Obama campaign office staff lacks diversity

Opposition from SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, the ones who abandoned the party and joined the GOP once the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed.

The same Civil Rights Act championed by Democratic President JFK and signed into law by Democratic President LBJ.

It's not an understatement to say the 1960s were the most revolutionary period in American history, just behind the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.

It's not often the polarity of two parties flips, which is exactly what happened in 1964, and it's a history that the modern GOP is desperately trying to distort today.

That same guy who's shaking MLK's hand is the same man who invented the 'Southern strategy' when he ran for POTUS in the fall of 1968, which was a political tactic that pandered to the fears and bigotry in the deep South against African Americans by racist Whites to win elections.

How times have changed indeed.

 

Great reply :smt038! I thought I might get a legitimate response, but I was sadly mistaken. If you read my post I was stating that regardless of party affiliation, there are people who have a firm grasp of fiscal policy and those who do not. Unfortunately, Obama does not have a strong understanding of fiscal policy. I gave the example of Clinton turning around a struggling economy by increasing taxes and reducing spending. I also gave the example of Reagan reducing taxes to boost the economy. Different views, but both were effective. Obama is leaving tax rates alone and increasing spending...recipe for disaster. If people would take a minute from bowing at the alter of Obama and look at his policies they would see that.

 

Presidents have different areas that they are suited for. Some have a strong foreign affairs background, some have strong economic background, social issues, etc. When I say "qualified" I'm referring to Obama's fiscal policies and the lack of knowledge he has on how to turn around the economy. Obama has a strong sense of social issues and is a great community organizer, but does not understand how economies of scale work. This is not about his intellectual aptitude because he's an incredibly smart guy. I'm a Republican, but Clinton's strategy on the economy worked because he understood how economic models worked and was smart enough to keep Alan Greenspan, a Republican, as the head of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan's monetary policy decisions during the Clinton years were brilliant.

Every president has a tough time getting things approved. It is the way our country has been run from the beginning of our history. We have a system of checks and balances. I'm sure he knew how things worked, so I don't cry for Obama that he doesn't "get what he wants". Opposing legislation they disagree with is their job. The way things get done depends on the way the president handles things. FDR knew how to wield his power to get things done, but he was not well liked. He would be strong when he needed to be, he would make comprises when needed, and back away when needed. Obama doesn't know how to do this and has a strong desire to be "liked" and that is why his policies don't get done. But I fundamentally disagree with his policies and even democrats like Bill Clinton have come out and said he does not understand how to turn around the economy. Again, it's not about Democrat vs. Republican...it's about policies.

 

You're underselling the level of partisan opposition coming from the Right wing in Congress, which I would expect because of your political leanings.

There's a reason why the approval rating of this Congress is the lowest in HISTORY. THe conservative members of the House and Senate to a man have foresworn ANY compromise with the Oval Office, unless by 'compromise' they mean we get what we want, but the POTUS gets nothing of what he wants.

American politics is not supposed to be a zero sum game. Tell that to the Tea Party. BOTH sides are supposed to give a little to get a little. That's how the federal government works between the legislative and executive branch.

FDR had a Democratic Congress. Clinton had the Senate and a near majority in the House. Add to this clusterfuck the 60 vote filibuster to get anything done in Congress, and it's clear to see the House and Senate Republicans are on a kamikaze mission to destroy BHO's administration to spite the benefit of the country.

 

So true. Whose interest do the GOP serve? Definitely not the people

 

Boehner is already threatening another debt limit debacle.

 

Bliss,Nixon did not get King out of jail in 1960 and it took Robert Kennedy to get him out. That act made Daddy King a longtime Republican switched to the Democratic party. Andreboba,Nixon made that stragedy in 1968 and when Goldwater ran in 1964 he took a lot of the southern states because he voted against the Civil Rights Act. Reagan had just one Black member in his cabinet Samuel Pierce whom he called "Mayor".

 

Whoops. I stand corrected.:smt023

 

Again, every president undergoes partisan opposition. And you're right that compromise needs to be made. Take a look at where Republicans and BHO stood on the debt ceiling crisis and let me know how he thought his stance offered any compromise or was good for the country.

