address gun control, climate change, immigration and women's rights, among other topics. We'll discuss the topics that were left out of the debate. And: During the Republican primaries, Romney shifted right on immigration, advocating policies he claimed would cause "illegal aliens" to "self-deport." Now he has tacked to the center in order to appeal to undecided, independent voters. Amid all this, The New York Times has announced that it will continue to use the terms "illegal immigrants" and "illegal immigration."
Joining Chris tomorrow at 8 AM ET on MSNBC will be:
Democratic Rep. Peter Welch, who holds Vermont's only House seat and serves as chief deputy whip in the Democratic caucus.
Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead), comedian and co-creator of "The Daily Show."
Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting), Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and founder of the Define American campaign.
Rebecca Traister (@rtraister), contributor to to the New York Times Magazine and Salon.com. Author of "Big Girls Don't Cry: The Election that Changed Everything for American Women."
Brooke Gladstone (@OTMbrooke), co-host and managing editor of WNYC's "On the Media."
JJ Ramberg (@jjramberg), host of MSNBC's "Your Business" and co-author of "It's Your Business: 183 Essential Tips that Will Transform Your Small Business."
Ro Khanna, former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Commerce and author of "Entrepreneurial Nation: Why Manufacturing is Still Key to America's Future."
Chris Rabb,(@chrisrabb) adjunct professor for the Fox School of Business at Temple University and author of "Invisible Capital: How Unseen Forces Shape Entrepreneurial Opportunity."
Maria Hinojosa (@maria_hinojosa) rotating anchor for PBS' "Need to Know," executive producer for "America by the Numbers with Maria HInajosa," anchor and executive producer of NPR's "Latino USA," winner of 2012 John Chancellor award for Excellence in Journalism.
John McWhorter, professor of linguistics and American studies at Columbia University, contributing editor at the "New Republic" and "Daily News" columnist.
:: Blogged by Katherine Guthrie (@kguth1130), production assistant for Up w/ Chris Hayes ::
Leave a Comment:
Great segment Sunday on small business. Two points: First, you are correct in your characterization of the National Federation of Independent Business as a partisan group. To prove the point, the nonpartisan Canadian Federation of Independent Business struggles to detach itself in the public eye from the NFIB. The CFIB is a more effective voice. Second, the primary reason for the decline in business formations in recent years is the collapse of the residential real estate market. Home equity provided loan collateral for thousands of start-up small businesses until the bottom fell out.
So I agree that sensibility to style choices is relevant in all conversations, as long as we don't lose sight of the matters of policy which is the crux of it all.
I do have to say that I do not agree that the fact of staying in the country is not illegal and that the illegal act is to get in the country: I myself am an immigrant, who entered the country on a work visa and I am now a resident of the USA. If I was to enter on a tourist visa (which I have done in the past) and did not leave when my I-94 for specified that I needed to leave, I would be incurring into "Illegal Stay" and as such my status is illegal.
So, I would have entered the country legally, but MY STAY IN THE COUNTRY would be illegal. This also applies to anyone who illegally ENTERS the country and incurs in ILLEGAL STAY (i.e. does not leave). Both of which are illegal status.
This is as a manner of clarification. It seems to me that not only is it illegal to enter the country undocumented, it is also illegal to stay and work in the country in that state. I agree about the accuracy in word choice and what branding does to people, but we better choose words carefully for the future: Pretty soon we will be truly mute, in order to not offend anyone.
CHRIS, Great show , as always. Glad you talked about undocumented workers. Ihope you invite me to talk, because I'm an expert with 55 yrs. as health ed. teacher,translator, friend of the families. I have a book of their stories and how our lives intertwined. We Are Not The Enemy;We Come Only With Our Dreams,Fran B. Reed 239 Beach City 2113 HH, SC 29926 love to tell some of the storieson your show, so people see the reality, not fear . (8430-715-0124
Sunday chat: Welch critiques Obama, business debate on cable TV panel
Vermont’s congressional delegation, especially junior Sen. Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch, are familiar faces on cable TV. But their interviews are normally brief and comments fairly cautious.
