Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Economy?

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

source: NPR

GOP To Make 31st Attempt To Repeal Obamacare Act


The House Rules Committee takes up a bill Monday called the "Repeal of Obamacare Act." And just like it says, the bill would wipe away the president's Affordable Care Act. A vote of the full House is planned for Wednesday.

It's the first legislative response from House Republicans after the Supreme Court upheld the law. But it is far from the first time the GOP has voted for repeal.

Over the past 18 months, the House has taken 30 floor votes to try to repeal, defund or dismantle the health care law. The first attempt came on Jan. 19, 2011 just two weeks after the GOP took control of the House.

On that day, Rep. Mike Pence,R-Ind., had this to say, "And today, House Republicans are going to stand with the American people and vote to repeal their government takeover of health care lock stock and barrel."

And that's exactly what House Republicans did, all 242 of them. They were joined by just three Democrats. But the measure languished in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

"Even in some bizarre universe where the Senate passed it, President Obama wouldn't sign it into law," says Sara Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert in legislative gridlock.

But the House's efforts haven't been necessarily pointless. Binder says votes like the one planned for later this week are all about scoring political points.

"Much of what we see during split party control of Congress, is this message politics, which is the parties taking their chamber and using it to pursue a policy agenda that appeals to their party base," Binder says.

"I think we can agree that this is a vote that the American public has called for and a vote that we owe the American public," said Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., speaking in favor of his effort back in April of 2011 to pull funding from the health care law.

It passed the House on an almost purely partisan vote with criticism from Democrats like Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, "Mr. Speaker instead of working to create jobs, reduce the deficit and do the business of the American people, this majority has been consumed for months now with trying to repeal health care reform."

The measure failed in the Senate. Defunding and repeal efforts large and small have been tucked into everything from defense appropriations to student loans. A handful of smaller items have made it all the way through to a presidential signature. But most have failed or stalled in the Senate.

So, why try again? Why a 31st vote for repeal?

"We want to show people we are resolved to get rid of this," said House Speaker John Boehner, who appeared on CBS's Face the Nation on July 1.

Boehner said the law needs to be ripped out by its roots, and then replaced.

"And while the court upheld it as constitutional," Boehner added, "they certainly didn't say it was a good law."

The only real chance for Boehner and his Republican colleagues to get their way lies with the November election, and possibly an arcane budget procedure known as reconciliation.

For that to work, Mitt Romney would have to win the presidency, Republicans would have to maintain control of the House and win the Senate. When it comes to the Senate, it's virtually impossible for Republicans to get the 60 vote majority needed to overcome a filibuster. And that's where reconciliation comes in. Certain budget bills can go around the filibuster and only need 51 votes to pass.

But Sarah Binder at Brookings says the process would be procedurally challenging.

"It's complicated for Republicans to achieve this, but there is a vehicle if they can carefully calibrate their bill," she says.

That's a whole lot of ifs. And there are questions about if even that could repeal the whole law.

One thing that's not in question, though, is the outcome of Wednesday's expected vote on the Repeal Obamacare Act. Like so many similar efforts in the past, it will pass the House, with overwhelming Republican support.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

source: Los Angeles Times

Republicans shelve Obama's proposed Veterans Jobs Corps


WASHINGTON -- President Obama’s proposal to create a Veterans Jobs Corps to stem high unemployment among recent military veterans was shelved Wednesday after Republicans in the Senate balked over the five-year $1-billion cost, giving both sides fresh ammunition for the November election.

The measure had been on Obama’s to-do list for Congress, a modest set of initiatives aimed at boosting the nation’s sluggish economy that Republicans have largely rejected. The jobs bill would have hired veterans who served in the military since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to work on federal public lands projects and would have established a network of job training centers.

The jobless rate among those veterans was 10.9% in August, compared with a rate of 8.1 % in the broader population.

Republicans objected to the projected price tag of the jobs bill as well as the administration’s plan to pay for it by imposing penalties on Medicare providers and suppliers who are delinquent on taxes, and by collecting back taxes from others.

“No veteran who fought for our nation should have to fight for a job at home, but Republicans in Washington are blocking a common sense plan to create the Veterans Jobs Corps and put tens of thousands of veterans back to work,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

The proposal was among a series of Democratic and Republican measures in both the House and Senate this week that are expected to gain little traction as Congress wraps up its work so members can campaign full time for the November election.

In the House, Republicans are working on legislation that would roll back federal regulations on coal mining and amend the administration’s new welfare-to-work requirements. Both measures are expected to stall in the Senate.

Control of Congress will be determined by the elections this fall, and Republicans are trying to preserve their majority in the House, where Democrats hope to flip 25 seats to tilt the balance, while Democrats are struggling to keep their narrow control of the Senate.

One bill likely to clear both chambers before Congress adjourns is a measure to keep the government funded into next year, averting the threat of a government shutdown on Oct. 1, the start of the next fiscal year.

The Senate advanced the funding bill on Wednesday and is likely to send it to the White House for Obama’s signature later this week. The House already approved the measure.

One possible snag is an effort by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to withhold foreign aid to Libya, Egypt and Pakistan. Paul has vowed to stage a filibuster to block the funding bill unless his proposal is brought for a Senate vote.

The Kentucky senator is pushing for Libya to deliver to U.S. authorities suspects from last week’s deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and for Egypt to vow to protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. He also wants to make aid to Pakistan contingent on the government’s release from prison of a medical doctor who sought to help the CIA track Osama bin Laden before the terrorist leader was killed last year.

