Daily news sites: GOP| Find Breaking World News

Home » GOP

Tampilkan postingan dengan label GOP. Tampilkan semua postingan

GOP'ers Growing Unhappiness and Division Within Their Party...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Division within the GOP is stark and becoming more so with each passing day. The Tea Party wing of the GOP, while taking principled positions has been completely unyielding, therefore making any compromise virtually impossible. Rather than viewing compromise as the positive outcome of hard fought political battles they view compromise as total defeat. Ultimately, at least in the minds of the purist, this means advancing the march of the great evil bogeyman. I'm sure you all can guess what that is.

The Democratic party on the other hand is enjoying relative unity, a good thing for the party faithful going into the mid term elections in November 2014. Already controlling the Senate, as well as the presidency, the House may be up for grabs if the general electorate continues to view the GOP in an increasingly unfavorable light. Further, many in the GOP are starting to view their party more unfavorably as a result of the extreme rightward movement of their party, the result of Tea Party legislators and activists.

What this non partisan political junkie fears is a fierce leftward backlash in response to what has occurred, and continues to occur on the right. Few will argue (I think) that society will only let the ideological political pendulum swing only so far in either the rightward or the leftward direction before it will force a correction. Corrections can be very difficult, causing economic and social pain for extended periods of time. Recall the Roaring 20's, the concentration of wealth at the top, and the resulting collapse of the economy.

Principles such as hard work, integrity, preserving individual liberty, controlling the growth of government while at the same time insuring it works for the benefit of all the the people (I refer you to Thomas Paine and his writings), as well as recognizing change is the only certainly in life and we must act responsibly to changing circumstances and times are all worthwhile and worth working towards. However, the belief and desire to manage a nation of the size of the USA as though it were still 1776 and 1789 is nonsensical. The American people have registered this concern and the GOP to survive and continue to be a force in American politics and governance must realize this.

By the sounds of a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll many in the GOP are beginning to understand the stakes involved. Making America strong and healthy requires dissent, consensus, compromise, and putting country above partisan politics.

... Democrats are largely content with their own party, while distaste among Republicans for the GOP has grown exponentially this year.

The most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, offers a stark window into widening divisions within the GOP over strategy and what kind of leaders Republicans want going forward. The Democratic Party, by comparison, is a picture of unity.

Skip

In December, just a month after the GOP experienced a string of election losses, nearly two-thirds of all Republicans held a positive view of their party. Ten months later that share has dropped to less than half.

Among those who are more wavering in their ties to the GOP—a group that is nearly twice the size of the party’s most fervent followers—affection for the party in the latest poll dropped to 35%, with almost an equal number saying they viewed the party in a negative light.

By comparison, nearly three-quarters of all Democrats in the poll said they have a positive view of their party, down just slightly since the end of last year. Even the more wavering among the Democrats are positive toward their party (61%).

The sharp divisions over political style with the GOP also have no corollary among Democrats.

A good example is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, widely seen as a chief architect of the showdown that led to last month’s government shutdown.

In the poll, just 19% of non-tea party Republicans said they have a positive view of Mr. Cruz, exactly in line with the rest of the country. But a striking 69% of tea-party Republicans in the poll gave Mr. Cruz positive marks.

A similar break can be seen over the question of whether Republicans want their party members in Congress to make compromises to gain a consensus on budgetary matters, or stick to their positions even if this means no budget agreement.

Just under half of all Republicans favored compromise. But among tea-party Republicans, a solid 64% said Republicans in Congress should stick to their positions no matter what. Just a third of non-tea party Republicans took that stauncher position.

When the same question was asked of Democrats, a solid 68% favored compromise, with little variation among liberals and more wavering Democrats.

The overall sourness of public sentiment toward the political status quo has triggered another round of yearning for a potential third party.

Skip

Do you have a positive or negative view of your own party?

Democrats: 73% positive, 7% negative

Republicans: 49% positive, 26% negative

Tea-party Republicans: 56% positive, 21% negative

Non tea party Republicans: 41% positive, 32% negative

And another chart:

Read full report HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

1 Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin option or not?

Don’t like the platinum coin option? Here’s a functionally equivalent alternative: have the Treasury sell pieces of paper labeled “moral obligation coupons”, which declare the intention of the government to redeem these coupons at face value in one year. It should be clearly stated on the coupons that the government has no, repeat no, legal obligation to pay anything at all; you see, they’re not debt, and therefore don’t count against the debt limit.

But that shouldn’t keep them from having substantial market value. Consider, for example, the fact that the government has no legal responsibility for guaranteeing the debt of Fannie and Freddie; nonetheless, it is widely believed that there is an implicit guarantee (because there is!), and this is very much reflected in the price of that debt.

