Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Paul Ryan Defended Stimulus When George W. Bush Wanted It In 2002 (VIDEO)
Posted: 08/18/2012 11:16 pm Updated: 08/19/2012 10:39 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/paul-ryan-bush-stimulus_n_1803761.html?ref=topbar
WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics."
But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.
"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."
Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.
"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.
Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."
"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.
Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002.
"We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."
While Obama has been in office, Ryan has voted against extending unemployment benefits and against helping laid-off workers pay for health insurance by subsidizing COBRA payments.
Such actions are difficult to square with 2002's Paul Ryan.
"It's more than just giving someone an unemployment check," he said then. "It's also helping those people with their health insurance while they've lost their jobs and more important than just that unemployment check, it's to do what we can to give people a paycheck."
Ryan also made pro-stimulus arguments in a 2001 congressional hearing, as Jonathan Chait points out.
"I think we ought to have this income tax cut fast, deeper, retroactive to January 1st, to make sure we get a good punch into the economy, juice the economy to make sure that we can avoid a hard landing," he had said.
The GOP just lost the election, that's the point... better get used to 4 more years of Obama baby... LMFAO... too funny...
Till then, get ready for four more years baby... God bless Obama!
GOP just lost the election... 100% guarantee... LMFAO... too funny...
Those Fed graph points were generated when Obama was not president and when Reagan, Bush I, Bush Jr., were... LMFAO... too funny... better find and come up with an even crazier non-factual and funnier excuse... ROTFLMFAO... too funny...
What does that have to do with the St. Louis Fed that produced those charts???
Breaking: GOP approves constitutional ban on abortion without exception for rape victims
Todd Akin's Abortion Position Reflects GOP Platform
Posted: 08/21/2012 1:11 pm Updated: 08/21/2012 3:16 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/todd-akin-gop-platform-rape_n_1818532.html
FOLLOW: Video, GOP Platform, Mitt Romney Abortion, Todd Akin, Abortion Rape, Paul Ryan Abortion, Paul Ryan Todd Akin, Todd Akin Rape, Todd Akin Rape Abortion, Politics News
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-Mo.)
Lost in the national outrage and politics following an inflammatory statement made Sunday by GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin in Missouri is the reality that, on a fundamental level, there is no policy difference between Akin's comments and the mainstream GOP platform.?
CNN reported on Monday that the draft of the GOP's official 2012 platform calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors -- the same policy Akin was trying to defend when he asserted that victims of "legitimate rape" have a natural bodily mechanism that prevents them from getting pregnant.
The platform also demands that the government "not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage," a policy that harkens back to the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2011. The GOP sponsors of that bill, including Akin and current GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), tried to narrow the definition of rape as it relates to abortion; only "forcible rape," the bill originally stated, warrants insurance coverage for abortion. The language was removed before the bill passed.
Akin's remarks and the ensuing outrage from both parties forced Mitt Romney to rein in his running mate's conservative position on abortion. The Romney campaign announced Sunday night that the Romney/Ryan ticket supports abortion in cases of rape, even though Ryan previously opposed it.
But if the draft of the GOP platform is any indication, the Republican National Committee will not include a rape exception in its platform. "Our platform language is the same [as] it's been in 2004 and 2008," an RNC spokesperson told The Huffington Post when asked if it would consider a rape exception. "It's a strong pro-life position that doesn't get into granular specifics. We leave those to the states."
Ten GOP-controlled state legislatures, over the past couple of years, have passed bans on abortions after 20 weeks of gestation that do not include an exception for rape victims. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) recently tried to pass the same ban in the District of Columbia.
Romney and Ryan could be unsuccessful at severing ties with the Akin mindset. Ryan, in addition to having sponsored a federal fetal personhood law that would force rape victims to go through with their pregnancies, plans to headline the "Values Voter Summit" next month alongside a number of prominent Akin supporters. The Family Research Council, the primary sponsor of the event, came to Akin's defense Monday, telling Politico that it still supports Akin "fully and completely."
FRC president Tony Perkins lashed out at Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) for saying Akin should drop out of his Senate race. “[Brown] should be careful, because based on some of his statements there may be call for him to get out of his race,” he said. “He has been off the reservation on a number of Republican issues."
Romney, RH Reality Check points out, has accepted the endorsement of Dr. John Willke, a prominent anti-abortion doctor. Willke, president of the Life Issues Institute, wrote a book with a chapter on rape from which Akin could have easily pulled his facts:
"Her body is upset," Willke writes, referring to the rape victim. "Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle ... Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy."
Ultimately, Romney and the Republicans' success in the upcoming election could hinge in part on their ability to distance themselves from members like Akin, although Akin's comment only underscores a position many Republicans are trying to codify into law.