The Veterans Jobs Corps measure needed 60 votes to overcome the budgetary hurdle but was turned back, 58 to 40.

“It doesn’t have to end this way,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) as the Senate prepared to vote. “We owe [vets] more than bumper stickers and platitudes. We owe them more than procedural roadblocks.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the chamber’s top budget hawks, said job training programs already exist for veterans with “no oversight. Nobody knows if they work.” He added, “The real question is how do you help them the best?”

Five Republicans joined Democrats in trying to advance the veterans jobs bill, including Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada. Both Republicans are in tough reelection battles
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

Reposted:


<EMBED height=324 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=576 src=http://d.yimg.com/nl/techticker/site/player.swf flashvars="browseCarouselUI=show&vid=30791433&" allowFullScreen="true"></EMBED>


4-11-11-Bloomberg-Logo.gif


"RepubliKlan" Conspiracy Theory on Jobs Data
Not Tied to Reality

i2M.9MixSLMg.jpg


Jack Welch former General Electric CEO bizarrely says that Obama's Chicago guys somehow rigged the job numbers


By Hans Nichols and Lorraine Woellert | Oct 5, 2012

A good conspiracy theory is irrefutable. A bad one usually collapses when confronted by reality.

The claim by some supporters of Republican challenger Mitt Romney that President Barack Obama’s Chicago-based campaign doctored September’s unemployment figures for political gain fall into the second category, according to members of both parties who have served in the government’s economic data system.

Jack Welch, the former chief executive officer of General Electric Co. (GE), touched off an Internet-based frenzy yesterday when he suggested on Twitter that Obama’s team lowered the country’s unemployment rate to 7.8 percent to give the president a boost. “Unbelievable jobs numbers. . . these Chicago guys will do anything. . . can’t debate so change numbers,” he wrote.

The charge then was picked up by Arizona Senator John McCain and Florida Representative Allen West, both Republicans.

Welch’s message was re-sent via Twitter 3,832 times, meaning each of those people re-broadcasted it to their groups of followers, in the first 10 hours. Rebuttals posted by journalists on Twitter, including Keith Olbermann and Politico’s Roger Simon, were re-tweeted at least 300 times combined. Representative West’s message of support was re-tweeted 592 times.
‘Too Important’

During a television interview last night, when CNBC host Larry Kudlow said it was unrealistic to allege the White House tampered with the data, Welch tempered his words.

“Let’s hope that’s totally correct, Larry,” Welch said. Still, he said, “This election is too important for one number that might be corrected next month to determine the election. I want to see a real debate about this number.”

Economists, including one who worked for McCain, dismissed the very suggestion that U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics would, or even could, manipulate the data.

The people who compile the numbers “are professionals” and “do this as a career,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush and the policy director for McCain’s 2008 campaign. “I have a lot of respect for them.”
‘Weird Number’

“I’ve never been one of those who felt that the numbers get doctored,” said Holtz-Eakin. “Like any other enterprise, every now and then you just get a weird number and this one makes no sense.”

Welch, 76, had quickly concluded the opposite.

Five minutes after the U.S. Labor Department reported at 8:30 a.m. that the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, Welch pushed the button on his Twitter message. He took aim at the figures that may matter most before Election Day on Nov. 6; the October report due on Nov. 2 may be too late to change voters’ perceptions about the economy.

The Obama administration called the allegation baseless and defended BLS, which computes the figures. Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told Bloomberg Television that Welch’s remark was “irresponsible.”

“No serious person would question the integrity of the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” Krueger said in the interview. “These numbers are put together by career employees.”

Romney campaign aides said they weren’t disputing the data, keeping their focus on criticism of Obama’s record.
‘Anemic Trend’

“We’re going to address the numbers as they’ve been released,” Romney’s policy director, Lanhee Chen, said on Fox Business. “What you see, as you’ve said on the show, is an anemic trend. This is not a real recovery.”

Gary Sheffer, vice president of communications and public affairs at GE, declined to comment.

Each month, federal agencies, staffed by career civil servants, compile the raw data that eventually become two jobs- day numbers: the unemployment rate and the total number of jobs added to the economy.

It begins on the Sunday of the week that has the 19th in it, with 2,000 Census Bureau workers knocking on 60,000 doors, asking residents if they were employed, or if they were seeking employment, in the last week, said Nancy Potok, the bureau’s associate director, in an interview on July 30.

The bureau has 20 days to complete the survey and send it to the BLS, which then has two or three days to provide the numbers to the Council of Economic Advisers, said Gary Steinberg, a BLS spokesman, in an Aug. 1 interview. Before transmitting the numbers to the CEA, the Census Bureau weights the data to adjust for non-answers and unresponsive households.
Work-Site Questionnaires

At the same time, the BLS is conducting the so-called establishment survey, by sending and receiving questionnaires to 486,000 work sites. The main question that separate survey seeks to answer: how many jobs the work sites had on their payrolls on the 12th of the month.

On the Thursday afternoon before Labor Department’s Friday release of the numbers, the BLS transmits both data sets to the Council of Economic Advisers, over a secure system. It then becomes the CEA chairman’s responsibility to provide the president with the numbers. All the data is transmitted over secure systems and it is often walked to the West Wing by the CEA chairman, Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s previous CEA chairman said in a Sept. 5 interview.

Thirty years ago, few guidelines applied to the release of U.S. economic reports. In 1972, during President Richard Nixon’s term, Senator William Proxmire, a Democrat from Wisconsin and chairman of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, called the U.S. data unreliable. He decried “misleading economic indicators,” according to press reports at the time.
Release Manipulated

After an investigation, the committee concluded that the Nixon administration had manipulated the packaging and release of economic data, said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at Economic Outlook Group LLC in Princeton, New Jersey.