Read Full Article Here

Be Ready To Mint That Coin

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious. For those new to this, here’s the story. First of all, we have the weird and destructive institution of the debt ceiling; this lets Congress approve tax and spending bills that imply a large budget deficit — tax and spending bills the president is legally required to implement — and then lets Congress refuse to grant the president authority to borrow, preventing him from carrying out his legal duties and provoking a possibly catastrophic default. And Republicans are openly threatening to use that potential for catastrophe to blackmail the president into implementing policies they can’t pass through normal constitutional processes. Enter the platinum coin.

There’s a legal loophole allowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination the secretary chooses. Yes, it was intended to allow commemorative collector’s items — but that’s not what the letter of the law says. And by minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all. So why not? It’s easy to make sententious remarks to the effect that we shouldn’t look for gimmicks, we should sit down like serious people and deal with our problems realistically. That may sound reasonable — if you’ve been living in a cave for the past four years.

Given the realities of our political situation, and in particular the mixture of ruthlessness and craziness that now characterizes House Republicans, it’s just ridiculous — far more ridiculous than the notion of the coin. So if the 14th amendment solution — simply declaring that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional — isn’t workable, go with the coin. This still leaves the question of whose face goes on the coin — but that’s easy: John Boehner. Because without him and his colleagues, this wouldn’t be necessary.

1. Krugman joins the $1 trillion coin brigade
  MarketWatch (blog)‎ - 4 hours ago
2. Funny Money: Pundits float $1 trillion coin as answer to debt-ceiling standoff
  Fox News‎ - 3 hours ago
$1 Trillion Platinum Coin: Not as “Silly” as Debt Ceiling Fight | Daily ...
finance.yahoo.com/.../1-trillion-platinum-coin-debate-o... - United States
2 hours ago – From the blog Daily Ticker: A week ago the U.S. officially reached its $16.4 trillion debt ceiling, meaning the government can't issue new debt.
Krugman joins the $1 trillion coin brigade - Political Watch ...
blogs.marketwatch.com/.../krugman-joins-the-1-trillion-coin-brigade/
4 hours ago – Paul Krugman, the liberal economist who pens a widely read column for The New York Times, on Monday joined the calls for the U.S. to mint a ...
Funny Money: Pundits float $1 trillion coin as answer to debt-ceiling ...
www.foxnews.com/.../funny-money-pundits-float-1-trillion-coin-as-a...
2 hours ago – Is a trillion-dollar coin the solution to the next fight over the debt ceiling?
Could a $1 trillion coin fix the national debt?- MSN Money
money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=94f60738... - United States
5 hours ago – There's been talk of minting a massive coin of platinum to help solve the nation's debt ceiling problem. It's a fun idea that has lots of problems.

Be Ready To Mint That Coin - NYTimes.com

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/.../be-ready-to-mint-that-coin/

by Paul Krugman - in 851 Google+ circles

5 hours ago – Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillionplatinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will ...

Bill Clinton blasts Mitt Romney over proposed tax cut lies

8:55AM EDT October 16. 2012 - Bill Clinton is going to bat again for President Obama, cutting a video blasting Mitt Romney over his proposed tax cut.

Clinton says Romney's tax cut proposal adds up to $5 trillion, and can only add to the national debt unless they are accompanied by massive budget cuts or the elimination of tax deductions that benefit the middle class.

The tax cut issue is very likely to surface in tonight's second Obama-Romney debate.

"In the first debate," Clinton says in the video, "Governor Romney said that he wasn't really going to cut taxes on upper income people -- he only wanted to cut taxes for middle class people. That's not true."

In a statement accompanying the video, the Obama campaign says: "President Clinton explains Mitt Romney's $5 trillion tax cut and how middle class families with children will get an average tax increase of $2,000 to pay for $250,000 in tax cuts for multi -millionaires."

Romney says his proposed tax cut will not add up to $5 trillion because it will be offset by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes. He also notes that Obama wants to raise taxes by eliminating George W. Bush-era tax rates for Americans making more than $250,000 a year.

Responding to the Clinton video, Romney spokesperson Amanda Henneberg said:

"They are trying to hide the fact that President Obama is the only candidate running on a plan to increase taxes. In tonight's debate, the choice on taxes will be clear. President Obama wants to raise taxes on small businesses and job creators, which will make our recovery even more difficult. Mitt Romney will lower tax rates across the board, make our businesses more competitive, and bring a real recovery to the American people."

The Source

Bill Maher vs Mitt Romney Taxes, Undecided Voters And More,

"And that, in a nutshell, is America's celebrated, undecided voter: put on a pedestal by the media as if they were Hamlet in a think-tank, searching out every last bit of information, high-minded arbiters pouring over policy positions and matching them against their own philosophies. Please, they mostly fall into a category political scientists call 'low information voters,' otherwise known as 'dipsh*ts.'"