On Sunday morning, however, Welch was a bit more candid during more than an hour on “UP with Chris Hayes,” a weekend MSNBC panel show. He offered analysis and opinions during wide ranging discussions of small business and issues that should have come up – but didn’t – during the recent presidential debate. He also used every opportunity to mention his home state.
Welch said he was “astonished” by President Obama’s recent debate performance, describing it as a major missed opportunity. “The president had an opportunity to show he was a fighter when Romney stole the show. That was the time to hold him accountable,” Welch said.
He found the general tone of the debate “beltway-centric.” As for the Romney’s performance and positions, Welch quipped, “What planet are we on?”
For the rest of my article on the Vermont news site VTDigger.org:
Chris, you said, “It is illegal to enter the U.S. without proper documentations, but it is not illegal to stay in the U.S. without them.”
I thought that it is illegal, for example, for people who enter the U.S. with the VWP (visa waiver program) to stay longer than 90 days. Thus, if they get caught, they could technically be deported. US government’s site clearly states that staying beyond the period of time authorized by the DHS causes you to be out-of-status in the U.S., which is a violation of U.S. immigration laws. (travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1268.html)
In case of a student visa, the government site says, “When you enter the U.S. on a student visa, you will usually be admitted for the duration of your student status. That means you may stay as long as you are full time student, even if the F-1 visa in your passport expires while you are in the U.S…….. F-1 student – an additional 60 days, to prepare for departure from the U.S. or to transfer to another school. M-1 student – an additional 30 days….” So, it must mean that it is illegal for people, who are no longer students, stay in the U.S. with expired student visas, i.e. without the lawful status, to stay more than 30-60 days after the student visa expires.
The above says even if someone enters the U.S. legally, they could be staying illegally without lawful status. They are documented, but illegally staying in the U.S. I think immigration laws are not just for the entrance to the U.S. The laws cover the aspect of staying in the U.S. as well.
What is the source of the political power of the term "illegal immigrant", or Romneyworld shorthand "illegals", as in "I can't have any illegals working for me, I am running for public office for pete's sake."?
Neither McWhorter or the "philosophy of language" graduate Chris Hayes directed themselves to this. They provided clarity on the meaning of the token from the immigration law and linguistic standpoint. But the force derives neither from law nor analysis of the logic and precise application of linguistic tokens.
What is the deep resonance in our culture for an illegal act that brands an entire group of people and forever establishes them as outcasts. This is the ascendent level far beyond linguistic mechanics of language. We are now withing the literary level of language- the level that has profound power over our cognitive models of our world. These models are all fictions that we project, and have rich scripts for actors that we pattern match against sensory inputs.
What is the Right talking about when they attempt to get everyone to buy into the language of "illegals". They want the premise of the issue to be a story about the Mark of Cain on a large class of people. It is a projection of Anglo cultural dominance. It is an attitude that looks at Mexico and wonders why industry is not igniting there as it is in China. Is it because Mexicans are lazy or because the ruling class of Mexico is even more committed than the US to the idea of the 1% enriching themselves at the expense of the 99%?
MSNBC in particular is part of this cultural chauvinism. We are treated to frequent observations about the democratic shift towards latino voters. Yet where are the hispanic hosts?
You know what? Progressives cannot afford to continue to ignore the Hispanic electorate. Don't be too complacent about that healthy lead that Obama enjoys in the polls. Hispanics are by and large intensely family oriented, religious, patriotic, anti-abortion, believing in law and order, and fiscal responsibility. It is testament to the triumph of hatred over rationality that the right does not recognize that the people who hold these views aren’t aliens.
They’re republicans.
If the GOP wanted to strike fear into the heart of the Democratic party, they would open the borders and thereby guarantee themselves majorities for their socially conservative agenda.
Univision is allying with ABC (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) to launch an english language hispanic cable news channel.
Isn't it time that MSNBC woke up and looked at the latino writing on the wall? What does that mark on their rich sprayed imagery mean- "Con Safos".