Since then, “controls have been increasingly made stricter,” he said.

“There’s no politics that goes into these numbers at all,” he said. “The way the U.S. collects economic statistics is viewed around the world as the gold standard.”

“For sure, some conspiracy theorist will contend that the BLS is cooking the data for political reasons. Such theories are absolutely garbage,” said Ray Stone, managing director of Stone & McCarthy Research Associates in Princeton, New Jersey, in a note to clients. “The BLS never lets politics enter the data.”

“The conspiracy theorists are assuming that the Obama administration would manipulate the data for political purposes,” said Keith Hennessey, Bush’s last director of the National Economic Council. “I assume that the new employment numbers, while a bit surprising, are real.”
Too Many People

“I don’t think they could manipulate it,” said Hennessey, who received the jobs reports on Thursday nights before their release when he was in government. “Too many people would have to be involved and they couldn’t coordinate that many people lying about the data.”

“It would be very difficult,” to manipulate numbers at the BLS, said Elaine Chao, U.S. Labor Secretary from 2001 to 2009.

Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies & Co. in New York, said that the drop in unemployment “stirred up the conspiracy-theory pots.”

While the numbers are unbelievable, “no, we do not think that there has been a Washington conspiracy to ‘cook the books’ as some have claimed,” McCarthy wrote in a note to clients. The numbers, rather, simply don’t reflect current economic conditions, he said.

When asked about Welch’s assertion on CNBC this afternoon, McCain, the Republican presidential nominee four years ago, said, he “wouldn’t put anything past this administration.”

He then added that he was “not enough of an economist” to interpret the jobs data.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print...-theory-on-jobs-data-not-tied-to-reality.html




<HR color=#ff0000 SIZE=8 noShade></HR>

gop-jobs-numbers-5.jpg
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

source: Think Progress


Conservatives Bash Christie For Cooperating With Obama Post-Sandy


As New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) joined President Obama today to survey the devastated shores of the New Jersey coastline, conservative commentators launched into political attacks, calling him “fat and a fool,” and claiming that the tour of the damage was a shared campaign event.


Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who normally reserves his derision for Democrats, went so far as to say of Christie: “He’s fat and a fool. Don’t listen to Governor Christie. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” But Limbaugh clinched the quote with his reasoning for being so vicious: “He makes fun of me all the time.”

A writer for the right-wing Daily Caller, Matt Lewis, hopped onto the anti-Christie bandwagon as well, in a post titled “What’s Chris Christie up to?” Lewis called Christie “a prop for Obama’s re-election” and speculated that there must be some kind of “Christie/Romney schism.”

The right wing fodder site Drudge Report also attacked Christie, though it took its usual, more inflammatory tone to do so:

drudge-christie-e1351718912821.png


No one can figure out exactly what is going through Christie’s head, but it’s certainly not impossible that the lifelong Jersey boy truly is concerned about his state first, and his party second. Giving warranted praise to a President who does his job well is not exactly treason to his party — especially since Christie was the Republican National Convention speaker, and many Republicans have expressed hope that he runs for national office in the future.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo







KAGf9.SlMa.91.jpeg






 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo


Racist Roots of GOP War on Obama


Right-wing Republicans in Congress are plotting to cripple the U.S. government if Barack Obama,
the first African-American president, doesn’t submit to their demands. The battle pretends to be over
the size of government but it echoes the whips, chains and epithets of America’s racist past.



<img src="http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/scan00012.jpg" width="150">
by Robert Parry | July 24, 2013 | http://consortiumnews.com/2013/07/24/racist-roots-of-gop-war-on-obama/

The United States finds itself at a crossroad, with a choice of moving toward a multicultural future behind a more activist federal government or veering down a well-worn path that has marked various tragic moments of American history when white racists have teamed up with “small government” extremists.

Despite losing Election 2012 – both in the presidential vote (by five million) and the overall tally for Congress (by one million) – the Republicans are determined to use their gerrymandered House “majority” and their filibuster-happy Senate minority to slash programs that are viewed as giving “stuff” (in Mitt Romney’s word) to poorer Americans and especially minorities.

Republicans are gearing up to force a series of fiscal crises this fall, threatening to shut down the federal government and even default on the national debt, if they don’t get their way. Besides sabotaging President Barack Obama’s health reform law, the Republicans want to devastate funding for food stamps, environmental advancements, transportation, education assistance and other domestic programs.

“These are tough bills,” Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Kentucky, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, told the New York Times. “His priorities are going nowhere.”

A key point is to slash help to what the Right sees as “undeserving” Americans, especially people of color. The ugly side of this crypto-racist behavior also surfaced in the gloating by right-wing pundits over the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the murder of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Fox News pundits, in particular, have mocked the outrage over the verdict from America’s black community and Obama’s personal expression of sympathy.

It is now clear that Obama’s election in 2008 was not the harbinger of a “post-racial” America, but rather the signal for white right-wingers to rally their forces to “take back America.” The fact that the modern Republican Party has become almost exclusively white and the nation’s minorities have turned more and more to the Democratic Party has untethered the GOP from any sense of racial tolerance.

