Daily news sites: mitt Romney| Find Breaking World News
Latest Updates
Tampilkan postingan dengan label mitt Romney. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label mitt Romney. Tampilkan semua postingan

The Reemergence of Mitt Romney at CPAC...

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


Romney at CPAC 2013. The reemergence of the Mitten. A man that is as close to a chameleon as there ever was.The crowd eats it up.

THE HILL - GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney appealed for the Republican Party to learn from the mistakes of his losing 2012 presidential campaign and, as conservatives chart their course forward, to look to GOP governors for a path to future electoral wins.

Romney received perhaps the most enthusiastic reception yet of any speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference, with a packed auditorium offering him an extended standing ovation before he began.

He told the CPAC crowd that while he "left the race disappointed that we didn't win," he remained optimistic for future success — if the party learns from his campaign.

"We've lost races before, in the past, but those setbacks prepared us for larger victories. It's up to us to make sure that we learn from our mistakes, and my mistakes, and that we take advantage of that learning to make sure that we take back the nation, take back the White House, get the Senate and put in place conservative principles," he said.

The speech marked a reemergence of sorts for Romney, who has quietly returned to private life following his defeat.

Many Republicans have blamed Romney for losing a winnable race to President Obama, criticizing him as a poor candidate who ran a flawed campaign. The loss caught many in the party off-guard — Romney included — due in part to faulty assumptions about turnout and mistaken polling.

Some Republicans have also charged Romney was not conservative enough, and didn't cut a stark enough contrast to Obama.

Skip

"As someone who just lost the last election, I'm probably not in the best position to chart the course for the next one," Romney admitted.

"That being said, let me offer this advice. And perhaps because I'm a former governor, I would urge us all to learn the lessons that come from some of our greatest success stories, and that's 30 Republican governors across the country," he added.

The former Massachusetts governor's loss in November has sparked a party-wide recalibrating, as the GOP looks to avoid the mistakes of 2012. {Read More

Wondering if the rEpublican socons and neocons will ever get it right.



Via: Memeorandum

Bush Vs Clinton Clinton Wins - So Romney says NO to Bush Support!

Bush Vs Clinton Clinton Wins - So Romney says NO to Bush Support!
"We have had two great economic experiments in America over the last 30 years. One succeeded. The other failed -- in fact, it was a man-made disaster" Clinton Success and Bushes Failures.