Watch the segment above to hear Maher's full analysis (starting around the 2:15 mark) as well as why Donald Trump offering voting advice to "Liberal Republican" Kim Kardashian (also undecided) is a microcosm of the 2012 election.

The Source Is Huffington Post

Paul Ryan's lies were so blatant that they had the media...scrambling

Even Fox News, which rarely has a bad comment about Republicans and conservatives, criticized Ryan's speech as "an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech," according to commentator Sally Kohn.

It's no shock to learn that our presidents lie. Nixon did it. Clinton did it. And George W. Bush did it. What is shocking is that they are so easily forgiven, or that we so easily forget.

You'd think, though, that we might expect, and get, a bit more honesty from the candidates running for president. I mean, if you know somebody's a liar when he's still trying to win votes, you have to wonder what will happen if he's elected.

Granted, just about everybody tells little white lies now and then, often with honorable motives such as not hurting other people or saving them or ourselves an embarrassing moment. But lying to millions of people is different.

President Nixon did it to save himself from being connected to the Watergate cover-up. President Clinton wanted to avoid the embarrassment of people knowing he had a sexual encounter with a White House intern. President Bush lied to justify a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

The impacts were certainly different, but they all lied.

And so did Rep. Paul Ryan, vice-presidential candidate, during his speech last week at the Republican National Convention. His motive was to try to discredit President Obama, who along with presidential candidate Mitt Romney, also has been caught stretching the truth on occasion.

Ryan's lies were so blatant that they had the media and commentators scrambling to find other words for them, such "political dishonesty" and "deceptive statements," because the falsehoods were stated with millions of witnesses.

But whatever you call it, a political convention venue should not be justification for dishonesty and deception _ and certainly not outright lies.

By now, you've likely heard some of the examples of Ryan's untruthfulness: Blaming Obama rather than Bush for the closing of a GM plant; blaming Obama instead of Bush and the Republicans for exorbitant deficits and the U.S. credit downgrade; and saying that the GOP ticket would "make the safety net safe again" when Ryan's own budget plan would slash social programs.

Jonathan Cohn, writing on The New Republic website, may have had the best reaction.

"Think of it this way," he wrote. "A Martian who came down to Earth and heard Ryan speak last week would conclude that Obama had abandoned the auto industry; that Romney and Ryan would never cut spending from Medicare; that Obama is to blame for high deficits and the credit downgrade; and that Romney and Ryan are out to save the safety net. This poor Martian would have it exactly backwards."

Even Fox News, which rarely has a bad comment about Republicans and conservatives, criticized Ryan's speech as "an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech," according to commentator Sally Kohn.

Bill Kills - Clinton Brilliant At Convention GOP Cries!

Clinton summarizes the GOP platform as:

"We left him a total mess, but he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in."
and..."Their campaign pollster said, 'We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,'" Clinton said.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -– Bill Clinton made the nation a big promise Wednesday night, pledging to those still struggling that their economic fortunes will turn around if they reelect President Barack Obama.

“A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy," Clinton told a spellbound audience of delegates at Time Warner Cable Arena. "If you look at the numbers, you know that employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again, and a lot of housing prices are even beginning to pick up.

“But too many people do not feel it yet,” he said, and then vowed: “If will you renew the president's contract, you will feel it. You will feel it.”

He paused, and then added, “Folks, whether the American people believe what I just told you or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know I believe it. With all my heart I believe it.”

The rest of Clinton’s nearly hour-long speech was a detailed litigation of the main charges that Republicans have made against Obama.

But those few sentences -- an acknowledgment that the nation is still stuck in an economic slump, a promise that a second Obama term will bring better times, and a quick, sly slip into analyst mode -- were the key moments of the speech.

It was an honest, forthright appeal to the voters who will, by all accounts, decide the election -- those who voted for Obama in 2008, but who have found themselves disappointed, wanting to believe in the president they supported four years ago, but not sure they will. Strikingly, Clinton's line about the possibility that Americans may not put their faith in the president was not in his prepared remarks.

Clinton only mentioned Republican Mitt Romney a handful times, but laid out a framework that he said defines this election. “If you want a winner-take-all, you’re-on-your-own society, you should support the Republican ticket,” Clinton said. “But if you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility -– a we're-all-in-this-together society -- you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

Clinton, whose mastery of the stage left him several possible ways to attack Romney, notably did not skewer the Republican's record at Bain Capital, or his other weaknesses, instead focusing his argument in general against the GOP philosophy. (Clinton worked a stint for the consulting and private equity firm Teneo Capital. Co-founder Doug Band is a close Clinton adviser. Clinton listed his income from Teneo on a recent disclosure form as greater than $1,000, though it gives no upper limit.)

