DOWNLOADS: (181)

PLAYS: (1389)

Embed

Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked by Chris Wallace why all of the Republicans during the debate in Iowa were so completely unwilling to compromise that all of them would not even accept a ten to one deal on deficit cuts to tax increases. Rather than admit that Republicans are now so rigid on their stance of never, ever raising taxes after pledging their allegiance to Grover Norquist and that no sort of compromise will ever be acceptable to them, what was Bachmann's response? They all raised their hands because the cuts in the deal would have been "fake."

WALLACE: Let's go back to that moment in the debate, though, when you -- and I've got to say, all the other candidates on that stage said that you would walk away from a debt deal, here it is right here, $10 in real spending cuts, to $1 in revenue increases. 10-1. Even Reagan's top economic adviser, Marty Feldstein, said that is too hard-line, that that would be walking away from a huge conservative victory.

BACHMANN: Well, I think probably Reagan would be the best example, because Reagan was going to get $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It ended up being $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts. That's the way it works in D.C. The deal sounds so rosy in the very beginning, and usually the cuts are illusory, they are off into future years. And of course one Congress can't bind the next Congress, and a Congress lasts for two years. So we can't bind what future Congresses can do. We can beat our chests and be really proud and say, oh, we're going to cut trillions of dollars, but we can't guarantee what future Congresses will do. That's why no one would take that deal on the Fox stage of the debate, because we all know that they're fake cuts, essentially. They sound good. They're soundbites, but they are not real.

I am about reality. That's what I care about. This is not a joke. This is not just a political game. This is getting the country back on the right track. People really are suffering, all across this state I have seen it. People want jobs, they want job growth, and they want someone who has the backbone to do it. I do.

I guess by that measure, no one in Congress should ever vote on anything that can be overturned by a future Congress or those votes are meaningless. The truth of the matter is we've got one party that is so inflexible on tax increases that they don't care how many lives it destroys as long as we never raise taxes on their rich campaign contributors.

DOWNLOADS: (453)

PLAYS: (1305)

Embed

Mitt Romney stood up for those poor downtrodden corporate "people" that those evil liberals who crashed his event in Iowa this Thursday were asking to have their taxes raised on, but if you're one of the long-term unemployed, well, it appears you're on your own.

During the Republican debate in Iowa, when asked if he would extend unemployment benefits for those who are about to lose their benefits in a few months, not only did Romney say that he would not extend them, but he also touted the idea of privatizing unemployment benefits and changing our current system to one offering unemployment insurance savings accounts.

What could possibly go wrong? I haven't read much on this, so I'm no expert and it would be nice to hear more from anyone who is in the comments section, but this just looks to this layman as another way to draw money out of another one of our social safety nets in the name of "personal responsibility." Romney said this would "make the system work better by giving people responsibility for their own employment opportunities." That's rich since they don't have much control over those "opportunities" if there are no jobs to be found in the first place. Not everyone's got a rich family and the "opportunity" to become some multimillionaire vulture capitalist like our buddy Mittens here did. Some of us have to make money the old fashioned way, like actually working for it.

And god knows with some of the greatest income disparity since the Gilded Age, we can't have our priorities be spending more money on anti-poverty programs, now can we? No, better to be reducing those taxes and burdensome regulations on those "job creators" because the have-mores are just struggling so badly right now in Mitt Romney and the GOP's fantasy-land. Heaven forbid we do anything to hurt their feelings or they might go Galt on us and leave the country and take their jobs with them.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1991)

PLAYS: (2804)

Embed

Appearing at the Iowa Republican presidential debate Thursday, Rick Santorum advocated for outlawing abortions even in the case of rape because "one violence is enough."

"Would you allow no exceptions for cases of rape on incest?" Fox News host, Byron York asked. "Polls have shown that large majorities of Americans support some exceptions for abortion. Are your views too much, even for many conservatives to support?"

"That child is an innocent victim," Santorum replied. "To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life, genetically human from the moment of conception. We in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who have been traumatized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion, I think is too much to ask. So I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough."

DOWNLOADS: (168)

PLAYS: (1645)

Embed

Mitt Romney defended his record at Bain Capital and claimed that "overall, in those hundred businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs -- net/net -- were created. Romney also pushed back at criticisms of his record on job creation while Governor of Massachusetts.

There's an extensive article at Bloomberg on Romney's record at Bain which would beg to differ with that assumption -- Romney as Job Creator Clashes with Bain Record of Job Cuts.

From the article, it seems one of his former directors made that same claim, but supplied no numbers to back it up.

Preserved Jobs

Geoffrey Rehnert, a former managing director at Bain who worked for the firm until 1999, said that while Bain was focused on making money, its strategy was to create businesses that created jobs. Rehnert, who is now co-chief executive officer with Wolpow at Audax, said he’s “certain that Bain Capital was a net creator of jobs by a wide margin,” while he had no data to support that. At a minimum, Wolpow said, Bain helped preserve jobs that otherwise might have been lost.

Bain and the campaign didn’t respond to requests for job creation estimates.

A Bloomberg News review of several Bain deals during Romney’s tenure showed that workers in some firms had indications their jobs might be in jeopardy soon after Bain moved into management. In other cases, pink slips arrived after Bain and its investors had collected their profits and left debts behind.

Interviews with former employees and executives at Bain and companies it controlled, along with a review of Bain’s activities described in public documents and news accounts, paint a picture of an operation that wasn’t focused on expanding employment. Instead, Bain’s mission, like most private equity firms, was to generate gains for its investors.

Think Progress has more on Romney's record on job creation while he was Governor -- Romney Gives Obama A Failing Grade, But Massachusetts Ranked 47th In Job Growth While He Was Governor:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (319)

PLAYS: (2440)

Embed

Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty continued their ongoing feud during the debate on Fox News in Ames Iowa, challenging each others records on jobs, leadership and the economy.

Chris Wallace, obviously looking to stir things up between the two, asked Pawlenty about challenging Bachmann's record of accomplishment in Congress and her ability to serve as president because of her migraine headaches. Wallace asked Pawlenty if the reason for that was that he believed Bachmann was unqualified for the office, or if it was because she's beating him in the polls.

Pawlenty punted on the migraine issue and again tried to walk back his earlier comments. He went on to attack her for her lack of accomplishments in the Congress and for not having any executive experience.

Continue reading »