Earlier this week -- as he was barnstorming the country for Barack Obama -- former President Bill Clinton subbed in for the president as Obama flew back to Washington to oversee the country's response to a major hurricane.
That would seem an appropriate context to ask the question, why hasn't the most recent Republican President, George Bush, been barnstorming the country for Mitt Romney?
It says a lot that for most Americans this sounds like an absurd question.
Clinton was a major featured speaker at the Democratic Convention. Bush wasn't even invited to Tampa.
Bush is not campaigning for Romney because he and the policies he implemented are politically radioactive to most American voters.
George Bush is off in political Siberia because the Romney campaign is doing everything humanly possible to prevent voters from realizing that Romney intends to return precisely those same failed Bush policies to the White House if he is elected president next week.
Let's start with the matter that is uppermost in the country's attention -- the hurricane.
It's fair to say that his response to Hurricane Katrina was not Bush's finest hour. But Bush's failure to respond quickly and effectively to Katrina was not simply a reflection of his administration's incompetence. It was a reflection of the fact that his administration didn't believe in government.
Natural disasters make people remember why it is so important that we have a society where we have each other's back. They make us remember that government is the name we give to the things we choose to do together.
Natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy make us remember why the law of the jungle -- why a self-centered, irresponsible, unbridled focus on you and you alone -- isn't what we learned in Sunday School.
Even far right New Jersey Governor Chris Christie reprimanded New Jersey citizens who refused to evacuate low-lying areas because they would put the lives of first responders at risk -- because they had a responsibility to each other.
Bush -- and his response to Katrina -- exemplified the right wing's failure to understand that most Americans believe in a society where we are all in this together, not all in this alone.
And Mitt Romney completely shares Bush's view. Romney actually proposed eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and hand over responsibility for response to disasters to the states. Romney ignores that when disaster strikes, we are Americans first. We have each other's back whether we are from Mississippi or New Jersey. We do that because it's right. We also do it because while disaster may strike our neighbors in New Jersey today, it could strike those of us who live in Illinois tomorrow.
But of course there are many other reasons why the Republicans have failed to ask George Bush to campaign for their presidential ticket. Two stand out.
We have had two great economic experiments in America over the last 30 years. One succeeded. The other failed -- in fact, it was a man-made disaster.
The first was led by President Bill Clinton. Clinton believed that you grow the economy from the middle out -- not the top down. He understood that businesses don't invest and hire unless there are customers out there with money in their pockets -- that they are the "job creators" -- not a bunch of hedge fund managers on Wall Street.
Clinton proposed a federal budget that would eliminate the deficit mainly by calling on the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes -- and by investing in infrastructure and education to grow the economy. And Clinton forcefully defended programs like Medicare when Newt Gingrich wanted to cut them to give tax cuts to the rich.
When his budget was debated in Congress, Republicans predicted it would lead to massive job losses and recession.
The Republicans were dead wrong. Clinton presided over the most prosperous period in human history -- literally. On his watch the economy experienced robust growth and created 22 million new American jobs. Clinton eliminated the Federal deficit and left his successor with budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.
Then came George Bush. He cut taxes for the rich -- arguing that this would turbo-charge job growth and that the deficit would take care of itself. In fact, Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney -- a man who has also been noticeably absent from the campaign trail this fall -- famously said that "deficits don't matter."
The result: Bush left office having presided over the worst record of job growth since the Great Depression -- zero net private sector jobs created; that's right, zero.
Worse, his failure to regulate Wall Street set the stage for the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, costing eight million Americans their jobs, wiping out 40 percent of many people's pensions, collapsing of the housing market, and causing the worst economic downturn in 60 years.
Bush's trickle-down tax policies not only failed to create economic growth -- they left the Federal Government saddled with more debt than all of the previous presidents had racked up since the beginning of the Republic. And remember, that debt load made it even harder for President Obama to clean up the economic mess once he came into office in 2009.
It's not surprising, then, that you don't see George Bush on the stump trying to convince Americans that Mitt Romney's economic policies will create a better life for the middle class. Of course he could step in for Mitt, he certainly knows the script -- in fact he wrote the script.
After all, Mitt Romney is promoting exactly the same economic policies that Bush used to create zero private sector jobs, crash the economy and run up the deficit just a few short years ago.
But there's more. You don't see George Bush campaigning for Romney because most Americans think his foreign policy was another man made catastrophe. Bush led us into two wars -- which by the way he paid for on the nation's credit card -- and alienated America from the rest of the world.
He intentionally lied about the rationale for the War in Iraq -- convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, when he had none. The War in Iraq cost thousands of American lives and left tens of thousands injured or disabled. Some economists think it may ultimately cost up to three trillion dollars to the American economy -- money that could instead have been spent building schools and roads and bridges and investing in jobs in the United States.
Bush's go-it-alone, bull in a china closet foreign policy alienated people around the world, stretched the American military and left America weaker. And the pictures of humiliation at Abu Ghraib -- his policies of torture and rendition and lack of respect for the rule of law -- created recruiting posters for our enemies.
Bush doesn't campaign for Romney because the Romney campaign has zero interest in focusing the attention of the voters on the fact Romney is surrounded by exactly the same gang of foreign policy advisers that presided over the War in Iraq. In addition they both share the same credentials: Both had zero foreign policy experience before they ran for president.
The fact is that if you liked the War in Iraq, you'll love the Romney foreign policy. So for the next six days, every time you hear about Bill Clinton campaigning for President Obama, let that be a reminder of the guy you won't see out their campaigning for Mitt Romney.
The choice is clear. If you liked the way things were going under George Bush, vote for Mitt Romney. But if you want long-term economic growth, if you believe in defending the middle class, if you don't want to go back to the policies of George Bush -- vote to reelect President Barack Obama.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, 

Bill Kills - Clinton Brilliant At Convention GOP Cries!