Holding fire on Bain left the speech absent a zinger to sum up Romney. Instead, Clinton saved the zinger for tax cuts for the rich, warning that Romney will "double down on trickle-down."

He paraphrased Ronald Reagan: "As another president once said, 'There they go again."

In reframing last week's GOP message, he employed equal parts mockery, wonkery and plainspeak.

In short, he said, the Republicans came to Tampa to deliver a simple message about Obama: "We left him a total mess, but he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in."

Clinton hit Paul Ryan in the same style. The GOP vice presidential candidate had attacked Obama for cutting $716 billion from Medicare, when his own budget proposal included those same cuts.

"You gotta give him one thing. It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did," Clinton said.

He also slashed at Romney's charge that the president had undermined the work requirement in welfare reform. "Their campaign pollster said, 'We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,'" Clinton said. "Now, finally I can say that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself –- I just hope you remember that every time you see those ads."

Beyond making the broad case for Obama’s reelection, Clinton's job Wednesday night was to make Democrats forget the terrible afternoon they had just endured.

After party leaders, and eventually the president himself, decided it had been a bad idea to omit from their party platform any mention of God as well as an assertion of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, they attempted to change it quickly in a late afternoon voice vote on the convention floor.

Embarrassingly, convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles, had to ask for three voice votes, and each time the nays got louder. He eventually ruled that there was two-thirds support for the changes, despite the clear lack of such a majority.

The snafu led to a series of embarrassing TV interviews for Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who told CNN there was “no discord” during the vote, only to have Anderson Cooper mock her comments as belonging to “an alternate universe.”

Organizers also decided to move the final day of the three-day convention indoors, rather than having Obama accept his party's nomination at the 65,000-seat Bank of America outdoor football stadium. The threat of rain forced the decision, but it was another disappointment for a convention that at one point was envisioned as four-day event in four different cities, and has been beleaguered by fundraising woes and now downsized to a three-day event in the same arena.

For Clinton and for the assembled Democrats, it was a chance to relive his glory days. Clinton showed little interest in letting the moment end. And with the balloon drop canceled, there was some question whether Clinton could ever be urged off the stage.

Obama joined him onstage for a brief moment after Clinton finished speaking, causing the crowd to erupt. Clinton bowed to the current president as Obama walked out, the two men embraced, waved to the crowd, and then walked toward backstage.

But Clinton shook hands with nearly every person in sight on his way out, disappearing into the backstage tunnel once only to reemerge for one last final hug and handshake with one of his many friends. Finally, Obama simply walked through the curtain without him, and Clinton followed a few seconds later.

The Source

Romneyshambles: Democrats seize on Mitt Romney's gaffes

By Chris Irvine, Jon Swaine in Washington2:19PM BST 27 Jul 2012

Democrats have seized upon Mitt Romney's trip abroad - dubbed Romneyshambles - with a new video highlighting criticism from British politicians and the media.

The Democratic National Committee released the video which is a compilation of Mr Romney's trip. One part of the video highlights a Telegraph Commentary, that said: "Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive." As well as the media, David Cameron and Boris Johnson, Carl Lewis, the winner of nine Olympic gold medals, hit out at Mr Romney saying "seriously, some Americans just shouldn't leave the country". Mr Romney's London trip has been filled with a series of missteps, starting with an NBC interview in which he questioned Britain's readiness to host the Olympics.

His comments drew a sharp rebuke from David Cameron. His performance was seriously criticised by the media and politicians alike. Lewis, who is generally regarded as one of the greatest Olympians of all time - winning gold medals from 1984 to 1996, told The Independent newspaper as Michelle Obama arrived in London to lead the US delegation:

"Every Olympics is ready, I don't care whatever he [Romney] said. I swear, sometimes I think some Americans shouldn't leave the country. Are you kidding me, stay home if you don't know what to say." declaring himself to be “a guy from Great Britain” who is “married to a girl from Wales”.

The former Massachusetts governor and his wife, Ann, were interviewed together after a day from which he was meant to emerge looking like an international statesman descended into farce. He told CNN's Piers Morgan on Thursday evening that the Olympics would be “terrific”, blessed with “great weather” and full of “enthusiasm on the part of the people here in London”. The previous evening he told NBC that he had seen “disconcerting” signs that made it “hard to know just how well it will turn out” at the London games, prompting a sharp rejoinder from David Cameron. Promising London would deliver, the Prime Minister said it had been challenging to host an Olympics in one of the world's busiest cities rather than the “middle of nowhere”, where it would be easier.

