Wednesday Open Thread [10.8.14]
Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), or rather, his staff, prepared a tweet that was supposed to both briefly describe in bullet point form the GOP Jobs Plan (because after being in power for four years in the House, NOW is as good a time as any to get started on that) and then link for a more detailed description, presumably. Now, you might think that Twitter, what with the 140 character limitation, might be the wrong place to even briefly describe a Five Point Congressional Jobs Plan. But not the GOP! Their entire economic theory does boil down to four words: Cut Taxes, End Regulations.
Still, this was embarrassing. It seems the Speaker and/or his underpaid intern didn’t complete their homework before sending this out:
Or maybe it is a rare moment of honesty from the highest ranking Republican in the land: The GOP has no jobs plan.
Either way, this was a hit on Twitter, spawning such mockery as this:
During his run for the Presidency, GOP nominee promised that his far superior Republican policies would reduce unemployment during his first term. His actual quote:
“I cannot predict precisely what the rate would be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by a virtue of the polices that we put in place, we get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, perhaps a little lower.” — Mitt Romney.
President Obama’s policies did it in a third of the time, considering that, right now, the unemployment rate is down to 5.9%. But hey, we all know that Democratic economic policies are always the right ones when it comes to the economy and jobs.
Nate Cohn on the sudden blueness of Georgia:
“No other plausibly competitive state has seen a more favorable shift for Democrats in the racial composition of eligible voters over the last decade. The pace of demographic change is so fast that Michelle Nunn, a Democrat, is locked in a tight race against the Republican David Perdue for an open Senate seat — even with an off-year electorate that is favorable for the G.O.P.”
“The pace of demographic change might even be fast enough to outpace the polls.
Indeed, Hillary Clinton will win Georgia in 2016.
GEORGIA–PRESIDENT–PPP: Fmr. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (D) 47, Sen. Rand Paul (R) 44; Clinton (D) 46, NJ Gov. Chris Christie (R) 41; Clinton (D) 48, Religious Extremist Mike Huckabee (R) 45; Clinton (D) 48, Herman Cain (R) 45; Clinton (D) 49, Sen. Ted Cruz (R) 41; Clinton (D) 49, Newt Gingrich (R) 43; Jeb Bush (R) 45, Clinton (D) 44.
SOUTH DAKOTA–SENATOR–Survey USA: Mike Rounds (R) 35, Larry Pressler (I) 32, Rick Weiland (D) 28.
Another supposedly “in the bag” GOP seat is now suddenly up for grabs. If Pressler wins, I think it is probable if not likely he caucuses with the Dems.
In a National Journal article entitled “Former Republican Senator Making his Comeback as an Independent,” Pressler said that he “sees a political system in which both parties are too entrenched in their respective ideologies at the expense of commonsense solutions. And he thinks voters see things the same way.” If elected, Pressler supports raising taxes, gradually increasing the retirement age for Social Security and decreasing the growth of those payouts. He also supports “much, much stronger” background checks for gun sales. After being approached by a group of citizens asking him to run, Pressler assessed his chances of victory by saying, “I think it’s possible but unlikely.” [22]
At the conclusion of an exploratory tour of South Dakota’s 66 counties in late 2013, however, Pressler announced his candidacy and stated confidently, “I intend to win.” [23]
In a Politico article of November 14, Pressler explained his becoming an independent: “I don’t think I’ve moved, I think the party has moved. I feel like a man without a party…My intent is not to hurt anyone.” [24]
In 2013, Pressler was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.[25]
He also endorsed Obama twice. The Social Security stuff is troubling but he sounds more like a Max Baucus than a Paul Ryan.
KANSAS–SENATOR–SurveyUSA: Greg Orman (I) 47, Pat Roberts (R) 42.
KANSAS–GOVERNOR–SurveyUSA:In the race for governor, Paul Davis (D) tops Gov. Sam Brownback (R) by five points, 47% to 42%.
CONNECTICUT–GOVERNOR–Quinnipiac: Gov. DannIl Malloy (D) 43, Tom Foley (R) 43.
FLORIDA–GOVERNOR–0ptimus : Charlie Crist (D) 40, Gov. Rick Scott (R) 39.
FLORIDA–GOVERNOR–Public Policy Polling : Crist (D) 45, Scott (R) 43.
ILLINOIS–GOVERNOR–We Ask America: Gov. Pat Quinn (D) 44, Bruce Rauner (R) 40.
GEORGIA–SENATOR–PPP: David Perdue (R) 45, Michelle Nunn (D) 43, Amanda Swafford (L) 8.
GEORGIA–GOVERNOR–PPP: Gov. Nathan Deal (R) 46, Jason Carter (D) 41, Andrew Hunt taking (L) 4.
The full twitter mockery of Boehner is epic. Very worth reading through as it will renew your faith in Americans.
The republicans have nothing but talk radio slogans and obstruction. For the life of me I don’t see why any anyone would vote for them besides satisifying their racial resentments
Want money to pour into the United States and create “REAL” jobs? Reduce the corporate tax rate by 10 points. Unleash all of our energy resources. Heaven forbid common sense should be applied it addressing the root cause of our problems both here in Delaware and in Washington.
gty’s comment is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read on a blog – and that’s saying a lot.
Yet a bunch of Ditto Heads, Teabaggers and brain washed Fox Noise listeners still vote Repuk . HOW SAD
If I just brown nose, shill and spread the misinformation of the 1% all the jobs and wages will come back.
Reducing the corporate tax rate is a good idea, provided we increase the taxes on the owners (stockholders) instead and eliminate corporate welfare along the way. With those changes, we could probably take in the same amount of revenue with a corporate rate of about 20%.
Drilling for energy turns us into a Third World nation — exporting raw materials, importing finished goods. That’s a dreadful recipe, but appealing to the meathead element of the right.
Some of this confuses me. It is my understanding that with deductions , our corporate tax is already lower than most. If we lower the rate and keep the same deductions, the revenue would fall I think?
How is reducing the effective tax rate from 0% to -10% for Boeing, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, Kraft Foods, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, IBM, Chevron, FedEx and hundreds more supposed to create jobs?
“Common sense” doesn’t mean what that guy thinks it means.
Reducing the statutory rate while eliminating all deductions is something I could get behind.
The power to grant deductions is one of the most important tools the people have to extract good citizenship from corporations. I’d hate to give it up. We just have to make sure they are good deductions and not frivolous giveaways.
that said, I’m in favor of eliminating corporate tax entirely and replacing it with a revenue-neutral tax increase on personal taxes of the upper income brackets who benefit disproportionately from those corporations.
My math is simpler: Because more than 90% of the benefits of our economy go to the upper 10% or less, I think we should raise taxes on them and them alone.