My analysis of last night's GOP debate

After the Bachman-Pawlenty face off, I couldn't stand the Fox live presentation of the GOP presidential debate anymore, so I recorded the rest. I watched the rest of the debate this morning.

The presidential candidates were asked to show by raising their hands, to state that they wouldn't ever compromise, even if the ratio was $10.00 in spending cuts to $1.00 in revenues. I bet a smile came across Grover's face because all the candidates raised their hands, they all have been Grovernized. Grover Norquist has a lot of power.

"In 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act, which allowed overseas profits returned to the U.S. in 2005 to be taxed at a 5.25% effective tax rate. Will the U.S. government temporarily lower U.S. tax rates by 85% again, as it did in 2004, so those firms will bring roughly $565 billion of it home? No, at least not during the next two years, mainly because studies show the 2004 dividend repatriation didn't create many jobs here, and most of it went to buy back shares and to pay dividends. The Senate rejected it in early 2009. President Obama opposes it, and even if the Republicans take Congress, they won't have enough votes to overcome a Senate filibuster or a veto."

http://tinyurl.com/3o7wxdu

When ask about this, Herman Cain said" so what if it went back in dividends." That's the GOP mindset, corporations can do no wrong. Take that same scenario to the people on welfare and some would have those people limited to two children to stay eligible for public assistance. It doesn't matter to Herman Cain if we are cutting taxes to those corporations (redistributing the wealth) to line the pockets of the CEOs and shareholders. Mitt Romney said he would create bank accounts for the unemployed. I don't think the banks will set up free accounts, so what would be the advantage of those bank accounts. It's more money for the banks.

Many of the pundits thought that Michelle Bachmann did pretty well, but they were talking about style in appealing to the right wing evangelical tea party crowd. That's who she has to appeal to in order to win the Iowa straw poll. When the Fox commentator asked her about her position on not raising the debt ceiling, she stuck to her guns, not even addressing the fact that analyst have reported how devastating it would've been to workers 401K's. She obviously doesn't know the basic math of our economic problems. As Rick Santorum, (I can't believe I'm quoting Rick Santorum) accurately stated “Our debt is comprised of 40% discretionary spending and 60% of it is entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt. By not raising the debt ceiling, we would have taken the cash route and no longer been able to borrow 42 cents out of every dollar. We would eventually have to eliminate all the discretionary spending and about 2% of the entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt. Remember, tax increases are off the table and the top 2% are not asked to contribute as part of a shared sacrifice. You could mix it up, but it's still doesn't take away from the fact that Michelle Bachmann doesn't understand the basic principles. Her claim to fame is the" Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act" that was defeated. Michelle Bachmann might win Iowa, but she's not ready for prime time. I was not surprised that Michelle Bachmann did not know that one credit-rating agency downgraded us because of our inability to solve our problem politically. Never mind, the credibility of that agency. Michelle Bachmann said that she could have by economy on the road to recovery in just one quarter by lowering the corporate rate and more tax cuts. What's wrong with this picture? The Obama administration passed 16 tax cuts and ~40% of the stimulus was, tax cuts, but we still have a demand problem. The Bush administration passed two major tax cuts but only 1.1 million were created in that duration. The Clinton administration raised taxes and about 22, million jobs were created. That makes a case for demand and not necessarily a tax rate. It's important to remember the goal. Tax cuts mean the inability to fund the entitlements and eventually eliminate them.

The foreign policy (as little as it was) was pretty dull except for the exchange between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. I thought Ron Paul got the best of that because he correctly said the trouble with Iran started in 1953 with the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Mitt Romney likes to use the GOP line of listening to his generals, but he will quickly find out that some of those generals are willing to fight endless wars and rack up billions in costs. There some generals that believe in nation building, but we need to do a lot of that back here in the United States.

The social issues were as crazy as ever because Herman Cain still fears Sharia law being used in United States and Newt Gingrich  would make everyone sign a loyalty pledge. What is it with all these pledges? Does Newt really think that if a terrorist who wanted to work in his administration would be bound by that pledge? Rick Santorum thinks that if states are given as much right as Ron Paul wants them to have; they might choose to make polygamy legal.

It was just another early Republican debate where the emphasis was on corporate tax cuts, spending cuts and very little about jobs and growth; unless you think austerity only will promote growth.