This was widely taken in the US to be a reference to Utah, the sparsely populated western state where Mr Romney was chief executive of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002. Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London, heaped more misery on Mr Romney's campaign by dismissing his remarks while onstage at a concert in Hyde Park to mark the end of the Olympic torch relay.

“There's guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know if we are ready,” Mr Johnson cried, prompting jeers from some of the 60,000-strong crowd. “Are we ready? Yes we are!” By then a sheepish Mr Romney had deserted his earlier remarks with a statement delivered outside 10 Downing Street.

He predicted that any minor problems would be “overshadowed by the extraordinary demonstrations of courage, character and determination by the athletes”. Mr Romney was asked in his interview on Thursday evening whether he had been aware of his roots in northern England, where his great-great-grandfather, a carpenter from Preston, was one of the first Mormons in Britain some 175 years ago.

“I knew that my ancestors came from here,” he said. “I know Miles Romney and Miles Park Romney – these are the folks that came and helped settle the West.” Asked whether he felt “partly English” as a result, a chuckling

Mr Romney replied: “Well, I’m married to a girl from Wales, and I’m a guy from Great Britain. So I feel like this is home too, I guess.” His wife is descended from Welsh coal-miners. Her grandfather, David Davies, travelled to Michigan from Wales in 1929.

Mrs Romney told Morgan that the ITV drama Downton Abbey was one of their favourite television programmes, and that the couple were currently working their way through the second series.

The Republican challenger also raised eyebrows on Thursday by referring to Ed Miliband with the American-style honorific “Mr Leader” and appearing to breach protocol by disclosing that he had met Sir John Sawers, the Secret Intelligence Service chief.

Romney May Have Paid No Federal Income Tax From 1999 to 2001

Bloomberg Business News and the Washington Post

are guessing that Romney may have paid near zero federal taxes in 2009 due to losses on his investments resulting from the financial crisis. They probably have the right idea, just the wrong year.

It is true that Romney suffered capital losses on his investments in 2009 that might act to shield much of his income in that year from taxes, but he would have to be a complete idiot to allow his tax planners to file a return showing no income taxes paid just as he was gearing up for a presidential run. But, then again, we are talking about someone who waited until 2010 to close his wife's Swiss bank account.

Much more likely to this writer is that Romney probably does have one or more years in his recent history where he paid near zero taxes, but the year in question is probably not 2009. Much more likely candidates are the tax years 1999 to 2001 when he supposedly left his high paying job at Bain and accepted a smaller $275,000 salary to head the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. It is reported that once the Olympics showed a profit, Romney ended up donating his salary to charities, thus further lowering his reported income for tax purposes.

His lower salary and loss of some board member compensation would mean less current income to shelter from 1999 to 2001. But, his tax shelters would have lost none of their potency. He was already utilizing IRAs and 401(k)s to shelter much of his investment income, possibly worth as much as $100 million today, from taxes. He was already making use of numerous off-shore tax havens in the Cayman Islands and other foreign locations and admits to having had a Swiss bank account in his wife's name. He admits that he had a trust established for his children to shelter as much as $100 million more of his wealth from taxation. And much of his income came from Bain Capital private equity investment funds located offshore so much of their profits could be deferred for ten years or limited to a maximum tax rate of 15 percent, a special tax provision only available to private equity and hedge fund managers.

Also, the leveraged buyout business took a big hit in 1999 and 2000 as the country entered a recession so he likely had significant capital losses to deduct. This was followed in 2001 by the dotcom collapse. As a large wealthy investor it is likely he was being put into numerous IPO's available only to the well-connected and many of these high-tech investments most likely soured in 2001 leading to further tax deductible capital losses.

Some may argue that someone who donates his salary to charity or has investment losses deserves to pay no taxes. But, they are missing the point. Romney's vast personal fortune of between $100 million and $200 million at the time was accreting at some 20 percent per year so how should he able to avoid paying taxes on the $20 to $40 million of dividends and interest income and profits and capital gains he must have been receiving on his investments? Donating a $275,000 salary to charity is chump change compared with avoiding taxation on tens of millions of profits each year.

Of course, some will argue that this is all just speculation. What else are concerned citizens to do when a candidate for president, running on a platform of being business smart and the man to fix the economy, refuses to tell us how he made his money and whether he paid his fair share of taxes along the way?

Some may argue that this is all legal. That our laws allow for the wealthiest to accumulate $400 million plus fortunes and pay little to no taxes. But, that is exactly the point. Who do you think is writing our tax laws? It is the wealthiest of our country that are lobbying our government for tax breaks and making large campaign contributions to elected officials to ensure these tax breaks not only continue, but are amplified and extended. And who is their boy, Mitt Romney.

John R. Talbott is a best-selling author and economic consultant to families whose books predicted the housing crash and the economic crisis.