The Republican position on raising the debt ceiling:

1) Dollar-for-dollar deal – raise the debt ceiling to match corresponding spending cuts
2) More of the budget cuts in the first two years
3) Spending caps
4) Balanced Budget Amendment – to pass Congress and be sent to states for ratification
5) No tax increases – tax reform could be considered

The Democratic position on raising the debt ceiling:

1) Initially wanted a "clean" increase or unconditional raise to the debt ceiling with no spending cuts attached,
2) Spending cuts combined with tax increases on some categories of taxpayers, to reduce deficits. (1:1 spending cut / tax increase ratio initially desired in the Congress, 3:1 offered by President Obama)
3) Large debt limit increase to support borrowing into 2013 (after the next election)
4) Opposed to any major cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid

 

Also, BHO got the majority of what he was seeking when we signed the debt deal in July. What happened immediately afterwards? The national debt rose $238 billion (or about 60% of the new debt ceiling) on August 3, the largest one-day increase in the history of the United States. The US debt surpassed 100 percent of gross domestic product for the first time since World War II. According to the International Monetary Fund, the US joined a group of countries whose public debt exceeds their GDP. The group includes Japan (229 percent), Greece (152 percent), Jamaica (137 percent), Lebanon (134 percent), Italy (120 percent), Ireland (114 percent), and Iceland (103 percent). On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor's credit rating agency downgraded the long-term credit rating of the United States government for the first time in its history, from AAA to AA+. BHO's administration is bringing down our country.

 

Was surprised his campaign could say that shit with a straight face after picking Palin.

 

JWilson says a lot of bull. This Manhattan,Cato,and any right wing institute math is utter nonsense.

 

From Standard and Poor's, notice what they believe is the long term difficulty facing the U.S. debt problem. BTW it had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the actual raising of the debt ceiling.

• We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
• We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
• The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
  [*]Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

The balanced budget amendment works somewhat at the state level, but it's untenable

for the federal government, unless you're willing to slash the U.S.

military budget by 30-40%, which I would be in favor of.

 

What you call bull...I call facts!

 

I would agree that this budget amendment will not work on a federal level. I think a good compromise would be:

- Lower every income tax bracket 5%. This will give low and middle income people more money each month at a much needed time.

- Increase capital gains tax to 25% for short and long term investments. Right now it is 15% for long term investments.

- Reduce corporate tax rate to allow companies to hire more people and re-invest in their businesses.

- Reform social security and medicare. Allow those under 55 to choose whether to invest in social security or pay into a retirement savings account.

- Keep funding smaller programs which help the unemployed, education, food & nutrition, elderly care.

 

Thats a good point he's got a lot of favors he has to do for white people. And let's quit playing regardless how many black people do you think Romney is going to have on his staff let alone care about?

 

Thread shut down.

 

Unlike Congress, I agree with nearly every one of these compromise solutions, except the lowering of the federal income tax 5% across the board only because I don't have a clear idea on how it will affect federal revenues. But I would be willing to discuss it at a later point, hypothetically as an elected official, and definitely agree about reforming the entire tax code.

Here's the difference between us electrons on the interwebz and the real lawmakers on Capitol Hill; I don't care who gets credit, I don't care how this makes any particular party look in the eyes of the public. All I care about are outcomes.

Now, IMO your compromise proposals are reasonable, certainly not extreme or crackpot fanatical. I would think any two rational people with a sliver of a clue about this country's debt problem could use this compromise plan as a blueprint to get something substantial done.

For some reason there's no willingness to compromise on common issues in Congress anymore, issues that most people regardless of party already agree on.

IMO the Senate and House of Representatives need new membership on BOTH sides of the aisle. We don't need people in office who only care about a select special interest over the best welfare of the entire country.

I sometimes think Obama inherently is a polarizing figure in Congress, not because of what he's done but because of who he is.
When a POTUS is so hated for non-rational reasons, (Obama has governed as a moderate for the most part), he can't effectively lead.

Too many in Congress have made it personal in defeating the POTUS on everything he wants to do, whether they believe in what they're against him for or not.

I look at it like a sports team that's underperforming; what's the easiest way to turn around a bum franchise?? Fire the coach?? Or fire the players??? Or get rid of both and start over??

'Taxes' shouldn't be used as an epithet.
Wall Street reform should not be considered a crime against the free market.