UPDATE: 1:48 p.m. -- The Republican platform committee approved the draft on Tuesday that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion without exception for rape victims, Politico reports.
“I appreciate the good work that that committee did -- in past platforms that has been hours of discussion -- and I applaud the
committee’s work in affirming our respect for human life,” said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the committee. “Well done.”
The St. Louis Fed is "leftist propaganda"??? Are you serious??? LMFAO... too funny...
No hate required for something that is factual... which part of those graphs don't you understand??? Looks to me it is your hate that is blinding you...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78705427
Pro-life doctor John Willke, linked to Akin’s ‘forcible rape’ claims, endorsed Romney in 2007
Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”
BY KRISTEN A. LEE / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012, 10:54 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pro-life-doctor-john-willke-linked-akin-forcible-rape-claims-endorsed-romney-2007-article-1.1141021
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican Mitt Romney welcomed the endorsement of Dr. John C. Willke, a leading proponent of the view that women are unlikely to become pregnant by ‘forcible rape’ and the president of the National Right to Life Committee for a decade.
During his 2008 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney welcomed the endorsement of a pro-life doctor linked to Rep. Todd Akin’s widely condemned statement that “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancy.
Dr. John C. Willke is a leading proponent of the view that women are unlikely to become pregnant by “forcible rape,” a theory he laid out in a 1999 article on the subject.
Akin, a Missouri Republican now running for the U.S. Senate, echoed that theory during an interview with KTVI-TV in St. Louis on Sunday, citing unnamed doctors to claim, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
After his comments sparked an uproar, Akin quickly said he “misspoke.”
Willke, meanwhile, defended his opinion in interviews on Monday, including one with The New York Times.
“This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight,” Willke told the Times. “She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”
Amid a growing outcry for Akin to drop out of the Senate race, the Romney campaign joined those criticizing his comment.
Sunday evening, Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg issued a statement saying, “Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”
In 2007, however, Romney’s campaign had embraced Willke – who served as president of the National Right to Life Committee for a decade. In a statement announcing Willke’s endorsement, his campaign said the doctor would be “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”
"I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country,” Romney said in a statement. “He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies."
Willke also touted Romney’s commitment to anti-abortion issues.
"Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life,” Willke said at the time.
The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to questions about the 2007 endorsement and whether Willke had discussed his theory about rape and pregnancy with the candidate.
Akin, meanwhile, continued his damage-control efforts with a television ad asking for voters’ “forgiveness.”
In the ad, which was obtained by Politico, Akin apologizes for using “the wrong words in the wrong way.”
“The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy; the truth is, rape has many victims,” he says.
Akin is under pressure by a growing list of Republicans to drop his badly wounded Senate bid before a 5 p.m. withdrawal deadline on Tuesday. His opponent Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, has suggested Akin should stay in the race - presumably hoping to face a weakened rival in November.
NBC News reported that Paul Ryan called Akin on Monday, although the Romney campaign did not confirm the conversation and it was unclear if Ryan asked him to drop out.
Ryan has previously co-sponsored anti-abortion legislation with Akin.
klee@nydailynews.com
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pro-life-doctor-john-willke-linked-akin-forcible-rape-claims-endorsed-romney-2007-article-1.1141021
I agree.
Yes, they are the same. Paul Ryan put a limited definition on rape just like Todd Akin. Paul Ryan believes the same garbage that Todd Akin believes.
Paul Ryan is exactly like Todd Akins... and has the votes to prove it... and GOP just lost the women vote... 4 more years for Obama... game over...
Trickle down economics has been the biggest con job that has even been perpetrated to the American people... like freaking Mitt Romney or G.W. Bush or the vast majority of repukes, worked hard for the millions that they make each and every year and that they stash in off shore accounts... sheesh... republiCONs are the biggest traitors and the biggest CON job ever perpetrated to the American people...
I would just like to be the blood pressuring device measuring your blood pressure the moment 4 more years sink in... LMFAO... too funny...
Then how come and Europe is still losing same number of jobs they were losing back then??? After all, they are only doing what Republican conservatives wanted to do here with cutting back government... LMFAO... too funny....
I'm sure you and him understood very well what I was implying... the group here has a different policing for their own kind than their opposite kind. Don't bother denying it... it's a FACT!
I'm sure there will be plenty of that by tea partiers while we are partying Obama's 4 more years... LMFAO... too funny...
Yeah right... when Bush left office jobs were being lost at a 900,000 per month... gotta love the republicans, their lies and their hypocrisy...
Europe has 25% unemployment (35% in Greece, Spain, Portugal etc..)... by comparison, the U.S. is seeing the biggest boom years EVER! God Bless Obama!
So based on everything you said, how pissed will you be when he is re-elected?? LMFAO... too funny...
Nothing better than putting the knife through the hear of the traitor republicans.