GOP Republican Jobs Bills Won't Actually Create Jobs, Say Economists

Erin Mershon- Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans routinely beat the drum about the hard work they have done in passing "more than 30 jobs bills" that are now before the Democrat-controlled Senate, going nowhere, as the economy gasps for air.

For almost a year, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have plugged their jobs package at every opportunity. They regularly bring it up at press events, during floor speeches and in statements in response to just about anything related to the economy. Boehner even carries aroundin his jacket pocket a 4-by-8-inch card that lists off their jobs bills, and he encourages his members to flash their cards at campaign events.

"President [Barack] Obama and Democrats here in Congress have shown us what doesn't work: more government, more spending, more taxes don't create more jobs," Boehner said at a recent weekly briefing. "We've passed more than 30 jobs bills, including bipartisan bills expanding energy production and projects like the Keystone pipeline."

Cantor plugged the jobs bills -- and nudged Democrats to get on board with the Republican plan -- in response to the June unemployment report. "House Republicans are committed to bold, pro-growth policies and have passed dozens of bills to create jobs," he said in a statement. "We've begun to right the ship, but we will not be able to achieve long-term growth without willing partners in the White House and Senate."

The GOP jobs package, which currently includes 32 bills, represents Republicans' hallmark legislative accomplishment over the past two years. In the months ahead of the election, they will lean on it as proof of two things: that they are not the do-nothing obstructionists that Democrats paint them as, and that they are working hard to address the 8.2 percent unemployment rate.

But there's a problem with their jobs bills: They don't create jobs. At least, they won't any time soon.

In interviews conducted by The Huffington Post with five economists, most said the GOP jobs package would have no meaningful impact on job creation in the near term. Some said it was not likely to do much in the long term, either.

"A lot of these things are laughable in terms of a jobs plan that would produce noticeable improvements across the country in the availability of employment in the next four or five years," said Gary Burtless, a senior economist at Brookings. "Even in the long run, if they have any effect all, it would be extremely marginal, relative to the jobs deficit we currently have."

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, agreed that the bills would have almost no effect on job creation in the short term, though he was slightly more optimistic about their long-term prospects.

"These kind of changes will matter over a period of three to five years," Zandi said. "It takes that long before businesses can digest changes and respond to them."

He noted, though, that legislation as narrowly targeted as the Republican package is unlikely to do much for real job creation.

"For it to show up in a meaningful way in the natural economy, you can make specific changes that could affect a specific industry or a few companies, but it's not going to make a big difference in terms of the monthly job numbers," Zandi said. "It takes some very significant changes across lots of different industries to really make a big difference."

Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, said some of the bills could create jobs, but that they would amount to more of an afterthought in terms of achieving broader policy goals.

"They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be," Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, "jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority."

At the heart of the GOP jobs package is a push for rolling back regulations -- and gutting environmental laws that regulate clean air and water -- to spur job growth. The House Republican Conference website makes the argument that deregulation will "remove onerous federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation."

But economists told The Huffington Post that regulation has had a minimal impact on the unemployment rate. Their claim is backed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that just under 16,000 jobs, or 0.4 percent, were lost because of "government regulations/intervention."

"It's just hard to believe that the paperwork requirements to starting a business represent a major impediment to starting businesses right now," Burtless said. "That's not why we had lots more business creation in the late '90s."

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, warned that any potential job creation from environmental deregulation could be offset by health concerns.

"If you increase employment but you have a lot more sick people, you have to ask yourself, 'What's the trade-off?'" he said. "The highest level of GDP is not necessarily the highest level of national satisfaction or national health."

Indeed, environmental advocates argue that many of the GOP proposals are more likely to kill people than create jobs.

"It won't save them jobs, it won't even save them that much money, but it is going to cause illnesses, deaths, more hospital stays or days lost because of illness,” said Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That's why we have all these environmental laws.”

Not all of the GOP proposals are focused on environmental deregulation. A handful call for weakening the authority of the National Labor Relations Board as a way to boost businesses' savings, which could, in theory, then be reinvested in new jobs.

But Burtless said those proposals are more likely to impact those currently working than those seeking work.

"They may weaken the ability of current workers to negotiate for better working conditions or wages. They may lessen the ability of workers who want to join unions to do so in companies that are currently unorganized," he said. "But it's just hard to believe that they create jobs in the short run."

Even one of the more popular bills in the mix -- a small business tax cut -- won't do much for job creation, some of the economists said. They argued that it's not that businesses need more money for hiring, but that they need a sufficient demand for their products.

"They know that if they hire people to produce more widgets, they won't be able to sell the widgets," Prakken said. "Giving them a tax break just increases their profits," but doesn't encourage hiring.