<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW"><b>
There is now a white-supremacist nihilism emerging in the Republican strategy, a visceral contempt for even the idea of a multi-racial democracy that favors a more vigorous federal government. Some of these extremists seem to prefer sinking the world’s economy via a U.S. debt default than compromising with President Obama on his economic and social agenda.</b></span>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:YELLOW"><b>
Though the mainstream media avoids the white supremacist framing for the political story – preferring to discuss the upcoming clash as a philosophical dispute over big versus small government, — the reality is that the United States is lurching into a nasty struggle over the preservation of white political dominance. The size-of-government narrative is just a euphemistic way of avoiding the underlying issue of race, a dodge that is as old as the Republic.</b></span>



What I don't understand is how do so-called "Black Conservatives" defend this.

Do they simply deny that there is some kind of rising or emergent white-supremacist nihilism ???

How can they square these tactics with themselves ???

This is where I would really like to hear from some of those who call themselves "Black Conservatists" explain or dispute Robert Parry's opinions in the article above.

 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo





eKti4.SlMa.91.jpeg




 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

source: Robert Reich

Why Republicans Want Jobs to Stay Anemic

unemployment-benefits.jpeg1-620x412.jpg
In This Tuesday, April 27, 2010, photo, Job-seekers, including Sophonias Gizaw, center, of Seattle, wait in line to attend a job fair, in Tacoma, Wash.


Job-growth is sputtering. So why, exactly, do regressive Republicans continue to say
“no” to every idea for boosting it — even last week’s almost absurdly modest proposal by President Obama to combine corporate tax cuts with increased spending on roads and other public works?

It can’t be because Republicans don’t know what’s happening. The data are indisputable. July’s job growth of 162,000 jobs was the weakest in four months. The average workweek was the shortest in six months. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has also lowered its estimates of hiring during May and June. It can’t be Republicans really believe further spending cuts will help. They’ve seen the effects of austerity economics on Europe. They know the study they relied on by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff has been debunked. They’re no longer even trying to make the case for austerity.

It could be they just want to continue opposing anything Obama proposes, but that’s beginning to seem like a stretch. Republican leaders and aspiring 2016 presidential candidates are warning against being the “party of ‘no.’” Public support for the GOP continues to plummet.

The real answer, I think, is they and their patrons want unemployment to remain high and job-growth to sputter. Why? Three reasons:

First, high unemployment keeps wages down. Workers who are worried about losing their jobs settle for whatever they can get — which is why hourly earnings keep dropping. The median wage is now 4 percent lower than it was at the start of the recovery. Low wages help boost corporate profits, thereby keeping the regressives’ corporate sponsors happy.

Second, high unemployment fuels the bull market on Wall Street. That’s because the Fed is committed to buying long-term bonds as long as unemployment remains high. This keeps bond yields low and pushes investors into equities — which helps boosts executive pay and Wall Street commissions, thereby keeping regressives’ financial sponsors happy.

Third, high unemployment keeps most Americans economically fearful and financially insecure. This sets them up to believe regressive lies — that their biggest worry should be that “big government” will tax away the little they have and give it to “undeserving” minorities; that they should support low taxes on corporations and wealthy “job creators;” and that new immigrants threaten their jobs.

It’s important for Obama and the Democrats to recognize this cynical strategy for what it is, and help the rest of America to see it.

And to counter with three basic truths:

First, the real job creators are consumers, and if average people don’t have jobs or good wages this economy can’t have a vigorous recovery.

Second, the rich would do better with a smaller share of a rapidly-growing economy than their current big share of an economy that’s hardly moving.

Third, therefore everyone would benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy to finance public investments in roads, bridges, public transit, better schools, affordable higher education, and healthcare — all of which will help the middle class and the poor, and generate more and better jobs.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

source: Robert Reich

Why Republicans Want Jobs to Stay Anemic

unemployment-benefits.jpeg1-620x412.jpg
In This Tuesday, April 27, 2010, photo, Job-seekers, including Sophonias Gizaw, center, of Seattle, wait in line to attend a job fair, in Tacoma, Wash.


Job-growth is sputtering. So why, exactly, do regressive Republicans continue to say
“no” to every idea for boosting it — even last week’s almost absurdly modest proposal by President Obama to combine corporate tax cuts with increased spending on roads and other public works?

It can’t be because Republicans don’t know what’s happening. The data are indisputable. July’s job growth of 162,000 jobs was the weakest in four months. The average workweek was the shortest in six months. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has also lowered its estimates of hiring during May and June. It can’t be Republicans really believe further spending cuts will help. They’ve seen the effects of austerity economics on Europe. They know the study they relied on by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff has been debunked. They’re no longer even trying to make the case for austerity.

It could be they just want to continue opposing anything Obama proposes, but that’s beginning to seem like a stretch. Republican leaders and aspiring 2016 presidential candidates are warning against being the “party of ‘no.’” Public support for the GOP continues to plummet.

The real answer, I think, is they and their patrons want unemployment to remain high and job-growth to sputter. Why? Three reasons:

First, high unemployment keeps wages down. Workers who are worried about losing their jobs settle for whatever they can get — which is why hourly earnings keep dropping. The median wage is now 4 percent lower than it was at the start of the recovery. Low wages help boost corporate profits, thereby keeping the regressives’ corporate sponsors happy.

Second, high unemployment fuels the bull market on Wall Street. That’s because the Fed is committed to buying long-term bonds as long as unemployment remains high. This keeps bond yields low and pushes investors into equities — which helps boosts executive pay and Wall Street commissions, thereby keeping regressives’ financial sponsors happy.