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.

Mitt Romney names Paul Ryan as running mate

Mitt Romney names Paul Ryan as running mate

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney introduced Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidential running mate on Saturday, turning to the architect of a deeply conservative and intensely controversial long-term budget plan to remake Medicare and cut trillions in federal spending.
In the campaign to come, Republicans will present economic solutions “that are bold, specific and achievable,” Mr. Romney said as he presented his political partner to cheering supporters. “We offer our commitment to create 12 million new jobs and bring better take home pay to middle class families.”...
(And this key point)   Mr. Ryan and other supporters say the change is needed to prevent the program from financial calamity. Critics argue it would impose ever-increasing costs on seniors.
Other elements of the budget plan would cut projected spending for Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, as well as food stamps, student loans and other social programs that Mr. Obama and Democrats have pledged to defend.
In all, it projected spending cuts of $5.3-trillion over a decade, and cut future projected deficits substantially.

Mitt The Twit ...No Mormons In The White House





Kolob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work published byJoseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to thethrone of God. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a "star",[1] it also refers to planets as stars,[2] and therefore, some LDS commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.[3] Other Latter Day Saints (commonly referred to as Mormons) consider Kolob to be a metaphor.
Kolob has never been identified with any modern astronomical object and is not recognized as an ancient concept by modernEgyptology. Kolob is rarely discussed in modern LDS religious contexts, but it is periodically a topic of discussion in criticism of Mormonism. The idea appears within LDS culture, including an LDS hymn about it.[4] Kolob is also the inspiration for the fictional planetKobol within the Battlestar Galactica universe, created by Glen A. Larson, a Mormon.[5][6]




Temple garment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Temple garment circa 1879 (GSR 1879)
temple garment (also referred to as garments, or Mormon underwear)[1] is a type of underwear worn by a vast majority of adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement, after they have taken part in the Endowment ceremony. Garments are worn both day and night and are required for any previously endowed adult to enter a temple.[2] The undergarments are viewed as a symbolic reminder of thecovenants made in temple ceremonies and are seen as either a symbolic or literal source of protection from the evils of the world.[3]
The garment is given as part of the washing and anointing portion of the endowment. Today, the temple garment is worn primarily by members of LDS Church and by members of some Mormon fundamentalist churches. Adherents consider them to be sacred and not suitable for public display. Anti-Mormon activists have occasionally publicly displayed or defaced temple garments to advance their opposition to the LDS Church.[4]
Temple garments are sometimes derided as "magic underwear" by non-Mormons, but Mormons view this terminology to be misleading and derogatory.[5][6




An Wikipedia says...

Mormons (play /ˈmÉ”rmÉ™nz/) are a religious and cultural group related to Mormonism, the principal branch of the Latter Day Saint movement, which began with the visions of Joseph Smith in upstate New York during the 1820s. After Smith's death in 1844 the Mormons followed Brigham Young to what would become the Utah Territory. Today a vast majority of Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) while a minority are members of other churches. Some Mormons are also either independent or non-practicing. The center of Mormon cultural influence is in Utah, and North America has more Mormons than any other continent, though the majority of Mormons live outside the United States.
Mormons have developed a strong sense of communality that stems from their doctrine and history. During the 19th century Mormon converts tended to gather to a central geographic location, and between 1852 and 1890 many Mormons openly practiced plural marriage, a form of religious polygamy. Mormons dedicate large amounts of time and resources to serving in their church, and many young Mormons choose to serve a full time proselytizing mission. Mormons have a health code that eschews alcoholic beverages, tobacco, coffee, tea, and other addictive substances. They tend to be very family-oriented, and have strong connections across generations and with extended family. Mormons also have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside of marriage and strict fidelity within marriage.
Mormons self-identify as Christian, though some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism. They believe that Christ's church was restored through Joseph Smith, and is guided by living prophets and apostles. Central to Mormon faith is the belief that God speaks to his children and answers their prayers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Etownp_Rmw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Or for something completely different...