4 more years and I want to see a single payer universal health care like all the hypocrite congressmen have.... I LOVE IT!
You will be so pissed when he is re-elected... LMFAO... too funny...
If I was to address you as "you and your fascist pals" you would probably ban me. LMFAO... too funny...
Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low
Henry Blodget Jun. 22, 2012, 8:55 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6
In case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.
1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many [url=http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6#]taxes[/url]." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't).
[url=http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807feab8eaca7f00000c-960/corporate-profits-as-percent-of-gdp.png][/url]
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/]Business Insider, St. Louis Fed[/url]
2) Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades. One reason corporations are so profitable is that they don't employ as many Americans as they used to.
[url=http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807deab8eae17f00000d-960/employment-population-ratio.png][/url]
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/]Business Insider, St. Louis Fed[/url]
3) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is both cause and effect. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are other companies' revenue.
[url=http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807e69bedd095c000005-960/wages-to-gdp.png][/url]
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/]Business Insider, St. Louis Fed[/url]
In short, our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.
That's not what has made America a great country. It's also not what most people think America is supposed to be about.
So we might want to rethink that.
Meanwhile, if you want to know more about what's wrong with the economy, flip through these charts:
Okay, Folks, Let's Put Aside Politics And Look At The Facts... http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6
Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low
Henry Blodget Jun. 22, 2012, 8:55 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6
In case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.
1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many [url=http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6#]taxes[/url]." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't).
[url=http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807feab8eaca7f00000c-960/corporate-profits-as-percent-of-gdp.png][/url]
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/]Business Insider, St. Louis Fed[/url]
2) Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades. One reason corporations are so profitable is that they don't employ as many Americans as they used to.
[url=http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807deab8eae17f00000d-960/employment-population-ratio.png][/url]
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/]Business Insider, St. Louis Fed[/url]
3) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is both cause and effect. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are other companies' revenue.
[url=http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4fe2807e69bedd095c000005-960/wages-to-gdp.png][/url]
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/]Business Insider, St. Louis Fed[/url]
In short, our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.
That's not what has made America a great country. It's also not what most people think America is supposed to be about.
So we might want to rethink that.
Meanwhile, if you want to know more about what's wrong with the economy, flip through these charts:
Okay, Folks, Let's Put Aside Politics And Look At The Facts... http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-economics-facts-charts-2012-6
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6
Editorial Romney the tax simplifier
His proposal to streamline the tax code and reduce rates would benefit the wealthy, while lower- and middle-income Americans would probably pay more.
August 02, 2012 - Comments 62
White House hopeful Mitt Romney speaks at a small-business roundtable discussion in Costa Mesa.
White House hopeful Mitt Romney speaks at a small-business roundtable… (Frederic J. Brown / AFP /…)
Politicians on both sides of the partisan divide want to simplify the federal tax code by pruning the thicket of loopholes, exemptions and credits. In fact, President Obama and his presumptive Republican opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have both promised to seek tax simplification if elected in November. A new study .. http://lat.ms/OJTjN2 .. by three fiscal policy experts, however, shows that if simplification is coupled with a deep cut in rates, as Romney has proposed, lower-and middle-income Americans would have to pay more in taxes just to keep the same amount of revenue flowing into the Treasury. That's because the necessary reduction in exemptions, deductions and credits would more than offset the savings from the lower rates.
There are compelling reasons to simplify the tax code, such as reducing tax-avoidance trickery and lowering compliance costs. On the other hand, the complexity stems in part from tax breaks that are widely enjoyed, including the deduction for mortgage interest and the exemption for employee health benefits. And despite the broad support for simplification, the parties are sharply split over whether Congress should use the proceeds to reduce the deficit or lower tax rates.
Romney has proposed .. http://lat.ms/IHleJU .. to reduce rates by 20%, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, end the estate tax and give lower- and middle-income families a larger tax break for investment income. He's also said, however, that his tax plan would not increase the deficit. So to offset the cost of the tax cuts, he has proposed to curtail unspecified tax breaks for individuals.
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS: Presidential Election 2012
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/campaign2012/
The study by the Tax Policy Center .. http://lat.ms/NbxR0f .. — a joint effort by the centrist Brookings Institution and the liberal Urban Institute think tanks — estimates that individual tax exemptions, deductions and credits would have to be reduced by as much as two-thirds to cover the $360-billion annual cost of Romney's tax cuts. Because those breaks are significantly more valuable to low-and middle-income families than Romney's proposed tax cuts would be, the authors conclude, the Romney plan's benefits would accrue mainly to the wealthy, and its costs to everybody else.