Third, high unemployment keeps most Americans economically fearful and financially insecure. This sets them up to believe regressive lies — that their biggest worry should be that “big government” will tax away the little they have and give it to “undeserving” minorities; that they should support low taxes on corporations and wealthy “job creators;” and that new immigrants threaten their jobs.

It’s important for Obama and the Democrats to recognize this cynical strategy for what it is, and help the rest of America to see it.

And to counter with three basic truths:

First, the real job creators are consumers, and if average people don’t have jobs or good wages this economy can’t have a vigorous recovery.

Second, the rich would do better with a smaller share of a rapidly-growing economy than their current big share of an economy that’s hardly moving.

Third, therefore everyone would benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy to finance public investments in roads, bridges, public transit, better schools, affordable higher education, and healthcare — all of which will help the middle class and the poor, and generate more and better jobs.
Robert Reich doesn't keep up with the news. Year-to-date is the best jobs growth since 1999. He's obviously just fear mongering.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

Robert Reich doesn't keep up with the news. Year-to-date is the best jobs growth since 1999. He's obviously just fear mongering.

No thanks to the right.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

No thanks to the right.
How can that be true if jobs are growing at a faster pace than the Clinton-era split government?

Either they are helping more than your attention whoring is promoting, or Republicans aren't needed as much as your attention whoring is promoting, which also means it's been Obama's fault more that your attention whoring is promoting.

Am I missing a third option that justifies your attention whoring?
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

...or Republicans aren't needed as much as your attention whoring is promoting, which also means it's been Obama's fault more that your attention whoring is promoting.


1186960_10151617937311275_1254139482_n.jpg
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

Use your words thoughtone.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

Explain how this...

How can that be true if jobs are growing at a faster pace than the Clinton-era split government?

Either they are helping more than your attention whoring is promoting, or Republicans aren't needed as much as your attention whoring is promoting, which also means it's been Obama's fault more that your attention whoring is promoting.

Am I missing a third option that justifies your attention whoring?
Addresses this. Why is Obama wrong?
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

source: The Nation


Sabotaging Obamacare Is a Lucrative Endeavor for Some


ted_cruz_obamacare_ap_img.jpg

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, greets supporters after addressing thousands of tea party activists at the U.S. Capitol.

To gain steam for his initiative to tie funding of the government to defunding Obamacare, Senator Ted Cruz appeared at events over the summer with the Tea Party Express, a political action committee. “Either continue funding the government without giving one more dime to Obamacare, or shut down the government,” demands Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer.

The Tea Party Express, in turn, has sponsored fundraising drives to help “elect more leaders like Ted Cruz.”

One problem for Cruz-acolytes hoping to make their way into office? The Tea Party Express PAC has spent nearly every dollar of the $2.1 million it has raised this year on campaign consultants and fundraising fees, but not a dime in transfers to candidates or on independent expenditures. In previous years, the PAC has funneled much of its proceeds to Russo Marsh and Rogers, a Republican consulting firm in Sacramento, California.

The frantic crusade to screw up the launch of the Affordable Care Act is a sad tale in American politics. If conservatives are successful, even with a short-term government shutdown Cruz and his House GOP allies might achieve, patients will suffer. If young people fail to sign up for health insurance—the stated goal of one Koch-backed front group now airing television advertisements—more will drown under crushing debt if they find themselves in need of serious medical care. But Washington, DC, has a bizarre way of incentivizing harmful behavior, and the sabotage Obamacare campaign is not without its winners.

A set of campaign consultants and insurance agents stand to profit from confusing Americans on the eve of the healthcare reform enrollment date.

The conservative media frenzy over the defunding debate has invigorated donors to many PACs, not just Tea Party Express. The Senate Conservative Fund PAC recorded its largest-ever fundraising hauls last month, though it spends way more on candidates and on candidate ads than the Tea Party Express. Still, the Jim DeMint–linked PAC expended nearly half its coffers on administrative, research and fundraising payments this year. FreedomWorks, the RNC and the Club for Growth have hopped on the Cruz campaign to raise funds by advocating the repeal of Obamacare. For a non-federal election year, at least these PACs are doing well.

The rigid anti–healthcare reform politics of the Koch brothers is also having a stimulative effect upon a small circle of Republican consultants. Americans for Prosperity, the largest Koch-owned front, pays the traditional 15 percent commission rate on all their television buys—the latest round going to Target Enterprises, a Sherman Oaks, California-based GOP media company. And with a seemingly endless appetite for anti-Obamacare paid media and anti-Obamacare grassroots organizers, Koch makes good on its claim of being a stellar job-creator, at least for jobs in right-wing political advocacy.

The New York Times rightfully notes in an editorial that many other conservative advocacy groups, like the National Liberty Federation, have latched onto the Obamacare fight, viewing the healthcare reform debate as little more than opportunity to raise a few bucks.

The second and less noticed benefactor of some of the more malicious attacks upon healthcare reform are health insurance brokers. Health insurance brokers make a living by selling health insurance and collecting a commission for every person or group they enroll. With healthcare reform set to provide easy access to health insurance options, free of charge, many in the health insurance agent industry view the Obamacare rollout as a death sentence. In recent months, the broker industry has mobilized to erect obstacles for the dozens of community group “navigators,” organizations tapped to spread the word about how to enroll in the exchanges.

In Georgia, under influence from health insurance agent lobbyists, the state passed a law that prohibits navigators from providing advice “concerning the benefits, terms, and features of a particular health benefit plan.” Other states have thrown up licensing laws in an effort to curtail navigators from being able to do, well, anything.