Mormonism is a key deception in the end game. The common theme in all the deception in what we know as Christianity is putting physical understanding to spiritual truth. The key doctrine of the Mormon is that they are the tribe of Ephriem and Manaseh, physically. This is very important because the true understanding of Ephriem and Manaseh is that they represent the multitude saved from the deception at the end of the world, and are the means by which they are aloud into the tribes of Israel. 

The key here is the fact that Israel after the cross of Jesus Christ is a spiritual house and is now open to Gentiles. The gentiles come in to the house of Israel because of the finished work on the cross. The physical lost tribe stuff is all deception based on the key to all the deception, putting physical understanding to truth that is spiritual. 

Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom taught one way, by what he taught on New Jerusalem, is a spiritual kingdom, is built with the true believers in the Lord jesus Christ. 
See the thing we have to realize is Satan knew full well all the doctrines to attack to set up the "Strong Delusion" (2 Thes 2) at the end of the age. We see 3 major apostate trains of thought enter in at the same period of time, the late 1800's that all attacked key and critical doctrine. 
Mormonism with Joseph Smith attacked the identity of the Multitude the type and shadow of Ephrium and Manaseh who are the spiritual identity of the lost apostate Christian caught in the Harlot Religious System at the Coming of the Son of Man. 

Jehovah Witnesses with Charles Taze Russell attack the identity of the 144000 who are the true Remnant Chrisitans that see the Abomination in the organized "Christian" religious system and "flee" to the wilderness. This is a very important doctrine and was a target of Satan to prepare the last days deception.

Schofield Dispensationalism with John Darby and Cyress Schofield, the third main source of false doctrine also attacked the ultimate key understanding at the end of the age. Israel. Israel is Gods means by which he saves his people. Israel is the body of called out followers of the true God. Israel was is and always will be Gods chosen people. Israel is a spiritual construct. The account of Israel in the old testament was an example
1 Cor 10 All these things happened unto them for enxample ands are written for our admonition upon whom the end of the world has come.

The biggest problem today is the Christians don't realize "They are Israel" Satan knew this as the primary doctrine to attack, along with help from the other gospels from JWs and the Mormons. Through these 3 trains of false teaching Satan has the masses decieved. 
The key? they all focus on physical. After the cross everything important becomes spiritual. This is why we must be born again of the spirit to "SEE" the kingdom of God. 

Satan has successfully confused todays Christians by taking away their most important posession, their identity. By doing that Christians see themselves as some group of people exempt from judgement from believing a false teaching of grace without truth.
There are no liers in heaven. Most professing Christians, Jws and Mormons included are believing a lie, and because of this are "damned" 2 thes 2. 

Israel are Gods covenant people. True Christians have the covenant written on their hearts. This is all twisted and distoreted today by the lying false prophets spewing "flatteries" from the pulpits.
Dan 11

Those that do wickedly against the covenant he will corrupt with flatteries. but those who do know their God will do exploits.

Everything runs twice. Today the Christian religious system is in the same state of desolation and apostasy as the religious system of Jesus' day. Again they knew not the hour of thier visitation. 
The kingdom of God comes without observation. Again the Religious System will miss the second coming just like they did the first. By the time the Lord apears in the clouds it will be to late. 
Advise: flee Babylon which is organised religion. Flee to the spiritual wilderness, study the King James Blble with nothing more than a "love for the truth" God will reveal himself to you and you will be free from the deception that has the professing Christian world in the snare.
Far as a snare shall it come upon them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Luke 21


Source

Or Here's a Thought...