The Romney campaign .. http://lat.ms/OJUufJ .. and the right-of-center Tax Foundation argue that the new study underestimates the economic growth that would be spurred by Romney's plan to lower individual and corporate tax rates and cut federal spending. That growth would help pay for the tax cuts, allowing lawmakers to keep a larger percentage of the individual tax breaks while still bringing in the same amount of revenue. But even the Tax Foundation acknowledged that Romney's approach would make the tax code less progressive, shifting some of the burden from the wealthy onto low- and middle-income taxpayers. If nothing else, the Tax Policy Center study should make lawmakers more conscious of the potential winners and losers in tax simplification as they debate changes in the tax code over the coming months. And in the meantime, Romney should reveal more details of his tax plan so that voters of more modest means can see what they stand to lose.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/02/opinion/la-ed-taxes-simplification-romney-20120802
Who is fighting for middle class tax cuts?
President Obama vs. Mitt Romney .. [Barack Obama tax-calculator]
Enter your Annual Family Income - Select your Filing Status
- Single - Married - Select number of Dependents ---- 0 - 1 - 2 - 3+
The Typical American Family with Children
Under President Obama saved $3,600 over the last 4 years
Under the President’s plan will continue to save $2,200 next year
Under Romney would pay over $2,000 more
× Under the Obama Administration
You saved $0 from the Making Work Pay Credit and will save $0 from the payroll tax cut by the end of 2012
President Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit provides up to $10,000 for four years of college expenses
President Obama expanded the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income
Tax Credit for nearly 16 million working families with 29 million children
President Obama signed 18 tax cuts for small businesses into law, as well as tax cuts for first-time
homebuyers, energy-efficient cars, college expenses, and more for middle-class families
× The Obama Plan
President Obama’s plan to extend tax cuts for the middle class would prevent you from facing a $0 tax increase next year. The President would:
Extend middle-class tax cuts to prevent a tax increase on 98% of American families who earn less than $250,000 a year, saving a typical middle-class family of four $2,200 a year
End tax cuts that benefit only high-income taxpayers and ask the wealthy to pay their fair
share, in order to reduce the deficit and make investments to strengthen the middle class
Make the American Opportunity Tax Credit permanent, preventing
a tax increase on more than 9 million families paying for college
Additional tax cuts for small businesses to create new jobs and grow
× What Romney Would Do
Make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and add another tax cut skewed towards the wealthy on top of it
Either explode the deficit by $5 trillion or raise taxes on the middle class by
reducing tax deductions and exemptions that middle class families depend on
End President Obama’s tax cuts for college and for working families with kids
Take us back to the same top-down economics that failed the middle
class and led us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression
How the Calculator Works
Because the tax code is complex, the calculator makes a number of simplifying assumptions that may differ from the circumstances of any particular user. It assumes all income is from wages. For married filers, it assumes that income is split evenly between two earners. It assumes that income does not vary over the years analyzed. It assumes that taxpayers claim the standard deduction for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the expiration of the middle class tax cuts. The impact of Mitt Romney’s tax plan is based on an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which determines the tax increase or tax cut the average family in each income group would face if Romney paid for his $5 trillion tax plan by cutting tax benefits. The analysis assumes that Romney eliminates all tax benefits, except those for savings and investment, for households earning over $200,000, and reduces those benefits for households earning under $200,000 to cover the rest of the cost – resulting in a reduction by more than half. The Tax Policy Center uses income thresholds based on “cash income”, a measure broader than AGI commonly used by TPC. The calculator is intended for information purposes only.
See the full report at the TaxPolicyCenter.org
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf
Paid for by Obama for America © 2011–2012 Obama for America. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator
Qualification: much of the material above was not visible before
copying, it came as a surprise so not 100% i didn't omit anything.
Romney Tax Plan on Table. Debt Collapses Table.
By Ezra Klein Aug 2, 2012 10:10 AM MT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table-.html
I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible.
Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election.
If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of purpose from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for the economy: “I believe the American people are ready for real leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have one -- and I’m not afraid to put it on the table.”
The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He has promised to reduce the deficit, but refused to identify the spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate. The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent.
The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table.
Favorable ConditionsTo help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
The Romney campaign offered two responses to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis, one more misleading than the other.
First, the campaign called the analysis “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That jab refers to Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who served in a staff role on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama. But the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was one of the principals on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased simply isn’t credible -- a point underscored by the fact that the Romney campaign referred to the group’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary campaign.
Then the Romney campaign said, “The study ignores the positive benefits to economic growth from both the corporate tax plan and the deficit reduction called for in the Romney plan.” There’s a reason the study ignores those “positive benefits”: Romney has called for a revenue-neutral corporate tax plan that brings the rate down from 35 percent to 25 percent while also promising to balance the budget. He has not said how he will achieve either goal. Until he does, those positive benefits -- if they exist -- are impossible to calculate.