Riccadonna disagreed. He acknowledged that weak demand is the biggest problem facing businesses, but said the small business tax cut is still the most likely of all the GOP bills to create jobs.

"We should be focusing on small businesses and what we can do to make business conditions more favorable for them, because that's where the real turn in labor market will lie," he said. "So anything that makes life or operating conditions a little bit easier for them, that I would certainly be in favor of. That will have a meaningful jobs impact."

Ultimately, each economist was clear on one point: The GOP package is far more political than practical.

"It's game playing to try to pretend like they're doing something," said Jesse Rothstein, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's silly season, and so they know they have to put up something that has the label 'job creation' on it, whether or not it would work."

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel demurred when asked for a response. He reiterated that Senate Democrats are holding up their job-creation bills.

"The House has passed more than 30 jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled United States Senate," said Steel. "We have passed a responsible budget that deals with our deficits and debt, a bill to replace the 'sequester,' which would be disastrous for our national security, and ... we will vote to stop the tax hike on every American taxpayer, which is scheduled for the end of this year. In short, we are acting on the American peoples’ priorities: jobs and our economy."

A Cantor spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

For all their complaints about Senate inaction, Boehner and Cantor regularly fail to point out that the Senate has, in fact, passed nearly a dozen of Republicans' so-called jobs bills in the last two years. Eleven have already become law, and another one has passed the Senate but hasn’t been signed into law yet.

Jennifer Bendery and Michael McAuliff contributed reporting to this article.

House Republicans routinely herald the hard work they have done in passing the 30-some "jobs bills" in the slideshow below, while they antagonize the Senate for its failure to act on the measures. But economists warn that the House-passed bills won't do much to create jobs -- which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says is the explanation for why the bills have stalled.

GOP Debate WarMongers Target Iran - Miltary Industrial Complex

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists , the hopes of it's children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a Cross of Iron. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." Dwight D. Eisenhower Jan 17, 1961

Bill Maher Blog Huffington Post Today...

The Republicans sure have the right symbol with the elephant. Republican debates are nothing but elephants in the room.

The biggest of which must be: to someone out there who's hurting, they spend the whole two hours yammering away about earmarks and illegal immigrants and contraception and every other peripheral, wish-I-had-the-time-to-worry-about-it issue they can think of.

Then there is the elephant of how they all -- with the sometime exception of Ron Paul -- nod along to insane statements just because they don't want to ever look like they're to the left of anybody, on anything, especially the evilness of Barack Obama. So Wednesday night when Newt said the president of the United States had a history of practicing infanticide... yep, yep, yessir, that's what he does all right. Clubs infants like baby seals in his spare time. Ike played golf, Kennedy liked boating...

Ron Paul said foreign aid just helps our enemies. Which, I believe, would make Israel and Egypt our two biggest enemies. Yup, yup, hate foreign aid. A meaningless percentage of the budget, btw.

Newt said where government becomes the central provider of services, it's a move towards tyranny -- yeah, except in all the countries where it isn't, like all of Scandanavia and much of Europe. Today a barium enema paid for by medicare, tomorrow Poland.

And isn't a highlight of every debate when Mitt Romney takes umbrage at being accused of the best thing he ever did in his life -- Romneycare? Something he should be proud of? Last night he took out his dueling glove and declared that when he was governor, he made sure there was NO requirement from the church to provide morning after pills for rape victims. They will be punished with a baby, as Jesus would want. Mitt's attitude is always, "How dare you accuse me of helping people or being compassionate! Why, I'll have you know I'm every bit as much of a cold hearted bastard as any of these other pricks up here with me!"

"But Mitt, we have a picture of you giving money to a homeless person."

"I did NOT give a bum money! I was paying him to blow me!"

This Republican field over the last year has been such a comedy gold mine -- which I have compacted into a stand-up special I'm doing Thursday night, February 23, called #CrazyStupidPolitics -- it's free, and it's live-streamed on Yahoo! 10:30 Eastern (with a mindblowing announcement at the end). I apologize for the shameful plug, but I just want you to have a good laugh! Thank you Arianna, you're the best... and now back to our blog.

The biggest elephant in the room tonight for me was Satan. All day, TV news was talking about Satan because of Rick Santorum's dug-up (but, no doubt still accurate) comments about Satan from 2008. It just shows you how when someone is a nobody politically speaking -- as Santorum was in 2008 -- you can say any kind of crazy shit and it's not newsworthy. But when you are seeking the highest office in the land... in the world -- it really worries me that you believe in demons and a personified creature named Satan.