Romney worries about the invasion of his land. My friend, of those 11 million "illegals", 3 to 4 million are non hispanic europeans, asians and others. Many of the other 50 million hispanics with documented status didn't move. The border moved.
Illegal invaders of "your land"? Give me a break. Who did the invading? Ancestors of Hispanics were in the Americas 30,000 years ago. You want to talk about legal? What about the theft of Texas, New Mexico, California, Colorado and Utah?
Was that legal? Polk wanted that land for the westward expansion. Like other Jacksonians, he was confident in the superiority of his anglo culture over that of the Indians, Blacks and Mexicans.
As Andrew Jackson did with the Cherokee, the other Jacksonians like Polk simply took what they wanted because they had the power to do so.
Anglos are the illegal aliens in the Sourthwest.
The US immigration system has full of requirements set by the law for those, who want to immigrate legally, while its back door is wide open. There are many people who spent time and money in order to meet the legal requirements. Many of them are also poor, so they saved every penny to hire a lawyer, did all necessary things, waited and waited, finally obtained the lawful status, and then moved to the U.S.
Certainly US immigration policy needs to be looked at, modified and improved. JohnMesserly’s above comments sound good. He may have a point if he did not forget about people who spent time and money to meet the strict legal immigration requirements. I understand he was thinking about some people who might say, “Take back our country.” (Tell that to Native Americans, some comedian joked.) While John’s comments sound very compassionate, it could also be insulting to those people who tried hard to come in from the front door.
I haven't run the numbers yet, but here is something to give
some perspective on the subject of what is included under the guise of the term
"small business." Note number of businesses that have no
employees and also number with less than 500 employees. Even prior to the math it is obvious that the
term “Job Creators” to describe owners of “small businesses” is nothing but a
deception used to mislead voters into thinking that the candidate is touting supporting
businesses that actually do hire people. (sorry for the poor cut/paste transfer to this comment window) Here is a link to the source #
Employment size of
enterprise
Firms
Estab-
lish-
ments
Paid
employees
Annual
payroll
($1,000)
Sales or
Receipts
($1,000)
n/a - Receipts data are available for employers only for
the years for which an economic census is taken (2007, 2002, 1997).
All firms
27,281,452
28,952,489
120,903,551
5,130,509,178
n/a
Nonemployer firms
21,351,320
21,351,320
n/a
n/a
962,791,527
Employer firms
5,930,132
7,601,169
120,903,551
5,130,509,178
n/a
Firms with 1 to 4 employees (or with no employees as of
Mar 12)
3,617,764
3,624,614
6,086,291
232,062,907
n/a
Firms with 5 to 9 employees
1,044,065
1,056,947
6,878,051
222,504,912
n/a
Firms with 10 to 19 employees
633,141
667,463
8,497,391
293,534,352
n/a
Firms with 20 to 99 employees
526,307
705,430
20,684,691
774,589,335
n/a
Firms with 100 to 499 employees
90,386
359,902
17,547,567
706,476,693
n/a
Firms with 500 employees or more
18,469
1,186,813
61,209,560
2,901,340,979
n/a
Firms with 500 to 749 employees
6,060
72,676
3,681,760
156,491,764
n/a
Firms with 750 to 999 employees
3,038
48,005
2,617,087
114,635,897
n/a
Firms with 1,000 to 1,499 employees
3,044
64,556
3,720,654
167,658,791
n/a
Firms with 1,500 to 1,999 employees
1,533
45,062
2,653,392
121,800,728
n/a
Firms with 2,000 to 2,499 employees
904
36,081
2,011,244
94,406,916
n/a
Firms with 2,500 to 4,999 employees
1,934
120,416
6,726,611
329,188,349
n/a
Firms with 5,000 employees or more
1,956
800,017
39,798,812
1,917,158,534
n/a
Firms with 5,000 to 9,999 employees
975
121,835
6,773,466
337,598,036
n/a
Firms with 10,000 employees or more
981
678,182
33,025,346
1,579,560,498
n/a
I haven't run the numbers yet, but here is something to give
some perspective on the subject of what is included under the guise of the term
"small business." Note number of businesses that have no
employees and also number with less than 500 employees. Even prior to the math it is obvious that the
term “Job Creators” to describe owners of “small businesses” is nothing but a
deception used to mislead voters into thinking that the candidate is touting supporting
businesses that actually do hire people. Here is a link to the source #
Employment size of
enterprise
Firms
Estab-
lish-
ments
Paid
employees
Annual
payroll
($1,000)
Sales or
Receipts
($1,000)
n/a - Receipts data are available for employers only for
the years for which an economic census is taken (2007, 2002, 1997).