Regressive CutsIf Romney tries to pay for his tax cuts by reducing spending, the results, as the Tax Policy Center notes, would be even more regressive. Romney has promised to increase defense spending and hold benefits steady for the current generation of seniors. The only remaining big spending programs are those that help the poor; that’s where Romney’s cuts would have to be concentrated. Paying for tax cuts for the rich by curtailing programs for the poor is even more of a reverse-Robin Hood act than paying for tax cuts for the rich by cutting the tax expenditures (deductions and the like) of the middle class.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities produced its own analysis of Romney’s plan, based on an assumption that Romney pays for half of his tax cuts through spending cuts. The conclusion: By 2022, Romney would need to cut all non-defense, non-Social Security programs by 49 percent. That is not plausible, to say the least.
The Romney campaign has not provided good answers to the questions raised by its own math. But we already knew the Romney campaign didn’t have good answers. If Romney had good answers, he would have made good on his rhetoric and put his plans on the table.
It would be great if Romney could fulfill his promise to cut taxes by trillions of dollars, increase defense spending, keep entitlement spending on pretty much its current path for the next decade, and balance the budget. But as Tyler Cowen, the George Mason University economist, put it in a pithy tweet (though perhaps “pithy tweet” is a tautology), “The proposed Romney fiscal policy just doesn’t make any sense.”
This is not a surprise. Even some Republican policy experts admit in private that Romney’s promises simply don’t add up. To twist Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation, the Romney campaign has decided it’s better to remain silent and be thought evasive than to reveal your plan and remove all doubt that you’re cutting taxes on the rich while increasing the deficit, raising taxes on the middle class and cutting programs for the poor.
Unfortunately for the Romney campaign, the Tax Policy Center’s analysis has removed all doubt. Romney needs to come up with a way to make his promises mathematically possible -- and quick.
(Ezra Klein is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Romney Tax Plan on Table. Debt Collapses Table.
By Ezra Klein Aug 2, 2012 10:10 AM MT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table-.html
I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible.
Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election.
If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of purpose from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for the economy: “I believe the American people are ready for real leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have one -- and I’m not afraid to put it on the table.”
The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He has promised to reduce the deficit, but refused to identify the spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate. The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent.
The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table.
Favorable ConditionsTo help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
The Romney campaign offered two responses to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis, one more misleading than the other.
First, the campaign called the analysis “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That jab refers to Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who served in a staff role on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama. But the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was one of the principals on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased simply isn’t credible -- a point underscored by the fact that the Romney campaign referred to the group’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary campaign.
Then the Romney campaign said, “The study ignores the positive benefits to economic growth from both the corporate tax plan and the deficit reduction called for in the Romney plan.” There’s a reason the study ignores those “positive benefits”: Romney has called for a revenue-neutral corporate tax plan that brings the rate down from 35 percent to 25 percent while also promising to balance the budget. He has not said how he will achieve either goal. Until he does, those positive benefits -- if they exist -- are impossible to calculate.
Regressive CutsIf Romney tries to pay for his tax cuts by reducing spending, the results, as the Tax Policy Center notes, would be even more regressive. Romney has promised to increase defense spending and hold benefits steady for the current generation of seniors. The only remaining big spending programs are those that help the poor; that’s where Romney’s cuts would have to be concentrated. Paying for tax cuts for the rich by curtailing programs for the poor is even more of a reverse-Robin Hood act than paying for tax cuts for the rich by cutting the tax expenditures (deductions and the like) of the middle class.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities produced its own analysis of Romney’s plan, based on an assumption that Romney pays for half of his tax cuts through spending cuts. The conclusion: By 2022, Romney would need to cut all non-defense, non-Social Security programs by 49 percent. That is not plausible, to say the least.
The Romney campaign has not provided good answers to the questions raised by its own math. But we already knew the Romney campaign didn’t have good answers. If Romney had good answers, he would have made good on his rhetoric and put his plans on the table.
It would be great if Romney could fulfill his promise to cut taxes by trillions of dollars, increase defense spending, keep entitlement spending on pretty much its current path for the next decade, and balance the budget. But as Tyler Cowen, the George Mason University economist, put it in a pithy tweet (though perhaps “pithy tweet” is a tautology), “The proposed Romney fiscal policy just doesn’t make any sense.”
This is not a surprise. Even some Republican policy experts admit in private that Romney’s promises simply don’t add up. To twist Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation, the Romney campaign has decided it’s better to remain silent and be thought evasive than to reveal your plan and remove all doubt that you’re cutting taxes on the rich while increasing the deficit, raising taxes on the middle class and cutting programs for the poor.
Unfortunately for the Romney campaign, the Tax Policy Center’s analysis has removed all doubt. Romney needs to come up with a way to make his promises mathematically possible -- and quick.