People get mad at me for using the phrase "this stupid country", which I sometimes do -- but, I'm sorry -- Satan? In 2012? This elephant is not only in the room at the debates, but everywhere on TV today where people were talking about this and not breaking down in the middle and screaming, Wait a minute -- We're modern people, surely we don't give any credence to this comic book character that was created in the bronze age!! It's barely worthy of a children's story, and people take it to the Oval Office -- Bush did -- and it affects their thinking and our lives. Why is Santorum so against contraception? Because there's a line in Genesis about not spilling your seed. A random brainfart from some desert dweller 3,000 years ago, before people knew about germs or atoms or round planets, and it gets written down and passed down and in 2012 people like Rick Santorum are still too R-word to see that, and that's why some woman in Akron, Ohio might not get birth control.

And as far as Rick's claim tonight that even though he holds these beliefs, he wouldn't legislate them? Bullshit -- he said states absolutely had the right to outlaw contraception. That's the same thing -- as an officer of the government, he should take the opposite position. Ron Paul would.

My favorite moment of the debate was the last question, when they all were asked to summarize themselves in one word: Ron Paul said "consistency," and you know what? I have no argument with that. It's true, and he's earned it.

The other ones however, I think I could find a more honest word. Mitt Romney said "resolute." I would have gone with "shapeshifter." Or perhaps "irresolute." Rick Santorum said "courage" , whereas I would have said "Bellevue." And Newt Gingrich said "cheerful." I was thinking "pus."

One other thing: in the overtime, I heard Ron Paul make the point to John King that his foreign policy was similar to Eisenhower's, how Ike avoided getting militarily involved in Vietnam or the Suez Canal and got out of Korea. Because he was a military man. Ron Paul served, also -- the other three not so much. I know it will never become law, because it would require a constitutional amendment, but I don't think it would be such a bad thing if you had to have served in the military if you wanted to be president. Kennedy also avoided war where many would not have. After him, though, we got into the era of non-servers and draft-dodgers, and used the military like a toy. Ex-soldiers understand it's not. And the president is Commander-in-Chief -- shouldn't you have served some time in an organization you're the head of?

I hope this was the last Republican debate. Well, I say that, but I'll need the material after I use up an hour of good jokes tomorrow night, so, fuck it, keep going.

Last bullshit call: In his closing statement, Rick Santorum said that in the race against the Evil One (no, not that Evil One, he was talking about Obama), the president would have the media in his pocket (yeah, except Fox News, lots of newspapers, all of radio... ), and way more money. Huh? Sheldon Adelson this week said he might give $100 million to Newt Gingrich! If he'd give that to Newt who has no chance, he might give more to Romney. And he's just one old cranky billionaire who hates Obama, there's a whole gaggle of them.

And Sheldon, if you want to blow money so bad, just walk into one of your hotels in Vegas and go to the Roulette table.

The truth GOP are to blame for the USA economy failures

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein

Jared bernstein ....huffington post blogger

Why, you may be wondering, do politicians refuse to take the necessary fiscal steps to dislodge the unemployment rate from its elevated perch of 9.1%? Why, to the contrary, do they seem if anything intent on austerity measure that will push it in the wrong direction?

I can think of three reasons:

1) They want the president to fail;

2) They don't believe fiscal measures will work;

3) They irrationally fear a higher budget deficit, even temporarily.

Re 1, what can anyone say? If you're willilling to throw the economy under the bus to gain political advantage, you -- not the millions hurt by your actions -- should be the one who loses his job.

Re 2, I've got more sympathy for you. Folks have a hard time accepting counterfactuals -- the idea that things would have been worse absent the Recovery Act. But the evidence is at this point pretty plain to see: here, where the economy improved while the Recovery Act was in place and stumbled as fiscal stimulus come off too soon, in the UK, where austerity is clearly stifling growth, and in southern Europe as well.

Re 3, it can't be emphasized enough that temporary spending measures, even large one, are not what drive the long-term debt problem. Note how the Recovery Act -- all $800 billion of it -- adds nothing to the growth of the debt/GDP ratio starting around now. The culprit there would be the Bush tax cuts -- it's the permanent spending, not the temporary stuff that whacks you here.

I'm all for laying the groundwork to get on a sustainable budget path once the private sector is back in the business of creating jobs for people here in America. For now, the question regarding budget deficits should be: are they large enough to help pick up the slack until that moment arrives?

Daily news sites

Contact :

Histats

GOP'ers Growing Unhappiness and Division Within Their Party...

1 Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin option or not?

Be Ready To Mint That Coin

$1 Trillion Platinum Coin: Not as “Silly” as Debt Ceiling Fight | Daily ...

Krugman joins the $1 trillion coin brigade - Political Watch ...

Funny Money: Pundits float $1 trillion coin as answer to debt-ceiling ...

Could a $1 trillion coin fix the national debt?- MSN Money