The Center for Public Integrity’s Nicholas Kusnetz has done some of the most interesting investigative reporting on this side of the story, revealing that the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America and the National Association of Health Underwriters have orchestrated a multi-pronged attack on Affordable Care Act navigators. The industry, which has secured anti-navigator laws in sixteen states, has poured some $7.5 million into state campaigns since 2010.

While brokers claim they seek only to ensure patients are not scammed by “unlicensed” navigators, in reality, blocking competition seems to be the primary motivation. Last month, the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America released a statement endorsing an effort by Congresswoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA) to repeal all of the funding for the navigators programs. Notes from a lobbying association for insurance agents in California warned brokers before a visit to Sacramento: “If we don’t [lobby lawmakers] they will not think it will matter that much when they allow the unlicensed “navigators” to solicit your book of business!!”

Several community groups that had signed up to participate in the navigators program have now backed out, citing political pressure from Republican politicians. The House Oversight Committee, led by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Republican attorneys general have harassed several navigator groups with lengthy questionnaires and other demands.

Some anti–healthcare reform activists are truly motivated by their convictions. But others stand to gain financially from making sure their fellow Americans have problems signing up for health insurance.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo





pftcy.AuSt.91.jpg




 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

Republicans doing exactly what their constituency want them to do.

This is why Republicans need to not try to work with the democrats unless it's in their favor.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo


Rooting for Obama to fail
since before he was president



ap720925377001.jpg



It’s no secret that healthcare.gov does not work as well as President Obama and many of his allies wanted it too. He’s spoken about the issue many times, but as he pointed out over the weekend, even the law’s fiercest opponents–those who, in theory at least, never wanted the site to exist–seem to be upset about its dysfunction.

t’s interesting to see Republicans in Congress expressing so much concern that people are having trouble buying health insurance through the new website–especially considering they’ve spent the last few years so obsessed with denying those same people access to health insurance that they just shut down the government and threatened default over it,” he said during his weekly address this past Saturday.

“It’s well past the time for folks to stop rooting for its failure,” he added. “Because hardworking, middle-class families are rooting for its success.”


Rooting for failure has become pretty common from Republicans whenever an Obama-policy is in question.

We can trace the roots of rooting for failure back to Rush Limbaugh. He started calling for Obama’s failure before the 44th president had taken office.

“I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,’” he said on January 16, 2009.

Fellow conservative commentator George Will picked up on that point over the weekend, saying he hopes the Affordable Care Act fails because it means the president will fail.

“Of course I want Obamacare to fail, because if it doesn’t fail, it will just further entangle American society with a government that is not up to this,” he said on Fox News Sunday.​


Health reform is far from the only Obama policy that Republicans oppose in order to avoid helping the president. From gun control to immigration reform, this has become a well-worn strategy.

“In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized,” Sen. Pat Toomey told the Times Herald in May after the background checks bill failed. ”There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” .

Now Sen. Marco Rubio appears poised to make the same turn, telling House Republicans not to pass an immigration bill he co-wrote. Leaders from both parties have recognized that something needs to be done to help fix immigration, but now Rubio supports a piecemeal approach over a comprehensive plan he’d already signed off on.

Could this change of heart be driven by a desire keep Obama from logging the win? Obama talked about the need for such reform as recently as last week, calling for Congress to “get this done” in a “bipartisan fashion” last week.​

When Obama’s “Secretary of Explaining Stuff” weighed in on all this Monday, he helped explain who Republicans are really hurting when they try to hurt Obama: America.

“When President Bush passed the Medicare drug program for seniors, it wasn’t paid for and it was more unpopular than the health care bill was, and there were horrible computer problems when it was implemented,” former President Bill Clinton said Monday during a speech in Virginia.

But, as he pointed out, both parties figured out a way to make that law work for the good of the people.

“People that voted for it and against it said, ‘It’s the law of the land, let’s make the best of it,’” he said. “They weren’t rooting for America to fail.”




SOURCE



 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo

source: Politico

McConnell’s plan to shut down Obama

140819_mitch_mcconnell_gty_605.jpg



HENDERSON, Ky. — Mitch McConnell has a game plan to confront President Barack Obama with a stark choice next year: Accept bills reining in the administration’s policies or veto them and risk a government shutdown.

In an extensive interview here, the typically reserved McConnell laid out his clearest thinking yet of how he would lead the Senate if Republicans gain control of the chamber. The emerging strategy: Attach riders to spending bills that would limit Obama policies on everything from the environment to health care, consider using an arcane budget tactic to circumvent Democratic filibusters and force the president to “move to the center” if he wants to get any new legislation through Congress.

In short, it’s a recipe for a confrontational end to the Obama presidency.

“We’re going to pass spending bills, and they’re going to have a lot of restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy,” McConnell said in an interview aboard his campaign bus traveling through Western Kentucky coal country. “That’s something he won’t like, but that will be done. I guarantee it.”

McConnell is facing one of the toughest reelection battles of his three-decade Senate career. But Republicans are tantalizingly close to winning majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time in nearly a decade, and McConnell is making an aggressive pitch to voters here that they have the chance to pick the Senate’s next majority leader.

But there are clear risks for McConnell. First, he must defeat a spirited Democratic challenger in November, while hoping that the class of Senate candidates he helped recruit doesn’t blow the GOP’s best chance in years to retake the majority. And, perhaps just as challenging, McConnell would need to bring unity to a party that is struggling to overcome divisions between establishment stalwarts like himself and young GOP upstarts pushing for conservative purity.

One of the Senate’s leading GOP firebrands — Ted Cruz of Texas — isn’t committing to supporting McConnell as majority leader, signaling the challenges that could lie ahead.