(Ezra Klein is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
EXCLUSIVE: Romney Invested Millions in Chinese Firm That Profited on US Outsourcing
The GOP candidate decries China poaching US jobs. But at Bain he held a large stake in a Chinese company that did just that.
ompany that did just that.
—By David Corn | Wed Jul. 11, 2012 8:10 PM PDT
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/bain-capital-mitt-romney-outsourcing-china-global-tech
Last month, Mitt Romney's campaign got into a dustup with the Washington Post after the newspaper reported that Bain Capital, the private equity firm the GOP presidential candidate founded, invested in several US companies that outsourced jobs to China and India. The campaign indignantly demanded a retraction, claiming that these businesses did not send jobs overseas while Romney was running Bain, and the Post stood by its investigation. Yet there is another aspect to the Romney-as-outsourcer controversy. According to government documents reviewed by Mother Jones, Romney, when he was in charge of Bain, invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.
This previously unreported deal runs counter to Romney's tough talk on the campaign trail regarding China. "We will not let China continue to steal jobs from the United States of America," Romney declared in February. But with this investment, Romney sought to make money off a foreign company that banked on American firms outsourcing manufacturing overseas.
On April 17, 1998, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain Capital affiliate, filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission noting that it had acquired 6.13 percent of Hong Kong-based Global-Tech Appliances, which manufactured household appliances in a production facility in the industrial city of Dongguan, China. That August, according to another SEC filing, Brookside upped its interest in Global-Tech to 10.3 percent. Both SEC filings identified Romney as the person in control of this investment: "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, President and Chief Executive Officer of Brookside Inc. and thus is the controlling person of Brookside Inc." Each of these documents was signed by Domenic Ferrante, a managing director of Brookside and Bain.
The SEC filings do not reveal how much Romney initially invested in Global-Tech (which is now known as Global-Tech Advanced Innovations). But Brookside first acquired 748,000 shares at a time when Global-Tech was mounting an IPO at $19 a share. If that was the purchase price Brookside paid, then Romney's firm originally invested $14.2 million in the company.
At the time Romney was acquiring shares in Global-Tech, the firm publicly acknowledged that its strategy was to profit from prominent US companies outsourcing production abroad. On September 4, 1998, Global-Tech issued a press release announcing it was postponing completion of a $30 million expansion of its Dongguan facility because Sunbeam, a prominent American consumer products company and a major client of Global-Tech, was cutting back on outsourcing as part of an overall consolidation. But John C.K. Sham, Global-Tech's president and CEO, said, "Although it appears that customers such as Sunbeam are not outsourcing their manufacturing as quickly as we had anticipated, we still believe that the long-term trend toward outsourcing will continue." Global-Tech, which in mid-1998 announced fiscal year sales of $118.3 million (an increase of 89 percent over the previous year), also manufactured household appliances for Hamilton Beach, Mr. Coffee, Proctor-Silex, Revlon, and Vidal Sassoon, and its chief exec was hoping for more outsourcing from these and other American firms.
The Romney campaign and Bain Capital have insisted that Romney departed Bain in February 1999 to head the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and had no involvement in the private equity firm's deals after that point—a contention that has been challenged by the Obama campaign. But the Global-Tech Appliances transactions occurred long before Romney jetted off to Utah.
At the time Romney was acquiring shares in Global-Tech, the firm publicly acknowledged that its strategy was to profit from prominent US companies outsourcing production abroad.
Brookside downsized its Global-Tech holdings later in 1998. An SEC filing submitted on December 21, 1998, reported that the Bain affiliate now controlled only 4.63 percent of the company's shares. But Brookside was sharing its stake in Global-Tech with Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors LTD—a Bermuda-based corporation of which Romney was the "the sole shareholder, a director, and President." That is, Romney had split his Global-Tech holdings between two of his various business entities. (The SEC filing doesn't indicate why he did that.)
Sankaty is a story in itself. It was recently the focus of an Associated Press investigation that reported that Sankaty "is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed" and that there is a "mystery surrounding" Sankaty. Reporting on this Romney entity, Vanity Fair noted that "investments in tax havens such as Bermuda raise many questions, because they are in 'jurisdictions where there is virtually no tax and virtually no compliance,' as one Miami-based offshore lawyer put it." With Sankaty, Romney was using a mysterious Bermuda-based entity to invest in a Chinese firm that thrived on US outsourcing.
In early 1999, Romney's investment in Global-Tech expanded again. An SEC report filed on March 25, 1999, stated that Brookside and Sankaty at this stage owned 9.11 percent of the firm's stock. Romney was still listed as the sole shareholder and president of both Brookside and Sankaty.