Jesus' ministry was primarily a message to the Jewish people in preparation for a Messianic Kingdom. But it was Paul who targeted a larger Greco-Roman (outside) community after being forced out of synagogue.
Gerd Ludemann states, "Without Paul there would be no church and no Christianity. He's the most decisive person that shaped Christianity as it developed. Without Paul we would have had reformed Judaism... but no Christianity."
While there was overlap between Paul and Jesus, there were also large divides between Pauline Christianity and Judean Christianity, which only grows -- if you trace Paul's letters in chronological order -- into a full-blown chasm by the end of his life.
In fact, Paul's new "gospel" broke with the original followers of Jesus, and ultimately got him almost killed in Jerusalem. His assassins charged, "He taught Gentiles to ignore the Mosaic Law."
On the other hand, Jesus said not a "jot or tittle" of the Law would pass away. And he would not have put aside his religion in light of a lawless Gentile mission or a new cosmic encounter with a Holy Spirit or Holy Trinity -- which would have been polytheism!

When the Truth is Inconvenient...

When the Truth is Inconvenient...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The left ignores it...

New York Post - While in Israel, Mitt Romney said something every sane person knows to be true: There is great cultural and political meaning in the fact that Israel has prospered while the Palestinians have festered.

“Culture,” Romney said, “makes all the difference . . . you notice a dramatic, stark difference in economic vitality.”

He didn’t specify what he meant by “culture,” but you can take your pick.

You want a political culture that works to create conditions under which an economy can thrive? Since signing the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, Israel has spent two decades working to unshackle its economy from its socialist roots, with remarkable results.

The Palestinians? They’ve created what the House Foreign Affairs Committee has called a “chronic kleptocracy,” with foreign aid and investment shamelessly stolen and diverted to the bank accounts of the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and its gangsterish local strongmen.

According to Jim Zanotti of the Congressional Research Service, Uncle Sam has given the Palestinians $5 billion since 1994. We might as well have lit a match to most of it. It hasn’t gotten to the people who might’ve used it best; it’s simply served as personal financial lubricant for the folks in power.

You want a healthy social culture? The Middle East Media Research Institute has spent decades detailing the diseased messages emanating from Palestinian TV and textbooks, instructing children in the glories of suicide terrorism against innocent Israelis.

You want a culture where citizens are free to express themselves and so live in the openness necessary to the functioning of a successful economy? Israel has a free press, much of it openly hostile to the parties in power. The Palestinian Authority has arrested and tortured critical journalists, as well as conducted denial-of-service attacks against Web sites reporting on corruption.

And this doesn’t even take into account Hamas, the radical terror group in charge of Gaza. It, too, has lived parasitically, sucking the life out of the Palestinian economy.

In 1993, pre-Oslo, the GDP in the territories was $2.9 billion, according to the World Bank. In 2011, it was something like $10.5 billion — a small increase when you consider population growth.

In Israel, the GDP has risen from $66 billion in 1993 to a stunning $243 billion in 2011 — per capita, from $12,500 to $31,000.

One reason Palestinian economic growth has been so disastrously slow is the terror war that Yasser Arafat launched against Israel in 2000 — the “second Intifada.”

It shattered Israeli hopes for peaceful concert with a new neighboring country, and led to an economic estrangement that proved horribly costly to Palestinians. Israelis stopped employing Palestinian workers and stopped buying Palestinian goods. Transit and trade between the two became difficult and painful.

And whose fault was it? Israel, which agreed in principle to a deal at Camp David in 2000 granting Palestinians a state with sovereign dominion over nearly 94 percent of the West Bank? No, it was exclusively the doing of Arafat, who served as a reverse George Washington — rejecting nationhood for the violence he understood better.

So Romney said Israel has done better than the areas under Palestinian control because Israeli culture is healthier. That’s not only true, it’s a necessary thing to say — because the refusal to say it and accept it contributes to the continuing immiseration and unfreedom of the Palestinians themselves. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

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

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



Erin Mershon
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.