All firms
27,281,452
28,952,489
120,903,551
5,130,509,178
n/a
Nonemployer firms
21,351,320
21,351,320
n/a
n/a
962,791,527
Employer firms
5,930,132
7,601,169
120,903,551
5,130,509,178
n/a
Firms with 1 to 4 employees (or with no employees as of
Mar 12)
3,617,764
3,624,614
6,086,291
232,062,907
n/a
Firms with 5 to 9 employees
1,044,065
1,056,947
6,878,051
222,504,912
n/a
Firms with 10 to 19 employees
633,141
667,463
8,497,391
293,534,352
n/a
Firms with 20 to 99 employees
526,307
705,430
20,684,691
774,589,335
n/a
Firms with 100 to 499 employees
90,386
359,902
17,547,567
706,476,693
n/a
Firms with 500 employees or more
18,469
1,186,813
61,209,560
2,901,340,979
n/a
Firms with 500 to 749 employees
6,060
72,676
3,681,760
156,491,764
n/a
Firms with 750 to 999 employees
3,038
48,005
2,617,087
114,635,897
n/a
Firms with 1,000 to 1,499 employees
3,044
64,556
3,720,654
167,658,791
n/a
Firms with 1,500 to 1,999 employees
1,533
45,062
2,653,392
121,800,728
n/a
Firms with 2,000 to 2,499 employees
904
36,081
2,011,244
94,406,916
n/a
Firms with 2,500 to 4,999 employees
1,934
120,416
6,726,611
329,188,349
n/a
Firms with 5,000 employees or more
1,956
800,017
39,798,812
1,917,158,534
n/a
Firms with 5,000 to 9,999 employees
975
121,835
6,773,466
337,598,036
n/a
Firms with 10,000 employees or more
981
678,182
33,025,346
1,579,560,498
n/a
sorry about the table format it looked ok when i submitted it
Great discussion Chris. try having your team analyse these numbers. I haven't run the numbers yet, but here is something to give some perspective on the subject of what is included under the guise of the term "small business." Note number of businesses that have no employees and also number with less than 500 employees. Even prior to the math it is obvious that the term “Job Creators” to describe owners of “small businesses” is nothing but a deception used to mislead voters into thinking that the candidate is touting supporting businesses that actually do hire people. The page can be found here (no hyperlinks, i see)
Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business)
from the U.S. Census Bureau
#
w.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html#
I become so infuriated watching Chris and Rachel. They let slide the assertion that a rise in tax rates affects employment. Someone needs to have an accountant on to show tax rates do not have any impact.
Employee compensation is 100% deductible. Any revenue used to pay for a new employee is not taxed at all no matter what the rate as the revenue is offset by the deductible cost.
Looked at another way; a business will only hire a worker if it is anticipated the worker will increase profit. If there is an increase in profit it doesn't really matter if the tax rate is 20% or 50%, the business will still make money and hiring the worker makes sense. If the worker will not add to the profit he/she will not be hired in any event, no matter what the tax rate.
I am somewhat disappointed that you let your guest get away with "Texas has some of the lowest taxes in the nation and so they are growing the fastest." Actually, Texas has one of the biggest real estate taxes in the country. They have a low income tax rate, and the make it up with an extremely high real estate tax. When I was paying a mortgage in Texas, real estate taxes were as high as 1/3 of my entire tax bill. California does the reverse - high income taxes, low real estate taxes.