By this point, according to the open-to-question account offered by Bain and the Romney campaign, Romney no longer had any involvement in Bain deals. But the series of SEC filings show active Brookside and Sankaty trading in Global-Tech Appliances while Romney fully controlled these firms. The two Romney companies repeatedly changed their ownership stake in this Chinese firm, which was not shy about its dependence on outsourcing. In its 2001 annual report, Global-Tech noted that US outsourcing was essential to its prospects: "Household appliance companies are focusing on their primary strengths of marketing and distribution, while increasingly outsourcing product development and manufacturing…Our ability and commitment to develop new and innovative, high quality products at a low cost has allowed us to benefit from the increased outsourcing of product development and manufacturing by our customers."
In August 2000, Brookside and Sankaty sold their interest in Global-Tech, according to the SEC documents. With these filings disclosing minimum details about Romney's investment in Global-Tech, there is no telling how much money he made—or lost—on the deal.
A spokeswoman for Bain says that the company will not comment on the Global-Tech investment or provide any additional details about this deal. A Romney campaign official would not address the issue of Global-Tech profiting from US outsourcing, but this Romney aide maintains that this deal was nothing other than a routine investment in a foreign company: "t's my understanding that while Brookside is a part of Bain Capital, it is not a private equity vehicle. Brookside makes passive investments in public stock. They don't control or manage the companies they invest in. Brookside had a small ownership stake (9.11%) in Global-Tech…while Romney was there. If owning shares in a foreign company is somehow wrong, President Obama is guilty as well." (The Romney campaign points out that Obama's personal holdings include an investment in a Vanguard 500 Index retirement fund that contains shares in a handful of foreign companies.)
In recent weeks, Romney's involvement in outsourcing has become a contentious campaign issue. Late last month, the Obama campaign launched ads that accused Romney of being a "corporate raider" who "shipped jobs to China and Mexico" and slammed him as an "outsourcer in chief." The Romneyites cried foul, pointing to neutral fact-checkers who criticized the ads, and asserted that Obama was trying to distract from bad economic news. And the Romney campaign, pushing back on the Post story, maintained that the newspaper missed the difference between outsourcing and offshoring. This week, Romney declared that Obama was the real "outsourcer-in-chief," insisting that the president funded "energy companies, solar and wind energy companies that end up making their products outside the United States." (TheNew York Times immediately debunked much of Romney's attack, and the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column awarded four Pinocchios to an Americans for Prosperity ad that in April made a similar claim about Obama and green-jobs outsourcing.)
Romney's Global-Tech deal adds a new dimension to the debate over Romney and outsourcing. Whether or not he was at the helm when Bain invested in US firms that did or did not ship jobs overseas, Romney was in command when a company he owned and controlled bought a large stake in a Chinese venture that counted on American companies sending manufacturing—and that means jobs—to China. These days, Romney rails against China for swiping American jobs and proclaims, "For me, it's all about good jobs for the American people." But when there was money to be made by acquiring a chunk of a Chinese company that aimed to displace American manufacturers (and American workers), Romney's patriotism did not interfere with the potential for profit.
Research assistance: James Carter
Taliban or Republican?
http://talibanorrepublican.com
Do right wing teabaggers go to a certain school to learn to lie like that or does it come naturally?
Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?
Be it ideology or stratagem, the GOP has blocked pro-growth policy and backed job-killing austerity – all while blaming Obama
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy?cat=commentisfree&type=article
Michael Cohen
guardian.co.uk, Sat 9 Jun 2012 14.00 BST
So why does the US economy stink?
Why has job creation in America slowed to a crawl? Why, after several months of economic hope, are things suddenly turning sour? The culprits might seem obvious – uncertainty in Europe, an uneven economic recovery, fiscal and monetary policymakers immobilized and incapable of acting. But increasingly, Democrats are making the argument that the real culprit for the country's economic woes lies in a more discrete location: with the Republican Party.
In recent days, Democrats have started coming out and saying publicly what many have been mumbling privately for years – Republicans are so intent on defeating President Obama for re-election that they are purposely sabotaging the country's economic recovery. These charges are now being levied by Democrats such as Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Obama's key political adviser, David Axelrod.
For Democrats, perhaps the most obvious piece of evidence of GOP premeditated malice is the 2010 quote from Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Such words lead some to the conclusion that Republicans will do anything, including short-circuiting the economy, in order to hurt Obama politically. Considering that presidents – and rarely opposition parties – are held electorally responsible for economic calamity, it's not a bad political strategy.
Then again, it's a hard accusation to prove: after all, one person's economic sabotage is another person's principled anti-government conservatism.
Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.
Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.
And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.
Still, one can certainly argue – and Republicans do – that these steps are all reflective of conservative ideology. If you view government as a fundamentally bad actor, then stopping government expansion is, on some level, consistent.