“That will be a decision for the conference to make,” Cruz said in an interview, after pausing eight seconds, when asked if he’d back McConnell as majority leader. “I’m hopeful come January we have a Republican majority.”

Meanwhile, McConnell risks overreaching if he follows through with his pledge to attach policy riders to spending bills. If Obama refuses to accept such measures, a government shutdown could ensue. Republicans bore much of the blame for last year’s government shutdown, which was prompted by conservative tactics McConnell opposed, and their fortunes rebounded only when the administration bungled the rollout of Obamacare.

But asked about the potential that his approach could spark another shutdown, McConnell said it would be up to the president to decide whether to veto spending bills that would keep the government open.

Obama “needs to be challenged, and the best way to do that is through the funding process,” McConnell said. “He would have to make a decision on a given bill, whether there’s more in it that he likes than dislikes.”

A “good example,” McConnell said, is adding restrictions to regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Adding riders to spending bills would change the “behavior of the bureaucracy, which I think has been the single biggest reason this recovery has been so tepid,” he said.

“He could,” McConnell said calmly when asked if such a tactic would prompt Obama to veto must-pass appropriations bills. “Yeah, he could.”

If Republicans gain a Senate majority, it will surely be a thin one. If McConnell wants to accomplish much of anything, he’ll have to strike a delicate balance between courting some Democrats while adhering to the demands of his right flank hungry for conservative legislation like gutting Obamacare.

To pass a budget, as McConnell is promising, he would have to hold together a conference that would include conservatives like Cruz and moderates like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. He’d likely need Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s help to pass major legislation, even though he’s been at war with the Nevada Democrat, who blames McConnell for causing historic gridlock.

There would also be pressure from the handful of Republican senators planning a White House run, not to mention GOP senators running for reelection in blue and purple states like New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Ohio — an election map that gives Democrats a major advantage in winning a majority all over again in 2016.

McConnell is well aware of the difficulties ahead should he finally achieve his political dream.

“Being leader is sort of like being the groundskeeper to a cemetery: Everybody is under you but nobody is listening,” he said with a big laugh, crediting Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander for coming up with the line.

Even as he’s close to reaching the pinnacle of his power, the 72-year-old McConnell is locked in a neck-and-neck struggle with a 35-year-old Democrat and political newcomer, Alison Lundergan Grimes. As occupant of one of two Republican-held seats Democrats have a chance to win this year, McConnell is facing an avalanche of Democratic attacks seizing on his poor approval ratings by painting him as a creature of Washington. When it’s all said and done, McConnell said he expects the total cost of the race to range between “$60 million-$100 million.”

Asked about his low approval ratings — one Democratic poll pegged him at 37 percent last week — McConnell blamed negative media coverage in the state.

“I don’t want to sound like a whiner here, but if you get beat up all the time, it affects you,” McConnell said in his bus decorated with his logo, “Kentucky Leads America.” “All people hear about is unpleasant things.”

At his campaign events last week with Kentucky’s more popular junior senator, Republican Rand Paul, McConnell made brief remarks slamming the White House as elitist and stoked coal country’s fear about keeping Reid at the helm of the Senate.

As he spoke in a warehouse of an electronics and industrial services shop here before a crowd of several dozen, McConnell bluntly told voters that they are effectively choosing the next majority leader: a Kentuckian or “somebody from Nevada who is completely in the tank with the administration.”

At an earlier event at a trucking company in Greenville, Kentucky, with Paul standing beside him, McConnell cited Reid’s now-infamous line from 2008 that “coal makes us sick,” noting that Grimes’ “first vote” would keep the Nevada Democrat in charge.

“That kind of talk makes me sick and you sick, and this is the year to stick it to him!” McConnell, standing between two Mack trucks, said before cheering supporters.

Reid’s response: Bring it on.

“That shows they’ve lost all the issues — that they have to focus on somebody that nobody knows,” Reid said in an interview, referring to himself. “Let them do it.”

Asked about McConnell’s comments, Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson added: “In no uncertain terms, Sen. McConnell is saying ‘elect me so I can shut down the government again.’ That’s shocking to middle-class Americans … but business as usual for Sen. McConnell, the self-declared ‘proud guardian of gridlock.’”

Leaders from both parties tend to avoid direct attacks on one another on the campaign trail, but this year is different, McConnell said in the interview. He says Reid has made himself an issue in the race by his anti-coal comments and efforts to elect Grimes — and voters, he said, are well aware of what that means for their livelihood.

“He’s probably not that big of an issue in most states, but he is here,” McConnell said. “He injected himself into the Kentucky Senate race, so obviously I would be foolish not to point out the differences.”

Indeed, many of McConnell’s promises seem to be rooted in the pledge that he’ll be a much different leader than Reid. After years of inaction, McConnell insists he would loosen up the Senate. He said he would let the committee chairmen develop legislation, bring bills produced by the panels to the floor and let senators vote on scores of amendments until they wear themselves out.

McConnell thinks this would build consensus in the body, even if it could force his members to vote on politically toxic issues.

But the strategy is easier said than done. After watching House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) struggle to pass legislation time and again, even some of McConnell’s closest allies expect a Senate GOP majority to be a difficult slog.

“I do think that passing a budget will be hard,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Republican, who in 2004 was the first senator to defeat a sitting Senate leader in a general election in 52 years. “There will be people who will say it maybe spends too much, or maybe it doesn’t spend enough. I think there’s a constant tug and pull of any group of people who have a diversity of views.”

In a private meeting before the summer recess, Republicans discussed using the procedural tool known as budget “reconciliation” to make it easier to pass legislation by avoiding filibusters. Some on the right say that could be the way to go.

“That’s how we got Obamacare; we’ll see if we can undo any of it that way,” Paul said in an interview. “It makes more sense to try to do it with 60, but I think you do what you have to do.”

But McConnell was coy on whether he’d pursue this tactic. And even if he tried to gut Obamacare, he knows full well he’d lack the support to override a presidential veto.

“We’ll see,” McConnell said when asked about reconciliation.

Similarly, as Grimes has attacked McConnell for voting to advance Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) controversial budget — and its proposal to overhaul Medicare — the GOP leader was mum on whether he’d seek to move that plan in a Republican Senate majority. He also refused to say if he still supports the Ryan proposal.

“We will succeed in passing a budget,” McConnell would only say when asked about the Ryan plan.

Doing anything major would require warring GOP factions to work closely together, and this campaign season has showcased repeated divides. Even McConnell and Paul are showing signs of division on foreign policy as violence in Iraq flares up.

Paul said in the interview that Obama should come to Congress to seek authorization to continue the U.S. military’s action in Iraq.

“The president should always come to Congress to vote on war,” Paul said.

But McConnell said Obama erred by pulling troops out of Iraq, and he has been pressing the White House to keep a residual force of 10,000 to 12,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Asked if he thought Paul’s foreign policy views would be a liability for him in a potential presidential bid, McConnell shook his head, declining to comment.

As he faced a primary challenge from businessman Matt Bevin and skepticism over his record on spending, McConnell was quick to showcase his conservative credentials, something he still is counting on in a state where Obama lost virtually every county to Mitt Romney in 2012.

Indeed, McConnell said he would vote against a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a punching bag of conservatives but backed by the business community. And he refused to say whether he believes humans are causing global warming, instead bashing the Obama policies to control carbon pollution from power plants.

“Each side has their scientists, and they can all go in and argue,” he said.

Still, even as he continues to shore up his right flank, McConnell said what he won’t do is employ the Cruz strategy to defund Obamacare as part of a must-pass spending bill.
“It has no impact on Obamacare,” McConnell said. “I do think it’s important to be honest with people about finally achieving that with Barack Obama of Obamacare fame as president of the United States.”

To help build party unity, McConnell is maintaining a healthy outreach to the crop of Senate GOP candidates this cycle. Rep. Tom Cotton, for instance, said he speaks “regularly” with McConnell, who was the first person to urge him to run in Arkansas. And even Ben Sasse in Nebraska, who angered McConnell by his alliance with the Senate Conservatives Fund, has since made amends with the leader.

He may need to keep those conservatives at bay if he returns to deal-making mode, as he’s done several times during fiscal crises in the Obama years. McConnell said he would be prepared to cut deals again with the White House — but this time, only if the president begins to moderate.

McConnell said there’s room to deal on entitlement programs — such as means testing to limit Medicare benefits for wealthier families and overhauling how inflation is calculated to reduce cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients, proposals the White House has been open to in the past. He said tax reform is a possibility, but only if it’s “revenue-neutral” — meaning no tax increases.

“My point in bringing that up is that we’re prepared to do business with the president rather than just argue for two years,” McConnell said.

Still, it’s not clear how much they can agree on. McConnell, who opposed the immigration bill last year, threw cold water on doing it again in 2015, saying the whole issue suffered “an immense setback” with the influx of migrant children from Central America arriving at the border.

But, how he handles that and other issues would only get more complicated if he wins at the ballot box.

“I am for the most conservative outcome that we can get,” McConnell said. “If the functioning of the country is on the line, then you do the best you can.”
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo


President Obama:
GOP ‘says no to everything’



140901_obama_labor_day_ap_3281.jpg

'Republicans in Congress love to say no, those are just facts,' Obama said. | AP Photo


President Barack Obama used his Labor Day speech on Monday to slam Republicans for opposing an increase in the minimum wage, equal pay for women, affordable health care and more.

“Republicans in Congress love to say ‘no.’ Those are just facts, they’re facts of life. They say ‘no’ to everything,” Obama said to the crowd gathered at Milwaukee’s Laborfest.

The president began to outline his goals for working-class families, saying that he has “put [his] money down” on the middle class.

“I want an economy where your hard work pays off with higher wages, and higher income and fair pay for women, and workplace flexibility for parents, and affordable health insurance and decent retirement benefits,” Obama said. “I’m not asking for the moon, I just want a good deal for Americans.”

He continued, “Most of the policies I’m talking about have two things in common: They’re going to help more working families get ahead, and the Republicans who run our Congress oppose almost all of them.”

As the crowd began to boo, Obama responded, “Don’t boo, vote,” a motto he has used before when directing speeches against Republicans as midterm elections approach in November.

“If we had a Congress that cared about policies that actually help working people, I promise you we could get everything done that we’ve talked about doing,” Obama said. “But until we have that Congress, it’s up to us to fight for these policies.”

Obama traveled to Wisconsin on Air Force One with Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and several labor union leaders, according to White House press pool reports. The president was greeted at the General Mitchell International Airport by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a possible 2016 Republican presidential candidate who’s locked in a close reelection battle this year, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat.Wisconsin has faced scrutiny from labor unions since Republican state lawmakers voted to revoke collective bargaining rights for public employees in 2011.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obama-gop-party-minimum-wage-110495.html#ixzz3C9g29xYD



 
Top