So, let's put aside the conspiracy theories for a moment, and look more closely at how the country is faring under the GOP's economic leadership.
As Paul Krugman wrote earlier this week, in the New York Times, while a Democrat rests his head each night in the White House, the United States is currently operating with a Republican economy.
After winning the House of Representatives in 2010, the GOP brokered a deal to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, which has reduced the tax burden as a percentage of GDP to its lowest point since Harry Truman sat in the White House. At the insistence of the White House, Congress also agreed to extend unemployment benefits and enact a payroll tax cut – measures that provided a small but important stimulus to the economy, but above all, maintained the key GOP position that taxes must never go up.
But as Congress giveth, Congress also taketh. The GOP's zealotry on tax cuts is only matched by its zealotry in pursuing austerity policies. In the spring of 2011, federal spending cuts forced by Republican legislators took much-needed money out of the economy: combined with the 2012 budget, it has largely counteracted the positive benefits provided by the 2009 stimulus.
Subsequently, the GOP's refusal to countenance legislation that would help states with their own fiscal crises (largely, the result of declining tax revenue) has led to massive public sector layoffs at the state and local level. In fact, since Obama took office, state and local governments have shed 611,000 jobs; and by some measures, if not for these jobs, cuts the unemployment rate today would be closer to 7%, not its current 8.2%. In 2010 and 2011, 457,00 public sector jobs were excised; not coincidentally, at the same time, much of the federal stimulus aid from 2009 ran out. And Republicans took over control of Congress.
These cuts have a larger societal impact. When teachers are laid off, for example (and nearly 200,000 have lost their jobs), it means larger class sizes, other teachers being overworked and after-school classes being cancelled. So, ironically, a policy that is intended to save "our children and grandchildren" from "crushing debt" is leaving them worse-prepared for the actual economic and social challenges they will face in the future. In addition, with states operating under tighter fiscal budgets – and getting no hope relief from Washington – it means less money for essential government services, like help for the elderly, the poor and the disabled.
This is the most obvious example of how austerity policies are not only harming America's present, but also imperilling its future.
And these spending cuts on the state and local level are matched by a complete lack of fiscal expansion on the federal level. In fact, fiscal policy is now a drag on the recovery, which is the exact opposite of how it should work, given a sluggish economy.
This collection of more-harm-than-good policies must also include last summer's debt limit debacle, which House speaker John Boehner has threatened to renew this year. This was yet another GOP initiative that undermined the economic recovery. According to economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, "over the entire episode, confidence declined more than it did following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc in 2008." Only after the crisis did the consumer confidence stabilize, but employers "held back on hiring, sapping momentum from a recovery that remains far too fragile." In addition, the debt limit deal also forced more unhelpful spending cuts on the country.
Since that national embarrassment, Republicans have refused to even allow votes on President Obama's jobs bill in the Senate; they dragged their feet on the aforementioned payroll tax and even now are holding up a transportation bill with poison-pill demands for the White House on environmental regulation.
Yet, with all these tales of economic ineptitude emanating from the GOP, it is Obama who is bearing most of the blame for the country's continued poor economic performance.
Whether you believe the Republicans are engaging in purposely destructive fiscal behavior or are simply fiscally incompetent, it almost doesn't matter. It most certainly is bad economic policy and that should be part of any national debate not only on who is to blame for the current economic mess, but also what steps should be taken to get out from underneath it.
But don't hold your breath on that happening. Presidents get blamed for a bad economy; and certainly, Republicans are unlikely to take responsibility for the country's economic woes. The obligation will be on Obama to make the case that it is the Republicans, not he, who is to blame – a difficult, but not impossible task.
In the end, that might be the worst part of all – one of two major political parties in America is engaging in scorched-earth economic policies that are undercutting the economic recovery, possibly on purpose, and is forcing job-killing austerity measures on the states. And they have paid absolutely no political price for doing so. If anything, it won them control of the House in 2010, and has kept win Obama's approval ratings in the political danger zone. It might even help them get control of the White House.
Sabotage or not, it's hard to argue with "success" – and it's hard to imagine we've seen the last of it, whoever wins in November.
Denial in not a river in Egypt... Fact: austerity has led to a huge increase in unemployment and decrease in tax revenues which has led to more austerity, more unemployment, more decrease in tax revenues which has led to more austerity, more unemployment, more decrease in tax revenues which has led to more austerity, more unemployment, more decrease in tax revenues which has led to more austerity, more unemployment, more decrease in tax revenues.... in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy...
Austerity is a DEATH spiral....
Europe was doing just fine till the real estate bubble burst just like the U.S.. The difference was that Europe chose austerity while the U.S. a more balanced approach with growth the main driver. And now look at the results. Austerity is a death spiral.
These are all western european countries, not communists.